LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Senkaku]

good lord some people are truly illiterate

that's what Nap and I were just chattin about, maybe y'all should keep up a bit better~

Are you referring to the mentionings of stoning. Now I'm no theologian (in fact my knowledge is quite limited), but I'm fairly certain those were discarded after the rules within the Old Testement became what I'd consider to be an optional add-on.

ah so the new thing that fits what you're comfortable with and what society is more comfortable with is now the thing we should follow, and the old thing that originally laid down the rules is optional

and you're arguing against relativism

nice

[United Muscovite Nations]

Your post is contradictory. You argue that it's old and that society is changed and ergo this moral code no longer applies because it applies to a past society and not our own then go on to say that it's not just about "after this many years we have to rewrite our moral code". You clearly believe that after a certain passage of time moral codes need to change simply because of the passage of time.

Again, I wish you would learn to read

if society were static and unchanging in its structure and technology and development just stayed the same for a thousand years, there'd be no need to rewrite the moral code. it does not do so.

It's morality that should guide society, not the other way around.

[Dylar]

Again, I wish you would learn to read

if society were static and unchanging in its structure and technology and development just stayed the same for a thousand years, there'd be no need to rewrite the moral code. it does not do so.

It's morality that should guide society, not the other way around.

You sure both of them don't need to be guiding each other?

[Sanctissima]

Are you referring to the mentionings of stoning. Now I'm no theologian (in fact my knowledge is quite limited), but I'm fairly certain those were discarded after the rules within the Old Testement became what I'd consider to be an optional add-on.

ah so the new thing that fits what you're comfortable with and what society is more comfortable with is now the thing we should follow, and the old thing that originally laid down the rules is optional

and you're arguing against relativism

nice

Didn't you just say that it's perfectly okay for morals to change with time?

[Napkiraly]

Your post is contradictory. You argue that it's old and that society is changed and ergo this moral code no longer applies because it applies to a past society and not our own then go on to say that it's not just about "after this many years we have to rewrite our moral code". You clearly believe that after a certain passage of time moral codes need to change simply because of the passage of time.

Again, I wish you would learn to read

if society were static and unchanging in its structure and technology and development just stayed the same for a thousand years, there'd be no need to rewrite the moral code. it does not do so.

Changing structures in society leading to moral changes is just a part of why moral codes need to be looked at and argued about. After all, much of Christian morality remained after feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism arose. You also have Christian socialism which could keep a lot of the same moral codes and convictions, depending on how it developed if it were to be implemented. But it's a much firmer foundation to an argument than simply going "it's old". I would still ask that you cease with the personal attacks, especially when none have been levied against you.

[Senkaku]

ah so the new thing that fits what you're comfortable with and what society is more comfortable with is now the thing we should follow, and the old thing that originally laid down the rules is optional

and you're arguing against relativism

nice

Didn't you just say that it's perfectly okay for morals to change with time?

Yes. Felrik was contesting this, and then started saying relativist stuff, which I'm trying to point out...

Again, I wish you would learn to read

if society were static and unchanging in its structure and technology and development just stayed the same for a thousand years, there'd be no need to rewrite the moral code. it does not do so.

It's morality that should guide society, not the other way around.

Morality can't really guide where technological change takes us, since it necessarily engenders societal upheaval.

[Senkaku]

Again, I wish you would learn to read

if society were static and unchanging in its structure and technology and development just stayed the same for a thousand years, there'd be no need to rewrite the moral code. it does not do so.

Changing structures in society leading to moral changes is just a part of why moral codes need to be looked at and argued about. After all, much of Christian morality remained after feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism arose. You also have Christian socialism which could keep a lot of the same moral codes and convictions, depending on how it developed if it were to be implemented. But it's a much firmer foundation to an argument than simply going "it's old".

Precisely what was being said this whole time, as I've now had to repeatedly reiterate to you...

[Sanctissima]

Didn't you just say that it's perfectly okay for morals to change with time?

Yes. Felrik was contesting this, and then started saying relativist stuff, which I'm trying to point out...

I understand, but it's rather inconsistent to applaud moral relativism and then claim it's bad when Christianity does it.

[Napkiraly]

Funny since they where the older rules and it is the entirety of the new testament that is the add on.

Older rules can be replaced with new ones, although I'm sure there's a lot more to this particular situation than just a switching of rules.

Or new ones replaced by old ones. After all, the Renaissance was in many ways a reactionary movement.

[Napkiraly]

Changing structures in society leading to moral changes is just a part of why moral codes need to be looked at and argued about. After all, much of Christian morality remained after feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism arose. You also have Christian socialism which could keep a lot of the same moral codes and convictions, depending on how it developed if it were to be implemented. But it's a much firmer foundation to an argument than simply going "it's old".

Precisely what was being said this whole time, as I've now had to repeatedly reiterate to you...

No you haven't really, and especially not Vass. You have not discussed the current structure of society and why this necessitates a change, at least on this particular matter. Or even necessarily why this change is good.

[Neutraligon]

Funny since they where the older rules and it is the entirety of the new testament that is the add on.

Older rules can be replaced with new ones, although I'm sure there's a lot more to this particular situation than just a switching of rules.

Hence relativism.

[Senkaku]

Yes. Felrik was contesting this, and then started saying relativist stuff, which I'm trying to point out...

I understand, but it's rather inconsistent to applaud moral relativism and then claim it's bad when Christianity does it.

I wasn't doing so. I was stating that it's silly for Felrik to say it's bad but be fine with it when Christianity does it. Please keep up.

Precisely what was being said this whole time, as I've now had to repeatedly reiterate to you...

No you haven't really, and especially not Vass. You have not discussed the current structure of society and why this necessitates a change, at least on this particular matter. Or even necessarily why this change is good.

