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
    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.
    Yes - it has been. But "gaining acceptance" does not make it a widely held view. If you had no problem then - than I would suggest that you, like me, were more influencing society than being influenced by it. Note that does not change the point: there is a difference between mutual influence, and intentionally setting out to align.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No problem, me and Sue were somewhat estranged at the time of her death even though we lived in the same two family house.

    But again, how can such reasoning lead to any real ethical understanding since such reasoning can and does lead to opposite moral conclusions?
    How can two countries or cities have laws that call for opposite things?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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?
    The use lies in how we work collectively to make our morality part of our culture, at various levels. The use lies in how we seek to influence and convince one another, and take society with us along the way. It is essentially the same thing for the Christian - only instead of trying to convince another sect that a concept is moral or immoral because of the following line or argumentation, you are saying, "it's moral because god says so...and the discussion then shifts to how to interpret what "god says."

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Carp, don't you think that Christians have thought through New Testament ethical principles?
    In all honesty, no. Any moral exercise that takes the form of trying to figure out what someone ELSE thinks is moral so you can align to it is not actually moral reasoning. It is no more or less than trying to figure out what the crowd thinks is the best movie - so you can go see it and be able to discuss it. Or what the latest style is, so you can fit in. Of course, in this case, what the theist wants to do is "fit in" with what they think is a god so they can gain its approval and gain eternal reward and avoid eternal punishment. But it's still "morality to fit in." It doesn't question - except to try to "figure out what Fred said." Only Fred wrote 2,000 years ago, we have no extant texts, it was a different language, a different culture, and a vastly different world.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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?
    You have your belief in this god as your starting point, Seer. You seem to forget that I don't believe this being exists. If you are right and it does exist, then I am muddling along as best I can honestly trying to arrive at what is morally right and wrong to guide my life. You, however, have a lock on to the most knowledgeable and rational being in existence. That might give you an edge in arriving at moral statements. If I am right and this being does not exist, then I am muddling along as best I can honestly trying to arrive at what is morally right and wrong to guide my life. You, however, are attempting to align your morality with the moral code of an ancient civilization you are not part of, and whose morality has been "frozen in time" for 2,000 years.

    So - you see me as locking myself away from a source of great wisdom, and I see you as locking yourself to an ancient creed that is relevant in some places, and irrelevant - even harmful - in others. But you will never see that because you are "locked in."

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    Yes - the greatest distribution (almost 50%) is to your way of thinking if the person is scriptural engaged. Now I would like to see the trend-line. That's what it is today. What was it last year? What was it 10 years ago. What was it 100 years ago. I am willing to bet, if that data could be found, we would find what most such data shows: the trend is a shift towards acceptance and encouragement. Alas - I am unable to find such trend lines, so I am assuming based on parallel issues. But I think it's a reasonable bet. Society is becoming increasingly accepting. The next generation is increasingly scratching their heads saying, "you thought what?" Increasingly, they see those who took an anti-homosexual stand as little different to how we see those who have historically taken an anti-black stand.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    I think I was fairly clear that I cannot disprove an existential negative. And despite the fact that proving an existential positive is actually possible, you cannot prove the existence of these absolute/universal codes. You appear to want the world to operate according to principles you cannot even demonstrate exist - and you cannot even frame a coherent argument for why they must exist. Every argument will reduce to the same mantra: relative/subjective moral frameworks cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. You did it again in this post (see above). It is your only argument (outside of outrage and incredulity). I granted that as true pages and months ago. I 100% agree - relative/subjective frameworks cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. That is the very definition of the concept. And when I ask you to show me why that is a problem - you simply repeat the statement.

    So try this, Seer - explain why relative/subjective moral frameworks are not viable without pointing out (again) that they cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. And explain why moral codes are being held to a different standard than legal ones. After all - they share a great deal in common. They are derived by sentient beings. They govern action. They establish a norm. About the only thing they do not share in common is that morality does not specify a consequence, and laws typically do (i.e., if you steal something with X value the punishment is Y.).
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-21-2019, 02:22 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
      Yes - it has been. But "gaining acceptance" does not make it a widely held view. If you had no problem then - than I would suggest that you, like me, were more influencing society than being influenced by it. Note that does not change the point: there is a difference between mutual influence, and intentionally setting out to align.
      The point is you are firmly in the center of the heard on a manner of social issues.



