Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    On this issue no interpretation is necessary, the historical Jewish and Christianity understanding on this is well known. You certainly can not get the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable from the texts or the Hebrew culture.
    To you, apparently. To them, the issue of "what would Jesus want" is not so clear cut. I'm not going to repeat their arguments - because every time I do you seem to think I am "taking their side." My point is a simple one: language is always interpreted. What was the motivation? Who said what when? Etc. The "liberal Christians" believe their views are correct and justified and your position is immoral. You believe your position is justified and theirs is immoral. Neither of you is going to budge. Both of you think you're right.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So you haven't been proffering their point of view?
    I have been describing their position to underscore "there are different views." I do not agree with either them or you.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You won't answer the question because you know what the answer would be.
    Your opinion is noted. The truth is I won't answer the question because it's not my argument - and I don't defend arguments that are not mine and that I do not agree with.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No you posed it as a serious flaw (which logically it isn't), until I called you on your beliefs.
    You are free to cite where I defended the "liberal Christian position." I don't think you will find it in any of my posts.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, I just once again had to explain why your objections have no merits according to my position.
    You are certainly entitled to that opinion, Seer.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But you extolled "true moral reasoning" as if it was some how superior to relying on a 2,000 year old book for ethics.
    Yes. I believe that someone who is actually reasoning from a base set of valuing to moral judgments on specific acts is actually thinking through the issues and trying to arrive at a moral conclusion. Someone who is simply trying to figure out what someone else thinks so they can align to it has abandoned moral reasoning, and is simply trying to "fit in." They aren't engaging in moral reasoning - they have given that over to someone else and are just trying to "be the same."

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But it is no such thing, since such reasoning can and does lead to very different and even opposite moral ends. True moral reasoning, it turns out, is useless.
    Amazingly - it have been functioning just fine for several decades now. I even managed to teach my children how to reason morally, and they appear to be doing fine. And I didn't have to say "because god said so" or "because Jesus said so" or "because Paul said so" even once!

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yet through "true moral reasoning", saving a child is just as moral as gassing him in a shower, given the relative context.
    No - it's not. But since you depend on "absolutes" for everything, I cannot imagine you will even begin to see that. And you are back to Technique #3

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I was going by the Pew poll, one of the best polling groups around. And the fact is, those who are more literate in Scripture and take their faith more seriously largely fall on my side.
    Amazing how we see what we want to see in the data. When I looked at the Pew poll, I saw an example of exactly what I was saying: no moral position is pervasive across any religion. It happened to deal with homosexuality, and it showed that the majority of Christians are not having a problem with it. Indeed even among evangelicals - there is a substantial amount of acceptance (albeit less than any other religious group).

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Tell me what argument would convince you of universal moral truths?
    Think about that question for a second. If I knew of an argument that convincingly established that morality is rooted in universal moral truths - I would be a moral absolutist/objectivist. I am a moral relativist/subjectivist specifically because I have not found any such argument - and morality is so obviously relative/subjective. I see it all around me every day. I see it in me - in my wife - in my neighbor. I even see it in you (though you reject the very idea). Your asking me to suggest an argument that would negate the evidence of my experience and senses. I have no idea what that could possibly look like. I do know that objecting to relative/subjective morality on the basis that it is not absolute/objective is not going to get you there. I still don't think that you realize that you have not yet actually made an argument - you just keep repeating "it's not absolute/objective!" with increasing degrees of incredulity.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-19-2019, 03:02 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      To you, apparently. To them, the issue of "what would Jesus want" is not so clear cut. I'm not going to repeat their arguments - because every time I do you seem to think I am "taking their side." My point is a simple one: language is always interpreted. What was the motivation? Who said what when? Etc. The "liberal Christians" believe their views are correct and justified and your position is immoral. You believe your position is justified and theirs is immoral. Neither of you is going to budge. Both of you think you're right.
      I made the case from the text, and if they don't want to take those texts at face value why do they take other New Testament teachings at face value?


      Your opinion is noted. The truth is I won't answer the question because it's not my argument - and I don't defend arguments that are not mine and that I do not agree with.
      You won't answer because turning adultery into a moral good from the text is ludicrous, the same with homosexuality. And saying that because Christ teaches us to love means that adultery or homosexuality are somehow moral is completely irrational.


      Amazingly - it have been functioning just fine for several decades now. I even managed to teach my children how to reason morally, and they appear to be doing fine. And I didn't have to say "because god said so" or "because Jesus said so" or "because Paul said so" even once!
      Thankfully you grew up in a largely Christian nation.