I've now repeatedly said that societal change is more important than an arbitrary number of years, but you seem unwilling to read the parts of my posts that derail your misguided semantic crusade, so I think we're done.

[Sanctissima]

Older rules can be replaced with new ones, although I'm sure there's a lot more to this particular situation than just a switching of rules.

Hence relativism.

In terms of morals being subject to change and varying with the observer, yes, but that's really just a mundane interpretation of moral relativism. Few disagree with it on those grounds.

The problem is that some things can be considered objectively good or bad, even if a group of people might not see it that way. For example, Aztec human sacrifices can be objectively considered a morally bad thing, even if the Aztec priests carving out the hearts of their living victims probably thought otherwise.

[Napkiraly]

No you haven't really, and especially not Vass. You have not discussed the current structure of society and why this necessitates a change, at least on this particular matter. Or even necessarily why this change is good.

I've now repeatedly said that societal change is more important than an arbitrary number of years, but you seem unwilling to read the parts of my posts that derail your misguided semantic crusade, so I think we're done.

No, you've merely stated that it's old and no longer applies to our modern society. That's it. And it's not a semantic "campaign" to disagree with what you consider a faulty foundation for an argument.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Older rules can be replaced with new ones, although I'm sure there's a lot more to this particular situation than just a switching of rules.

Hence relativism.

Yeah, in hindsight, this hasn't been one of my best arguments. Brb gonna go neck myself.

[Sanctissima]

I understand, but it's rather inconsistent to applaud moral relativism and then claim it's bad when Christianity does it.

I wasn't doing so. I was stating that it's silly for Felrik to say it's bad but be fine with it when Christianity does it. Please keep up.

Mea culpa.

[Neutraligon]

Hence relativism.

In terms of morals being subject to change and varying with the observer, yes, but that's really just a mundane interpretation of moral relativism. Few disagree with it on those grounds.

Where gods rules to the Israelites before the new testament good or bad? Given that serious changes where made, some in direct contradiction to those in the old testament if they where good then then why are the ones in the New Testament also good according to Christians?

[Dylar]

[Statement rescinded]

[Neutraligon]

I've now repeatedly said that societal change is more important than an arbitrary number of years, but you seem unwilling to read the parts of my posts that derail your misguided semantic crusade, so I think we're done.

No, you've merely stated that it's old and no longer applies to our modern society. That's it. And it's not a semantic "campaign" to disagree with what you consider a faulty foundation for an argument.

No, it's old, and society has changed in the intervening time. We don't still live in 1st-century Judea. It's not just "well after this many years we have to rewrite our moral code."

[Neutraligon]

Morality can't really guide where technological change takes us, since it necessarily engenders societal upheaval.

Actually, it can. We have the technology to clone humans either to be expendable super soldiers for our armed forces, or expendable workers in hazardous environments. Yet, we haven't done it. Instead the only things we've cloned have been plants and livestock. Why is that?

Umm, we don't have that technology, not yet at least.

[Napkiraly]

In terms of morals being subject to change and varying with the observer, yes, but that's really just a mundane interpretation of moral relativism. Few disagree with it on those grounds.

Where gods rules to the Israelites before the new testament good or bad? Given that serious changes where made, some in direct contradiction to those in the old testament if they where good then then why are the ones in the New Testament also good according to Christians?

Depends on the laws in question and the branch of Christianity. For example, Thomas Aquinas, iirc, argued that moral laws were permanent while ceremonial and judicial ones changed with the New Covenant.

[Sanctissima]

In terms of morals being subject to change and varying with the observer, yes, but that's really just a mundane interpretation of moral relativism. Few disagree with it on those grounds.

Where gods rules to the Israelites before the new testament good or bad? Given that serious changes where made, some in direct contradiction to those in the old testament if they where good then then why are the ones in the New Testament also good according to Christians?

Many of them were objectively good.

For example, some of the dietary restrictions, like the ban on shellfish, probably helped the fledgling early Israelite kingdom's population to grow free of the possibility of lethal allergic reactions to shellfish. Might be a minor advantage, but still an advantage nonetheless.

Morals may be subjective, but often they are established for very objective reasons.

[Dylar]

Actually, it can. We have the technology to clone humans either to be expendable super soldiers for our armed forces, or expendable workers in hazardous environments. Yet, we haven't done it. Instead the only things we've cloned have been plants and livestock. Why is that?

Umm, we don't have that technology, not yet at least.

Wait, we don't? Hang on...Fuck nevermind, I rescind that statement...I'mma just sleep now and pretend this never happened...

[Neutraligon]

Where gods rules to the Israelites before the new testament good or bad? Given that serious changes where made, some in direct contradiction to those in the old testament if they where good then then why are the ones in the New Testament also good according to Christians?

Depends on the laws in question and the branch of Christianity. For example, Thomas Aquinas, iirc, argued that moral laws were permanent while ceremonial and judicial ones changed with the New Covenant.

A distinction that likely did not exist when the Old Testament was created. At that time they where all simply laws ordered by god (meaning of course they where all moral...right)?

[Senkaku]

Morality can't really guide where technological change takes us, since it necessarily engenders societal upheaval.

Actually, it can. We have the technology to clone humans either to be expendable super soldiers for our armed forces, or expendable workers in hazardous environments. Yet, we haven't done it. Instead the only things we've cloned have been plants and livestock. Why is that?

We have neither such technologies. Once we do, if there's a niche for them (which there may simply not be- I'd posit that's more likely than everyone holding off because it might be morally wrong), then I'm sure some entities will procure them regardless of the ethical implications, and once they become a fact on the ground, society will have to confront how we want to handle them.