This state excludes no-one except people who harm. I'm not forcing my beleif onto others, they can behave anyway they wish to as long as they don't harm people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll use an example of how Mill shows the harm principle in action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a man about to cross a bridge, you know there is a possibility the bridge could collapse. You can warn them, reason with them but not stop them crossing the bridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we take a look at religion, if someone wishes to have an abortion - a religious person who does not agree with it can reason with them, warn them but not stop them. Why should everyone conform to your standards? This is freedom at it's best. Religions can practise, can advise and can reason but they can't stop us from doing certain things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason i stop you from harming is for your protection. Religions are making us conform to their rules, they won't argue they wont debate we arn't free. They'd right out refuse the woman to abortion and she and her baby may die as a result of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This state does not control you, it sets a limit. You can't harm others. This is a utopia. It doesn't exclude anyone like you said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religions are a lot more exclusive, can we see this from the lesser of two evils of that is the way you see it. This allows people the ability to make choices. Religious based societys tell us what decision to make. YET here you can still make a religous decision - you can still ask others to think of the consequences. BUT YOU CANT MAKE ANYONE DO ANYTHING THEY DONT WANT TO DO BECAUSE YOU BELEIVE IN SOMETHING AND THEY DONT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why would you not want to live in such a place?

It's kinda' cute how you beat around the bush at the real issue here. The real issue isn't "Is morality subjective", because honestly, who cares? That's not the subject. The subject is do homosexuals hurt society?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is only the subject if you believe that the degree of harm something causes is the only measure of morality. Of course, if you believe morality is subjective, as Satenza does, and as I thought you did, then it is absurd and arrogant to claim that laws should be based on degrees of harm, when there are other systems of morality out there that are equally valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post, all you have done is refused to argue with my logic, made emotional appeals, and make hateful insults against me and anyone who shares my religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said on the other thread,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not stop talking about homosexuality when we are talking about systems of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not back up your statements with logic instead making insults and emotional appeals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not deal with my logic instead of insulting me and my beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world should I continue this discussion with you unless you are willing to deal with my logic instead of attacking me?

This state excludes no-one except people who harm. I'm not forcing my beleif onto others, they can behave anyway they wish to as long as they don't harm people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are excluding those who believe harm is a good thing, or who disagree with your definition of what is harmful. Why is forcing one belief on people any different than forcing ten beliefs on people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should everyone conform to your standards? This is freedom at it's best. Religions can practise, can advise and can reason but they can't stop us from doing certain things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should everyone conform to your standard of non-harmfulness? Everyone can practice what they believe, even if they believe in harming others - wouldn't that allow the individual more freedom? You can reason with them that harming others is wrong, but why should you be able to stop them from doing so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't exclude anyone like you said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It excludes anyone who disagrees with your personal, subjective belief of what is harmful, and that harm is a bad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religions are a lot more exclusive, can we see this from the lesser of two evils of that is the way you see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you speak of the lesser of two evils if evil is merely subjective, personal opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUT YOU CANT MAKE ANYONE DO ANYTHING THEY DONT WANT TO DO BECAUSE YOU BELEIVE IN SOMETHING AND THEY DONT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then neither can you. You believe in not allowing people to harm others. If someone believes in harming others, you are stopping him from doing something just because you believe something that he doesn't.

Harm is allowed between two or more consenting adults in the private sphere. As long as the aim isn't to kill each other as suicide is not allowed and seen as an abuse of freedom and you not knowing what freedom is. Take an example of sado machists - they are allowed to do whatever they wish to each other as long as they consent.

 

It's kinda' cute how you beat around the bush at the real issue here. The real issue isn't "Is morality subjective", because honestly, who cares? That's not the subject. The subject is do homosexuals hurt society?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is only the subject if you believe that the degree of harm something causes is the only measure of morality. Of course, if you believe morality is subjective, as Satenza does, and as I thought you did, then it is absurd and arrogant to claim that laws should be based on degrees of harm, when there are other systems of morality out there that are equally valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post, all you have done is refused to argue with my logic, made emotional appeals, and make hateful insults against me and anyone who shares my religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said on the other thread,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not stop talking about homosexuality when we are talking about systems of morality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not back up your statements with logic instead making insults and emotional appeals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world can you not deal with my logic instead of insulting me and my beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the world should I continue this discussion with you unless you are willing to deal with my logic instead of attacking me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some morals are subjective, some are absolute. Murder is absolute. Hating gay people is extremely subjective. You hate gay people, I don't. You think they ruin everything (lawl, how?), and I think they hurt noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't see it. You precious book tells you what to believe and you take it as fact. Is that wrong to assume? Assuming I'm right (I am), then you're just not allowed to see it my way. The Bible says "Hey, don't be gay. If two dudes sleep together, kill those nasty weirdos." and you believe that means "Homosexuality is wrong and hurtful to society. Here comes another insult, because that's absolutely stupid. The Bible is full of hate, and you just will not admit it. You can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you think people like me don't believe in what the Bible teaches? We don't want to end up like the mindless, hateful zombies that you guys are. You don't have a shred of common sense or decency. You just go with what the "good book" says, aye? Yea, good plan. Even if you sound like a jerk, at least you're going to Heaven, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. (And only Jews go to Heaven anyways.)