      No - it's not. But since you depend on "absolutes" for everything, I cannot imagine you will even begin to see that. And you are back to Technique #3
      What are you talking about? If "true moral reasoning" can lead to Gulags and Death Camps, what use is this reasoning for deciding ethics? How, in the end, is that any better than following an ancient set of ethics? It isn't. Using the term true moral reasoning is all about making yourself feel superior.


      Amazing how we see what we want to see in the data. When I looked at the Pew poll, I saw an example of exactly what I was saying: no moral position is pervasive across any religion. It happened to deal with homosexuality, and it showed that the majority of Christians are not having a problem with it. Indeed even among evangelicals - there is a substantial amount of acceptance (albeit less than any other religious group).
      Again what I said is absolutely correct. Those who are more literate in Scripture and take their faith more seriously largely fall on my side, and I agree there are a lot of Biblically illiterate Christians out there.

      Think about that question for a second. If I knew of an argument that convincingly established that morality is rooted in universal moral truths - I would be a moral absolutist/objectivist. I am a moral relativist/subjectivist specifically because I have not found any such argument - and morality is so obviously relative/subjective. I see it all around me every day. I see it in me - in my wife - in my neighbor. I even see it in you (though you reject the very idea). Your asking me to suggest an argument that would negate the evidence of my experience and senses. I have no idea what that could possibly look like. I do know that objecting to relative/subjective morality on the basis that it is not absolute/objective is not going to get you there. I still don't think that you realize that you have not yet actually made an argument - you just keep repeating "it's not absolute/objective!" with increasing degrees of incredulity.
      How does your experience and senses negate the idea of universal moral truths? What is the logic?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        I made the case from the text, and if they don't want to take those texts at face value why do they take other New Testament teachings at face value?
        I'm not going to argue their position, Seer. The case they make is that they ARE taking the texts at face value. You disagree.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        You won't answer because turning adultery into a moral good from the text is ludicrous, the same with homosexuality. And saying that because Christ teaches us to love means that adultery or homosexuality are somehow moral is completely irrational.
        Your opinion on my motivations is noted. You're wrong - as I have explained several times now. But you have apparently decided you know my motivations better than I, so further response seems rather pointless.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Thankfully you grew up in a largely Christian nation.
        And there are people who have grown up in Buddhist environments who have done rather well. And Hindu. And Confucian. And the list goes on. Seer - I know you think a great deal about your Christian upbringing and background. The fact is - if you had been born in China there is a very high probability you would be Buddhist or Confucian, claiming the truth is to be found there. If you had been born in the middle east, you would likely be Muslim and claiming the truth lies there. In India you would likely have been Hindu. We all have a significant probability of adopting the beliefs of our upbringing. The theist is no less subject to this reality than the atheist.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        What are you talking about?
        Which part is confusing you?

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        If "true moral reasoning" can lead to Gulags and Death Camps, what use is this reasoning for deciding ethics? How, in the end, is that any better than following an ancient set of ethics? It isn't. Using the term true moral reasoning is all about making yourself feel superior.
        My use of "true" in that expression may be leading you astray. What I mean is "actual" moral reasoning. That is to say, the process of reasoning from value to action. This is what the person who is simply looking to "align" is abandoning in their quest to conform. A thing becomes moral or immoral simply if it aligns with what someone else said. In your case, "someone else" is men dead over 2,000 years - so you are trying to derive this from the scraps of the copies we have that they left behind.

        As for feeling superior - it's not a matter of "pride" for me. Consider a simple scenario. If your son comes to you and says, "Dad, I've been thinking about my future and I've decided want to become a doctor. You ask him, "why?" Wouldn't you think more of him and his reasoning if he answered, "because I like to help people, I will be able to support a family, the field seriously interests me, and I truly think I have the aptitude," than if he answered, "because Mr. Smith said I should?" I know I would. The first is a reasoned set of arguments for the choice. The second is "because so-and-so said so."