      How can two countries or cities have laws that call for opposite things?
      I said nothing about countries or cities, I said moral reasoning. You have yours, Maoists theirs.



      The use lies in how we work collectively to make our morality part of our culture, at various levels. The use lies in how we seek to influence and convince one another, and take society with us along the way. It is essentially the same thing for the Christian - only instead of trying to convince another sect that a concept is moral or immoral because of the following line or argumentation, you are saying, "it's moral because god says so...and the discussion then shifts to how to interpret what "god says."
      What does that have to do with anything? You are speaking of process, not the fact that moral reasoning can and does lead to opposite conclusions. I'm sure the Maoists were convincing when culling millions of their fellow country men.



      In all honesty, no. Any moral exercise that takes the form of trying to figure out what someone ELSE thinks is moral so you can align to it is not actually moral reasoning. It is no more or less than trying to figure out what the crowd thinks is the best movie - so you can go see it and be able to discuss it. Or what the latest style is, so you can fit in. Of course, in this case, what the theist wants to do is "fit in" with what they think is a god so they can gain its approval and gain eternal reward and avoid eternal punishment. But it's still "morality to fit in." It doesn't question - except to try to "figure out what Fred said." Only Fred wrote 2,000 years ago, we have no extant texts, it was a different language, a different culture, and a vastly different world.
      In all honesty yes, especially if one believes the text is inspired. Age has nothing to with it, especially since we have an excellent understanding of the culture and language of the time. But again, you offer nothing since "true moral reasoning" can and does to things like the Gulag and other opposite conditions. True moral reasoning is a non-starter, it does not nor can not define anything nor can it tell us what is moral or not.


      I think I was fairly clear that I cannot disprove an existential negative. And despite the fact that proving an existential positive is actually possible, you cannot prove the existence of these absolute/universal codes. You appear to want the world to operate according to principles you cannot even demonstrate exist - and you cannot even frame a coherent argument for why they must exist. Every argument will reduce to the same mantra: relative/subjective moral frameworks cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. You did it again in this post (see above). It is your only argument (outside of outrage and incredulity). I granted that as true pages and months ago. I 100% agree - relative/subjective frameworks cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. That is the very definition of the concept. And when I ask you to show me why that is a problem - you simply repeat the statement.

      So try this, Seer - explain why relative/subjective moral frameworks are not viable without pointing out (again) that they cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. And explain why moral codes are being held to a different standard than legal ones. After all - they share a great deal in common. They are derived by sentient beings. They govern action. They establish a norm. About the only thing they do not share in common is that morality does not specify a consequence, and laws typically do (i.e., if you steal something with X value the punishment is Y.).
      So you agree that your experience does not tell us whether universal moral truths exist or not?
      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
        The point is you are firmly in the center of the heard on a manner of social issues.
        Of course I am. And at the fringes on others and completely outside the herd on still others. The question is, how did I get there. If I got to the center of the herd because I was trying to align to the herd, then I am not engaged in actual moral reasoning. If I got to the center of the herd because I came to a moral conclusion and it aligns with a commonly held view - no problem. Indeed, one would hope/expect that most moral views would be widely held in common - which is pretty much what we see. After all - we are all human - we share common social elements - live on the same planet - and use the same basic laws of reasoning. If we also have come to value common things (e.g., liberty, life, happiness, etc.), it stands to reason we will come to similar conclusions.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        I said nothing about countries or cities, I said moral reasoning. You have yours, Maoists theirs.
        I'm aware, Seer. My point is that laws are highly analogous to moral codes, and I don't see you complaining that laws are inconsistent across the world... so (again) I ask, why is your moral reasoning held to a different requirement?

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        What does that have to do with anything?
        From my perspective, it lies at the heart f our disagreement.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        You are speaking of process, not the fact that moral reasoning can and does lead to opposite conclusions. I'm sure the Maoists were convincing when culling millions of their fellow country men.
        I have described the process of moral reasoning - yes. And I have acknowledged that different people in different contexts may come to different moral conclusions. That is the very definition of relative/subjective: that the results may be different in different places, times, and for different people.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        In all honesty yes, especially if one believes the text is inspired.
        A belief you cannot substantiate...

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Age has nothing to with it, especially since we have an excellent understanding of the culture and language of the time.
        I agree - to a point. It really doesn't matter what age/culture you are trying to align to - if all you are trying to do is "fit in" then you are not engaging in actual moral reasoning. You're just trying to align to "what Fred said."