Harm is allowed between two or more consenting adults in the private sphere. As long as the aim isn't to kill each other as suicide is not allowed and seen as an abuse of freedom and you not knowing what freedom is. Take an example of sado machists - they are allowed to do whatever they wish to each other as long as they consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are forcing your view of what is morally acceptable on someone else who may not hold that same view. What if someone believes the harming someone without his consent is morally right? As a moral relativist, who are you to deny him that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some morals are subjective, some are absolute. Murder is absolute. Hating gay people is extremely subjective. You hate gay people, I don't. You think they ruin everything (lawl, how?), and I think they hurt noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are a moral absolutist after all. You should have said so earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now comes the problem - how do we know which system of morality is the absolute one? How do we know which morals are absolute and which aren't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When have I said I hate gay people? When will you stop putting words in my mouth? When will you stop making personal insults and emotional appeals instead of dealing with my logic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't see it. You precious book tells you what to believe and you take it as fact. Is that wrong to assume? Assuming I'm right (I am), then you're just not allowed to see it my way. The Bible says "Hey, don't be gay. If two dudes sleep together, kill those nasty weirdos." and you believe that means "Homosexuality is wrong and hurtful to society. Here comes another insult, because that's absolutely stupid. The Bible is full of hate, and you just will not admit it. You can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you think people like me don't believe in what the Bible teaches? We don't want to end up like the mindless, hateful zombies that you guys are. You don't have a shred of common sense or decency. You just go with what the "good book" says, aye? Yea, good plan. Even if you sound like a jerk, at least you're going to Heaven, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once more, all you're doing is making personal attacks, emotional appeals, and putting words into my mouth. You accuse me of spreading hate, yet your posts are filled with hatred of Christians and insults toward me. Show me where I have made one hateful comment tonight.

 

Harm is allowed between two or more consenting adults in the private sphere. As long as the aim isn't to kill each other as suicide is not allowed and seen as an abuse of freedom and you not knowing what freedom is. Take an example of sado machists - they are allowed to do whatever they wish to each other as long as they consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are forcing your view of what is morally acceptable on someone else who may not hold that same view. What if someone believes the harming someone without his consent is morally right? As a moral relativist, who are you to deny him that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to be kidding me? Tough luck for those who wish to harm people without their consent. The states main purpose is to protect the individual, and laws take away their right to harm an unconsenting person. Really if thats all you find wrong with this state that a person cant harm another person without their consent you are clutching at straws. Just admit you would have to be crazy to not want to live in such a beautiful society.

You have to be kidding me? Tough luck for those who wish to harm people without their consent. The states main purpose is to protect the individual, and laws take away their right to harm an unconsenting person. Really if thats all you find wrong with this state that a person cant harm another person without their consent you are clutching at straws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are loosing sight of the original argument: Assuming moral relativism, which you do, why should laws be based upon your personal, subjective moral system of non-harmfullness, rather than somebody else's personal, subjective moral system? The focus is not just specific issues, but a theory of morality. All I have done is point out that your views on specific issues are inconsistent with your theory of morality. You've yet to address those charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So once more I ask, if all systems of morality are equal, why should we legislate yours instead of another?

I have justified why the state i wish to follow has more use than yours. I care not about this subjective moral system. As i written on Marx's grave stone "ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything can be questioned which is why i dont beleive in absolutes, that has little relevance to what I am saying. Marx means theres no need to worry about moral subjectives on a practical level. This is a practical theory, it was written to the masses to inspire change and it did to an extent. Western world democracy is based upon this. You're questioning it because people cant harm other non consenting people. Give me a break, tell me why a religious system is better than this?