        The ancientness of any idea or belief does not translate to its correctness or quality. There are many ancient ideas we have let go of because we realized they were wrong - or misguided - or uninformed. Ethics and/or morality is no different.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Again what I said is absolutely correct. Those who are more literate in Scripture and take their faith more seriously largely fall on my side, and I agree there are a lot of Biblically illiterate Christians out there.
        That's not what I see. What I see is that those who approach the bible the same way you do are on your side - and those that do not come to different conclusions. Biblical literacy does not seem to be a factor. Essentially - you have decided that those who agree with you are "literate" and those who don't are "illiterate." It's not a very strong argument, especially with scholars over the years who would be classified as "liberal" (e.g., Bultmann, Fox, Holloway, Borg, Hick, Moore, etc.). These were hardly "illiterate" people. They were, however, people who's theology/scriptology and their approach to the bible you take exception to.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        How does your experience and senses negate the idea of universal moral truths? What is the logic?
        Seer - my experience and senses support the reality of subjective/relative morality in much the same way that those experiences tell me that the principles of mathematics are universal/absolute but "laws" are not. The principals of logic are universal/absolute, but sociology is not. We have been down this road multiple times. Moral codes have all of the same characteristics of legal codes, and none of the characteristics of mathematical principles. No one can show the existence of a universal/absolute moral code - never mind make it work in the world of human reasoning.

        That is, essentially, my reason for accepting the relative/subjective nature of morality. It fits with my day-to-day experience, and what I see all around me all the time - even in you (despite your objections to the contrary).
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-19-2019, 05:38 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          And there are people who have grown up in Buddhist environments who have done rather well. And Hindu. And Confucian. And the list goes on. Seer - I know you think a great deal about your Christian upbringing and background. The fact is - if you had been born in China there is a very high probability you would be Buddhist or Confucian, claiming the truth is to be found there. If you had been born in the middle east, you would likely be Muslim and claiming the truth lies there. In India you would likely have been Hindu. We all have a significant probability of adopting the beliefs of our upbringing. The theist is no less subject to this reality than the atheist.
          That was not the point, which was you personally can thank the Christian religion for your ethics and the moral reasoning that follows.


          My use of "true" in that expression may be leading you astray. What I mean is "actual" moral reasoning. That is to say, the process of reasoning from value to action. This is what the person who is simply looking to "align" is abandoning in their quest to conform. A thing becomes moral or immoral simply if it aligns with what someone else said. In your case, "someone else" is men dead over 2,000 years - so you are trying to derive this from the scraps of the copies we have that they left behind.

          As for feeling superior - it's not a matter of "pride" for me. Consider a simple scenario. If your son comes to you and says, "Dad, I've been thinking about my future and I've decided want to become a doctor. You ask him, "why?" Wouldn't you think more of him and his reasoning if he answered, "because I like to help people, I will be able to support a family, the field seriously interests me, and I truly think I have the aptitude," than if he answered, "because Mr. Smith said I should?" I know I would. The first is a reasoned set of arguments for the choice. The second is "because so-and-so said so."

          The ancientness of any idea or belief does not translate to its correctness or quality. There are many ancient ideas we have let go of because we realized they were wrong - or misguided - or uninformed. Ethics and/or morality is no different.
          You are not getting the point, correctness or wrongness have no meaning in your moral reasoning model, since it could just as well lead to Gulags and Death Camps. In other words such reasoning is no more likely to be correct or tell us what is wrong than ancient ethical texts.



          That's not what I see. What I see is that those who approach the bible the same way you do are on your side - and those that do not come to different conclusions. Biblical literacy does not seem to be a factor. Essentially - you have decided that those who agree with you are "literate" and those who don't are "illiterate." It's not a very strong argument.
          What do you mean? Go back and read the poll, those who study scripture more often and attend church more often largely see homosexuality as not being acceptable. So either you did not read the link or you are not being honest.

          See:

          Belief in God among Christians by views about homosexuality

          Importance of religion in one's life among Christians by views about homosexuality

          Attendance at religious services among Christians by views about homosexuality

          Frequency of prayer among Christians by views about homosexuality

          Frequency of participation in prayer, scripture study or religious education groups among Christians by views about homosexuality

