BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN SHOWN IN SCHOOL

[heavycola]

the rather simple point was that as people we really shouldnt try to view someones lifestyle as better or worse than our own.

That is a person with NO morals or convictions. (You must have really liked Clinton)

Sounds like a conviction to me. Maybe it's good and moral to try and accept people for who they are and to try and remember that we are all essentially the same, and maybe deriving all your morals from a book without questioning them at all is actually an immoral dereliction of your 'god-given' ability to reason for yourself.

Anyway, as you have said earlier, everyone is a sinner. Shouldn't matter whether they are gay, wear two kinds of cloth, covet their neighbours' oxen or dishonour their parents. It does mean you have to disapprove of virtually everyone though.

[jay_a2j]

the rather simple point was that as people we really shouldnt try to view someones lifestyle as better or worse than our own.

That is a person with NO morals or convictions. (You must have really liked Clinton)

Sounds like a conviction to me. Maybe it's good and moral to try and accept people for who they are and to try and remember that we are all essentially the same, and maybe deriving all your morals from a book without questioning them at all is actually an immoral dereliction of your 'god-given' ability to reason for yourself.

Anyway, as you have said earlier, everyone is a sinner. Shouldn't matter whether they are gay, wear two kinds of cloth, covet their neighbours' oxen or dishonour their parents. It does mean you have to disapprove of virtually everyone though.

Sounds like conviction to you? Ya, ok. I don't think it would be good for people to walk around like mindless robots being "accepting" of all things. (I see you aren't very accepting of my "book" from which it shows a distinct black and white world as opposed to a grey one) This notion of "not offending" anyone is an impossible feat. (I wish our politicians would realize this) Abortion, right or wrong? Death penalty, right or wrong? Amnesty for illegal immigrants, right or wrong?


Tolerance: the virtue of a man without convictions

[heavycola]

the rather simple point was that as people we really shouldnt try to view someones lifestyle as better or worse than our own.

That is a person with NO morals or convictions. (You must have really liked Clinton)

Sounds like a conviction to me. Maybe it's good and moral to try and accept people for who they are and to try and remember that we are all essentially the same, and maybe deriving all your morals from a book without questioning them at all is actually an immoral dereliction of your 'god-given' ability to reason for yourself.

Anyway, as you have said earlier, everyone is a sinner. Shouldn't matter whether they are gay, wear two kinds of cloth, covet their neighbours' oxen or dishonour their parents. It does mean you have to disapprove of virtually everyone though.

Sounds like conviction to you? Ya, ok. I don't think it would be good for people to walk around like mindless robots being "accepting" of all things. (I see you aren't very accepting of my "book" from which it shows a distinct black and white world as opposed to a grey one) This notion of "not offending" anyone is an impossible feat. (I wish our politicians would realize this) Abortion, right or wrong? Death penalty, right or wrong? Amnesty for illegal immigrants, right or wrong?


Tolerance: the virtue of a man without convictions

Jay, repeating that quote over and over again does not make it any less nonsensical. And you managed to twist my words AND miss the point. It is not about 'not offending' people, it's about treating them with respect. Do unto others, etc. I am not 'intolerant' of the bible - i just think that deriving all your morals (or at least the ones you want) from a single, third-party source without ever questioning any of them is immoral.

Abortion, right or wrong? if someone wants an abortion because she won't look as good in a bikini... is that the same as performing an abortion because the mother will die otherwise?

death penalty, right or wrong? if you say 'yes' - what about for theft? or adultery? For murder - is jeffery dahmer the same as a mentally ill 17-year old? What about murder in self-defence?

Nothing is black and white. Believing it is makes life easier for you but it stops you thinking for yourself, and that is dangerous and stupid IMHO.

[jay_a2j]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

[got tonkaed]

the rather simple point was that as people we really shouldnt try to view someones lifestyle as better or worse than our own.

That is a person with NO morals or convictions. (You must have really liked Clinton) What you are saying, is that there is no right and wrong. No good and bad. Everything is GREY. I say bs.