I have justified why the state i wish to follow has more use than yours. I care not about this subjective moral system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if morals are subjective, as you initially claimed, then who decides whether or not use is a good thing? For that matter, who decides what constitutes usefullness?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As i written on Marx's grave stone "ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything can be questioned which is why i dont beleive in absolutes, that has little relevance to what I am saying. Marx means theres no need to worry about moral subjectives on a practical level. This is a practical theory, it was written to the masses to inspire change and it did to an extent. Western world democracy is based upon this. You're questioning it because people cant harm other non consenting people. Give me a break, tell me why a religious system is better than this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If morality is subjective, then isn't the opinion that change is bad as equally valid as the claim that change is good? Who's to say that practically is better than another measure of what is good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You believe that religions, which are nothing more than belief systems, should not make laws that restrict the people who disagree with that religion. Yet you believe that you ought to be able to impose your personal, subjective standard of morality on others through the law. Why is this okay? If morals are relative, then you are merely an intolerant bigot who wants to impose his belief on anyone who disagrees with him - just the same as those religionists. It does not matter whether it is one belief or ten beliefs, whether that belief is based on personal opinion or an ancient book - in any case, somebody is legislating their personal, subjective morality to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So either morality is subjective and you are as much of an intolerant bigot as Tigra believes Christians are, or there is absolute morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any refutations?

Just drop subjective morality, I have already told you why I don't need to discuss it. Yes i am a bigot for saying harm is wrong in the public sphere, i can live with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why do you beleive a religious conformist society to be better?

Just drop subjective morality, I have already told you why I don't need to discuss it. Yes i am a bigot for saying harm is wrong in the public sphere, i can live with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why do you beleive a religious conformist society to be better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did I say I believed it to be better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is merely that, according to your own beliefs, a Christian who wants to pass laws because of his religious beliefs is just as justified as you are if you want to pass laws because of your personal beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, if we are to go back to the original topic of this thread, then the application would be that you have no right to deny a Christian the abilitiy to pass laws according to his religious beliefs, even if you disagree with them. If you disagree with those laws, then raise opposition to them and vote against them. In the end, whoever is stronger makes the laws; the tyranny of the majority rules. Might makes right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you are a moral absolutist, you cannot logically claim any moral high ground over a bigot who wants to pass discriminatory laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems like a rather mundane conclusion for pages of discussion, doesn't it?

It's not just as justified. There is degree's of justification and in no way would i consider a justification of 'because the bible says so' to be anywhere near as justified as Mills harm principle. I have the right to deny them the ability to pass laws based upon their religion. The state i support would allow them to make any choice they wish. At the end of the day it's about freedom, in Mills state aslong as you didnt harm anyone in the public sphere you are negativley free. Christian boundaries on things like abortion have no place because society is not christian. We choose with rational thought in Mills state as religious, sicence ect can influence our decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion again, in the christian state the womans not free. In Mills state she can make a rational decision based off the advise given to her. Why would a christian conforminst state be anywhere near as good as this?

Once more, if you assume that your system of morality is absolute, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if you assume subjective morality, which you do, then all justifications are equally valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Either you're right and other people are wrong, or there is no moral truth and you're just forcing your views on others. Which is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'm off to dinner. I may be a while before I respond again.

Can we drop whats morally subjective and consentrate on which state is better for society. A religious conformist state, or Mills state based on the Harm Principle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And anyway, sleep now so awhile till i respond.

Can we drop whats morally subjective and consentrate on which state is better for society. A religious conformist state, or Mills state based on the Harm Principle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And anyway, sleep now so awhile till i respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we can't. This is the problem. How can we concentrate on what's better for society if you don't even believe "better" exists. Try to not to evade this anymore because it's getting ridiculous to see you talk circles around this point for so many pages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You believe right and wrong, and good and bad are subjective. That means any assumption of "good" or "better" in ANY context is completely subjective. That means assume a stable society is good is SUBJECTIVE. That means assuming practicality over being unreasonable is SUBJECTIVE. By be a relativist, you are acknowledging that yours beliefs aren't any more "right" than my beliefs. You are acknowledging that they cannot work "better" because "better" doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For you to ever ask if we think something will be "better," in any context, is for you to contradict yourself. You don't believe in better. Everytime you post you continually contradict yourself because you repeatedly state that your views, and your form of government, is "better" for society. The only problem is "better" doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until you quit contradicting your own beliefs, how can anyone take you seriously in a logical debate?

