Derail from Hillarygate

[Charles]

Well of course her mind is corrupted, that is obvious since she is embracing an immoral and sinful tendency. BTW - my grandkids live in my house, you don't have to teach children to misbehave.

If we should get back on to the core of this, then it would be interesting if you could tell us why it is immoral. Is it all based on the Bible, or do you have any other reason for finding it immoral?

[seer]

Yep. But no need to make up opinions and attach them to others in order to try to make them look bad and make them say stuff they would never say.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[Charles]

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I'm talking about this in which you try to attack my person using exactly that method: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post453652

And of course you know that this is what I'm talking about

[seer]

I'm talking about this in which you try to attack my person using exactly that method:
And of course you know that this is what I'm talking about

No actually I wasn't sure if you were referencing what I said about the girl. But Charles, it is rather obvious that sin has calcified your moral intuition since you don't even understand that homosexuality is immoral.

[Charles]

No actually I wasn't sure if you were referencing what I said about the girl. But Charles, it is rather obvious that sin has calcified your moral intuition since you don't even understand that homosexuality is immoral.

You are yet to make me any wiser as to why that is a sin or immoral.

I have often thought about it, read quite a lot and sought for answers again and again. I have talked to homosexuals about their experiences with the church and those calling them "immoral" and so on. I have heard quite many testimonials and know about quite a lot of suffering from the attitude you present here. I think that suffering is unfair, and I think people like you should seriously consider using such strong terms on other human beings.

Of course the easy way for you to go is to just say "sin has calcified your moral intuition". But again those are just words trying to weaken points for which you have no rational explanation, or what? In case you have, let's hear it. So far all we have heard is "of course", personal attacks on the 12 year old and (less important) me.

Give us some rational food for thought, seer.

[JimL]

Well of course her mind is corrupted, that is obvious since she is embracing an immoral and sinful tendency. BTW - my grandkids live in my house, you don't have to teach children to misbehave.

But thats according to you, not to her. Who one is attracted to is not up to them, that she is naturally attracted to females is no more immoral than is your natural attraction to females. She is merely embracing her genuine self which is the moral thing to do. Rejecting her true self and feelings is what would be immoral, and forcing that choice upon her would be immoral as well.

[seer]

You are yet to make me any wiser as to why that is a sin or immoral.

I think you know why a Christian would say so. Don't play dumb.

I have often thought about it, read quite a lot and sought for answers again and again. I have talked to homosexuals about their experiences with the church and those calling them "immoral" and so on. I have heard quite many testimonials and know about quite a lot of suffering from the attitude you present here. I think that suffering is unfair, and I think people like you should seriously consider using such strong terms on other human beings.

First, in the big picture we are all immoral or sinful. Second, it is always the hope that these folks would repent or at least fight their demons rather than give in wholesale. We all have these personal moral struggles Charles.

Of course the easy way for you to go is to just say "sin has calcified your moral intuition". But again those are just words trying to weaken points for which you have no rational explanation, or what? In case you have, let's hear it. So far all we have heard is "of course", personal attacks on the 12 year old and (less important) me.

Give us some rational food for thought, seer.

As our last discussion so painfully proved Charles you had no rational moral argument. So how do I rationally appeal to a man that has no firm foundation for ethics?

[seer]

But thats according to you, not to her. Who one is attracted to is not up to them, that she is naturally attracted to females is no more immoral than is your natural attraction to females. She is merely embracing her genuine self which is the moral thing to do. Rejecting her true self and feelings is what would be immoral, and forcing that choice upon her would be immoral as well.

Sure and the pedophile is naturally attracted to children, and my genuine self wanted to bed a different woman every night...

[Charles]

As our last discussion so painfully proved Charles you had no rational moral argument. So how do I rationally appeal to a man that has no firm foundation for ethics?

Ok, so all you had was more ad hominem stuff?

Is that really it, seer? Nothing at all? Not even in the hope that some other reader might grasp some of it? Seems a little unfair to call others immoral based on something you seemingly cannot even start to defend.

I encourage everyone who has any interest in the moral discussion refered to to actually go and read it: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

I sure think I had rationality on my side but I think the readers can determine for themselves. That is what i like about rationality. You don't just have to take someone's word for it

[seer]

Ok, so all you had was more ad hominem stuff?