I understand that you find it hard to believe that someone without a divine set of guidelines could craft a set of morality or convictions. Im aware that in your book, the color grey is not a color worth wearing. However, i feel that to make a world one of black and whiteness is to reduce a complex world to a world one is capable with dealing with. To struggle with issues of greyness requires a stronger set of convictions and a greater willingness to engage with different sides of debate.

Yes you pose a great list of some of the locks for current morality. I dont know many who would disagree with the examples you have listed. But certainly if those are the only moral dilemas, then we perhaps dont need to declare such thing as a dilema, because we all know where we stand. I am sorry for you if you cannot see the difference between the difference in human relations and the issue of rape. Im not going to claim that you cant, but you dont apparently have a set of morals that dictates a similar set of understanding for homosexuality and rape.

I happen to think we can tell about some of the greys where the right and the wrong lie. Theres something to be said for the dialogue/discourse that help us to arrive at these points. Ive found that my convictions have increasingly led me to believe those who are to afraid or angry to live a life with the desire of peace or the desire for understanding are the ones who fall short in terms of morality. The ones who are too afraid of what they cannot understand to deal with issues from a variety of locations. I dont claim to know everything about morality but i do believe i can claim those who do not wish to actively engage in understanding it, will not have very much of it to fall back on.

[hecter]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

All of those things are wrong, I must say. But there is still that gray area…


What if the rapist was not in his right state of mind? It's still wrong, but in that gray area.

What if the two molester was, say, 19, and the child was 15 and they loved each other? Is this even wrong at all?

What if the person stealing was just trying to survive? This is still wrong, but, again, in that gray area.

[heavycola]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

What, i take apart the examples you posted earlier so you just come up with new ones? if you thought for a minute you could come up with scenarios when each of the things you have listed - in either post - are suddenly not simply 'right or wrong'.

Is it right to put someone to death for adultery?Is an amnesty on illegal immigrants right or wrong? in which country? Where have the illegals come from? What would the alternatives be?

I dont claim to know everything about morality but i do believe i can claim those who do not wish to actively engage in understanding it, will not have very much of it to fall back on.

Well put sir. Jay i think it is immoral for you to have other people decide iyour morality for you. God gave you powers of reason that put you above other creatures and yet you refuse to use them when it comes to the most fundamental part of being human. Isn't that immoral? Seems to me a god that gives humans reason and then insists they don't use it must have a cruel sense of humour.
On the other hand it seems as if you have decided for yourself on some things - i bet you wear different kinds of cloth and you probably have cut your hair at the temples at one stage or another. Cherrypicking is a start, i guess.

The world is not a simple place and human beings are not simple animals, so how can morality be simple?

[jay_a2j]

What you are failing to understand is that if there is no right and wrong. Then your assertion of a grey world would be correct. In which case we need to disband all police agencies and militarys at once! Call ADT and other home security systems and tell them that they are not needed anymore because we have become enlightened to the fact that there is no right and wrong!

Now, if there IS right and wrong who sets the standard? I say God does. He, being the creator of all things, is the ONLY one who can establish right and wrong.


***Mission of a downward spiral into the depths of "thread hell" averted***

[unriggable]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

What if you steal from Enron, which stole millions of dollars from its employees?

Child molestation is worse in some cases than in others.

Same goes for rape.

[jay_a2j]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

What if you steal from Enron, which stole millions of dollars from its employees?

Child molestation is worse in some cases than in others.

Same goes for rape.

Something is either right or wrong. Stealing a car or stealing from Enron is one and the same...stealing.

Molestation is "right" in some instances? Please elaborate.

Same goes for rape.

[unriggable]

Now, if there IS right and wrong who sets the standard? I say God does. He, being the creator of all things, is the ONLY one who can establish right and wrong.


***Mission of a downward spiral into the depths of "thread hell" averted***

Nope. Society does. Back in the 19th century some people believed it was a crime against God to have curly hair. Its stupid to say God sets the standard because for two thousand years Christians (not just them, but Jews and Muslims as well) have stated the exact same reason for different ideas, some which contradict each other. Think about it.

