Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Off Topic
41

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Good stuff, Nephorm.

Morality is so relative even these three are moot:
“Adultery” & "Theft"did no exist for 90+% of human history.
(Aristotle couldn’t have known this as he lacked lots of scientific puzzle pieces. He’s still the most genuine and likable character of ancient age for me)
[/quote]

Aristotle was aware of societies in which theft and adultery did not exist. For the latter, the beautiful city of Plato’s Republic made the community of women and children a prerequisite.

Briefly, Aristotle is not susceptible to this criticism because he is not proposing a set of rules or laws to govern behavior in all circumstances. The viciousness of the actions follows from their definitions (which is not, for Aristotle, prescriptive as it would be for some of us): there is no way to perform murder, adultery, or theft in a beautiful way. But also keep in mind that this discussion pertains to a city, not to the community of the world. So Aristotle can speak indifferently about piracy (against other communities) but reprovingly about theft within the city. You might object that the image of Jean Valjean stealing bread for his sister’s family does not depict viciousness, but Aristotle would argue that Paris is a vicious city that seems to preclude virtue.

To return to your point, the fact that some societies make it impossible to perform some actions (like theft or adultery) doesn’t mean that those actions are therefore good or virtuous. A community separated from the rest of the world has no laws or ethical rules against guns or drugs; it doesn’t mean that in those societies guns or drugs are or are considered good, it just means that they are irrelevant to the community.

42

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Sev:

If I may jump in, the lessons derived from Job for the non-religious person have nothing to do with God. Anytime the word “God” appears, replace with “indifferent universe.”

The indifferent universe randomly provided Job with various comforts. Then, the indifferent universe randomly took them away, resulting in all sorts of human misery for Job.

There is no why. It’s just what happened. What matters is how Job decides to play the cards he was randomly dealt.

At least that’s what I get from it, from a non-religious perspective.

PB

[/quote]

Just wanted to see how it’s possible to still make sense of this. The problem I see is that it is trying to be both indifferent and directly related. It brings questions about causality.

As far as I can see, since it’s Gods nature to do good, then it is good to make deals with the devil.

There are also similar cases where, I don’t know say a supreme leader like Kim Jung Un could do something completely psychotic, like killing someone’s family to test a low ranking Generals loyalty, and then replacing the family with people he deemed prettier/ better when he won a bet with his top General, who said the lower ranked General wouldn’t remain loyal… This would be consistent with what God’s nature is because they mirror his actions.

If the above can be Gods nature, then it seems difficult to be critical of anyone or anything. As ultimately the universe is indifferent, and it’s God’s will. I don’t think this is the position SexMachine holds in cases where God makes miracles/ intervenes as in Job.

Also, prescriptions for things from the old testament like, killing your wife on your wedding night if she proves to not be a virgin, to turning the other cheek makes it so Gods rules change, and are not immutable.

43

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Just wanted to see how it’s possible to still make sense of this. The problem I see is that it is trying to be both indifferent and directly related. It brings questions about causality.

As far as I can see, since it’s Gods nature to do good, then it is good to make deals with the devil.

There are also similar cases where, I don’t know say a supreme leader like Kim Jung Un could do something completely psychotic, like killing someone’s family to test a low ranking Generals loyalty, and then replacing the family with people he deemed prettier/ better when he won a bet with his top General, who said the lower ranked General wouldn’t remain loyal… This would be consistent with what God’s nature is because they mirror his actions.

If the above can be Gods nature, then it seems difficult to be critical of anyone or anything. As ultimately the universe is indifferent, and it’s God’s will. I don’t think this is the position SexMachine holds in cases where God makes miracles/ intervenes as in Job.

Also, prescriptions for things from the old testament like, killing your wife on your wedding night if she proves to not be a virgin, to turning the other cheek makes it so Gods rules change, and are not immutable. [/quote]

Sorry I’m an infrequent poster and may not quote properly.

I’d like to address a few things you brought up.

So, either God is or is not directly related. If we read Job as a piece of literature we can interpret it however we want. We can say God is not directly related. Further, we can say there is no God at all. Then we have our random and meaningless universe scenario. God = the random and meaningless natural world and Satan = the unfortunate change of events we randomly experience. Or something along those lines.

If God is directly related, we’re probably reading Job as Divinely inspired.

