Religion and LGBT Issues

[United Marxist Nations]

Purpose is the reason for which something exists.

I which case sex dolls are indeed have a purpose. A person who is born to a slave has the purpose of being a slave. Since god is capable of changing all that, they are thus also created by humans because god has decided not to interfere and thus god also agrees with them having that purpose. God not interfering when he can is just as much acceptance as those who did not interfere with the Germans during the Holocaust. No, it more is more acceptance since god is capable of interfering without any danger to himself.

God doesn't have to interfere. He sometimes interferes to help enlighten people to their purpose, and to give them to opportunity to find that purpose, but, if he really wanted no interference, then we would all simply perish, for the Holy Spirit is the giver of life.

[Neutraligon]

I which case sex dolls are indeed have a purpose. A person who is born to a slave has the purpose of being a slave. Since god is capable of changing all that, they are thus also created by humans because god has decided not to interfere and thus god also agrees with them having that purpose. God not interfering when he can is just as much acceptance as those who did not interfere with the Germans during the Holocaust. No, it more is more acceptance since god is capable of interfering without any danger to himself.

God doesn't have to interfere. He sometimes interferes to help enlighten people to their purpose, and to give them to opportunity to find that purpose, but, if he really wanted no interference, then we would all simply perish, for the Holy Spirit is the giver of life.

No he does not interfere, but his not interfering, his making the choice not to interfere makes him more culpable then the Germans who did nothing while millions of Jews where gassed, tortured, starved, medically experimented on,etc. I fail to see what is so bad about perishing given the description of god you have explained. Each time I have had the god explained to me that is anything like the one described in the bible, all I can keep thinking is that the god described is evil.

[United Marxist Nations]

God doesn't have to interfere. He sometimes interferes to help enlighten people to their purpose, and to give them to opportunity to find that purpose, but, if he really wanted no interference, then we would all simply perish, for the Holy Spirit is the giver of life.

No he does not interfere, but his not interfering, his making the choice not to interfere makes him more culpable then the Germans who did nothing while millions of Jews where gassed, tortured, starved, medically experimented on,etc. I fail to see what is so bad about perishing given the description of god you have explained. Each time I have had the god explained to me that is anything like the one described in the bible, all I can keep thinking is that the god described is evil.

Have you had the Orthodox conception of Hell?

[The New Sea Territory]

Then following purpose is not necessary a moral good, as seen by the existence (and purpose) of sex toys.

So I have no moral obligation to follow my purpose if I have one....unless you want to say the purpose of humans is different from that of objects, which would counteract the arguments you made about pottery earlier.

I'm not saying it's good because it's good, I'm defining the moral good as purpose.

That is to say, not following your purpose is objectively the wrong way to live your life, and will only lead to bad things down the road.

If the moral good is purpose (the fulfillment of purpose), and the purpose of humans is no different than the purpose of objects (as you said earlier), then fulfilling purpose is good for all things, object or human. How then is the use of sex toys immoral?

Because ethics and purpose do not really correlate, at least in the way you argue.

Thus, there is no moral obligation to follow one's purpose, because one's purpose might be wrong or one's ethics might not line up with one's purpose. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that following one's purpose is morally good and argue that sentience does not have any affect on one's purpose (as you did, with pottery earlier).

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm not saying it's good because it's good, I'm defining the moral good as purpose.

That is to say, not following your purpose is objectively the wrong way to live your life, and will only lead to bad things down the road.

If the moral good is purpose (the fulfillment of purpose), and the purpose of humans is no different than the purpose of objects (as you said earlier), then fulfilling purpose is good for all things, object or human. How then is the use of sex toys immoral?

Because ethics and purpose do not really correlate, at least in the way you argue.

Thus, there is no moral obligation to follow one's purpose, because one's purpose might be wrong or one's ethics might not line up with one's purpose. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that following one's purpose is morally good and argue that sentience does not have any affect on one's purpose (as you did, with pottery earlier).

No, because the use of sex toys (and, indeed, their creation) contravenes the purpose of humanity.

[Neutraligon]

No he does not interfere, but his not interfering, his making the choice not to interfere makes him more culpable then the Germans who did nothing while millions of Jews where gassed, tortured, starved, medically experimented on,etc. I fail to see what is so bad about perishing given the description of god you have explained. Each time I have had the god explained to me that is anything like the one described in the bible, all I can keep thinking is that the god described is evil.

Have you had the Orthodox conception of Hell?

I never brought up hell in my statement and Hell is not needed in my statement to believe the god you describe is evil. What god besides an evil one makes humans who have sexual attraction to the same sex, and then is cruel enough to tell them they are wrong for acting on the attractions he created them with. What god besides an evil one refuses to interfere should these actions actually be harmful to the soul, watching as his children unknowingly harm themselves? What god but an evil one sits back and says, whelp I told them, when most have never heard his voice and have no reason to trust the fallible humans who supposedly speak for him.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I which case sex dolls are indeed have a purpose. A person who is born to a slave has the purpose of being a slave. Since god is capable of changing all that, they are thus also created by humans because god has decided not to interfere and thus god also agrees with them having that purpose. God not interfering when he can is just as much acceptance as those who did not interfere with the Germans during the Holocaust. No, it more is more acceptance since god is capable of interfering without any danger to himself.

