»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 Tiefling: based upon nothing except what you've been taught by the Bible As I have already pointed out, the Bible is not the only text which calls homosexuality immoral. Tiefling: Give some justification for the morality presented in the Bible. I already have. One clear example is where Jesus expounds on the Confucian moral "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you." The Bible is clearly an advance in the Traditional Morality of humanity. Therefore, I trust it. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 stinkz: The Bible is clearly an advance in the Traditional Morality of humanity. Therefore, I trust it. The New Testament clearly WAS an advance in the traditonal morality. What was it an advance FROM? Why, the OLD testament of course! So, why not imagine that MORE similar advances can be made? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: As I have already pointed out, the Bible is not the only text which calls homosexuality immoral. It's the only religious text you obey. And if it were the only source that called homosexuality immoral, you'd still be here promoting the same argument. stinkz: One clear example is where Jesus expounds on the Confucian moral "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you." So the Bible is moral because... the Bible is moral. 
posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: What was it an advance FROM? Why, the OLD testament of course! Wow. You completely ignored my post, which did not mention the Old Testament, but instead mentioned the writings of Confucious. And you did so just to restate your illogical attack. How typically "fatpie" of you. fatpie: So, why not imagine that MORE similar advances can be made? They can, but not by people who reject the Traditional Moral system altogether. Advance can come only through those who best follow and best understand the traditional moral system. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
We still think that certain aspects are right. That doesn't mean we have to accept ALL of it. And while we are on the subject: Why should we continue to accept the view that homosexuality is immoral in modern times? I would like to suggest that the denial of such a bigoted view is an ADVANCE in morality. Certainly we CAN learn from old moral teachings, but the very idea that morality can have advances such as those proposed by Jesus, suggests that ancient moral writings are not infallible. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling... you "pulled a fatpie." You attempted to tell me what I believe, and what I would do, and used that as an argument. That doesn't work. It is illogical. I have given you a perfectly legitimate reason for trusting the Bible. There are other reasons that I trust it, also. As Plato knew, without divine aid, those brought up outside morality are unable to understand it. Having been brought up Christian, with a knowledge of Traditional Morality, I am able to know its true benefits. However, this argument, I'm sure, won't work for you unless you are willing to put your faith in me. But I do not ask you to do that. Instead, I ask you to judge for yourself whether or not the teachings of Christ are a real Traditional Moral advances worth trusting. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just because some of Jesus' teachings are good, does not then mean that all of the teachings in the new testament are worth following. I mean, after all, Jesus never says anything against homosexuality. All the teachings against that come from the letters of Paul and, as we have shown earlier, these are based on mistranslations. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: We still think that certain aspects are right. That doesn't mean we have to accept ALL of it. And who gets to be the arbiter of which aspects are worthy of acceptance and which can be thrown out? Neitzsche? If you can debunk one traditional moral in the way you have suggested, what prevents you from debunking all traditional morals? Are you merely keeping the "better" morals? If so, on what grounds are they better? They certainly can't be morally better, for you have stepped outside of morality to judge them. They can only be more pleasing to you. fatpie42: the very idea that morality can have advances such as those proposed by Jesus, suggests that ancient moral writings are not infallible. How does advancement suggest fallibility? Mathematical advancement is possible. The axioms of mathematics are not fallible because of this. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Instead, I ask you to judge for yourself whether or not the teachings of Christ are a real Traditional Moral advances worth trusting. Where did Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? fatpie42: I mean, after all, Jesus never says anything against homosexuality. All the teachings against that come from the letters of Paul and, as we have shown earlier, these are based on mistranslations. Completely right. But of course, stinkz is ignoring that. stinkz: You attempted to tell me what I believe, and what I would do, and used that as an argument. That doesn't work. It is illogical. Then prove me wrong. Tell me that if the Bible didn't borrow anything from other sources, that you wouldn't believe in it. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: Where did Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? He didn't. But that's another thread. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Instead, I ask you to judge for yourself whether or not the teachings of Christ are a real Traditional Moral advances worth trusting. Stinkz said to judge whether or not the teachings of Christ are moral advances, in order to support his point that homosexuality is immoral. But I don't see where Jesus said homosexuality is immoral. Therefore, it is an invalid point. So I'm completely on-topic. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Where did Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? He doesn't specifically state it, to my knowledge. He is bringing moral advance. Simple restatement of existing morals would be moral "stagnation." However, when Jesus talks about the family or marriage, husband and wife is always assumed. fatpie42: All the teachings against that come from the letters of Paul and, as we have shown earlier, these are based on mistranslations. Tiefling: Completely right. Riiiiight. You have "shown" that all of Paul's writings were based on mistranslations. Nice try guys. I think I'll trust educated greek scholars. Tiefling: Tell me that if the Bible didn't borrow anything from other sources, that you wouldn't believe in it. I would be less likely to believe Christianity, if it did not show some commonality with the rest of humanity, as I have stated before. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Riiiiight. You have "shown" that all of Paul's writings were based on mistranslations. Nice try guys. I think I'll trust educated greek scholars. Oops, sorry, phrased it a bit wrong. Fatpie's completely correct that anti-homosexuality came from Paul's writing. Whether or not they're mistranslations is immaterial. The point is that Jesus didn't say them. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Riiiiight. You have "shown" that all of Paul's writings were based on mistranslations. Nice try guys. I think I'll trust educated greek scholars. Actually it's hard to talk about "mis-translations" since the meaning of the words (which are now traslated as "homosexuality") is unclear, as written at IMO → Where does the bible write homosexuality is bad? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: And who gets to be the arbiter of which aspects are worthy of acceptance and which can be thrown out? Nietzsche?
... Are you merely keeping the "better" morals? If so, on what grounds are they better? Once again you presume that Nietzsche makes moral judgments. Nietzsche dismisses the idea of fixed moral judgments. He gives a few moral guidelines (for example he suggests that we should avoid feeling too proud of our moral reasoning, because it can lead to stupidities), but he doesn't give any of what you might call 'absolutes'. Be careful of those who set a high value on people's ascribing to them moral tact and refinement in drawing moral distinctions! They never forgive us if they ever make a mistake in front of us (or even against us). Inevitably they become people who instinctively slander and damage us, even when they still remain our "friends." Blessed are the forgetful, for they are done with their stupidities as well. On what grounds is one moral better than another is the whole point of moral reasoning. If your moral guidelines have no aspect of this then they are lacking. I would suggest we choose our morals in the same way that those who made the traditional morality chose their morals. I suggest we look at what moral rules produce the best results. One philosopher of meta-ethics I read recently called Boyd suggests that morality seems to be connected to what he calls the homeostatic phenomenon. Here is a link to prove his essay exists. I know you would probably trust me anyway, but it is always helpful to know that the essay has some respect within its own field: Richard Boyd argues that the putative disanalogy between science and morality, a disanalogy to which many anti-realists appeal, disappears when one properly understands science and the source of its objectivity. BTW homeostatic is defined as: The ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes. Now naturally, as I have been known to say before, you will not agree with me here because you do not think that our moral values have survived because they have allowed our species to survive and propogate. I think that as people with reason who can think about how our moral values affect people, we should be trying to find ways in which we can make them more tolerant and loving. Can you find a reason why homosexuals should not be tolerated without resorting to ancient texts? Is this why you don't like secularism? Is it because you cannot justify yourself with dogma in secular discussion? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 6 October 2008, 17:41 php B.B. |