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        But again, you offer nothing since "true moral reasoning" can and does to things like the Gulag and other opposite conditions. True moral reasoning is a non-starter, it does not nor can not define anything nor can it tell us what is moral or not.
        So you have repeated, yet again - and several times now in one post - your one objection: moral relativism/subjectivism does not arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. As I have noted many, many times, and you still do not show any signs of understanding - that is not an argument. You are simply repeating the definition of relative/subjective over and over again, with the implication that you don't think it's a "good thing."

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        So you agree that your experience does not tell us whether universal moral truths exist or not?
        I have answered this multiple times - but I note that you have not responded to my challenge.

        My perception, Seer, is that you have no way to respond. You only have one mantra about this - and it is all you can say about it. You have no way of showing moral relativism/subjectivism is "bad," and you have no way of showing the existence of any moral absolutes. So, I will do what I usually do - and trust my experience. If/when you can demonstrate the existence of a moral absolute, I'll be here waiting. The same is true with if/when you can demonstrate that the being you call god actually exists outside the realm of human thought.

        And I'm guessing that we're probably going to go back to "you are blinded by your unfaith" and "it's like trying to describe color to a blind man." To that I can only ask...so why do you keep talking t me about this?
        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
          I'm aware, Seer. My point is that laws are highly analogous to moral codes, and I don't see you complaining that laws are inconsistent across the world... so (again) I ask, why is your moral reasoning held to a different requirement?
          What do you mean by a different requirement?


          I have described the process of moral reasoning - yes. And I have acknowledged that different people in different contexts may come to different moral conclusions. That is the very definition of relative/subjective: that the results may be different in different places, times, and for different people.
          So how is reasoning that can and does lead to different conclusions valid? What is valid about that process?

          A belief you cannot substantiate...
          Substantiate to whom? You? What does that have to do with anything?

          I agree - to a point. It really doesn't matter what age/culture you are trying to align to - if all you are trying to do is "fit in" then you are not engaging in actual moral reasoning. You're just trying to align to "what Fred said."
          Except, I'm trying to align with God's moral code. Since I believe that I would be foolish not to. But again, you have offered nothing better, you might as well listen to Fred...


          So you have repeated, yet again - and several times now in one post - your one objection: moral relativism/subjectivism does not arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. As I have noted many, many times, and you still do not show any signs of understanding - that is not an argument. You are simply repeating the definition of relative/subjective over and over again, with the implication that you don't think it's a "good thing."
          Carp, that is not my point! I'm asking how a reasoning process (moral reasoning) be a valid process for ethical understanding when the process can and does come to opposite moral conclusions on any give subjective?



          I have answered this multiple times - but I note that you have not responded to my challenge.

          My perception, Seer, is that you have no way to respond. You only have one mantra about this - and it is all you can say about it. You have no way of showing moral relativism/subjectivism is "bad," and you have no way of showing the existence of any moral absolutes. So, I will do what I usually do - and trust my experience. If/when you can demonstrate the existence of a moral absolute, I'll be here waiting. The same is true with if/when you can demonstrate that the being you call god actually exists outside the realm of human thought.

          And I'm guessing that we're probably going to go back to "you are blinded by your unfaith" and "it's like trying to describe color to a blind man." To that I can only ask...so why do you keep talking t me about this?
          You are doing it again Carp, you want me to jump into your worldview then justify my position by your criterion. So I will ask again; do you agree that your experience does not tell us whether universal moral truths exist or not?
          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
            What do you mean by a different requirement?
            You declare relative/subjective moral reasoning "meaningless" because it can sometimes result in differing outcomes for different people in different places. Laws do this all the time, but I have not seen you decry them as "meaningless" and I suspect you follow them for your particular location. So why the difference?

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So how is reasoning that can and does lead to different conclusions valid? What is valid about that process?
            How is legal reasoning valid when it can result in differing codes of law for different places?