I wonder if you’re falling into the pitfall of “sola scriptura,” obviously meaning scripture only. When we approach the bible from this perspective we can interpret things in a variety of ways. However, we can approach the bible differently. Some people describe the bible (loosely) like this:

The bible is sort of like an old photo album. Having never seen it before, if I happen to find it I can look at all the old pictures and make up stories about who they are and where they’re from, etc. Or, I can take it to an older family member who is familiar with all the people and they can tell me all about their stories with much greater accuracy.

From this perspective, we may want to look back to what the early church fathers had to say about the scriptures, since they aren’t so far removed like we are. Besides, the bible was assembled over a long period of time during which it was an oral tradition. It makes sense to go back to the people who maintained that oral tradition and then decided to set it down in writing.

Anyhow, you bring up an important point. We can get into a whole mess of trouble when we go about reading the bible however we want. There’s a lot of interesting conclusions to be made: killing your wife, and the various other items you mentioned.

Another thing to consider when reading the bible, the New Testament is the culmination of the Old Testament. So when we read from the Old Testament, it must be tempered by the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus.

So you’re example of Kim Jung Un is interesting because he may superficially appear to mimic God and therefore be good (when comparing him to God’s behavior in Job); but, when we look ahead to the New Testament, it becomes clear that something is wrong. Further, to put oneself in a position as if to be God is problematic.
__

Here’s my two cents when reading Job spiritually:

I don’t put much emphasis on the deal making between God and Satan. (For me, that’s just how the author decided to write it in order to get his point across) The most important relationship, in my opinion, is that between God and Job. God allows misfortune to enter Job’s life to see how Job will respond to affliction. Will Job make excuses about life being “too hard” and proceed to live in debauchery? In other words, blame externals. Or will he accept his difficulties and find a way to live to a “high standard”? Through painful work, take control of the only thing he can, his inner world. (Sounds a bit 12-steppish, but makes sense)

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

44

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Just wanted to see how it’s possible to still make sense of this. The problem I see is that it is trying to be both indifferent and directly related. It brings questions about causality.

As far as I can see, since it’s Gods nature to do good, then it is good to make deals with the devil.

There are also similar cases where, I don’t know say a supreme leader like Kim Jung Un could do something completely psychotic, like killing someone’s family to test a low ranking Generals loyalty, and then replacing the family with people he deemed prettier/ better when he won a bet with his top General, who said the lower ranked General wouldn’t remain loyal… This would be consistent with what God’s nature is because they mirror his actions.

If the above can be Gods nature, then it seems difficult to be critical of anyone or anything. As ultimately the universe is indifferent, and it’s God’s will. I don’t think this is the position SexMachine holds in cases where God makes miracles/ intervenes as in Job.

Also, prescriptions for things from the old testament like, killing your wife on your wedding night if she proves to not be a virgin, to turning the other cheek makes it so Gods rules change, and are not immutable. [/quote]

Sorry I’m an infrequent poster and may not quote properly.

I’d like to address a few things you brought up.

So, either God is or is not directly related. If we read Job as a piece of literature we can interpret it however we want. We can say God is not directly related. Further, we can say there is no God at all. Then we have our random and meaningless universe scenario. God = the random and meaningless natural world and Satan = the unfortunate change of events we randomly experience. Or something along those lines.

If God is directly related, we’re probably reading Job as Divinely inspired.

I wonder if you’re falling into the pitfall of “sola scriptura,” obviously meaning scripture only. When we approach the bible from this perspective we can interpret things in a variety of ways. However, we can approach the bible differently. Some people describe the bible (loosely) like this:

The bible is sort of like an old photo album. Having never seen it before, if I happen to find it I can look at all the old pictures and make up stories about who they are and where they’re from, etc. Or, I can take it to an older family member who is familiar with all the people and they can tell me all about their stories with much greater accuracy.

From this perspective, we may want to look back to what the early church fathers had to say about the scriptures, since they aren’t so far removed like we are. Besides, the bible was assembled over a long period of time during which it was an oral tradition. It makes sense to go back to the people who maintained that oral tradition and then decided to set it down in writing.

Anyhow, you bring up an important point. We can get into a whole mess of trouble when we go about reading the bible however we want. There’s a lot of interesting conclusions to be made: killing your wife, and the various other items you mentioned.

Another thing to consider when reading the bible, the New Testament is the culmination of the Old Testament. So when we read from the Old Testament, it must be tempered by the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus.

