Religion and LGBT Issues

[Alvecia]

I'd say that something in their life has caused them to develop such an attitude. Such things can happen.

What makes them incorrect, though?

Their contrary attitude to their nature.

I think I see the issue here. I am speaking from an anthropocentric point of view.

[Seperates]

That I would. Thank you.

No problem.

The game is considered one of the best Strategy games ever made is even with expansions it's like 5 bucks on GOG.

Downloading now. It's on sale for $2.39.

[United Marxist Nations]

What makes them incorrect, though?

Their contrary attitude to their nature.

I think I see the issue here. I am speaking from an anthropocentric point of view.

Yes. Is morality a human creation, or is it cosmic. If the former, then anything is justifiable.

[Menassa]

No, you see it doesn't, as you said the necessity was about the maintenance of society, if society is not at stake then there should be no qualms with harm.

Conversely, if society was at stake, there should be no qualms with the amount of harm to be done.

The very existence of the attitude and it's potential to spread threatens society.

I would counter the opposite, those who are not willing to do everything to defend society (including, let's say, genocide) are what threaten society.

I would also claim that if you harm a single person, society at large is rarely affected.

[Alvecia]

You claim to know the mind of God? Rather bold of you.

Say he did. Say he changed his mind, or there was a mistake in the scripture or whatever. Racism's the way to go now. Racial tolerance is a sin. Do you obey? He's the creator and you're the creation, after all. You wouldn't want to make him conform to his creation, with its arbitrary definitions of right and wrong.

I would say the arrogance lies more on your side of the conversation at this point.

If God, the Creator of everything, Omnipotent and Omniscient, literally appeared in the Heavens and said anything, I think it'd be rather stupid to not go along with it and instead rely on your own limited view of everything.

Again, such a thing would not happen with God, regardless of the Abrahamic interpretation of Him, considering that throughout all understandings of Him, He's been trying to get across the whole "love thy neighbor" "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you", and condemning hatred as a horrible sin. If a God-like figure appeared and started saying things like that irl, I would assume him to be the Anti-Christ, and obviously not the genuine article.

Nevermind that this whole argumentative schtick you've got here is a tired attempt at poking holes in religious morality while at the same time having a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

I've long since come to the conclusion that God is not worthy of the love or worship granted to him. People deserve better. If he appeared and started spouting off this and that, I'd weigh the merits of his arguments, not his person.

[Alvecia]

Their contrary attitude to their nature.

I think I see the issue here. I am speaking from an anthropocentric point of view.

Yes. Is morality a human creation, or is it cosmic. If the former, then anything is justifiable.

That attitude is only really relevant for anything outside of humanity though. Since we are all (I assume ) human, using an non anthropocentric point of view on matters of morality is pointless.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Do you have no cutoff point? If God said stoning rape victims was back on the table, would you then believe that was right and just? Would you advocate for the law to mandate death for rape victims?

Of course.

...okay. I don't actually have a response to this.

[Menassa]

Of course.

...okay. I don't actually have a response to this.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[Menassa]

I would say the arrogance lies more on your side of the conversation at this point.

If God, the Creator of everything, Omnipotent and Omniscient, literally appeared in the Heavens and said anything, I think it'd be rather stupid to not go along with it and instead rely on your own limited view of everything.

Again, such a thing would not happen with God, regardless of the Abrahamic interpretation of Him, considering that throughout all understandings of Him, He's been trying to get across the whole "love thy neighbor" "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you", and condemning hatred as a horrible sin. If a God-like figure appeared and started saying things like that irl, I would assume him to be the Anti-Christ, and obviously not the genuine article.

Nevermind that this whole argumentative schtick you've got here is a tired attempt at poking holes in religious morality while at the same time having a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

I've long since come to the conclusion that God is not worthy of the love or worship granted to him. People deserve better. If he appeared and started spouting off this and that, I'd weigh the merits of his arguments, not his person.

This triggers me

[Alvecia]

The very existence of the attitude and it's potential to spread threatens society.

I would counter the opposite, those who are not willing to do everything to defend society (including, let's say, genocide) are what threaten society.

I would also claim that if you harm a single person, society at large is rarely affected.

I'm not so sure. I think genocide can only ever do more harm to society than what it prevents.
You're also only thinking small scale.
Take vaccines for example. Only one person getting a vaccine isn't likely to affect disease much, so by your logic, there's no point in vaccines.
Conversely, one person not geting vaccinated isn't likely to harm society much, but their ideas, should they spread, very much could. Re: Orlando Measles outbreak.

[Alvecia]

I've long since come to the conclusion that God is not worthy of the love or worship granted to him. People deserve better. If he appeared and started spouting off this and that, I'd weigh the merits of his arguments, not his person.

This triggers me

Why?

[Menassa]

This triggers me

Why?

God's not a person.

I would counter the opposite, those who are not willing to do everything to defend society (including, let's say, genocide) are what threaten society.

I would also claim that if you harm a single person, society at large is rarely affected.

I'm not so sure. I think genocide can only ever do more harm to society than what it prevents.

Just because you can't find a counterexample, does not invalidate my argument

You're also only thinking small scale.
Take vaccines for example. Only one person getting a vaccine isn't likely to affect disease much, so by your logic, there's no point in vaccines.
Conversely, one person not geting vaccinated isn't likely to harm society much, but their ideas, should they spread, very much could. Re: Orlando Measles outbreak.

I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm talking about morality. If the preservation of society is what defines morality, then me murdering one person is totally acceptable.

