"That's a SIN!"

[A. believer]

Well, yes, but by "natural" I mean it is not doing any damage (in a secular sense) to the human species as a whole by existing.

Why should I accept your subjective view that the intent of laws should be to prevent damage to humans? That's your opinion, but my opinion may be that humans are the ultimate blight on the planet and that the intent of law should be to restore and preserve a pristine environment regardless of the cost to the human species, and that anything that interferes with that goal should be illegal?

Why in the world do you expect me to care about your subjective arguments about how you think we should consider the effects of any given law on human beings? Show me how harming humans is "objectively wrong" (without presupposing any foundational premises of your own personal subjective worldview) and then maybe I'll listen.

 

[Ledifni]

Why should I accept your subjective view that the intent of laws should be to prevent damage to humans? That's your opinion, but my opinion may be that humans are the ultimate blight on the planet and that the intent of law should be to restore and preserve a pristine environment regardless of the cost to the human species, and that anything that interferes with that goal should be illegal?

Well, if that's your view, you'll need to convince others and change the Constitution. But why are you asking me why you should accept my view? Every post I've made in this thread so far has been arguing in favor of this view, so if you're wondering what arguments I would make, I suggest you read the thread.

Of course this is just my opinion. I'm saying, "In my opinion, this is how we should approach lawmaking, and here are my reasons for believing this." If you disagree, you should present contrary arguments and you and I can discuss them. We like to call this process "debate." However, I really don't see the point in you waiting until I've presented the reasons I think you should agree with me and then asking, "Hmm, yes, but why should I agree with you?"

Why in the world do you expect me to care about your subjective arguments about how you think we should consider the effects of any given law on human beings? Show me how harming humans is "objectively wrong" (without presupposing any foundational premises of your own personal subjective worldview) and then maybe I'll listen.

1) Did I say anything about "harming humans?" Quote one single place in this thread where I said moral judgement should be based on whether the action harms someone.

2) This entire thread's point has been to present objective arguments for how I think we should consider the effects of a law. If you think my arguments aren't objective then present your case, dammit, but at least credit me with having made them.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but to me common courtesy dictates that when you reply to a thread without reading it (understandable, as some threads can be quite long), you present your own thoughts, not obnoxiously demand something that may very well have been presented in great detail throughout the thread.

 

[A. believer]

Well, if that's your view, you'll need to convince others and change the Constitution. But why are you asking me why you should accept my view? Every post I've made in this thread so far has been arguing in favor of this view, so if you're wondering what arguments I would make, I suggest you read the thread.

Of course this is just my opinion. I'm saying, "In my opinion, this is how we should approach lawmaking, and here are my reasons for believing this." If you disagree, you should present contrary arguments and you and I can discuss them. We like to call this process "debate." However, I really don't see the point in you waiting until I've presented the reasons I think you should agree with me and then asking, "Hmm, yes, but why should I agree with you?"



1) Did I say anything about "harming humans?" Quote one single place in this thread where I said moral judgement should be based on whether the action harms someone.

2) This entire thread's point has been to present objective arguments for how I think we should consider the effects of a law. If you think my arguments aren't objective then present your case, dammit, but at least credit me with having made them.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but to me common courtesy dictates that when you reply to a thread without reading it (understandable, as some threads can be quite long), you present your own thoughts, not obnoxiously demand something that may very well have been presented in great detail throughout the thread.

My post was intended to make a point--essentially the same point that is also being made by Phinehas, I believe. That is, that there is no such thing as a so-called "objective argument." Every argument you have made or will make can only be based upon certain "subjective" premises. The only "objective truth" is that which actually conforms to reality, but humans ability to perceive truth can only ever be subjective. The "objective/subjective" distinction of modernist epistemology is simply flawed to its foundations. Thankfully, though, contrary to the contention of postmodern skeptics, this truth doesn't leave us adrift on a sea of relativism. Truth does exist, and it is knowable.