So you’re example of Kim Jung Un is interesting because he may superficially appear to mimic God and therefore be good (when comparing him to God’s behavior in Job); but, when we look ahead to the New Testament, it becomes clear that something is wrong. Further, to put oneself in a position as if to be God is problematic.
__

Here’s my two cents when reading Job spiritually:

I don’t put much emphasis on the deal making between God and Satan. (For me, that’s just how the author decided to write it in order to get his point across) The most important relationship, in my opinion, is that between God and Job. God allows misfortune to enter Job’s life to see how Job will respond to affliction. Will Job make excuses about life being “too hard” and proceed to live in debauchery? In other words, blame externals. Or will he accept his difficulties and find a way to live to a “high standard”? Through painful work, take control of the only thing he can, his inner world. (Sounds a bit 12-steppish, but makes sense)

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

[/quote]

If God changes then his goodness isn’t immutable.

45

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Sev:

If I may jump in, the lessons derived from Job for the non-religious person have nothing to do with God. Anytime the word “God” appears, replace with “indifferent universe.”

The indifferent universe randomly provided Job with various comforts. Then, the indifferent universe randomly took them away, resulting in all sorts of human misery for Job.

There is no why. It’s just what happened. What matters is how Job decides to play the cards he was randomly dealt.

At least that’s what I get from it, from a non-religious perspective.

PB

[/quote]

Yes, well put.

46

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Sev:

If I may jump in, the lessons derived from Job for the non-religious person have nothing to do with God. Anytime the word “God” appears, replace with “indifferent universe.”

The indifferent universe randomly provided Job with various comforts. Then, the indifferent universe randomly took them away, resulting in all sorts of human misery for Job.

There is no why. It’s just what happened. What matters is how Job decides to play the cards he was randomly dealt.

At least that’s what I get from it, from a non-religious perspective.

PB

[/quote]

Yes, well put.
[/quote]

Except for the whole part where God intervening or creating miracles isn’t consistent with an indifferent universe.

47

^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.

48

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?

49

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.

50

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.[/quote]

Einstein admitted and was aware of the consequences of his beliefs though… He wasn’t comfortable with the idea of time travel being consistent with his theory. He was also a determinist. He admitted these things.

I don’t see that any of the consequences that should apply to God, or causality for that matter explained… It seems more rationalized to the point where reason doesn’t apply anymore.

51

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.[/quote]

Einstein admitted and was aware of the consequences of his beliefs though… He wasn’t comfortable with the idea of time travel being consistent with his theory. He was also a determinist. He admitted these things.

I don’t see that any of the consequences that should apply to God, or causality for that matter explained… It seems more rationalized to the point where reason doesn’t apply anymore. [/quote]

I do. And major ethical implications too.

52

[quote]Severiano wrote:

If God changes then his goodness isn’t immutable. [/quote]

If you want to read the Bible in a literal sense, as though it is intended to be nothing but pure historical fact, then you appear to be correct. I’m sure there are many examples of God’s contradictory behavior.

My opinions on God’s immutability if you care to read them:

The above approach seems to miss the forest for the trees. The Bible isn’t a book written to prove the existence of God. The Bible is where Christians go to learn about God (with the Old Testament always being tempered by the New Testament).

It doesn’t make sense to me to pick it apart in an attempt to find inconsistencies. For example, if the book of Job is a story of a man’s response to severe affliction, why am I going to concern myself with the background information (God and Satan making deals) in the story? Why things happen is a mystery. The Christian would say that fortune and misfortune come to you in accord with God’s plan for you, that even misfortune is beneficial because it affords you an opportunity to strengthen yourself emotionally and spiritually (your “good” example can positively influence others).

Looking at it this way, if I’m the sort of person who blames others for what’s going on, I’ll look up to God and yell, “Damn you and Satan always conspiring against perfect me! I’m going to drink a pint of whiskey and forget about this!” I suppose God and Satan making deals about my fate would be of preeminent importance.

Or, if I’m the sort of person who accepts the struggles of this life, I might say, “Thank you God for this chance to work on myself, you know where I need to improve. Although I struggle with this situation, I know that it’s for my benefit.” From the second point of view, the why of suffering is less important, and therefore not significant in the story of Job. Since Job’s relationship with God is most significant, why would I nit pick how the author attempted to convey this point? Remember, the Bible is where Christians go to learn about God, Christians want to build a relationship with God.