          http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/


          That is, essentially, my reason for accepting the relative/subjective nature of morality. It fits with my day-to-day experience, and what I see all around me all the time - even in you (despite your objections to the contrary).
          But how does that tell you that universal moral norms don't exist? How would the world look different if universal moral truths did exist? If you don't have some concept of what that would be like then you are just shooting in the dark.
          Last edited by seer; 01-19-2019, 05:59 PM.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            That was not the point, which was you personally can thank the Christian religion for your ethics and the moral reasoning that follows.
            Actually - no. If I were still Christian, I would still be following "me too" morality - trying to synchronize my moral code to the "herd" and "what god wants." I had to leave that in order to begin actual moral reasoning - and my moral code has changed in several ways since then.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            You are not getting the point, correctness or wrongness have no meaning in your moral reasoning model, since it could just as well lead to Gulags and Death Camps. In other words such reasoning is no more likely to be correct or tell us what is wrong than ancient ethical texts.
            I do get the point, Seer - but I'm afraid you apparently do not. Again - your argument boils down to "relative/subjective morality provides no absolute/objective conclusions." That is not an argument - it is a restatement of the definition of relative/subjective. We all KNOW relative/subjective things do not produce absolute/objective outcomes. It does not stop them from being "meaningful" outcomes however - just as the relative/subjective nature of law does not stop laws from being meaningful. And the fact that two countries can have laws that are diametrically opposed does not stop those laws from being "meaningful." We don't say, "all law is useless" because it does not produce objective/absolute principles. Yet, for some odd reason, you feel a need to hold moral codes to a different standard.

            You are not being very consistent - and you still have not made a case against relative/subjective frameworks. You've just arbitrarily decided "they are not meaningful," yet you use such constructs every day of your life and I would venture to guess you do so without one thought to their apparent meaninglessness.

            Here - try this. The next time you say to your wife, "I love you," follow it up with, "but that is relative/subjective to me - so it's meaningless." I'd be curious to know what her response is.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            What do you mean? Go back and read the poll, those who study scripture more often and attend church more often largely see homosexuality as not being acceptable. So either you did not read the link or you are not being honest.

            See:

            Belief in God among Christians by views about homosexuality

            Importance of religion in one's life among Christians by views about homosexuality

            Attendance at religious services among Christians by views about homosexuality

            Frequency of prayer among Christians by views about homosexuality

            Frequency of participation in prayer, scripture study or religious education groups among Christians by views about homosexuality

            http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/
            I both read the link and am being honest. I'm not sure why you seem to feel a need to regularly question my integrity. When you were sitting across the table from me - did I leave you with the impression that I am a dishonest person?

            That being said (and asked), your link makes exactly the point I was trying to make. Even among those who read/study the bible regularly - there are those who accept homosexuality. Even among those who go to church regularly, some accept homosexuality. You link shows a tendency for more bible and more prayer and more church to result in more people rejecting homosexuality - but in every single breakdown on the Pew list - there are people with varying views across the board.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            But how does that tell you that universal moral norms don't exist?
            I cannot prove to you an existential negative, Seer. I believe unicorns do not exist. I believe it because they are a composite of two distinct ideas, because they continually show up in contexts associated with fantasy, and because I have never seen one - though I have seen many horses and a few narwhals. I do not believe a god exists. As with unicorns, I have a long list of reasons why I believe gods are the creation of the human imagination. Likewise, I do not believe there are moral absolutes. No one has been able to demonstrate one - and the idea itself runs counter to my everyday experience of how moral frameworks are formed and lived out. But if you want "proof," I have none.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            How would the world look different if universal moral truths did exist?
            I don't think you understand that this question is nonsensical to me. It's akin to asking "how would the world look different if universal legal principles existed?" I cannot even imagine such a universe. That's not how law works. People make laws. Sentient beings make laws. They make them to govern their activity within a society. People make moral codes. They do basically the same thing. A moral code does for an individual what a legal code does for a society.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            If you don't have some concept of what that would be like then you are just shooting in the dark.
            No - not really. I'm pretty comfortable and clear about how morality works. That I cannot "imagine" a universe where morality is different than it is does not prove that morality is different than it is. That is an odd sort of argumentation.

            ETA: I would point out that we appear to have hijacked this thread with the usual sidetrack into morality. Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread or return the discussion to one of the old ones we used to use?
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-19-2019, 07:28 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              On this issue no interpretation is necessary, the historical Jewish and Christianity understanding on this is well known. You certainly can not get the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable from the texts or the Hebrew culture.
              Male-male sexual acts, yes. That was seen as forbidden among the Jews. Female-female sexual acts, however, are less clear. The Old Testament only forbids male-male sexual activity. From my understanding, it's not until the 2nd century that we find anything resembling a condemnation of female-female homosexuality in Jewish texts, and even there it's treated as significantly more minor than male-male homosexuality; for example, the Talmud declares it "mere obscenity" (Yebamoth 76).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                Male-male sexual acts, yes. That was seen as forbidden among the Jews. Female-female sexual acts, however, are less clear. The Old Testament only forbids male-male sexual activity. From my understanding, it's not until the 2nd century that we find anything resembling a condemnation of female-female homosexuality in Jewish texts, and even there it's treated as significantly more minor than male-male homosexuality; for example, the Talmud declares it "mere obscenity" (Yebamoth 76).
                Female homosexuality may not have been wide spread, or in the surrounding cultures, so it wasn't addressed in the OT. But Paul puts them both on the same level and Paul was a Jew.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Actually - no. If I were still Christian, I would still be following "me too" morality - trying to synchronize my moral code to the "herd" and "what god wants." I had to leave that in order to begin actual moral reasoning - and my moral code has changed in several ways since then.
                  Oh stop with your moral reasoning, you are following the crowd since homosexual behavior is largely accepted in our culture. You are firmly in the center herd...The fact is growing up in a largely Christian culture has influenced your moral reasoning.