 

[Ledifni]

My post was intended to make a point--essentially the same point that is also being made by Phinehas, I believe. That is, that there is no such thing as a so-called "objective argument."

You say that because you've misdefined "objective argument." An objective argument is not one that is fully proved or based on no subjective premises, but one that attempts to make a case that a certain alleged truth is objectively true. Of course you will use subjective premises, and this is because we never know all the information. If we had all information there is to be had, all premises would be objective unless they were flatly contradictory to known fact.

However, when making an objective argument one is trying to show that one's subjective assumptions are based on facts that are already considered objectively true by all participants and that it is therefore reasonable to consider them provisionally objective. That's what an objective argument is, and I've made many such in this thread. Now address my arguments or go away.

 

[Ledifni]

My post was intended to make a point--essentially the same point that is also being made by Phinehas, I believe. That is, that there is no such thing as a so-called "objective argument." Every argument you have made or will make can only be based upon certain "subjective" premises. The only "objective truth" is that which actually conforms to reality, but humans ability to perceive truth can only ever be subjective. The "objective/subjective" distinction of modernist epistemology is simply flawed to its foundations. Thankfully, though, contrary to the contention of postmodern skeptics, this truth doesn't leave us adrift on a sea of relativism. Truth does exist, and it is knowable.

You're basically saying, "We can't ever be absolutely positive that something is objective, therefore we can never have even the slightest idea whether something is objective." A complete non sequitur.

 

[Abbadon]

You're basically saying, "We can't ever be absolutely positive that something is objective, therefore we can never have even the slightest idea whether something is objective." A complete non sequitur.

That's objective (just joking).

(Not joking)
Actually that's not a non sequitur, that's circular reasoning.

A non sequitur would have been "We can't ever be absolutely positive that something is objective, therefore I have eleven toes."

But yeah, the reasoning is off.

 

[Ledifni]

That's objective (just joking).

(Not joking)
Actually that's not a non sequitur, that's circular reasoning.

A non sequitur would have been "We can't ever be absolutely positive that something is objective, therefore I have eleven toes."

But yeah, the reasoning is off.

How is it circular reasoning? A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s).

Premise: We can never be positive that something is objective.

Conclusion: Therefore, we can never have any information at all regarding objectivity.

The premise states that we cannot have all information about whether something is objective. The conclusion states that we cannot have any information about whether something is objective. The conclusion does not follow from the premise, therefore it is a non sequitur.

 

[A. believer]

But yeah, the reasoning is off.

If she hadn't twisted my words into something unrecognizable and what she said is I were really asserting, then certainly my reasoning would be off.

However, when making an objective argument one is trying to show that one's subjective assumptions are based on facts that are already considered objectively true by all participants and that it is therefore reasonable to consider them provisionally objective.

The problem is that you can't assume any moral premise is "considered objectively true by all participants."

 

[Abbadon]

How is it circular reasoning? A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s).

Premise: We can never be positive that something is objective.

Conclusion: Therefore, we can never have any information at all regarding objectivity.

That's circular reasoning. A non sepuitur would have come out of nowhere and had absolutely nothing to do with it. The premise and conclusion you've stated is related, so much so, that the proof of the premise is the conclusion, and the proof of the conclusion is the premise. Goes around in circles.

The problem is that you can't assume any moral premise is "considered objectively true by all participants."

But you're insisting that that is objectively true, going against your arguement.

 

[A. believer]

But you're insisting that that is objectively true, going against your arguement.

Good response--but not to what I'm arguing.

 

[Ledifni]

If she hadn't twisted my words into something unrecognizable and what she said is I were really asserting, then certainly my reasoning would be off.

I'm "he", not "she." And you said that there is no such thing as an objective argument, based on the premise that we can't know for sure whether the thing being argued for is in fact objective. Which is exactly what I said.

The problem is that you can't assume any moral premise is "considered objectively true by all participants."