Second, concerning God’s immutability, the most obvious place to look for “evidence” is Jesus. Consider the consistency of his behavior. I would prioritize this above the Old Testament.

53

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.[/quote]

Einstein admitted and was aware of the consequences of his beliefs though… He wasn’t comfortable with the idea of time travel being consistent with his theory. He was also a determinist. He admitted these things.

I don’t see that any of the consequences that should apply to God, or causality for that matter explained… It seems more rationalized to the point where reason doesn’t apply anymore. [/quote]

I do. And major ethical implications too.[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of lexically defined words. But, indifference means something specific that doesn’t at all seem consistent with being directly involved in matters that you care deeply about, which God obviously cared about with Job, who he blessed and punished for being pious.

So, what do you have in mind when someone says the word indifferent? And how does that apply to Gods universe, yet still allow God to perform miracles and be directly and personally involved? Or, is this not a personal God?

54

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

If God changes then his goodness isn’t immutable. [/quote]

If you want to read the Bible in a literal sense, as though it is intended to be nothing but pure historical fact, then you appear to be correct. I’m sure there are many examples of God’s contradictory behavior.

My opinions on God’s immutability if you care to read them:

The above approach seems to miss the forest for the trees. The Bible isn’t a book written to prove the existence of God. The Bible is where Christians go to learn about God (with the Old Testament always being tempered by the New Testament).

It doesn’t make sense to me to pick it apart in an attempt to find inconsistencies. For example, if the book of Job is a story of a man’s response to severe affliction, why am I going to concern myself with the background information (God and Satan making deals) in the story? Why things happen is a mystery. The Christian would say that fortune and misfortune come to you in accord with God’s plan for you, that even misfortune is beneficial because it affords you an opportunity to strengthen yourself emotionally and spiritually (your “good” example can positively influence others).

Looking at it this way, if I’m the sort of person who blames others for what’s going on, I’ll look up to God and yell, “Damn you and Satan always conspiring against perfect me! I’m going to drink a pint of whiskey and forget about this!” I suppose God and Satan making deals about my fate would be of preeminent importance.

Or, if I’m the sort of person who accepts the struggles of this life, I might say, “Thank you God for this chance to work on myself, you know where I need to improve. Although I struggle with this situation, I know that it’s for my benefit.” From the second point of view, the why of suffering is less important, and therefore not significant in the story of Job. Since Job’s relationship with God is most significant, why would I nit pick how the author attempted to convey this point? Remember, the Bible is where Christians go to learn about God, Christians want to build a relationship with God.

Second, concerning God’s immutability, the most obvious place to look for “evidence” is Jesus. Consider the consistency of his behavior. I would prioritize this above the Old Testament. [/quote]

The Bible is where you create your relationship with God, but to what standard to you hold your own God to?

If you say God is immutable then by definition are you going by? Are you going to create an exception just for God, the same way SexMachine does with how he defines indifferent?

Or, are you going to go with what is rational and say that God isn’t immutable, and he changes along with society?

What is interesting to me is that the Church does follow what is the norm by society. How do you go from Sodom and Gamorrah, and Pope JP II calling homosexual inclinations evil, to this Pope saying, “Who am I to judge.”

You want to know how? They make it up as they go along… And they make changes with society as their rules become outdated… Just as with the old testament, just as with their views of the world being the center of the universe and the punihsments they gave to Galileo and other intellectuals.

And, in the future they will change more, along with what society find tolerable. The Church is changed by people, and so is it’s morality. Otherwise it wouldn’t have ever changed from old to new.

55

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.[/quote]

Einstein admitted and was aware of the consequences of his beliefs though… He wasn’t comfortable with the idea of time travel being consistent with his theory. He was also a determinist. He admitted these things.

I don’t see that any of the consequences that should apply to God, or causality for that matter explained… It seems more rationalized to the point where reason doesn’t apply anymore. [/quote]

I do. And major ethical implications too.[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of lexically defined words. But, indifference means something specific that doesn’t at all seem consistent with being directly involved in matters that you care deeply about, which God obviously cared about with Job, who he blessed and punished for being pious.