Right and wrong is what you, the person, make it out to be. Everybody has a different idea of what is the right decision to make.

Goes to show that you aren't worshiping a god in the sky, but rather a god in the mind.

[Norse]

I dont think anyone said 'molestation of children' is right.

But these things are not 'black and white' each of these terrible crimes must be treated individually, so as to find the right punishment/re-hab.

[unriggable]

Nothing is black and white.

Really?

Rape is neither right or wrong?

Child Molestation is neither right or wrong?

Stealing is neither right or wrong?


Hmmm Hard position to defend there Heavy.

What if you steal from Enron, which stole millions of dollars from its employees?

Child molestation is worse in some cases than in others.

Same goes for rape.

Something is either right or wrong. Stealing a car or stealing from Enron is one and the same...stealing.

Molestation is "right" in some instances? Please elaborate.

Same goes for rape.

Stealing something back from Enron.

And its not that simple. Say a train full with dozens of people on it is spinning out of control and the only way to stop it from flying off the rails into the river is to push a nearby fat guy sitting in a bench (unaware of the situation) into the railway, even if it means he would die. Would you push the innocent man to save the lives of so many people? Or would you do nothing and watch as they fell to their doom? Surely both alternatives are "wrong", but one is more wrong than the other.

[MeDeFe]

So, jay, stealing 100M$ from a company, a pickpocket relieving someone from the burden of 200 bucks and someone stealing food from a store because he's starving are all equally wrong? The first two maybe, but the third? I don't think so.

A 45 year old person abusing a 14 year old and an 18 and a 16 year old having sex (consensually) are equally wrong? From what I've heard from american courts the second case can easily end up with the older person in jail. There was a thread recently about a student getting 10 years or so for getting a blowjob (consensual).


If you decide to pick up on the word "consensually", remember that you yourself disregarded it earlier.


Can you truly claim that there are never any grey areas? The death penalty was already mentioned. If there are no grey areas and every crime that can be classified under a certain heading is equally wrong, why not just kill them all if the law (or jury) says (or can be interpreted to say) so? If it were that easy there would be no need of a jury, just let the police find out what happened and you'll know what crime it is. If you know what crime it is the perpetrators can be punished accordingly. No matter whether they're a couple in love or a priest and an altar boy. A greedy executive or a starving homeless. A drunk who got unlucky and punched the other so he fell into a river and drowned or a fanatic who killed 10 people with a sniper rifle.
No grey areas at all, lump them all together and go with the "red queen approach".

Really jay, if I can see that there's a difference between these cases, then so can you. And if you can see the difference you're already implicitly agreeing with those that say there are grey areas. (The whole justice system for example.) Just because there are grey areas doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, just that you have to consider the circumstances before reaching a conclusion.



And btw, I think that's a bad example unriggable, here they decided that the state may not, figuratively speaking, push the one guy onto the tracks to save the others. I think in the USA they decided differently, I'm not sure though, maybe someone else knows what the exact results of that particular discussion after 9/11 were.

[got tonkaed]

What you are failing to understand is that if there is no right and wrong. Then your assertion of a grey world would be correct. In which case we need to disband all police agencies and militarys at once! Call ADT and other home security systems and tell them that they are not needed anymore because we have become enlightened to the fact that there is no right and wrong!

Now, if there IS right and wrong who sets the standard? I say God does. He, being the creator of all things, is the ONLY one who can establish right and wrong.


***Mission of a downward spiral into the depths of "thread hell" averted***

Part of the problem is that you are treating your claims which could have some merit, as if they are fundamentally sound and strong claims which they are not necesarily. With an understanding of right and wrong we realize all the more that there is a grey, because frequently right and wrong come closer than we would in many cases like. as we are finite imperfect beings we simply cannot know all of the rightdoing and wrongdoing causes out there. Hence there will be gaps, and these gaps are sometimes what make up our grey areas.