 

Harm is allowed between two or more consenting adults in the private sphere. As long as the aim isn't to kill each other as suicide is not allowed and seen as an abuse of freedom and you not knowing what freedom is. Take an example of sado machists - they are allowed to do whatever they wish to each other as long as they consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are forcing your view of what is morally acceptable on someone else who may not hold that same view. What if someone believes the harming someone without his consent is morally right? As a moral relativist, who are you to deny him that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some morals are subjective, some are absolute. Murder is absolute. Hating gay people is extremely subjective. You hate gay people, I don't. You think they ruin everything (lawl, how?), and I think they hurt noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are a moral absolutist after all. You should have said so earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now comes the problem - how do we know which system of morality is the absolute one? How do we know which morals are absolute and which aren't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When have I said I hate gay people? When will you stop putting words in my mouth? When will you stop making personal insults and emotional appeals instead of dealing with my logic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't see it. You precious book tells you what to believe and you take it as fact. Is that wrong to assume? Assuming I'm right (I am), then you're just not allowed to see it my way. The Bible says "Hey, don't be gay. If two dudes sleep together, kill those nasty weirdos." and you believe that means "Homosexuality is wrong and hurtful to society. Here comes another insult, because that's absolutely stupid. The Bible is full of hate, and you just will not admit it. You can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you think people like me don't believe in what the Bible teaches? We don't want to end up like the mindless, hateful zombies that you guys are. You don't have a shred of common sense or decency. You just go with what the "good book" says, aye? Yea, good plan. Even if you sound like a jerk, at least you're going to Heaven, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once more, all you're doing is making personal attacks, emotional appeals, and putting words into my mouth. You accuse me of spreading hate, yet your posts are filled with hatred of Christians and insults toward me. Show me where I have made one hateful comment tonight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't hate Christians. I "feel sorry for them"...Wow, where have I heard that line before...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't label myself. You can label me all you want, but I don't have to label myself "absolutist" just for your convenience. Use your brain and you'll see which I am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for which morals are absolute and which are not, hmm, let's see...We can trust what we know to be true everyday...Or we can trust a 6,000 book...Yea, that's a tough one. Like I said, the Bible is full of hate-mongering, and if you wish to trust that (you do), then you're no more than a hate-monger yourself. Just remember - the Bible also says slavery is A-Okay, buddy. Better go get one since it's morally right, huh?

 

Can we drop whats morally subjective and consentrate on which state is better for society. A religious conformist state, or Mills state based on the Harm Principle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And anyway, sleep now so awhile till i respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until you quit contradicting your own beliefs, how can anyone take you seriously in a logical debate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about your contradictions? You beleive that the absolute morals come from a book which states an life for a life,.eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth yet at the same time says turn your cheek to evil? So which would be correct in your absolute morals? A life for a life or turning the cheek to killing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My contradiction is based on the fact i beleive my system to be better than yours. Yet apparently i can't do that with subjective morals because theres nothing to measure nwhich is better. I can see whats better for this earth, the main rule is protecting others from harm. Your 'absolute morals' don't even protect us from harm. Your views are far from infalliable and Mills living is a hell of a lot more straight forward than people deciding what the Bible meant, and basing their supposed absolute morals on someone interpretation. You may say "taken out of context!" but your absolute morals are right and wrong nothing else. If it says in the Bible too turn the other cheek - thats what you do because it's infalliable to you. However it then says a life for a life. Who would decide which moral to take more seriously. Both are direct quotes and you must decide between one of the other. Therefore theres always someone deciding what morals to follow and what morals not to follow - making them subjective to that persons beleif.

What about your contradictions? You beleive that the absolute morals come from a book which states an life for a life,.eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth yet at the same time says turn your cheek to evil? So which would be correct in your absolute morals? A life for a life or turning the cheek to killing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read my book, it actually addresses the contradictions. Haven't you ever heard of a paradigm shift?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My contradiction is based on the fact i beleive my system to be better than yours. Yet apparently i can't do that with subjective morals because theres nothing to measure nwhich is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. So quit doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see whats better for this earth, the main rule is protecting others from harm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Better" is subjective. You're contradicting yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your 'absolute morals' don't even protect us from harm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming protecting from harm is good. Subjective. You're contradicting yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your views are far from infalliable and Mills living is a hell of a lot more straight forward than people deciding what the Bible meant, and basing their supposed absolute morals on someone interpretation. You may say "taken out of context!" but your absolute morals are right and wrong nothing else. If it says in the Bible too turn the other cheek - thats what you do because it's infalliable to you. However it then says a life for a life. Who would decide which moral to take more seriously. Both are direct quotes and you must decide between one of the other. Therefore theres always someone deciding what morals to follow and what morals not to follow - making them subjective to that persons beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the Bible. Look up the definition of a paradigm shift. Then read the Bible again.