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course.

...okay. I don't actually have a response to this.

I don't know why you wouldn't. God creates purpose. To do what He desires is the only reason we, and the universe as a whole, exist. If we do not do that, then we are bad at existing.

[Salus Maior]

Probably because that's the only one to exist for most of time?

Not really. Oral communication has been around for longer. Hell Plato even has a Socratic dialog in which Socrates laments that everything has been shifting to writing and that writing is the inferior form of communication. Even the Ancient Greeks had their grumpy old people who don't like technology.

Oral tradition is part of it.

But with the most important stuff that you definitely don't want people to get wrong somehow, you write it down.

[Seperates]

Their contrary attitude to their nature.

I think I see the issue here. I am speaking from an anthropocentric point of view.

Yes. Is morality a human creation, or is it cosmic. If the former, then anything is justifiable.

Correct. Anything is theoretically justifiable, given that religions have the tendency towards atrocities as much as states do (though states seem to have a knack for industrializing the process) because we can justify anything. Which is why it is all the more impressive that we somehow stay relatively cohesive and don't kill each other all the time. Simple culture contract morality. However, issues occur when these contracts impose different standards on one another, and that is where things become tricky and justifications... such as 'my dad is better, older and wiser than your dad so his rules should go' come in. Mind you, there is also the 'I have a bigger stick so there' justification...

But who's in the right? Who's in the wrong? Who's to say? I don't know, so I'm just going to try to hide in my corner and not bother anyone.

[Alvecia]

Why?

God's not a person.

I was more trying to get across that I wouldn't accept his word for anything just because he's god, I'd consider what he had to say.

I'm not so sure. I think genocide can only ever do more harm to society than what it prevents.

Just because you can't find a counterexample, does not invalidate my argument

erm...what example am I supposed to be countering?

You're also only thinking small scale.
Take vaccines for example. Only one person getting a vaccine isn't likely to affect disease much, so by your logic, there's no point in vaccines.
Conversely, one person not geting vaccinated isn't likely to harm society much, but their ideas, should they spread, very much could. Re: Orlando Measles outbreak.

I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm talking about morality. If the preservation of society is what defines morality, then me murdering one person is totally acceptable.

It was an analogy, you know what analogies are, right?
I think you're lacking in nuance. This "murder" you keep mentioning could be good or bad depending on the circumstances.
Self defense, for example, That's fine. You're preventing harm by doing it. It's unfortunate, but ultimately necessary.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

...okay. I don't actually have a response to this.

I don't know why you wouldn't. God creates purpose. To do what He desires is the only reason we, and the universe as a whole, exist. If we do not do that, then we are bad at existing.

Uh, no. Dead people are bad at existing.

[Seperates]

...okay. I don't actually have a response to this.

I don't know why you wouldn't. God creates purpose. To do what He desires is the only reason we, and the universe as a whole, exist. If we do not do that, then we are bad at existing.

I prefer existentially challenged.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't know why you wouldn't. God creates purpose. To do what He desires is the only reason we, and the universe as a whole, exist. If we do not do that, then we are bad at existing.

Uh, no. Dead people are bad at existing.

How are you good at being human if you are doing things that contradict what it means to be human and to exist?

[Alvecia]

Not really. Oral communication has been around for longer. Hell Plato even has a Socratic dialog in which Socrates laments that everything has been shifting to writing and that writing is the inferior form of communication. Even the Ancient Greeks had their grumpy old people who don't like technology.

Oral tradition is part of it.

But with the most important stuff that you definitely don't want people to get wrong somehow, you write it down.

That's still really easy to get wrong. Translations, mistranslations and interpretations are all still issues with the written word.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I don't know why you wouldn't. God creates purpose. To do what He desires is the only reason we, and the universe as a whole, exist. If we do not do that, then we are bad at existing.

Uh, no. Dead people are bad at existing.

Dead people are very good at existing. They're not very good at pretty much anything else, but they're very good at existing.

[Seperates]

Not really. Oral communication has been around for longer. Hell Plato even has a Socratic dialog in which Socrates laments that everything has been shifting to writing and that writing is the inferior form of communication. Even the Ancient Greeks had their grumpy old people who don't like technology.

Oral tradition is part of it.

But with the most important stuff that you definitely don't want people to get wrong somehow, you write it down.

You do realize you can misinterpret stuff that is read, right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Uh, no. Dead people are bad at existing.

How are you good at being human if you are doing things that contradict what it means to be human and to exist?

I like to think I'm pretty good at being human and I don't bother with the whole deity thing.

[Menassa]

I'm not so sure. I think genocide can only ever do more harm to society than what it prevents.

Just because you can't find a counterexample, does not invalidate my argument

erm...what example am I supposed to be countering?[/quote]
If something bad would be good for society, then doing that bad thing.

I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm talking about morality. If the preservation of society is what defines morality, then me murdering one person is totally acceptable.

It was an analogy, you know what analogies are, right?
I think you're lacking in nuance. This "murder" you keep mentioning could be good or bad depending on the circumstances.
Self defense, for example, That's fine. You're preventing harm by doing it. It's unfortunate, but ultimately necessary.

No, I used the word murder to convey murder, I could have said kill. You still haven't responded to my point, which leads me to believe that the only possible choice for morality is an Abrahamic God.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No problem.

The game is considered one of the best Strategy games ever made is even with expansions it's like 5 bucks on GOG.

Downloading now. It's on sale for $2.39.

Noice. Have fun!