So, what do you have in mind when someone says the word indifferent? And how does that apply to Gods universe, yet still allow God to perform miracles and be directly and personally involved? Or, is this not a personal God? [/quote]

I wouldn’t have thought I’d need to define “indifferent” in the context it was used. By an “indifferent” universe I mean, seemingly to us now in our lives, events unfold randomly and bad things happen to good people and so on. The “problem of evil” essentially. And that’s a problem that besets all of us, religious and otherwise, and it’s also of central concern to existentialism. Now, it is generally agreed that “miracles” and so forth are not everyday events and that we are in an epoch unlike the epoch of the prophets when such things were more common. And the question of whether God is a personal God? Being a personal God is not contingent upon “fairness” in this life. People who believe in a personal God believe that the afterlife will more than make up for the “unfairness” and suffering in this life.

I don’t claim to have all the answers to such things and I’m suspicious of people who claim they do have such answers. So I don’t know why you assume I’m dogmatic and that I claim to know everything, and you seem to be overly concerned with what I believe.

56

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ RE, that video. It’s not subjective to take into consideration environment, circumstances, alternatives and so on. If the same environment, circumstances and alternatives were the same today it would not be immoral. Because morality is not subjective.[/quote]

So far the only reason Morality is objective is because you say it is. Are you going to come up with an argument for it that holds?
[/quote]

It’s a question of the fundamental nature of reality. I believe, as did Einstein, that there is a single, objective reality out “there” somewhere. The implications of there not being a single, objective reality are vast and the concept is also rife with paradoxes. It seems the less likely of the two possibilities.[/quote]

Einstein admitted and was aware of the consequences of his beliefs though… He wasn’t comfortable with the idea of time travel being consistent with his theory. He was also a determinist. He admitted these things.

I don’t see that any of the consequences that should apply to God, or causality for that matter explained… It seems more rationalized to the point where reason doesn’t apply anymore. [/quote]

I do. And major ethical implications too.[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of lexically defined words. But, indifference means something specific that doesn’t at all seem consistent with being directly involved in matters that you care deeply about, which God obviously cared about with Job, who he blessed and punished for being pious.

So, what do you have in mind when someone says the word indifferent? And how does that apply to Gods universe, yet still allow God to perform miracles and be directly and personally involved? Or, is this not a personal God? [/quote]

I wouldn’t have thought I’d need to define “indifferent” in the context it was used. By an “indifferent” universe I mean, seemingly to us now in our lives, events unfold randomly and bad things happen to good people and so on. The “problem of evil” essentially. And that’s a problem that besets all of us, religious and otherwise, and it’s also of central concern to existentialism. Now, it is generally agreed that “miracles” and so forth are not everyday events and that we are in an epoch unlike the epoch of the prophets when such things were more common. And the question of whether God is a personal God? Being a personal God is not contingent upon “fairness” in this life. People who believe in a personal God believe that the afterlife will more than make up for the “unfairness” and suffering in this life.

I don’t claim to have all the answers to such things and I’m suspicious of people who claim they do have such answers. So I don’t know why you assume I’m dogmatic and that I claim to know everything, and you seem to be overly concerned with what I believe.[/quote]

I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason.

57

[quote] Severiano wrote:

I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason.

[/quote]

You’re entirely wrong and I’ve explained why. None of my beliefs on any of those things have changed. I was an atheist for the first thirty years of my life and I believed all the same things then as I do now. And “limiting” homosexuals? You always have to resort to odd and vague expressions because I’m not advocating anything targeting gay people. I simply want the institution of marriage to remain as it is. And I felt exactly the same when I was an atheist. Furthermore, it is you who wishes to impose all kinds of restrictions on people and you are attacking traditional institutions and the norms and mores of our forefathers. You are calling for radical change; I’m a moderate, conservative person appealing to the status quo and warning not to be too hasty; think things through; look at things unemotionally and realistically; face facts. One of those facts is that the traditional family is the building block upon which the civil society, indeed our entire existence is based.

58

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Severiano wrote:

I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason.

