Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×

insane

Members
  • Content Count

    3510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About insane

  • Rank
    Retired

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sheltered in the palm of the creator

RuneScape Information

  • RuneScape Status
    None
  1. It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle? Why can only a living being have rights? What gives you the right to say that? This is an obvious slippery slope (or reductio ad absurdum, your choice)... comparing a fetus to a pencil is a little ridiculous OK. Let's go with your premise - your belief that stealing is wrong is just a personal opinion. Why then, should I not steal? What gives your opinion the power to control, or assign consequences to, my actions? Let's say that the law is based on nothing more than a consensus opinion from a group of elected law-makers. What gives them the right to assign consequences to my actions, when I do not share their personal beliefs? IE. How can you condemn anyone for being against abortions, when it is just your personal belief against theirs? If you truly believe that a pro-choice stance is the only "right" stance, then you must believe that pro-choice being "right" comes from something greater than the collective opinions of the human race. If, (as was alluded to by another poster), you're a moral relativist and think personal beliefs determine morality, then you really have no business telling any pro-lifer to stop attacking abortion clinics because they just have different beliefs (nothing more).
  2. Cheating on your spouse is not wrong in the eyes of the law. Would you say that cheating on your spouse is not an immoral action? And what gives the "law" the authority to define the rights available to a fetus? We don't know what God expects in situations like that. Many Christians claim to know, but the beliefs of many Christians are not biblical and founded on old traditions that have no basis in theology, etc. Additionally, whether or not you agree with a god's moral standing is irrelevant to the existence of said God. Actually, the fact that you believe that any specific action can have a moral index assigned to it goes to show you believe in some sort of higher power.
  3. In the summer, commando owns all.
  4. We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself? I seriously doubt any Church in its right mind would knowingly allow a gay man to marry a woman. Unless of course what you are saying is that the only rule of marriage is that partners have to be of the opposite sex. Which is obviously untrue. You're probably right... unless the gay man was attempting to live straight or switch preferences. Just because a church would allow it doesn't mean the only rule is opposite sex. Are you suggesting that a homosexual man cannot unconditionally love a woman? And while we're on the topic, what's the secular rule of marriage? It would seem hypocritical to criticize the religious "rule of marriage" when the secular rule of marriage is both partners merely needing to be human. @Ginger, I agree with scenario A.
  5. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Sure, I could have produced a lengthy comma delimited list but what difference would that have made? The point is that blacks were persecuted for just being something. Homosexuals arent persecuted for being something (at least by the churches around my area). Its a totally different issue. The only issue in homosexual marriage is that a man cannot marry another man, and a woman cannot marry another woman, regardless of sexual preference. Its not a homosexual issue, its a definition of marriage issue, and I dont know why most people dont see it. Lateralus sees it, and says its a weak point which is true, because then we get into well whats an ethical definition of marriage? which is basically the same debate, but at least weve got correct semantics and a correct question to answer.
  6. Rights aren't about doing whatever you want to do. Even though a homosexual man doesn't want to marry a woman, he can. It might not be fair but we have the same rights. What you're saying is unfair is the definition of marriage, not our rights. Equality != rights. But the discussion was steering towards religious marriage, not legal marriage. We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself? Getting a skin graft to avoid physical beatings is different than getting a legal marriage as opposed to a religious marriage to get a marriage certificate.
  7. Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage. So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such?
  8. Note that the Law and the Prophets = all the moral commands written in the old testament. I don't understand how this isn't a fact?
  9. The Bible is not supposed to be a rigid moral code. How are YOU able to decide what the Bible is "supposed to be"? Jesus himself said that loving God and loving others are the most important commandments that need to be followed and that every verse in the Old Testament are based on these two commandments. Now I don't have a Ph.D in philosophy, but "love God and love others" doesn't appear to be a rigid moral code to me.
  10. That statement requires proof. Proof which is currently unavaliable. According to your standards of truth, proof is currently unavailable. But your standards of proof are astronomically high; those that I have never encountered in another person before. Why is that offensive? If we believe the Bible is a source of truth about God and his character, and if we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it is indeed truth about God revealed by God, which fits perfectly the definition for an autobiography. And thanks for the oh so clever pun directed at my username. So you don't believe in anything, then?
  11. It is the absolute or only truth about God's character. Yes, it is. It depends what your standard of proof is.
  12. To all you people bashing the Bible... I'd like to know how much of the Bible you've actually read. And I don't mean going on a website looking up arguments against the Bible that quotes certain parts of it. I mean sitting down with the actual book and reading it. I would argue that it isn't a fact. Many stories and legends are not literally true but have much to offer in the way of morality and general life principles. You saying the Bible is either entirely literal or entirely false is like saying a math textbook is entirely false because of a fictional story it uses to illustrate a true mathematical principle. You have to understand that certain books are used to illustrate a certain type of truth. Math textbooks reveal truth about math, and the Bible reveals truth about God's character. Just like it's ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the mathematical principles contained in a math textbook, it is ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the principles about God's character contained in the Bible.
  13. It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory. A point which could so easily be applied to you. The Church did not initiate science by any stretch of the imagination. Ancient civilisation was making scientific breakthroughs long before the Church came along. Science extends far beyond atoms and plants. Mathematics is itself a form of science, if not, its very language. Are you seriously telling me the Hanging Gardens of Babylon could not possibly have been built, or currency exchanged, until the Christian Church came along and 'initiated' such projects? I don't believe the Church stopped all scientific development. In fact, I know it didn't having done a case study of the development of medicine through history. But you're going too far towards the other end of the scale. Yep, you're right, I hyperbolized :P. If someone pushes, I'll push back equally. Wait... isn't that science... ;)?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.