God doesn't have to interfere. He sometimes interferes to help enlighten people to their purpose, and to give them to opportunity to find that purpose

Or to kill a bunch of people.

[United Marxist Nations]

Have you had the Orthodox conception of Hell?

I never brought up hell in my statement and Hell is not needed in my statement to believe the god you describe is evil.

In that case, why do you believe God is evil?

[The New Sea Territory]

If the moral good is purpose (the fulfillment of purpose), and the purpose of humans is no different than the purpose of objects (as you said earlier), then fulfilling purpose is good for all things, object or human. How then is the use of sex toys immoral?

Because ethics and purpose do not really correlate, at least in the way you argue.

Thus, there is no moral obligation to follow one's purpose, because one's purpose might be wrong or one's ethics might not line up with one's purpose. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that following one's purpose is morally good and argue that sentience does not have any affect on one's purpose (as you did, with pottery earlier).

No, because the use of sex toys (and, indeed, their creation) contravenes the purpose of humanity.

Now you've shifted the argument...we were comparing the purpose of objects (sex toys) and of individuals (humans). You've brought a spook into the mix, whose purpose is equally as ethereal as itself. "Humanity" refers to nothing in particular. It is too vague to have meaning, to have purpose.

Individuals can purpose, objects can have purpose, but the purpose of an abstraction is basically just an abstraction of an abstraction.

So, now we have three different conceptions of purpose, which you've said two are the same and haven't really defined the last one: the purpose of ideas, or concepts.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, because the use of sex toys (and, indeed, their creation) contravenes the purpose of humanity.

Now you've shifted the argument...we were comparing the purpose of objects (sex toys) and of individuals (humans). You've brought a spook into the mix, whose purpose is equally as ethereal as itself. "Humanity" refers to nothing in particular. It is too vague to have meaning, to have purpose.

Individuals can purpose, objects can have purpose, but the purpose of an abstraction is basically just an abstraction of an abstraction.

So, now we have three different conceptions of purpose, which you've said two are the same and haven't really defined the last one: the purpose of ideas, or concepts.

I use humanity as a collective for all individuals, because all humans have the same purpose.

[Neutraligon]

I never brought up hell in my statement and Hell is not needed in my statement to believe the god you describe is evil.

In that case, why do you believe God is evil?

See my edit.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

If the moral good is purpose (the fulfillment of purpose), and the purpose of humans is no different than the purpose of objects (as you said earlier), then fulfilling purpose is good for all things, object or human. How then is the use of sex toys immoral?

Because ethics and purpose do not really correlate, at least in the way you argue.

Thus, there is no moral obligation to follow one's purpose, because one's purpose might be wrong or one's ethics might not line up with one's purpose. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that following one's purpose is morally good and argue that sentience does not have any affect on one's purpose (as you did, with pottery earlier).

No, because the use of sex toys (and, indeed, their creation) contravenes the purpose of humanity.

If masturbation is against the purpose of humanity, why does it bring health and reproductive benefits?

[United Marxist Nations]

In that case, why do you believe God is evil?

See my edit.

This presupposes that suffering is intrinsically wrong.

[Neutraligon]

See my edit.

This presupposes that suffering is intrinsically wrong.

First no it doesn't. Second, and? You do realize that you are making your god seem more evil to me, not less.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, because the use of sex toys (and, indeed, their creation) contravenes the purpose of humanity.

If masturbation is against the purpose of humanity, why does it bring health and reproductive benefits?

There are many things that bring supposedly desirable effects that we would consider wrong. This is why utilitarianism fails as an ethical system.

[United Marxist Nations]

This presupposes that suffering is intrinsically wrong.

First no it doesn't. Second, and?

It does. God cannot be evil if causing suffering isn't wrong.

Secondly, in Christian philosophy, the existence of sin, brought into the world through human will, corrupts creation, causing all kinds of mental, spiritual, and even physical maladies. Even death and aging are brought about through sin's existence.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

You never responded, @United Marxist Nations.

We don't. But I feel safer taking a gamble on our purpose than living for nothing.

That brings the question, why should anyone follow the purpose in which Christianity espouses? When it is clear that we do not know of our purpose, nor if we have a purpose.

[Neutraligon]

First no it doesn't. Second, and?

It does. God cannot be evil if causing suffering isn't wrong.

No it does not. I consider suffering wrong because I do not wish to suffer. I, a being capable of empathy have talked with others who have also said that they do not wish to suffer. This does not assume it is intrinsic, it is simply empathy and self interest. No intrinsic necessary

Secondly, in Christian philosophy, the existence of sin, brought into the world through human will, corrupts creation, causing all kinds of mental, spiritual, and even physical maladies. Even death and aging are brought about through sin's existence.

And god, being all powerful in unable to change this? Once again, your god is unwilling to act, despsite his acting having no negative effect on himself, making him culpable.