No. The point is that an objective argument is one that is made for a premise that isn't considered objectively true by all participants, using premises that are considered objectively true. If part of your audience disagrees with one of your premises, then you have to support that premise. Do you disagree with one of my premises? If so, then tell me what it is and I'll attempt to support it. Don't try to discredit my argument by claiming that it can't possibly really be an argument no matter what I say.

 

[Ledifni]

That's circular reasoning. A non sepuitur would have come out of nowhere and had absolutely nothing to do with it. The premise and conclusion you've stated is related, so much so, that the proof of the premise is the conclusion, and the proof of the conclusion is the premise. Goes around in circles.

Yeah, exactly, that's circular reasoning. But that is not the argument I just described. The premise does not follow from the conclusion, nor does the conclusion follow from the premise. I don't understand how you think that the statements "we can't be sure that something's objective," and "we can't have a pretty good guess at whether it's objective," follow one from the other.

If somebody carries a TV out of the room and then a second later you hear a crash, you have evidence that they dropped the TV. You have a pretty good idea of it. But you aren't certain.

So how does it follow that if you aren't certain about something, you can't have a good idea of it?

 

[graphicsguyjon]

Well, the statement "Do not lie with a man as with a woman, that is detestable" (Lev. 18:22 NIV) leaves very little to be interpreted, really. Just kinda... comes right out and says it.

So do you follow all of the Levitcal laws?

 

[AngelusSax]

So do you follow all of the Levitcal laws?

That wasn't my point. My point was that sometimes, the process of "what's it really saying here?" is quick... it says what it means.

Now, when we look to the New Covenant and whatnot, then we open the debate up with another door. Namely... what did Jesus overturn? The dietary laws only of the Levitical Purity Code? Or the entire thing by association?

 

[A. believer]

I'm "he", not "she."

So you are (after now noticing your gender icon.) Sorry about that.

And you said that there is no such thing as an objective argument, based on the premise that we can't know for sure whether the thing being argued for is in fact objective. Which is exactly what I said.

You're confusing categories. A truth proposition is not "objective" or "subjective." It's true or false. The objective/subjective distinction refers to the perspective of the knower.

No. The point is that an objective argument is one that is made for a premise that isn't considered objectively true by all participants, using premises that are considered objectively true. If part of your audience disagrees with one of your premises, then you have to support that premise. Do you disagree with one of my premises? If so, then tell me what it is and I'll attempt to support it. Don't try to discredit my argument by claiming that it can't possibly really be an argument no matter what I say.

Again, premises aren't objectively or subjectively true; they're true or they're false. I may agree with any of your given premises or I may not, but that's not the point. The problem you have is that your position implicitly denies knowability at all. Even if you and I both think or feel or are of the personal opinion that people have a responsibility to foster agreeable human societies, we have no inherent "right" to foist that opinion on others, if this view is not actually and knowably true. Yet you seem to presume that Christians must justify our view that homosexual behavior and particularly, I believe, "homosexual marriage" should not be socially and legally sanctioned if our will is to prevail in society. You seem to presume that, only if our view is justified in accordance with premises common to everyone can it be valid as a societal standard. By this standard, though, your own views of good and bad laws are equally ruled out as long as there are people who reject your premises.

Of course, you'll probably respond that it doesn't matter if everyone shares your premises--only that the majority does. But then in that case, you have no grounds for complaint if the Christian premises become the majority view, and homosexuality then loses its social and legal sanctioning.

As an aside, though, I would say that the sanctioning of homosexuality is destructive to society as is the sanctioning of extra-marital sex, abortion, divorce, and a host of other things in a way that is recognizable by Christians and non-Christians alike. I'm not arguing that point, though, because I chose to address what I consider much more foundational--the flaw in your premise for even expecting such an argument.

 

[graphicsguyjon]

That wasn't my point. My point was that sometimes, the process of "what's it really saying here?" is quick... it says what it means.

Now, when we look to the New Covenant and whatnot, then we open the debate up with another door. Namely... what did Jesus overturn? The dietary laws only of the Levitical Purity Code? Or the entire thing by association?