                  I do get the point, Seer - but I'm afraid you apparently do not. Again - your argument boils down to "relative/subjective morality provides no absolute/objective conclusions." That is not an argument - it is a restatement of the definition of relative/subjective. We all KNOW relative/subjective things do not produce absolute/objective outcomes. It does not stop them from being "meaningful" outcomes however - just as the relative/subjective nature of law does not stop laws from being meaningful. And the fact that two countries can have laws that are diametrically opposed does not stop those laws from being "meaningful." We don't say, "all law is useless" because it does not produce objective/absolute principles. Yet, for some odd reason, you feel a need to hold moral codes to a different standard.

                  You are not being very consistent - and you still have not made a case against relative/subjective frameworks. You've just arbitrarily decided "they are not meaningful," yet you use such constructs every day of your life and I would venture to guess you do so without one thought to their apparent meaninglessness.

                  Here - try this. The next time you say to your wife, "I love you," follow it up with, "but that is relative/subjective to me - so it's meaningless." I'd be curious to know what her response is.
                  Carp, first, my estranged wife died in 06 of lung cancer. I'm not taking about objective/subjective per se. I'm speaking of your claim to "true moral reasoning." That that is a meaningless statement when it comes to ethics since it can and often does lead to opposite moral conclusions (depending on premises and goals). That is no better, or may be decidedly worse, than relying on an ancient text like the New Testament. In other words, you have not brought any new or useful to the table.

                  That being said (and asked), your link makes exactly the point I was trying to make. Even among those who read/study the bible regularly - there are those who accept homosexuality. Even among those who go to church regularly, some accept homosexuality. You link shows a tendency for more bible and more prayer and more church to result in more people rejecting homosexuality - but in every single breakdown on the Pew list - there are people with varying views across the board.
                  Like I said those who study more or are more devout LARGELY fall on my side of the question - by FAR. So the more one studies Scripture the more likely they will see it as sin - by a wide margin.

                  I cannot prove to you an existential negative, Seer. I believe unicorns do not exist. I believe it because they are a composite of two distinct ideas, because they continually show up in contexts associated with fantasy, and because I have never seen one - though I have seen many horses and a few narwhals. I do not believe a god exists. As with unicorns, I have a long list of reasons why I believe gods are the creation of the human imagination. Likewise, I do not believe there are moral absolutes. No one has been able to demonstrate one - and the idea itself runs counter to my everyday experience of how moral frameworks are formed and lived out. But if you want "proof," I have none.
                  Carp, you are always telling us about you reasoning abilities so you must have thought through this. You keep taking about your experience being the thing that supports the idea that morality is relative. But that does not logically follow, I doubt the world would look any different even if universal moral truths were the case. So your experience tells us nothing.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Oh stop with your moral reasoning, you are following the crowd since homosexual behavior is largely accepted in our culture. You are firmly in the center herd...The fact is growing up in a largely Christian culture has influenced your moral reasoning.
                    First - with respect to homosexuality - I have held this moral position since before it was "acceptable" in our society. So I am more someone who contributed to influencing our society than I was influenced BY it. But I don't disagree that we are influenced by our society. Indeed, that is how morality works. We influence one another. But there is a difference between "being influenced by" and "actively seeking to align with." I am influenced by my society. There is no one thing, person, group, or being that I am actively trying to align with.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp, first, my estranged wife died in 06 of lung cancer.
                    I am sorry to have used an example that may have been painful to you, Seer. I think you shared this with me over dinner, but I had forgotten that detail. I believe you mentioned you have a son - so use that person instead - and I will cease making references to your wife. It was not my intention to cause hurt - and I apologize.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I'm not taking about objective/subjective per se. I'm speaking of your claim to "true moral reasoning." That that is a meaningless statement when it comes to ethics since it can and often does lead to opposite moral conclusions (depending on premises and goals). That is no better, or may be decidedly worse, than relying on an ancient text like the New Testament. In other words, you have not brought any new or useful to the table.
                    So first - the word "true" in that sentence was not intended to mean "coming to a correct conclusion." It was meant to mean, "actual." I don't think "aligning with the herd" or "aligning with X" is actually "moral reasoning." It's just trying to figure out what someone else thinks so you can "be like them." Moral reasoning should be based in an examination of the issues to arrive at a moral position.

