Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am yet to see any evidence that morality is anything but relative.
Nonsense. We have governments and laws to draw the line. You don't need ancient laws and ancient books to legislate morality when you have modern laws that do it better and more concisely.
I am yet to see any evidence that morality is anything but relative.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's precious. But it still doesn't answer why I need to accept convoluted notions of perversion.
I live in America. America is a democratic republic. Ergo, who cares what you consider your God's law. I don't have to, nor does anyone else in any official capacity what so ever. The faster this reality sinks in on you the better for everyone. If you want a theocracy I suggest perhaps Iran, or find a desert island you can buy on the cheap and start a the nation of King of Kingsvania.
I don't trust as a rule, where Christians draw their lines of morality for everyone else. And I'm highly suspect of the claim that you are speaking for God on where that deity draws it's lines. Gods I find tend to draw lines of morality and law to benefit the people saying they are speaking for their deity. Funny how that work.
Where do you think these governments got their laws from? You think it was do-gooder humans?
In this very discussion we have someone telling us that morality is relative. If that were the case how would you expect a government to come up with any laws?
Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.So rape is moral if it's ok with the rapist? Or maybe it's moral if it is ok with the rapist's mother? Could it be moral if it is ok with the rapists 3rd cousin?
How about murder? Is murder moral if the one committing the act believes it to be?
What about beating kittens to death? If I don't like cats and I go around my neighborhood smashing their skulls with a rock is that ok?
Remember it's all relative.
Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.
Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.
No. "Social cohesion" can be used to justify anything (which only proves my point about moral relativity). There is absolutely nothing objective about it. Right and wrong only exist by virtue of the individual designating meaning; they are as subjective as beauty or offensiveness.I'd argue that morality exists whether or not the Murderers or Rapists acknowledge that it does.
Morality is based on social cohesion and social evolution.
Would you agree that what the rapist or the murderer is doing is against "social cohesion" (to put it mildly)? From my point of view that wouldn't be any different than saying it is immoral.
Is that your rebuttal? I'm disappointed.You don't take yourself seriously do you?
I'd argue that morality exists whether or not the Murderers or Rapists acknowledge that it does.
Morality is based on social cohesion and social evolution.
Would you agree that what the rapist or the murderer is doing is against "social cohesion" (to put it mildly)? From my point of view that wouldn't be any different than saying it is immoral.
Romans 14:14 doesn't give one open license to commit sin. In fact taken in context it warns against doing that very thing.
Romans 14:14-15 - "14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died."
The entire meaning of 14:14 changes when taken in context with the next verse.
And you're not in Christ (unless you're claim of being a deist is wrong) so why quote Biblical passages?
No. "Social cohesion" can be used to justify anything (which only proves my point about moral relativity). There is absolutely nothing objective about it. Right and wrong only exist by virtue of the individual designating meaning; they are as subjective as beauty or offensiveness.
If you adhere to some form of "code" it is only because you are personally inclined to do so.
Is that your rebuttal? I'm disappointed.
Where's your "King of Kings" now?
And that coming from a guy who crossdresses and refuses to play the intended male part in and of creation.The Pope said that "saving" humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforests.
In comments at the Vatican that are likely to provoke a furious reaction from homosexual groups, Benedict also warned that blurring the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.
In his address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, he described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and said that the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to "protect man from the destruction of himself".
It is not "outmoded metaphysics" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman," he added.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official described homosexuality as "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".
The Pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman.
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected".
source
What two consenting adults (or more) do is not anyone's business but the people involved and laws are secular in nature at least in this country.Sex between a married man and woman isn't an issue for anyone. God has blessed that. Sex between unmarried persons, and/or sex between persons of the same gender is the issue. God has NOT blessed that.
I already tried this line. I am yet to receive a response for it.BTW, back to a couple pages ago, what's all this with the Bible being "The Word of God"?
I saw Christians stating this, and even non believers calling it such.
Where does that come from?
I mean, seriously, one can't even use circular logic (in this instance, using the Bible to "prove" the Bible) to demonstrate this.
Heck, according to the Bible, the Word was made human, not a series of papers.
The Word of God was not a collection of several stories and mails sent throughout various areas.
Gotta love bibliolatry, huh?
Calling the Bible the "Word of God" is actually heretical (seeing as how the Bible is not the Messiah), yet EVERY single Christian I personally know refers to it as such. As (apparently) do many Christians on these forums.
Heresy, really.
Go figure
Obviously, the only morals that matter to an individual are his/her own.How about if you are the victim? Is it their morals or yours that matters?
How is it nonsense?I don't need to a rebuttal for unadulterated nonsense.
You would first have to prove that god exists and then that the words in the bible are ones he/she/it actually spoke.What would constitute proof, in your opinion, that something is the Word of God?
Where does this "morality" come from?
I completely disagree that our morals are pretty much the same as they were three thousand years ago, but then again, I suppose I am talking to someone who quotes morality from leviticus.If society has "evolved" why are our morals pretty much the same as they were three thousand years ago?
But people are going to have disagreements about what morality is or about what should or should not be legal and IMO a democratic government of laws is a better way to resolve this than a couple thousand year old book.Like you pointed out regardless of if you call it social cohesion or morality it is the same. The old if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Teaching kids to accept their peers is not teaching homosexuality it is teaching tolerance and that bigory is not acceptable.Is it too much to ask for people to keep their perversion out of the schools?
And now you lost me, what perversion in the government do you speak of?Is it too much to ask for people to keep their perversion out of the government?
You could start with archaeological evidence that King David and King Solomon existed, as well as their kingdom as described in the Bible. From there, you could work your way back to Moses.Can you be more specific? What would it take to "prove" that something is the Word of God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?