Thats still subjective you are assuming there is a paradigm shift. You're still going against the Bible which is your basis for absolute morals and deciding yourself they no longer apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your absolute morals come from the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're going against what the Bible literally says and claiming a paradigm shift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats subjective to you, as more fundementalists don't beleive a paradigm shift has occured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also said i contradicted myself.

Thats still subjective you are assuming there is a paradigm shift. You're still going against the Bible which is your basis for absolute morals and deciding yourself they no longer apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your absolute morals come from the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're going against what the Bible literally says and claiming a paradigm shift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats subjective to you, as more fundementalists don't beleive a paradigm shift has occured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also said i contradicted myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why my first instruction for you was to read the Bible. If you read it, you will first notice that it happens in chronological order. After realizing that, you will read passages that directly refer to things that were told in the past, and that it directly refers to a change, or shift. If you didn't know that, you just haven't read it. So quit trying to use my beliefs, which you clearly have little knowledge about, against me, until you actually take the time to gain the appropriate knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This also goes back to your attitude of, "if it can be questioned, it's subjective." That's not true. If people read the Bible and don't think there's been a shift, it doesn't mean it's subjective, it means they didn't read it properly. Just because something can be questioned, doesn't make it "not absolute," it just means that person has the free will and mind to question whatever he wants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So now we agree that your entire basis of morality and law is based on self-contradictions? Let me guess... your next post is going to be something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Forcing subjective morality on people is okay in only the ways I deem necessary."

So the Bible has no contradictions? Can you show an example of a paradigm shift within the Bible?

So the Bible has no contradictions? Can you show an example of a paradigm shift within the Bible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you notice, Jesus is speaking about past beliefs in Jewish faith and shifting to a new outlook. If you want to know in depth on why, give me a PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find it interesting that I keep answering your questions about my beliefs, despite you using them as ways to avoid stating the obvious about your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't you just admit that the foundation of your belief is a contradiction. You believe forcing your subjective morality on other people is okay only when you deem it necessary. Talk about close minded!

Here's a post I made a couple months ago about the paradigm shift in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the beginning, man disobeyed God and became sinful. (In Christian theology, this is known as the Fall.) The Law was sent to govern God's people until he redeemed them from this sin. If someone broke the law, he took the punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christ came to die for the sins of mankind. Think of it as paying a debt - in sinning, man created a debt to God which he could never pay back. Christ paid that debt for us; he took the punishment for our sins. Therefore, under the new covenant in Christ, the punishment for our sin has already been done - He took it for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, God is not contradicting himself, nor changing his will. The sins which were once punished with death are still punished with death - only now, Christ has taken the punishment upon himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you'd like, Locke or I could provide plenty of passages from the Bible that show that the Bible itself claims this paradigm shift. We aren't contradicting what the Bible literally says, because the Bible literally speaks of this shift.

Can we drop whats morally subjective and consentrate on which state is better for society. A religious conformist state, or Mills state based on the Harm Principle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And anyway, sleep now so awhile till i respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so you have been beating around the Harm Principle from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for quite a while now, but why don't we drop the pretenses and call it what it really is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's Wicca. Yes people, you heard it. It's religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An' it harm none, do what ye will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷liÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷gion /rÃÆââ¬Â°ÃâêÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â lÃÆââ¬Â°ÃâêdÃÆàâââ‰â¢ÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢n/ [ri-lij-uhn]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So now that the cat is out of the bag, why dont you explain to me how your beliefs, which are based on religion, is better than anyone else's beliefs, which are based on religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it because you believe their beliefs to be wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, then how can you condem them for not agreeing with your beliefs because they believe them to be wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Tigra:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering how little you actually know about Christianity, how can you say, with such absolution, what Christianity teaches on any subject?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bigÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ot /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â bÃÆââ¬Â°ÃâêgÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t/ [big-uht]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You love to tell everyone how Christians are bigots bacause they hate homosexuals. This is absolutely incorrect. Someone who truly follows Christ does not hate homosexuals. We simply acknowledge that it is a sin, as are many, many, many other things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

 

 

 

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where is the bigotry in that? We are bigots because we acknowledge that someone is a sinner? We are ALL sinners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, there is a passage in Romans, as well, where sin is described, including homosexuality, but no one ever bothers to keep reading when they want to find fault. (whether it be finding fault with the sinners, or finding fault with the beliefs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where is the bigotry?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, certainly, there are people that will use God, the Bible and Christianity to support their own bigotry, but that does not make the religion itself wrong, only the people that use it as an excuse to hate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True Christianity teaches:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, can you explain to me how you can hate something that you, so clearly, do not understand?