Well, given that Jesus said that "ALL the law and the prophets hang" on the two commands about love, love covers a multitude of sins, etc., there is much room for interpretation. Personally, I would prefer loving and humble "sinners" over pious, pharisaical moralists any day. But that's just me.

And really, my point in asking about keeping all the Levitical laws is that modern Christians actually keep very few of them — and I'm not just speaking of the dietary laws. Who do we know today who refuses to have sex with his wife, because she's on her period? Do we force women into a tent during that time? Do we ritually bathe after sex? Do we put to death disobedient children?

Of course, none of these thing listed are in practice today. Whether or not Jesus truly overturned them all is a matter of opinion. But Christians certainly don't follow them. Though they are quick to quote from them when attempting to condemn the homosexual. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of picking and choosing going on by the church as to what's a sin and what is not (That's why I appreciate the thread).

For example, look at how divorce used to be condemned by the church — so much so that in some circles, divorced people could only be free from their state of sin if they reunited with their original spouse (eve if it meant divorcing a second or third one!). Now, most churches welcome the divorced with open arms, conducting Sunday School classes for them, celebrating their new marriages and even ordaining them as clergy! Yet the Bible clearly speaks against divorce. Jesus himself took a hard line stance against it! But He never spoke a word about homosexuality, and the church condemns gays and lesbians as though they were murderers. Completely inconsistent.

Okay... I'll stop now! LOL.

 

[graphicsguyjon]

Oh... and Angelus Sax, I wasn't calling you a "pious, pharisaical moralist." After re-reading my post, I realized it may come across that way, so I thought I should clarify!

 

[appleofhiseye]

For example, look at how divorce used to be condemned by the church — so much so that in some circles, divorced people could only be free from their state of sin if they reunited with their original spouse (eve if it meant divorcing a second or third one!). Now, most churches welcome the divorced with open arms, conducting Sunday School classes for them, celebrating their new marriages and even ordaining them as clergy! Yet the Bible clearly speaks against divorce. Jesus himself took a hard line stance against it! But He never spoke a word about homosexuality, and the church condemns gays and lesbians as though they were murderers. Completely inconsistent.

Okay... I'll stop now! LOL.

Well,hopefully, the divorced/remarried admitted to God that their choice to divorce was what it is, a sin, and repented. I mean changed their mind about choosing to divorce. Can the same be said for those who practice homosexuality? Have these decided to change their minds about their actions? Admit that the acts of homosexuality is sinful, the same as the act of divorce?
The good news is God can forgive divorce, homosexuality etc. We as christians can do no less but to forgive also.


What about gluttony, another sin? Obesity is on the rise in the US, and the only person it hurts is the one who is obese. But I feel it is still a sin.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes, you believe that, I know. But you believe it because you have faith that what others have told you is true.[]

It is a bad habit to Ass U Me you know what is going on in other people's heads.
Not to say I don't do it occasionally.

Profound religious experiences are quite real do not come under the heading of "what others have told you is true."... unless you want to posit that the other is God.

You are most welcome to debate the precise meaning of those experiences and what they prove in the context of making secular law, and I suspect that you and I would be pretty close in agreement at least with respect to the latter discussion, but in the meantime I would suggest not assuming that there isn't something beyond blind acceptance of authoritative teaching.

As far as that goes, even beyond religious experiences, both profound and subtle, your statement, as formulated above, is way too simplistic and more than a bit insulting. Many people's faith is based on their own study and cogitation. Again we can debate the value and meaning of that but it is not merely an acceptance of authority.

Peace be with you,
Robert the Pilegrim

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What about gluttony, another sin? Obesity is on the rise in the US, and the only person it hurts is the one who is obese. But I feel it is still a sin.

Gluttony and sloth are both sins, but it does not follow that obesity is a sin.

Sloth is not the lack physical exertion, it is the failure to exert oneself to live a Godly life.

It doesn't take gluttony to rack up the pounds over a few years, esp. if you start out a bit on the pudgy side and/or are not very physically active.