Is that really it, seer? Nothing at all? Not even in the hope that some other reader might grasp some of it? Seems a little unfair to call others immoral based on something you seemingly cannot even start to defend.

I encourage everyone who has any interest in the moral discussion refered to to actually go and read it: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

I sure think I had rationality on my side but I think the readers can determine for themselves. That is what i like about rationality. You don't just have to take someone's word for it

Are you really this delusional Charles? You could never demonstrate even one universal moral truth, and the two behaviors you tried to universalize via Kant's reasoning (killing and lying) you in the end disavowed. No Charles, the only thing you have on your side is now, and will remain, personal or collective opinion. And yes, I did defend my position in that thread starting with the fact that there was a God given teleology for the human person and human sexuality. The fact that you don't find that compelling is immaterial since your rational functions are convoluted by sin. I might as well try and demonstrate the color red to a man born blind.

[JimL]

Sure and the pedophile is naturally attracted to children, and my genuine self wanted to bed a different woman every night...

Oh my goodness, don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. Children are not consenting adults, you and all the women you genuinely lusted after, were. Btw, you should be ashamed of yourself seer, for having such immoral tendencies. Isn't that what you accused this girl of, having immoral tendencies?

[seer]

Oh my goodness, don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. Children are not consenting adults, you and all the women you genuinely lusted after, were.

No Jim, you were making the argument about acting from ones genuine self - which was a silly argument.

[Charles]

Are you really this delusional Charles? You could never demonstrate even one universal moral truth, and the two behaviors you tried to universalize via Kant's reasoning (killing and lying) you in the end disavowed. No Charles, the only thing you have on your side is now, and will remain, personal or collective opinion. And yes, I did defend my position in that thread starting with the fact that there was a God given teleology for the human person and human sexuality. The fact that you don't find that compelling is immaterial since your rational functions are convoluted by sin. I might as well try and demonstrate the color red to a man born blind.

Wow, even more ad hominem.

And then supported by some wrong claims about our discussion. I have only held that the Categorical imperative was universal. I have not held that the practical guidelines as to what you should actually do are easily formulated. And i have not disavowed in the end, because that has always been my position. Plain and simple. I have showed that the claim you can always kill and always lie will have absurd consequences. But I have not been attracted by too easy solutions to that problem.

You claim "And yes, I did defend my position in that thread starting with the fact that there was a God given teleology for the human person and human sexuality." You made no statements containing the word "sex" in the entire discussion, so I don't think memory serves you too well

You cannot claim there is a God given teleology, because you do not know whether God exists or not. You admitted yourself. You don't know. So at best there may be one. And you claimed I could not question Christian dogma like the idea of eternal pain in Hell because no logic or knowledge would do. I don't think a man who makes such a claim can fairly say that the opponents "rational functions are convoluted by sin". It would rather have to be some not very rational functions that would have to be so.

But, again, thank you for making it so obvious, that you have nothing but personal attacks (and wrong claims) to support your view.

[seer]

Wow, even more ad hominem.

And then supported by some wrong claims about our discussion. I have only held that the Categorical imperative was universal. I have not held that the practical guidelines as to what you should actually do are easily formulated. And i have not disavowed in the end, because that has always been my position. Plain and simple. I have showed that the claim you can always kill and always lie will have absurd consequences. But I have not been attracted by too easy solutions to that problem.

You claim "And yes, I did defend my position in that thread starting with the fact that there was a God given teleology for the human person and human sexuality." You made no statements containing the word "sex" in the entire discussion, so I don't think memory serves you too well

You cannot claim there is a God given teleology, because you do not know whether God exists or not. You admitted yourself. You don't know. So at best there may be one. And you claimed I could not question Christian dogma like the idea of eternal pain in Hell because no logic or knowledge would do. I don't think a man who makes such a claim can fairly say that the opponents "rational functions are convoluted by sin". It would rather have to be some not very rational functions that would have to be so.

But, again, thank you for making it so obvious, that you have nothing but personal attacks (and wrong claims) to support your view.

Charles, I will give you one more chance, right here and now - make a deductive argument for a universal moral truth or admit that opinion is all you have.

Here I will help you out, it would look like this:

1. Premise
2. Premise
3. Premise
4. Conclusion

I'll be waiting.

[Charles]

No Jim, you were making the argument about acting from ones genuine self - which was a silly argument.