                    As for the texts, Seer, books are written by people. So if I align my morality with Fred, my neighbor, I'm not really reasoning. I'm just trying to figure out what Fred thinks so I can mimic him. If I pick up a book written by Fred at Barnes and Noble and then align to it, I am still aligning to Fred. You happen to have picked an anthology written by a variety of men (as far as I know, no women were involved) who wrote in another culture, time, and place. It doesn't change the basic fact that you're "trying to align to Fred (and his friends). It's not really moral reasoning. It's simply "following the herd," and consciously choosing to do so.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Like I said those who study more or are more devout LARGELY fall on my side of the question - by FAR. So the more one studies Scripture the more likely they will see it as sin - by a wide margin.
                    And yet differences remain, even among those. Indeed, 1 out of 5 people who are very involved with scripture study conclude that homosexuality should be accepted, and 1 out of 3 don't know. Only slightly less than half believe it should be discouraged. Seer - there is a lot of variation in Christianity. Your attempt to use data to show cohesion is not showing cohesion at all. It's showing significant variability.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp, you are always telling us about you reasoning abilities so you must have thought through this. You keep taking about your experience being the thing that supports the idea that morality is relative. But that does not logically follow, I doubt the world would look any different even if universal moral truths were the case. So your experience tells us nothing.
                    It apparently tells you nothing, but it informs me a great deal. I experience moral reasoning. I see others around me engaging in moral reasoning. I see religious people claiming absolutes they cannot show to exist - or even HOW they would exist - and then doing exactly the same things I see the rest of us doing with the same results. I listen to your "arguments" about moral absolutes and you fall into the same pattern I see with all "absolute/objective" moral advocates: you have no argument. Indeed, as I told you way back at the start of our discussion - every "objection" I have ever heard about relative/subjective moral reasoning is one of three basic non-arguments: a continual repetition of definitions; an appeal to outrage; or an appeal to incredulity. None of these is an actual argument. In all of the posts we have exchanged all of these months, you have never escaped these three approaches, so you have never made an actual argument.

                    But it is very clear to me that you actually think you have. You believe that saying, over and over, that "relative/subjective morality is meaningless because it does not provide absolute/objective conclusions," is an actual argument. For all of the reasons I have cited in so many posts - it's not. It IS, however, the common, oft-repeated, seldom questioned mantra of the religious. I hear it all the time. And, like you, the vast majority have no clue that they are not doing anything other than repeating the definition of "relative/subjective." As I have tried to convey many times, it's like objecting, "but blue is not green!" and thinking that you have made the case for why blue is better than green, or more necessary. All you keep doing is reaffirming that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. We have agreed on that from the outset. What you haven't done is made the case for why the latter is better or necessary.

                    On the other hand, I have shown multiple times that relative/subjective morality actually works, and is how we function individually and within a society. We see relative/subjective morality around us every day and in every society and culture I have ever been exposed to or studied. Even YOU practice it - though you deny it vehemently.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Female homosexuality may not have been wide spread, or in the surrounding cultures, so it wasn't addressed in the OT. But Paul puts them both on the same level and Paul was a Jew.
                      I've wondered about that, honestly. Romans 1:26-27 only says that the women "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" (NASB). These, from my understanding, weren't arbitrary terms; for the Jews, "natural" sex was regular reproductive whereas "unnatural" sex was non-reproductive, such as oral and anal sex. The text never explicitly says the women did anything with each other, it only says that of the men. Any idea of female-female homosexuality being referred to rests on the fact it says "in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." But the "same way" could refer not to women doing anything with women in the same way as men were doing with men, but instead women participating only in "unnatural" (non-reproductive) sex with men in the same way the men were doing so with each other.

