Atheism And Moral Progress

[Tassman]

Right and those texts condemn homosexual behavior. There are less texts concerning rape, so are we to conclude that prohibitions against rape are merely cultural considerations? There is no Biblical justification to limit prohibitions on homosexual behavior based on culture.

Many Christians disagree with you. OTOH if you want to condemn homosexuality, and you clearly do, you will take the six biblical passages regarding it to support your position...just as the Southern Baptist Convention took certain biblical passages to support their pro-slavery stance. As I say, people can make the bible say whatever they want it to mean so as to support their personal prejudices.

[mattbballman31]

As I say, people can make the bible say whatever they want it to mean so as to support their personal prejudices.

Oh, how I missed me some Tassy-silliness. I'll be back soon!

Sup Seer, my brotha!

[seer]

Oh, how I missed me some Tassy-silliness. I'll be back soon!

Sup Seer, my brotha!

Good to see ya Matt...

[seer]

Many Christians disagree with you. OTOH if you want to condemn homosexuality, and you clearly do, you will take the six biblical passages regarding it to support your position...just as the Southern Baptist Convention took certain biblical passages to support their pro-slavery stance. As I say, people can make the bible say whatever they want it to mean so as to support their personal prejudices.

Tass I could have cared less if homosexuality was sin/immoral or not, I actually never gave much thought to it until my conversion and the study of scripture. And it is not about supporting my position, I didn't have a position, the text clearly says that it is sin. Period.

[Tassman]

Tass I could have cared less if homosexuality was sin/immoral or not, I actually never gave much thought to it until my conversion and the study of scripture. And it is not about supporting my position, I didn't have a position, the text clearly says that it is sin. Period.

Yes we all know that you think homosexuality is a sin. The fact remains that many Christians do not. You think they are wrong they think you are wrong. This is the problem with religion. Moral conflicts cannot be resolved when members of competing denominations hold beliefs which are mutually exclusive

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...homosexuality/

[seer]

Yes we all know that you think homosexuality is a sin. The fact remains that many Christians do not. You think they are wrong they think you are wrong. This is the problem with religion. Moral conflicts cannot be resolved when members of competing denominations hold beliefs which are mutually exclusive

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...homosexuality/

And in your own link it the Christians who study the bible more who think it is sin, it is the biblically illiterate who don't. And again the texts clearly state that it is a sin. Even you know that. I can't help it if those who claim to be Christians reject what the Bible says.

[JimL]

And in your own link it the Christians who study the bible more who think it is sin, it is the biblically illiterate who don't. And again the texts clearly state that it is a sin. Even you know that. I can't help it if those who claim to be Christians reject what the Bible says.

The bible was writtern by ancient men who had no understanding of sexual orientation as we do today. I know, you think the bible was written by god, or that god spoke to the authors telling them what to write, you know, like he told them to write that it was a sin to covet their nieghbors Ox. But most people, that actually think about such things today, understand that the bible was written, authored, by men, not by god, and so they take what they will from it and disregard what they now understand to be the nonsense of ignorant men.

[seer]

The bible was writtern by ancient men who had no understanding of sexual orientation as we do today. I know, you think the bible was written by god, or that god spoke to the authors telling them what to write, you know, like he told them to write that it was a sin to covet their nieghbors Ox. But most people, that actually think about such things today, understand that the bible was written, authored, by men, not by god, and so they take what they will from it and disregard what they now understand to be the nonsense of ignorant men.

Of course in your world Jim there is no design or teleology for human sexuality. That is why in your world there is nothing wrong with deviant behaviors like homosexuality, bestiality or promiscuity or prostitution. In my worldview there is a purpose and design for human sexuality and that teleology does not change with time or cultural mores.

[JimL]

Of course in your world Jim there is no design or teleology for human sexuality. That is why in your world there is nothing wrong with deviant behaviors like homosexuality, bestiality or promiscuity or prostitution. In my worldview there is a purpose and design for human sexuality and that teleology does not change with time or cultural mores.

Are hermaphrodites by design, seer?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I gave you a direct rebuttable. Whether you can generalize a behavior or not has no bearing on what men actually do or not. The despot is not worried that others will try and mimic his behavior as much as he is concerned about keeping them in check. And if he has enough power and control he will. What you are saying in essence that if particular values (in this case power and control) can not be generalized then some how they are not legitimate.

No. That is not what I said.

In other words why is the ability to generalize the benchmark for whether certain values are considered legitimate or not?

It has nothing to do with "legitimacy."

[seer]

No. That is not what I said.

It has nothing to do with "legitimacy."

OK you said:

Actually - I answered this too quickly. It is entirely possible that someone will deeply value power and control and see actions that protect those things as moral. It even happens now and again that such a person rises to a position of power, and may even get a segment of the population to adopt his/her point of view. Such a position is unsustainable - because if everyone adopted that point of view, society itself would collapse.

You are missing the point, Seer. "the most powerful rise" means a select few. Totalitarianism cannot generalize because if all people take on the "squash everyone else" mentality, then everyone is squashing everyone and the safety of "valued things" is directly proportionate to your position in the power hierarchy. If the philosophy of the society is "I can kill anyone I want to," then no one is safe and life is always at risk. Hence the social contract.

But a system that contains a functional self contradiction is self-destructive. A house divided and all that....

Then why bring up the whole generalizing thing in the first place or the contradiction thing?

[carpedm9587]

OK you said:

Then why bring up the whole generalizing thing in the first place or the contradiction thing?

Because that is how morality and moralizing works. Well, except for those who hold an extreme adherence to "because god said it and it's in the bible."

[seer]

Because that is how morality and moralizing works. Well, except for those who hold an extreme adherence to "because god said it and it's in the bible."

So if something can't be generalized how does that have real world application for let's say what the despot values?

[carpedm9587]

So if something can't be generalized how does that have real world application for let's say what the despot values?

Because morality is about protecting/nurturing what we value, a society in which everyone is functioning as a despot leads to a society in which no one can achieve what they value, because everyone else is gunning for it. A single despot may gain power and succeed for a period of time, but their philosophy can never become the norm for society because it is essentially self-defeating.

[seer]

Because morality is about protecting/nurturing what we value, a society in which everyone is functioning as a despot leads to a society in which no one can achieve what they value, because everyone else is gunning for it. A single despot may gain power and succeed for a period of time, but their philosophy can never become the norm for society because it is essentially self-defeating.

Yet that has no bearing on the despot or his values or whether he can succeed or not. Whether those values can be generalized or not does not come into the picture as the despot is protecting/nurturing what he values.