            You seem to be avoiding this question, Seer. I've asked it multiple times - and you are simply not responding to it.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Substantiate to whom? You? What does that have to do with anything?
            To anyone, Seer - except those who have already decided that you are right. You cannot demonstrate/substantiate that the very being that is the basis for your moral claims even exists, never mind trying to show that how this being morally reasons is "absolute" and "objective" in a way that is different than how my moral framework is objective to you.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Except, I'm trying to align with God's moral code. Since I believe that I would be foolish not to. But again, you have offered nothing better, you might as well listen to Fred...
            Of course, since you cannot show this god exists, what you are doing is exactly "listening to Fred" if you are wrong about this existence. This has already been discussed, Seer, ad infinitum.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Carp, that is not my point! I'm asking how a reasoning process (moral reasoning) be a valid process for ethical understanding when the process can and does come to opposite moral conclusions on any give subjective?
            It is beyond me, Seer, how you can repeat "that is not my point" and then persist in repeating exactly what I have said is your only non-argument, over and over again. Look at what you just wrote. I have emphasized the key part - to help focus things a bit. What you are saying is: relative/subjective moral reasoning can produce opposite conclusions for different people/places/times. You are suggesting this compromises its "validity" as a process. So your argument is "it's not valid because it produces different outcomes." I have repeatedly pointed to multiple things that are relative/subjective that can produce different outcomes and are NOT treated as meaningless. Not to mention that there is nothing in the definition of "reasoning" that requires absolute/objective outcomes. I've demonstrated that multiple times as well.

            In honesty, Seer, I'm beginning to wonder if you understand your own argument. You don't appear to be addressing any of the questions I have posed. You just keep coming back to the same failed objection - in the form of a question.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            You are doing it again Carp, you want me to jump into your worldview then justify my position by your criterion. So I will ask again; do you agree that your experience does not tell us whether universal moral truths exist or not?
            I'm not asking you to accept any given worldview, Seer. My challenge is a simple one: show that relative/subjective morality is "worse" without simply repeating the definition of the concept (i.e., that it is relative/subjective and can produce differing outcomes). There is no appeal to any particular worldview in that challenge. If you think there is, then you will need to demonstrate how that questions depends on (or presumes) a particular worldview.

            As for your question, I have answered this multiple times already. Repeating it yet again is not going to help if you have not understood my response in the previous posts. So I'll let those responses stand. If you want to do a Sparko/Pix and accuse me of dodging - so be it. My interest is in the discussion. I repeat myself enough as is.
            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

              At no point did I say "we can't know anything." I said all language requires interpretation - responding to your claim that it doesn't.

              I interpret that to mean that Carp agrees completely with seer and I.

              Great. debate over

              Sparko and Seer 1, Carp 0

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                I interpret that to mean that Carp agrees completely with seer and I.

                Great. debate over

                Sparko and Seer 1, Carp 0
                You are welcome to your interpretation, if it makes you feel better.

                I was not aware there was a score card. Someone will have to send me one!
                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
                  You are welcome to your interpretation, if it makes you feel better.

                  I was not aware there was a score card. Someone will have to send me one!
                  Interpretation: Oops I guess I kinda shot myself in the foot on that whole "all language requires interpretation" excuse.

                  You always complain about me "mind reading" you, carp. But now you have not only given me permission, but stated that it is a required function of language. So no more complaining about me mind reading you or saying something you didn't mean. After all it is just my interpretation which is required.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Interpretation: Oops I guess I kinda shot myself in the foot on that whole "all language requires interpretation" excuse.

                    You always complain about me "mind reading" you, carp. But now you have not only given me permission, but stated that it is a required function of language.
                    Umm...no...

                    Yes- language always requires interpretation. That is intrinsic to language. So when you hear the sound associated with the word "chair," your brain interprets that sound and recognizes it as a verbal representation of an actual chair. Your brain does the same thing when you read it as a word. But when you see the word "sedia," unless you speak italian, your brain lacks any frame of reference for the translation - so you come up empty. Some words you interpret by context, so the sentence "I need a good belt," could mean I need something to hold up my pants, I need a drink, or I need someone to hit me. Language is ALWAYS interpreted.

                    "Reading someones mind" occurs when someone interprets something someone said, is told they did not interpret it the way the speaker intended it, and continue to insist that they know better than the person who uttered the phrase. So it occurs when someone insists on their own interpretation instead of listening to what the other person is actually trying to convey.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    So no more complaining about me mind reading you or saying something you didn't mean. After all it is just my interpretation which is required.
                    Yes - interpretation is always required - and when your interpretation is not aligning with the message I am attempting to convey - I will continue to let you know. If you decide your interpretation takes precedence over my intended message...communication will be difficult...
                    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
                      Umm...no...