                      I'm not fully convinced of this interpretation myself, but as noted not only is there not apparently any Jewish text that gives any criticism of female-female homosexuality until at least a century after Jesus's life (and even that one, from the Sifra, oddly says nothing of sexual activity, but a criticism of female/female marriage), and any criticism that is found of the actual sexual activity is quite muted compared to that of men.
                      Last edited by Terraceth; 01-20-2019, 02:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        I've wondered about that, honestly. Romans 1:26-27 only says that the women "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" (NASB). These, from my understanding, weren't arbitrary terms; for the Jews, "natural" sex was regular reproductive whereas "unnatural" sex was non-reproductive, such as oral and anal sex. The text never explicitly says the women did anything with each other, it only says that of the men. Any idea of female-female homosexuality being referred to rests on the fact it says "in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." But the "same way" could refer not to women doing anything with women in the same way as men were doing with men, but instead women participating only in "unnatural" (non-reproductive) sex with men in the same way the men were doing so with each other.
                        Really Terraceth?
                        For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                        I think the likewise applies the same gender lust to both mean and women.

                        I'm not fully convinced of this interpretation myself, but as noted not only is there not apparently any Jewish text that gives any criticism of female-female homosexuality until at least a century after Jesus's life (and even that one, from the Sifra, oddly says nothing of sexual activity, but a criticism of female/female marriage), and any criticism that is found of the actual sexual activity is quite muted compared to that of men.
                        BTW, I looked up Yebamoth 76 earlier today, I could not find the passage, perhaps you could quote and link it?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Really Terraceth?
                          For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                          I think the likewise applies the same gender lust to both mean and women.
                          So notice that you are interpreting "likewise" to apply to a specific thing (same gender, versus contrary to nature). But the text actually says that women were acting "contrary to nature" and fails to say specifically how. Only the men have a specific act detailed. You are assuming that the "likewise" maps the "with their own gender" back to the women rather than assuming it merely maps the "contrary to nature" forward to the men, then adding more detail for the men specifying there exact act. Either interpretation is linguistically valid - but you have selected a specific one as "more likely." Note...there is an act of "interpretation" there.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-20-2019, 03:53 PM.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Really Terraceth?
                            For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                            I think the likewise applies the same gender lust to both mean and women.
                            Or it could refer to the giving up of natural (reproductive) relations, as noted. I'm not really sure. It doesn't say the men gave up relations (natural and unnatural) with women, it says they gave up natural relations with women.

                            BTW, I looked up Yebamoth 76 earlier today, I could not find the passage, perhaps you could quote and link it?
                            https://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_76.html

                            "Since R. Huna said: Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest. And even according to R. Eleazar, who stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot, this disqualification ensues only in the case of a man; but when it is that of a woman the action is regarded as mere obscenity."

                            The question at hand is whether women who practice lewdness (I believe a more literal rendition is rub against each other sexually) are thereby counted as harlots (zona) and are forbidden from marrying a priest, as would be the case if they were to have sexual relations with a man. Huna indicates he believes that is the case, whereas Eleazar disagrees, saying that while sexual relations between a man and a woman render them disqualified, but doing so with a woman is "mere obscenity" and doesn't disqualify them from marrying a priest.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Or it could refer to the giving up of natural (reproductive) relations, as noted. I'm not really sure. It doesn't say the men gave up relations (natural and unnatural) with women, it says they gave up natural relations with women.

                              https://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_76.html

                              "Since R. Huna said: Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest. And even according to R. Eleazar, who stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot, this disqualification ensues only in the case of a man; but when it is that of a woman the action is regarded as mere obscenity."

                              The question at hand is whether women who practice lewdness (I believe a more literal rendition is rub against each other sexually) are thereby counted as harlots (zona) and are forbidden from marrying a priest, as would be the case if they were to have sexual relations with a man. Huna indicates he believes that is the case, whereas Eleazar disagrees, saying that while sexual relations between a man and a woman render them disqualified, but doing so with a woman is "mere obscenity" and doesn't disqualify them from marrying a priest.
                              Ok, thanks...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                First - with respect to homosexuality - I have held this moral position since before it was "acceptable" in our society. So I am more someone who contributed to influencing our society than I was influenced BY it. But I don't disagree that we are influenced by our society. Indeed, that is how morality works. We influence one another. But there is a difference between "being influenced by" and "actively seeking to align with." I am influenced by my society. There is no one thing, person, group, or being that I am actively trying to align with.
                                Carp, it was gaining acceptance since the early 70s, heck even my wife and I had no problem with it back then. We have a number of close gay friends, and relatives.