Your god has set up the perfect system to allow people to continue to "sin" and thus continue to harm themselves. It is almost like he wants people to sin.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

See my edit.

This presupposes that suffering is intrinsically wrong.

Ah, this old gem. I like how your every argument could come just as easily from the mouth of an ISIS fighter. "It doesn't matter what I do or who I hurt; God wants me to do it. God is right. God is great." There's no thought, no kindness, no consideration for others in what you believe. You're like a robot, following instructions, and if you were told to do something awful you would (as you've admitted in this thread), and you wouldn't even stop to consider that it might be wrong. Your system of morality is, at best, a bankrupt method that might happen to achieve good results, and thoroughly dangerous at worst.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

If masturbation is against the purpose of humanity, why does it bring health and reproductive benefits?

There are many things that bring supposedly desirable effects that we would consider wrong. This is why utilitarianism fails as an ethical system.

You cannot provide a reason that it's wrong besides an appeal to abstraction, it just "is." furthermore, under your ethical system, rape is acceptable if it is commanded by the deity you believe in.

[The New Sea Territory]

Now you've shifted the argument...we were comparing the purpose of objects (sex toys) and of individuals (humans). You've brought a spook into the mix, whose purpose is equally as ethereal as itself. "Humanity" refers to nothing in particular. It is too vague to have meaning, to have purpose.

Individuals can purpose, objects can have purpose, but the purpose of an abstraction is basically just an abstraction of an abstraction.

So, now we have three different conceptions of purpose, which you've said two are the same and haven't really defined the last one: the purpose of ideas, or concepts.

I use humanity as a collective for all individuals, because all humans have the same purpose.

Even if we all have the same purpose, how do we not subjectivize it? Our perspectives cloud our understanding of purpose (whether they are products of our environment or whatever). You and I could both look at our shared purpose and draw radically different conclusions.

Turning to Scripture won't help too much on an individual, case-by-case basis...considering those writers themselves were equally blinded by their perspectives (which no Christian would deny; after all, most Christians don't hold these texts to be literally true, and they don't follow all the Jewish laws).

I never brought up hell in my statement and Hell is not needed in my statement to believe the god you describe is evil.

In that case, why do you believe God is evil?

They are still holding onto some conception of moral standards, likely derived from a secular philosophy stunningly similar to Christian ethics (at least, in its big ideas and spooks, not its particular prescriptions).

[The New Sea Territory]

You never responded, @United Marxist Nations.

We don't. But I feel safer taking a gamble on our purpose than living for nothing.

That brings the question, why should anyone follow the purpose in which Christianity espouses? When it is clear that we do not know of our purpose, nor if we have a purpose.

You could just take Kierkegaard's way out, but I doubt UMN will agree with Christian existentialism.

[United Marxist Nations]

You never responded, @United Marxist Nations.

We don't. But I feel safer taking a gamble on our purpose than living for nothing.

That brings the question, why should anyone follow the purpose in which Christianity espouses? When it is clear that we do not know of our purpose, nor if we have a purpose.

Because, if there is no intrinsic purpose, then it doesn't matter that we spent our lives on meaningless rituals and repentance, does it?

[Neutraligon]

I use humanity as a collective for all individuals, because all humans have the same purpose.

Even if we all have the same purpose, how do we not subjectivize it? Our perspectives cloud our understanding of purpose (whether they are products of our environment or whatever). You and I could both look at our shared purpose and draw radically different conclusions.

Turning to Scripture won't help too much on an individual, case-by-case basis...considering those writers themselves were equally blinded by their perspectives (which no Christian would deny; after all, most Christians don't hold these texts to be literally true, and they don't follow all the Jewish laws).

In that case, why do you believe God is evil?

They are still holding onto some conception of moral standards, likely derived from a secular philosophy stunningly similar to Christian ethics (at least, in its big ideas and spooks, not its particular prescriptions).

Jewish actually, though I would claim that such big concepts are universal to humans, and likely a result of us being social creatures.

[United Marxist Nations]

It does. God cannot be evil if causing suffering isn't wrong.

No it does not. I consider suffering wrong because I do not wish to suffer. I, a being capable of empathy have talked with others who have also said that they do not wish to suffer. This does not assume it is intrinsic, it is simply empathy and self interest. No intrinsic necessary

Secondly, in Christian philosophy, the existence of sin, brought into the world through human will, corrupts creation, causing all kinds of mental, spiritual, and even physical maladies. Even death and aging are brought about through sin's existence.

And god, being all powerful in unable to change this? Once again, your god is unwilling to act, despsite his acting having no negative effect on himself, making him culpable.

Your god has set up the perfect system to allow people to continue to "sin" and thus continue to harm themselves. It is almost like he wants people to sin.

Your self-interest does not make something bad. It simply means that you and others don't desire it. There are, however, people who likely do desire it. Then causing suffering is just a matter of opinion, easily overturned or instated.

For Him to change this, He would have to strip us of our freewill and of our souls. Instead, He seeks to cleanse us of our sin through Christ Jesus.