Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

That's a fair point.

I don't want to be salt.

Oh the plus side, you would get licked more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's a fair point.

I don't want to be salt.

Oh the plus side, you would get licked more.

And you would be a pair of hazardous elements if properly decayed.

[Phmcw]

Time for me to shoot myself in the foot trying to set the record straight, because nobody cares to hear the truth anymore.

Spoiler: Religion and excessive line breaks. (click to show/hide)

Biblically speaking...

Marriage is between a man and a woman, who can then have sex.

Sex if you aren't married is adultery.

Adultery is a sin.

Marriage being between a man and a woman, homosexuals thus cannot have sex one another without committing adultery.

Thus homosexual acts are a sin.

God hates the sin.

God loves everyone.

All sins can be forgiven.

God loves homosexuals as much as anyone else.

Thus homosexuals can be forgiven.

Stealing is also a sin.

There are kleptomaniacs.

Kleptomaniacs can also be forgiven of their sins.

Heterosexual adultery is also a sin.

Adulterers can be forgven of their sins.

There are murderers.

Murder is a sin.

Murderers can also be forgiven of their sins.

Do I need to go on?

I'll never believed I'd say it, but good point and good summary.

By this standard, homosexuality is no more wrong than any sex out of marriage, though.
There is also the question of interpretation : can't you marry two people of the same sex, even though the bible seems to say otherwise? Religions are interpretative (and I think some Christian flavor have chosen this path).

[Euld]

By this standard, homosexuality is no more wrong than any sex out of marriage, though.

Yes that's it exactly.  Yeah a lot of people single out homosexuality to harass people about and lots of other depressing stuff, but according to Christian theology, homosexuality is no worse than lying, murder, stealing, adultery, and taking God's name in vain.  Equal in the sense that they are all forgiven as equally as easy.

Thanks again for the responses, and thanks again for not getting my thread locked

It's a true point, although as far as I can tell irrelevant to the thread.  I mean, maybe homosexuality can be "forgiven" like others "sins" (it's worth noting that the other sins you mentioned actually, y'know, harm people though), but doesn't forgiveness require you to first renounce your sin and stop doing it?  Ie, wouldn't you somehow have to change your sexuality before this God-who-hates-homosexuality can forgive you of your sin?

As far as I understood, forgiveness didn't require renouncing it first.  Jesus said to forgive 77 times, and 77 times after that (figuratively meaning to "just keep forgiving").  So God would forgive people who commit the same sin over and over.  Of course you'd draw the line at some point for people who take advantage of this system... mmmph.  I'm starting to see why people say these concepts aren't all that convincing o_O

[Leafsnail]

Yes that's it exactly.  Yeah a lot of people single out homosexuality to harass people about and lots of other depressing stuff, but according to Christian theology, homosexuality is no worse than lying, murder, stealing, adultery, and taking God's name in vain.  Equal in the sense that they are all forgiven as equally as easy.

I'd hope this isn't true, otherwise it would be horribly unfair (either it's way too easy to be forgiven for murder or way too hard to be forgiven for homosexuality).

As far as I understood, forgiveness didn't require renouncing it first.  Jesus said to forgive 77 times, and 77 times after that (figuratively meaning to "just keep forgiving").  So God would forgive people who commit the same sin over and over.  Of course you'd draw the line at some point for people who take advantage of this system... mmmph.  I'm starting to see why people say these concepts aren't all that convincing o_O

I'm pretty sure that regardless of the sin it makes no sense to forgive it if you keep doing it (and intend to keep doing it).  I mean, there's no way anyone would forgive you for being a murderer if you were still out killing people.  Indeed, if I can go around sinning constantly and still be forgiven every time as long as I feel sorry for my actions, why even make it a sin in the first place?

[Phmcw]

Hmmmm... mortals sins...
Heck, I'll never understand how can one follow religious ethics.
If you ethic system put theft and murder on the same level, there is something wrong in it. And that's not speaking of adultery...

Seriously, why don't you simply consider wrong what is harming other people and right what get the world better for everyone.
That's the basis of my ethic and they are serving me well.

[Fenrir]

Hmmmm... mortals sins...
Heck, I'll never understand how can one follow religious ethics.
If you ethic system put theft and murder on the same level, there is something wrong in it. And that's not speaking of adultery...

Seriously, why don't you simply consider wrong what is harming other people and right what get the world better for everyone.
That's the basis of my ethic and they are serving me well.

If I may nod us in the direction of a derail to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, why should we? Why should we not consider murder and theft as equals? Why should we consider that which harms others as wrong and consider that which helps all right?

[Virex]

Seriously, why don't you simply consider wrong what is harming other people and right what get the world better for everyone.

Your harm may be my help, never forget that.

[Leafsnail]

If I may nod us in the direction of a derail to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, why should we? Why should we not consider murder and theft as equals? Why should we consider that which harms others as wrong and consider that which helps all right?

Because one hurts people a lot more than the other?  Because a person who commits one is a far greater threat to society than another?