                      Yes- language always requires interpretation. That is intrinsic to language. So when you hear the sound associated with the word "chair," your brain interprets that sound and recognizes it as a verbal representation of an actual chair. Your brain does the same thing when you read it as a word. But when you see the word "sedia," unless you speak italian, your brain lacks any frame of reference for the translation - so you come up empty. Some words you interpret by context, so the sentence "I need a good belt," could mean I need something to hold up my pants, I need a drink, or I need someone to hit me. Language is ALWAYS interpreted.

                      "Reading someones mind" occurs when someone interprets something someone said, is told they did not interpret it the way the speaker intended it, and continue to insist that they know better than the person who uttered the phrase. So it occurs when someone insists on their own interpretation instead of listening to what the other person is actually trying to convey.



                      Yes - interpretation is always required - and when your interpretation is not aligning with the message I am attempting to convey - I will continue to let you know. If you decide your interpretation takes precedence over my intended message...communication will be difficult...

                      So basically it should be fairly clear what someone is saying and I can't just interpret it to mean the complete opposite after all?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        So basically it should be fairly clear what someone is saying and I can't just interpret it to mean the complete opposite after all?
                        Basically - when you check your interpretation against a speaker, if the speaker says "you did not interpret my message correctly," the listener should defer to the speaker. If they do not, then they are engaging in what I call "mind reading," preferring their own interpretation to what the speaker intended.

                        The difficulty with the written word, when we have no access to the author, is there is no clean way to check that interpretation. So we have to look for other similar writings by that author, we have to look at the culture, we have to look at what others said about that author, and we then make our best guess. In that process, it is possible for different people to come to different conclusions. The lack of access to the originator of the idea makes that a "best guess" effort. That is true for ALL of history. "What" happened may be easy or hard to arrive at. "Why" it happened is much more difficult.
                        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
                          Basically - when you check your interpretation against a speaker, if the speaker says "you did not interpret my message correctly," the listener should defer to the speaker. If they do not, then they are engaging in what I call "mind reading," preferring their own interpretation to what the speaker intended.

                          The difficulty with the written word, when we have no access to the author, is there is no clean way to check that interpretation. So we have to look for other similar writings by that author, we have to look at the culture, we have to look at what others said about that author, and we then make our best guess. In that process, it is possible for different people to come to different conclusions. The lack of access to the originator of the idea makes that a "best guess" effort. That is true for ALL of history. "What" happened may be easy or hard to arrive at. "Why" it happened is much more difficult.
                          That's not true carp. written words have been understood for pretty much all of written history. Sure there can be some problem passages here and there, but for the most part, people are pretty clear what they mean. It is usually only when someone wants to reject something someone says that they start trying to come up with alternate interpretations to justify reading their own views in to a text. That is the case with homosexuality in the bible. It has been clearly understood for thousands of years that the bible calls homosexual behavior a sin in the bible. Only recently, when homosexuality has become an accepted part of society has anyone tried to reinterpret the bible to claim that "well, that isn't what the bible says at all" and they try to shoehorn in excuses like, they were only talking about "temple prostitution" or some other nonsense.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            That's not true carp. written words have been understood for pretty much all of written history. Sure there can be some problem passages here and there, but for the most part, people are pretty clear what they mean. It is usually only when someone wants to reject something someone says that they start trying to come up with alternate interpretations to justify reading their own views in to a text.
                            Your response ignores the fact that languages continually evolve, and new languages form and old languages become obsolete. In translation from one language to another, translators have to choose from among synonyms. Some languages lack words that are present in other languages. Then there are the colloquialisms. You are attempting to turn a fairly complex thing into a simple thing - and it simply doesn't work. If it did, there wouldn't be vast volumes written about the nuances of language throughout the bible.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            That is the case with homosexuality in the bible. It has been clearly understood for thousands of years that the bible calls homosexual behavior a sin in the bible. Only recently, when homosexuality has become an accepted part of society has anyone tried to reinterpret the bible to claim that "well, that isn't what the bible says at all" and they try to shoehorn in excuses like, they were only talking about "temple prostitution" or some other nonsense.
                            I actually have never said that the bible doesn't call homosexuality a sin. I have noted that there are many views about homosexuality within the Christian community, even among evangelicals. Most turn to the bible to support their position. The literalists point to Paul's word and insist on a literal interpretation. The more liberal communities point to the fact that there is no record of Jesus himself saying anything about homosexuality being a sin, and this appears to be a concept added by Paul later in the history of the early church. They point to the accepting tone of Jesus' ministry as their defense and reject a literalist position.