Now we both know you dont really believe thats a serious claim about the police so i dont think ill address it in depth other than to say as long as we have social contracts that dictate how our roles in society are dispersed, we will always need the institution of a police force and a system of laws.

Since we cant really know for certain that God exists outside of a faith that not everyone possesses, your claim that God sets up all of our morality is no more valid than my claim that humanity should be setting up its own morality. I dont try and claim that my way of thinking is the only right and responsible way to think, unfortunatly since your views are tied to a creator God who you are deigned to follow, you must believe that the morality that you believe is dictated by God is better than subsequent or other efforts at it. Its a pidgeonholing that does not do you justice.

[luns101]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

[Neutrino]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

A tad harsh, dont you think?

The thought of being judged by what appears to be a very childish and nonsensical god for very pointless and unecessary sins is reprehensible.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone can hate someone 2000 years dead. The majority Jesus' commandments seemed to be pretty reasonable ones (Thou shalt not kill, etc etc) but some of them were fairly odd and unecessary, such as whichever one jay has interpreted to mean that god hates homosexuals (his primary point seemed to be that god smited [smote?] homosexuals. So what? God smited everyone!).

[heavycola]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

luns this isn't christian-bashing. Maybe the bible does contain the guide to living a perfectly moral life, i don't know. My point was just that it seems a bit of a dereliction to simply accept a set of someone else's moral rules without questioning them, whether that's the torah, aleister crowley, the statute book or anything else. I don't hate jesus or his followers (although I do find the idea of being judged for sin reprehensible), nor do i think that having this argument is just smart-aleck flippancy - but jay's polarised view of, apparently, everything is pretty scary, IMHO.

[unriggable]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

I don't hate Jesus or his followers. What I know about Jesus makes me believe he was a great man. It's these smartasses, these televangelists, who manipulate the greater population with religion to advance their own goals, that's who I have a problem with.

As for the whole God thing, again I find it hard to believe. Why? Imagine a God who creates the world 6,000 years ago, lets people live forever, kills almost all of them in a flood (who the hell knows where all the water came from...) lets them repopulate, and this whole time, he has been watching every last one of us, and whenever we do something which he considers unholy, he sends us to a pit of fire even though he loves us all. The only problem is what unholy is, because with time it changes. Two hundred years ago it was a sin for a woman to not wear a corset...go back a few hundred years more and rape was a sin...for the woman. And the people believed this with as much faith as you do now, which proves that it isn't what the Bible declares to be right, but you...you decide what is sin and what isn't. And when you go to God for guidance, you actually go to god, but rather you look deep within the reaches of your consciousness to find the answer, because you know what right is.

BTW heavycola, the book has a huge chunk of exodus dedicated to how to manage slavery. I wouldn't depend too much on it when it comes to morality (it gets alot of its morals and ideas from Zoroastrianism anyways).

[Guiscard]

Molestation is "right" in some instances? Please elaborate.

Same goes for rape.

Did anyone say it was right? Jay, you often seem to miss the crux of debates on this site, and you have again here. All people here are arguing is that you cannot categorically define 'right' and 'wrong' in the terms you are giving us. There are different degrees of wrong just as there are different degrees of right. There are grey areas in every situation. That doesn't make rape or molestation 'right' in some cases. If the concepts of right and wrong are no longer solid and fixed then we could not say anything was categorically right either!

In terms of my personal morality and beliefs, you'll probably hate me for saying this but I really don't believe what you see as concrete and defined terms actually exist in any shape or form. There IS no right or wrong, only attitudes and opinions imposed on us by society. I have been in classes before where I have been forced to defend child molestation and rape, and I have done that, because I believe that you cannot categorically say one thing is right and another wrong.

We must, however, construct some kind of rule else society would cease to exist, and I believe that is where our sense of morals have come from over time. I know in my mind no action is right or wrong, but in essence I live a lie because it is necessary for me to function as a human being to obey these notions of right and wrong, although questioning them is certainly necessary as well.