[Phmcw]

If I may nod us in the direction of a derail to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, why should we? Why should we not consider murder and theft as equals? Why should we consider that which harms others as wrong and consider that which helps all right?

The two first question are answered by the response to the third : due to unknown occurrence you're being awarded with an unique chance at existing. It's not much, but it's absolutely all that you have. Making the world better and enjoyable is the logical thing to do.
By having this ethic you make everyone else's life enjoyable. If they have the same ethic they'll make yours enjoyable do.
If you're selfish you'll make everyone's life miserable, and they'll make sure to make yours miserable too.

TL;DR : This set of ethics make for an enjoyable society and is intellectually rewarding.

Seriously, why don't you simply consider wrong what is harming other people and right what get the world better for everyone.

Your harm may be my help, never forget that.

Come at me bro

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You're right, I don't forget that. But keeping that in mind, I try to apply my ethics. And sometime the best thing to do for everyone is to fuck the selfish fucker.

[Fenrir]

The two first question are answered by the response to the third : due to unknown occurrence you're being awarded with an unique chance at existing. It's not much, but it's absolutely all that you have. Making the world better and enjoyable is the logical thing to do.
By having this ethic you make everyone else's life enjoyable. If they have the same ethic they'll make yours enjoyable do.
If you're selfish you'll make everyone's life miserable, and they'll make sure to make yours miserable too.

You presume that all acts that you consider immoral are caught, and it presumes that all immoral acts that are caught receive retribution. By this reasoning, it would appear that it would be logical to promote your ethic while committing treachery in secret and in such cases where there is little chance for reprisal.

TL;DR : This set of ethics make for an enjoyable society and is intellectually rewarding.

I understand the first part, but I can see little reason to suppose that it would be intellectually rewarding. Anyway, I already know why I adhere to a similar ethic; I enjoy challenging something commonly held to be true, even if I may seem to be defending something that others find rather distasteful.

[Phmcw]

That is a false dichotomy, as you presume that all acts that you consider immoral are caught, and it presumes that all immoral acts that are caught receive retribution. By this reasoning, it would appear that it would be logical to promote your ethic while committing treachery in secret and in such cases where there is little chance for reprisal.

No, by experience I don't think it will work. You'll get caught eventually.
That set of ethic is tailored for the real world, not for an ideal world or one where you can expect never to be caught or something.
It also take into account your psychology and the fact that guilty feelings can make you miserable.

Now your shot : why do you follow a similar ethic?

[G-Flex]

Time for me to shoot myself in the foot trying to set the record straight, because nobody cares to hear the truth anymore.

Spoiler: Religion and excessive line breaks. (click to show/hide)

Biblically speaking...

Marriage is between a man and a woman, who can then have sex.

Sex if you aren't married is adultery.

Adultery is a sin.

Marriage being between a man and a woman, homosexuals thus cannot have sex one another without committing adultery.

Thus homosexual acts are a sin.

God hates the sin.

God loves everyone.

All sins can be forgiven.

God loves homosexuals as much as anyone else.

Thus homosexuals can be forgiven.

Stealing is also a sin.

There are kleptomaniacs.

Kleptomaniacs can also be forgiven of their sins.

Heterosexual adultery is also a sin.

Adulterers can be forgven of their sins.

There are murderers.

Murder is a sin.

Murderers can also be forgiven of their sins.

Do I need to go on?

I'll never believed I'd say it, but good point and good summary.

By this standard, homosexuality is no more wrong than any sex out of marriage, though.
There is also the question of interpretation : can't you marry two people of the same sex, even though the bible seems to say otherwise? Religions are interpretative (and I think some Christian flavor have chosen this path).

It's a good summary of one particular interpretation of the Bible, yes. The Bible does not say a lot of things some people seem to think it says.

[Fenrir]

No, by experience I don't think it will work.

Fenrir grins a broad, toothy grin.

Experience? Had much experience being evil, have we?

You'll get caught eventually. That set of ethic is tailored for the real world, not for an ideal world or one where you can expect never to be caught or something.

I really doubt that you can support that assertion, as this would mean that no criminal ever managed to commit a crime without suffering retribution. I could not say that such was not true, but I doubt it, and I doubt that you can prove it is true.

It also take into account your psychology and the fact that guilty feelings can make you miserable.

It can, I suppose, but I think that would depend upon the individual.

Now your shot : why do you follow a similar ethic?

I follow a similar ethic, because it pleases me. Being the sort of pedantic person that I am, I would certainly rather that there was some logical and objective set of moral rules to which the world should be held, but I fear I can see no such thing. So, I do as I please, and it be the world's good fortune that it pleases me to be what one would ordinarily consider good.

I think this is probably a bit similar to what you said above about guilty feelings, but I think I was more direct and precise.

[Nikov]

At numerous points in the New Testament it notes marriage isn't for everyone and some people should just be chaste. The concept of not having sex by choice is forgotten in much of this thread, but I thought I'd throw it out there.