[/quote]

You’re entirely wrong and I’ve explained why. None of my beliefs on any of those things have changed. I was an atheist for the first thirty years of my life and I believed all the same things then as I do now. And “limiting” homosexuals? You always have to resort to odd and vague expressions because I’m not advocating anything targeting gay people. I simply want the institution of marriage to remain as it is. And I felt exactly the same when I was an atheist. Furthermore, it is you who wishes to impose all kinds of restrictions on people and you are attacking traditional institutions and the norms and mores of our forefathers. You are calling for radical change; I’m a moderate, conservative person appealing to the status quo and warning not to be too hasty; think things through; look at things unemotionally and realistically; face facts. One of those facts is that the traditional family is the building block upon which the civil society, indeed our entire existence is based.[/quote]

But our entire existence isn’t based on religion as the bible says. The earth is much older… If we go by the stories of the bible, the laws and contradictions it gives, where do we go as a society? Given the history of the Vatican, and all the bullshit that has gone on over the centuries between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (abrahamic religions) who do you think is likely to bring about the end of the world? Religions of Abraham or Atheist and Agnostics?

Instead of bombing places for disrespecting your God, or calling people’s nature evil because they are gay, why not look to and focus on the other potential values and goodness we define ourselves as human beings that are based on the sorts of things we have in common as a matter of being human, and use reason and science to understand those things, rather than go by rules that God imposes.

We don’t need the bible to tell us murder is bad… But we need it to tell us gays are.

59

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Severiano wrote:

I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason.

[/quote]

You’re entirely wrong and I’ve explained why. None of my beliefs on any of those things have changed. I was an atheist for the first thirty years of my life and I believed all the same things then as I do now. And “limiting” homosexuals? You always have to resort to odd and vague expressions because I’m not advocating anything targeting gay people. I simply want the institution of marriage to remain as it is. And I felt exactly the same when I was an atheist. Furthermore, it is you who wishes to impose all kinds of restrictions on people and you are attacking traditional institutions and the norms and mores of our forefathers. You are calling for radical change; I’m a moderate, conservative person appealing to the status quo and warning not to be too hasty; think things through; look at things unemotionally and realistically; face facts. One of those facts is that the traditional family is the building block upon which the civil society, indeed our entire existence is based.[/quote]

But our entire existence isn’t based on religion as the bible says. The earth is much older… If we go by the stories of the bible, the laws and contradictions it gives, where do we go as a society? Given the history of the Vatican, and all the bullshit that has gone on over the centuries between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (abrahamic religions) who do you think is likely to bring about the end of the world? Religions of Abraham or Atheist and Agnostics?

It’s just one thing after another with you isn’t it sev? I’m not advocating any wars or violence or human rights violations. What other sects do in their name of their religion is nothing to do with me.

60

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Severiano wrote:

I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason.

[/quote]

You’re entirely wrong and I’ve explained why. None of my beliefs on any of those things have changed. I was an atheist for the first thirty years of my life and I believed all the same things then as I do now. And “limiting” homosexuals? You always have to resort to odd and vague expressions because I’m not advocating anything targeting gay people. I simply want the institution of marriage to remain as it is. And I felt exactly the same when I was an atheist. Furthermore, it is you who wishes to impose all kinds of restrictions on people and you are attacking traditional institutions and the norms and mores of our forefathers. You are calling for radical change; I’m a moderate, conservative person appealing to the status quo and warning not to be too hasty; think things through; look at things unemotionally and realistically; face facts. One of those facts is that the traditional family is the building block upon which the civil society, indeed our entire existence is based.[/quote]

But our entire existence isn’t based on religion as the bible says. The earth is much older… If we go by the stories of the bible, the laws and contradictions it gives, where do we go as a society? Given the history of the Vatican, and all the bullshit that has gone on over the centuries between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (abrahamic religions) who do you think is likely to bring about the end of the world? Religions of Abraham or Atheist and Agnostics?

It’s just one thing after another with you isn’t it sev? I’m not advocating any wars or violence or human rights violations. What other sects do in their name of their religion is nothing to do with me.
[/quote]

It has everything to do with you, because you believe in the same category of stuff. On one hand you are strongly homophobic and you seem to convolute that with being anti-paedophile. To the point you would leave kids in institutions where kids are often dehumanized as a result of lack of contact, and often prey on one another, to include rape one another and its common…

Rather than send them to be raised by otherwise normal gay people.

That the Church, and western culture are tightly tied together should I be surprised that you became a Catholic rather than a Sikh? That you have an irrational attitude towards gays? Given you are a Christian conservative there are a lot of quintessential things about you that can be stereotyped. If you were a humanist, similarly you would have a lot of the common humanist beliefs, but at least they would be rational and changeable.