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.
Or here's a radical thought; if men and women are equal, the same high ideals for sexuality and relationships apply to both. There is no reason why equality between men and women should mean holding everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Christianity has always been a defining feature of Western Civilisation and I don't think its concepts can hold without it.
The only Morality is an absolute form. I don't think Christians always know what that is exactly, as we see through a glass darkly, but it remains Absolute. In more Augustinian terms, we look to God.
I think it comes down to that theists want their rules into law and forced on others regardless if those others belong to that religion or not.That is, the "secular" sphere has embraced consent as the ultimate moral criterion, and perhaps even the sole moral criterion, whereas religions tend to be much more cognizant of nature.
Whereas in the secular sphere, people want people in society to have autonomy and not be forced by government on how to behave in aspects of their private lives.
I'm not sure if I'm "Liberterian". Do't really know what that means and what baggage goes along with that.It sounds like you are a Libertarian. That's fine, but Libertarianism makes up a relatively small slice of the secular world. Paidiske began a discussion of the dangers of secular coercion with post #16. If you follow that discussion you will find a great deal on this topic.
I have never said this. I have pointed out that certain Christian moral positions are based on nothing more than "God said so". There are many aspects of Christian morality which can be justified and are also consistent with secular morality.The idea that religious morality is merely a result of "Divine Command Theory" and has no rational basis.
IN PRINCIPLE laws are meant to be just. Of course there will be laws which wrongly target religions just as there will be laws which unfairly target minorities or stamp collectors. This doesn't justify giving religion a free pass to do whatever it wants.The claim that all laws are basically just and that Paidiske's idea that there could be laws which unjustly target religious institutions is a non-starter.
Believe it or not Christianity is a privileged institution. It doesn't need to be punished - it just needs to follow the same rules as the rest of us.The idea that Christianity is nothing more than a privileged institution which basically needs to be punished for that status.
This appears to be a case of historical ignorance and a failure to engage the legitimate positions of the opposing side. The ironic thing is that the principles you have laid out favor a kind of secular totalitarianism. What history tells us is that no matter how bad the religious totalitarian states got, the atheistic totalitarian states were much, much worse. It is curious to find seculars transposing the divine right of kings into the divine right of the state while at the same time eschewing the divine, but you see it all the time.
Regarding his exchange with Paidiske, what is the difference between the Inquisition and OB's approach, apart from the color of the jersey? In both cases you have a powerful entity deciding that they are the only game in town and that rival factions must be rooted out. It is the selfsame model that is unable to tolerate a difference of opinion. So you have the common case of someone falling into the very thing they claim to oppose. Instead of a religious despot we get a secular despot.
GK Chesterton was an ardent Christian - he would say that.GK Chesterton famously said that once man no longer worships God, he worships the world - as man naturally worships. In so doing, he will worship whatever seems strongest to him in it, which is usually the State or whatever the current fad is.
The proposition here is very simple.
There are certain moral positions advocated by Christianity which cannot be justified apart from 'God/the Bible says so'. These positions often unfairly impact on certain members of society. Since these rules are both unfair and unjustified we should ignore them. Broadly speaking this is already happening (see 'Lost Causes' in the OP) in Western society.
OB
GK Chesterton was an ardent Christian - he would say that.
Try using legitimate argument instead of piffly truisms from Christian Divines.
The points in question have to do with the second distinction from post #19, religious freedom, not the first, societal morality. Like Speedwell your responses don't seem to be directed to anyone in the thread.
The points were directed to you as was obvious by the quote. Since you have a habit of skiing off piste I was hoping to bring you back to the point with a little summary.
OB
IN PRINCIPLE laws are meant to be just. Of course there will be laws which wrongly target religions just as there will be laws which unfairly target minorities or stamp collectors. This doesn't justify giving religion a free pass to do whatever it wants.
I'm not sure. I think freedom of religion might mean that generic laws should not be framed in such a way as to compel people of particular beliefs, unless to prevent demonstrable harm.
This 'demonstrable harm' is the crux of the matter. If, for example, getting a divorce or using contraception doesn't cause harm (and can even be shown to be a positive) then the religious view must be ignored when it comes to legislation.
That's not to say that religious people should be compelled to use contraception (obviously) or marry same sex couples. They should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as their actions do not negatively affect other sections of society.
This 'demonstrable harm' is the crux of the matter. If, for example, getting a divorce or using contraception doesn't cause harm (and can even be shown to be a positive) then the religious view must be ignored when it comes to legislation. That's not to say that religious people should be compelled to use contraception (obviously) or marry same sex couples. They should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as their actions do not negatively affect other sections of society.
2. Issues where society at large attempts to interfere with the boundaries, beliefs or practices of religious groups. This is where I was identifying an area of conflict.
I think most Christians will in the end adapt to the sexual and gender changes, because the Gospel really isn't tied to traditional sexual attitudes whether modern or 1st Cent Jewish.
I can't even spell adhominonem - how could I do it?This is an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you realize that by declaring Chesterton's statement a "truism" you have implicitly agreed with it?
By referencing Chesterton Quid was simply reinforcing a point I had made. He wrote the post to me. It was never meant to be a standalone argument...
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?