                            I take no sides on the issue whatsoever - because I am no longer Christian and I do not base my morality on the writings of the bible. I merely note that all sides in the dispute insist "they are right."
                            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
                              Your response ignores the fact that languages continually evolve, and new languages form and old languages become obsolete. In translation from one language to another, translators have to choose from among synonyms. Some languages lack words that are present in other languages. Then there are the colloquialisms. You are attempting to turn a fairly complex thing into a simple thing - and it simply doesn't work. If it did, there wouldn't be vast volumes written about the nuances of language throughout the bible.



                              I actually have never said that the bible doesn't call homosexuality a sin. I have noted that there are many views about homosexuality within the Christian community, even among evangelicals. Most turn to the bible to support their position. The literalists point to Paul's word and insist on a literal interpretation. The more liberal communities point to the fact that there is no record of Jesus himself saying anything about homosexuality being a sin, and this appears to be a concept added by Paul later in the history of the early church. They point to the accepting tone of Jesus' ministry as their defense and reject a literalist position.

                              I take no sides on the issue whatsoever - because I am no longer Christian and I do not base my morality on the writings of the bible. I merely note that all sides in the dispute insist "they are right."
                              You have been arguing with seer for pages about this, carp. so don't use the "I take no sides" canard. You clearly do. Seer is correct. the bible is clear on the topic of homosexuality being a sin. The Church has agreed on it for 2000 years. There are a LOT of writings about it along those 2000 years, showing that people have all "interpreted" it the same way. Now all of a sudden 2,000 years later, some liberal Christians decide that is not what the bible really means. Which do you suppose has the correct interpretation at that point? Who has the agenda to change what scripture says in order to fit their lifestyle?

                              It is not hard to figure out what the authors meant in the bible on this issue or other moral teachings. They are very clear. So your attempt to make things fuzzy and unclear and "open to interpretation" is nothing but a tactic to allow you to dismiss the moral teachings of the bible as irrelevant or unclear so you can dismiss my initial claim that the only way we are going to fix this society is with Jesus.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                You have been arguing with seer for pages about this, carp. so don't use the "I take no sides" canard. You clearly do.
                                You and Seer are aligned in your misunderstanding on this point. So I will repeat: my position from the outset is that there are differing positions within Christianity on these issues, and each "side" believes it is "right." I have absolutely no position on which side is actually right. If you think I do - then you have incorrectly "read my mind." You can either accept my word for it, or not. It's up to you.

                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Seer is correct. the bible is clear on the topic of homosexuality being a sin. The Church has agreed on it for 2000 years. There are a LOT of writings about it along those 2000 years, showing that people have all "interpreted" it the same way. Now all of a sudden 2,000 years later, some liberal Christians decide that is not what the bible really means. Which do you suppose has the correct interpretation at that point? Who has the agenda to change what scripture says in order to fit their lifestyle?
                                I take no position on "which has the correct interpretation." My position is merely that there are different views and each claims to be the correct one. I will note, however, that "correctness" is not necessarily a function of "which view has been held for the longest." History is not a "fixed thing" and "revisionist history" is not a bad thing. Indeed, any historian worth their salt will tell you that our understanding of history SHOULD change as we uncover more and more information. A static history is closed to new discoveries.

                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                It is not hard to figure out what the authors meant in the bible on this issue or other moral teachings. They are very clear. So your attempt to make things fuzzy and unclear and "open to interpretation" is nothing but a tactic to allow you to dismiss the moral teachings of the bible as irrelevant or unclear so you can dismiss my initial claim that the only way we are going to fix this society is with Jesus.
                                I don't need to "dismiss the moral teachings of the bible as irrelevant" on the basis of being "fuzzy" Sparko. I place the moral teachings of the bible on thw same plane as I place the moral teachings of any group, culture, time, or area: it is fodder for consideration as I engage in my own moral reasoning. It is not a "script" to which I am trying to align. As a consequence, it's "original meaning" or "what the authors thought" is no more or less informative to me that what you think, or what my Mother thinks, or what my neighbor thinks, or what anyone else thinks. Unlike you and Seer - it is not the basis for my moral decision-making. Ergo I do not need to defend or refute it.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                243 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X