We can see countless examples in history of morality changing and adapting to our environment, and indeed in the world today there ARE cultures where what we consider morally wrong is seen as morally right. I cannot condemn these cultures to the extent you would because I believe morality is a very fluid illusion. This doesn't mean paedophilia is right in any culture, however, as there IS no right - just degrees of grey.

Guess that's hell for me then

[Guiscard]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

Come on Luns don't drag this discussion down. its a philosophical discussion, if anything, and in no way related to Christianity.

[luns101]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

Come on Luns don't drag this discussion down. its a philosophical discussion, if anything, and in no way related to Christianity.

Guis,

It doesn't matter if the subject is capital punishment, homosexuality, abortion, or whatever. You know as well as I do that no matter what jay says, he will be ganged up on and ridiculed because of his Christian beliefs. You also know that behind these arguments is the anger that there will one day be a reckoning for sin. Since a majority of you secular humanists/atheists/skeptics don't believe that...it stands to reason that you all will do anything to dismiss that idea.

Jay could be using his time better than to give a bunch of atheists a vehicle to reinforce their own beliefs and just use constant mockery.

[luns101]

Jay,

Please give it up. They will never allow themselves to believe in God. The thought of being judged for committing sin is absolutely reprehensible to them. They hated Jesus and they will hate his followers. They will come up with every smart-aleck response to counter whatever you say. Move on to other subjects.

A tad harsh, dont you think?

Not at all. Are you honestly going to tell me that you would take Jay, or any other Christian's argument on any subject seriously. If you are intellectually honest with yourself the answer would be NO! You have no intention of giving his argument credibility. Instead, you and other atheists here are just going to come up with more hypotheticals and cynical remarks to make light of the Christian position. You gang up on him and use constant insults...

You're fat Jay.

the fact that matters is that jay is being a thick loser.
Just citing some ancient book is not an argument and gets old and very annoying really quickly.

so...racism=bad homophobicness=good

you lead a confusing and sad life, jay, and i pity you...

QFT, what this knucklehead (jay) does not realise is that unlike rape, incest, murder, paedophilia and all that other fucked up shit homosexuality is something where both people involved are consenting and no-one is there against their own will. He is as bad as those chavs on the street that go 'fukin hate gays' and when you ask why just go 'coz its wrong..' Basing your life on a book is a sad way to live your life. Jay should have some free will and not just conform to ideas stated in a novel. Hes as bad as the 1920 Christians in the Ku Klux Klan that promoted racist ideals and lynched black people and used the BIBLE to justify their views.

I believe the skeptics here are about as interested in a philosophical discussion as Donald Trump is intent on getting a decent haircut. Neutrino, not one of you is actually interested in what points Jay tries to make. You're all just waiting for the next round of smart-aleck remarks that you can post in response to what he has to say.

Jay, I know that you think you are "taking a stand for truth" and your intentions are good. What you are engaging here is actually counter-productive to what being a follower of Christ is. Almost none of them would ever be convinced to change their minds, regardless of how well you would articulate the gospel. THEY...DO...NOT...BELIEVE...IT. They think it is rubbish! Jay, are you getting it yet?!! They do not want to believe so stop bugging them about it. You are also doing a disservice to the rest of us Christ-followers by indulging in these pointless debates. It only gives them a forum to vent their anti-God ideologies.

I'm asking you, Jay, to stop posting and rebutting what they're saying. The CC staff has graciously given us our own forum to post our thoughts and to encourage each other. It's a private forum, and your time would be better spent there learning and bouncing ideas off of people who believe as you do. Try finding some other subjects to talk about. Let the skeptics be skeptics and let us be who we are.

[unriggable]

I'm interested in what Jay says because I want to know the reasons for hating homosexuality.

[hecter]

I'm interested in what Jay says because I want to know the reasons for hating homosexuality.

It's because he believes that homosexuality is a sin (as stated in the Bible). He also believes that homosexuality is a choice (like all others that believe it's a sin/immoral), and that these people are knowingly choosing to sin, which is an insult to his god.