Religion and LGBT Issues

[Genivaria]

Ha! Because you say so?
And demanding that you cut ties with family and friends who don't believe as you do IS textbook cult behavior nonetheless.

Welll, morality does become a lot harder to justify without religion, other than "but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy!!"

Religion doesn't make a morality more or less justified, people just have been conditioned to think it does.
In reality religion has no better answer to the problems of morality then any other system.

The only real difference is that secular ethics are based in the real world.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, because that is what I've been told by Atheists. And ultimately it's true.

In Atheism there is ultimately no binding morality. It's all subjective from there.

Oh shit I forgot about the atheist hivemind my bad.
And you're baseless assertions prove nothing.

Again, how can morality be objective without an objective source of it?

[United Marxist Nations]

Welll, morality does become a lot harder to justify without religion, other than "but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy!!"

Religion doesn't make a morality more or less justified, people just have been conditioned to think it does.
In reality religion has no better answer to the problems of morality then any other system.

The only real difference is that secular ethics are based in the real world.

They are based only on opinion.

[Genivaria]

Ha! Because you say so?

Give literally one way in which morality can be objective without God.

Define 'objective'.

[Salus Maior]

And demanding that you cut ties with family and friends who don't believe as you do IS textbook cult behavior nonetheless.

That's only demanded in heretical sects like Jehovah's Witness.

In Catholicism or Orthodoxy or most orthodox Church denominations there is no demand to separate yourself from non-believing family members or friends. You're misunderstanding what Lumi was saying.

[Genivaria]

Religion doesn't make a morality more or less justified, people just have been conditioned to think it does.
In reality religion has no better answer to the problems of morality then any other system.

The only real difference is that secular ethics are based in the real world.

They are based only on opinion.

Yes just like you're own morality is based on opinion, pretty sure we've been over this.

[The East Marches]

Welll, morality does become a lot harder to justify without religion, other than "but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy!!"

Religion doesn't make a morality more or less justified, people just have been conditioned to think it does.
In reality religion has no better answer to the problems of morality then any other system.

The only real difference is that secular ethics are based in the real world.

>Secular ethics based in the real world

I don't think so tim. That opens up another can of worms where the only justification is "because I feel it".

[United Marxist Nations]

Give literally one way in which morality can be objective without God.

Define 'objective'.

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

[Genivaria]

And demanding that you cut ties with family and friends who don't believe as you do IS textbook cult behavior nonetheless.

That's only demanded in heretical sects like Jehovah's Witness.

In Catholicism or Orthodoxy or most orthodox Church denominations there is no demand to separate yourself from non-believing family members or friends. You're misunderstanding what Lumi was saying.

Well and the very early Christian churches before Constantine, but that's not really relevant I think.

[Genivaria]

Religion doesn't make a morality more or less justified, people just have been conditioned to think it does.
In reality religion has no better answer to the problems of morality then any other system.

The only real difference is that secular ethics are based in the real world.

>Secular ethics based in the real world

I don't think so tim. That opens up another can of worms where the only justification is "because I feel it".

What exactly is your objection?

[Lady Scylla]

Define 'objective'.

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So, a rock. A rock is objective.

[The East Marches]

>Secular ethics based in the real world

I don't think so tim. That opens up another can of worms where the only justification is "because I feel it".

What exactly is your objection?

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

[Genivaria]

Define 'objective'.

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Well then yes morality can certainly be objective, science and the scientific method are able to give a firm foundation for morality.

That said I don't know why personal feelings should be discounted as I don't care for society being a collective of sociopaths.

[Genivaria]

What exactly is your objection?

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

Well I didn't say anything about 'feelings' I said that secular morality is actually based in the real world.

If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect

.....what?

[United Marxist Nations]

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So, a rock. A rock is objective.

Perhaps this is why Christ calls the Apostles His rock?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What exactly is your objection?

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

[Genivaria]

So, a rock. A rock is objective.

Perhaps this is why Christ calls the Apostles His rock?

Not the best metaphor if that were the case since rocks don't think and have no morality.

[The East Marches]

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

Well I didn't say anything about 'feelings' I said that secular morality is actually based in the real world.

Secular morality is no more based in the real world than religion. It relies on religious principles such as the golden rule or plain empathy to justify itself.

If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect

.....what?

You missed the point entirely. I'll wait till you can understood the above before explaining the below.

[United Marxist Nations]

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Well then yes morality can certainly be objective, science and the scientific method are able to give a firm foundation for morality.

That said I don't know why personal feelings should be discounted as I don't care for society being a collective of sociopaths.

How so? Since when did science define morality? Were they looking in a telescope, and found some commandments spelled out by a nebula or something?

[Genivaria]

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

Seriously why does the Golden Rule have to be explained all over again so many times?

[Salus Maior]

Well and the very early Christian churches before Constantine, but that's not really relevant I think.

It was actually permissible for Christians to be married to non-Christians if said spouse converted while they were married. Because the Church didn't want to be responsible for divorces.

However, it was advised to single Christians to marry only other Christians if possible. Which makes sense because compatibility and all that.

So no, you're demonstrably wrong. Which isn't surprising.

[Uxupox]

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Well then yes morality can certainly be objective, science and the scientific method are able to give a firm foundation for morality.

That said I don't know why personal feelings should be discounted as I don't care for society being a collective of sociopaths.

Science is morally neutral.

[United Marxist Nations]

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
-definition of "arbitrary"

That kind of morality is absolutely arbitrary.

[The East Marches]

Feelings are just as arbitrary as religion. If you want to go by utility or something else, I'm sure that would involve the marginalization of groups you wish to protect.

"Ow, that hurts! Please don't do it!" doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me.

Sure it does. If hurting you benefits me and has no adverse effect on societal stability, why not?

[Salus Maior]

Seriously why does the Golden Rule have to be explained all over again so many times?

You realize the "Golden Rule" originated in Christianity and Judaism, right?

So you are practicing Christian morality. Albeit a very stripped down version.