Religion and LGBT Issues

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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 don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

[Alvecia]

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

If something bad would be good for society, then doing that bad thing.

Well now we're running into the whole definition problem, because as I see it, something that is bad cannot be good for society.

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.

No, you're still lacking in nuance.
Murder who? Why? What did they do? What could they do? Are there any other possible alternatives?
In the end, it depends.

What was your overarching point? Perhaps we got so bogged down in the details, I missed it.

[Seperates]

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?

But I am a dog.

Woof.

[Menassa]

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

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

[United Marxist Nations]

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

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

God actually created us to do something. If we aren't doing that thing, then we aren't good at what we exist for. Hence, we are bad at existing. This is why sin exists, because we are bad at being human.

[Menassa]

If something bad would be good for society, then doing that bad thing.

Well now we're running into the whole definition problem, because as I see it, something that is bad cannot be good for society.

You're not society, you can't determine that.

[Alvecia]

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Not the best example given pots can't decide for themselves.

[Seperates]

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

Noice. Have fun!

I figure something productive needs to come out of this.

Thanks a million!

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Pots are inanimate objects, it's not a good analogy.

A better one would be, does a father or mother get to decide the purpose of their child? We would certainly not agree so, because after a period of growth, the child is free to make their own medical and legal decisions.

[Menassa]

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Not the best example given pots can't decide for themselves.

So you believe in Human Free Will?

[Alvecia]

Well now we're running into the whole definition problem, because as I see it, something that is bad cannot be good for society.

You're not society, you can't determine that.

I am society. So are you. We determine what we do. You obviously have completely different opinions. The best either of us can do is try to convince the other.

[Menassa]

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

[...]
A better one would be, does a father or mother get to decide the purpose of their child? We would certainly not agree so, because after a period of growth, the child is free to make their own medical and legal decisions.

Does God hinder those who have decided not along his purposes?

[Seperates]

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

A human pottery maker? No. There is an intended use... and then there is the actual user experience and use.

An omnipotent pottery maker? I dunno. Can't comprehend it.

[Menassa]

You're not society, you can't determine that.

I am society. So are you. We determine what we do. You obviously have completely different opinions. The best either of us can do is try to convince the other.

You are a piece of society, our deaths would not affect the societal machine.

[Alvecia]

Not the best example given pots can't decide for themselves.

So you believe in Human Free Will?

I believe in sentience, and that those with the ability to do so should make their own decisions. The whole free will/determinism is something I'm still undecided on, but it's completely apart from God and more down to physical things rather than metaphysical.

[Alvecia]

I am society. So are you. We determine what we do. You obviously have completely different opinions. The best either of us can do is try to convince the other.

You are a piece of society, our deaths would not affect the societal machine.

Not on our own, but many of us would.
This is the whole "one of many" thing that I was getting at earlier that I think you missed.
This is why I used the vaccination analogy.

[Menassa]

You are a piece of society, our deaths would not affect the societal machine.

Not on our own, but many of us would.
This is the whole "one of many" thing that I was getting at earlier that I think you missed.
This is why I used the vaccination analogy.

And then there is nothing that is wrong with the one harming another one as long as it does not affect the many.

[Alvecia]

Not on our own, but many of us would.
This is the whole "one of many" thing that I was getting at earlier that I think you missed.
This is why I used the vaccination analogy.

And then there is nothing that is wrong with the one harming another one as long as it does not affect the many.

Nope. AS I said earlier, the existence of such an attitude is a threat in and of itself.

[Seperates]

You're not society, you can't determine that.

I am society. So are you. We determine what we do. You obviously have completely different opinions. The best either of us can do is try to convince the other.

I disagree. The best we can do is ignore each other. That is a strategy that has worked for more millennia than thousands of hours of discussion ever have. And it is so easy too!

Or is it boring...

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I don't particularly care what God thinks the purpose of being human is. He doesn't get to decide that any more than a parent gets to decide their child's purpose.

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Not if the pot is sentient.

[United Marxist Nations]

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Not if the pot is sentient.

Why does it matter if the pot is sentient?

[Seperates]

Does a pottery maker get to decide the purpose of his pots?

Not if the pot is sentient.

But when it's sentient then always tries to move on me. Tricky little bastard.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Not if the pot is sentient.

Why does it matter if the pot is sentient?

Because at the point the pot can suffer (this sentence is getting weirder than I would like it to be); it can feel pain and pleasure, and I know what those things are (this is a thing called "empathy" btw), and I don't want to make someone suffer if I can at all help it. Even if they are made of clay.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why does it matter if the pot is sentient?

Because at the point the pot can suffer (this sentence is getting weirder than I would like it to be); it can feel pain and pleasure, and I know what those things are (this is a thing called "empathy" btw), and I don't want to make someone suffer if I can at all help it. Even if they are made of clay.

What you want doesn't matter, that's just selfishness and egocentrism. What matters is purpose.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Because at the point the pot can suffer (this sentence is getting weirder than I would like it to be); it can feel pain and pleasure, and I know what those things are (this is a thing called "empathy" btw), and I don't want to make someone suffer if I can at all help it. Even if they are made of clay.

What you want doesn't matter, that's just selfishness and egocentrism. What matters is purpose.

What one wants can give one purpose.