                                I am sorry to have used an example that may have been painful to you, Seer. I think you shared this with me over dinner, but I had forgotten that detail. I believe you mentioned you have a son - so use that person instead - and I will cease making references to your wife. It was not my intention to cause hurt - and I apologize.
                                No problem, me and Sue were somewhat estranged at the time of her death even though we lived in the same two family house.

                                So first - the word "true" in that sentence was not intended to mean "coming to a correct conclusion." It was meant to mean, "actual." I don't think "aligning with the herd" or "aligning with X" is actually "moral reasoning." It's just trying to figure out what someone else thinks so you can "be like them." Moral reasoning should be based in an examination of the issues to arrive at a moral position.
                                But again, how can such reasoning lead to any real ethical understanding since such reasoning can and does lead to opposite moral conclusions? Depending on one's premises or goal they could lead to helping your neighbor or sending him to a Gulag. Since "true moral reasoning" can lead to both how is it useful?

                                As for the texts, Seer, books are written by people. So if I align my morality with Fred, my neighbor, I'm not really reasoning. I'm just trying to figure out what Fred thinks so I can mimic him. If I pick up a book written by Fred at Barnes and Noble and then align to it, I am still aligning to Fred. You happen to have picked an anthology written by a variety of men (as far as I know, no women were involved) who wrote in another culture, time, and place. It doesn't change the basic fact that you're "trying to align to Fred (and his friends). It's not really moral reasoning. It's simply "following the herd," and consciously choosing to do so.
                                Carp, don't you think that Christians have thought through New Testament ethical principles? 95% would be what most morally sane people would agree with. When it comes to the few that you for instance would disagree with, being a Christian and believing the texts are inspired we go with the texts over possible personal objections. After all why would I assume that my moral reasoning is more informed than God's?


                                And yet differences remain, even among those. Indeed, 1 out of 5 people who are very involved with scripture study conclude that homosexuality should be accepted, and 1 out of 3 don't know. Only slightly less than half believe it should be discouraged. Seer - there is a lot of variation in Christianity. Your attempt to use data to show cohesion is not showing cohesion at all. It's showing significant variability.
                                I never claimed perfect cohesion, I claim that those who are more devout and study scripture more LARGELY (by far) fall on my side. That is a fact.



                                It apparently tells you nothing, but it informs me a great deal. I experience moral reasoning. I see others around me engaging in moral reasoning. I see religious people claiming absolutes they cannot show to exist - or even HOW they would exist - and then doing exactly the same things I see the rest of us doing with the same results. I listen to your "arguments" about moral absolutes and you fall into the same pattern I see with all "absolute/objective" moral advocates: you have no argument. Indeed, as I told you way back at the start of our discussion - every "objection" I have ever heard about relative/subjective moral reasoning is one of three basic non-arguments: a continual repetition of definitions; an appeal to outrage; or an appeal to incredulity. None of these is an actual argument. In all of the posts we have exchanged all of these months, you have never escaped these three approaches, so you have never made an actual argument.

                                But it is very clear to me that you actually think you have. You believe that saying, over and over, that "relative/subjective morality is meaningless because it does not provide absolute/objective conclusions," is an actual argument. For all of the reasons I have cited in so many posts - it's not. It IS, however, the common, oft-repeated, seldom questioned mantra of the religious. I hear it all the time. And, like you, the vast majority have no clue that they are not doing anything other than repeating the definition of "relative/subjective." As I have tried to convey many times, it's like objecting, "but blue is not green!" and thinking that you have made the case for why blue is better than green, or more necessary. All you keep doing is reaffirming that relative/subjective is not absolute/objective. We have agreed on that from the outset. What you haven't done is made the case for why the latter is better or necessary.

                                On the other hand, I have shown multiple times that relative/subjective morality actually works, and is how we function individually and within a society. We see relative/subjective morality around us every day and in every society and culture I have ever been exposed to or studied. Even YOU practice it - though you deny it vehemently.
                                But that wasn't my point, being that there is no reason why the world would look any different with universal moral truths. So your experience, our experience, can not even speak to the issue. Neither does your moral reasoning or how we do law. Like I said in the past moral agreement doesn't prove it, moral disagreement doesn't disprove it. That is what I was getting at here.
                                Last edited by seer; 01-21-2019, 07:57 AM.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                82 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                278 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X