Just another newb
- Thread starter Revelation
- Start date
- Status
Interesting. Your turn.
You consider homosexual sex immoral based upon a book that claims the creator of the universe declared so. Since you have chosen to accept the definition that it is not okay, you have made a moral claim relative to your social, cultural, historical, or personal circumstances. Sorry. By the definition, you are a moral relativist unless you can provide proof outside of your book that your book is truly ordained directly from the Divine and has remained unaltered.
Now let's look to what the evidence suggests. Homosexuality, as it occurs between consenting adult partners in a monogamous same sex relationship, harms no one involved. If you would like to provide evidence to suggest to the contrary beyond what your holy scriptures suggests, then I would be open to listening. Otherwise I leave you to your moral relativism.
Last edited:
What seems unlikely is Jesus was anything but a mortal man.
My body will rot in the ground and will provide nutrients to sustain life, eventually becoming a part of everything. As far as what may happen spiritually I can only speculate as there is no substantial evidence beyond subjective accounts and various holy scriptures as to what will occur. I think I would prefer something along the lines of reincarnation to heaven.
Thank you.
The same reason a heterosexual person is heterosexual. It is simply the way I was meant to be.
How old were you when you were first molested by an older male?
Never was.
Really? How are you "meant to" sleep with other men?
By your logic I suppose being heterosexual is only about sleeping with the opposite sex. I'm sure it has nothing to do with finding that special someone with whom to spend the rest of your life, or enjoying the emotional benefits of a relationship, or even forming a family. It's all about the sex, isn't?
Believe it or not, there are gay people who seek love and intimacy exactly like their straight counterparts do. It is not correct to assume that homosexuality is all about sex anymore than it is to assume that heterosexuality is all about sex.
I can only speculate as to why some people are born gay. If it is purpose driven, then perhaps it is to quell over population and to provide parents with childless homes who can adopt children who cannot find a home with heterosexual parents.
Actually in his own words:
He is NOT a Moral Relativist. He gets his morals from teachings that the world provides, rather than through subjective teachings about things that are relative.
Gday Revelation, I'm an ENTP Satanist. I can see where you're coming from as I was once in your position, through with a lot less questioning to whether there is a "right" religion. I'm making my own.
You obviously do not know the difference between moral, amoral and immoral. Revelation appears to be moral according to his morals, and immoral according to yours. At no point through what he has said has anything amoral shone through.
If you want to see amorality, look further towards me.
Uh, dude! Calm down. I can accept that you might be committed to a single partner for the whole of your life. I'm wondering how it happens that you're "meant to" do so.
Sexuality is all about sex. What exactly do you think the "sex" in homosexuality and heterosexuality refers to?
"Purpose driven"?!? :shocked:
Ray Warren's on the phone to his lawyer right now! :chuckle:
Aren't you an evolutionist? Should not you recoil at the thought that something might be purposed beyond that which people define?
An absolute moral position defined by God is not based on social, cultural, historical or personal circumstance. It is based on God's word, hence, it is absolute. Immoral sex, be it homo or hetro in nature, is always wrong. That is an absolute standard. When people, people like you, say well, homosexual sex isn't bad because it doesn't hurt anybody involved, you are redefining God's standard to fit your personal circumstance.
The same ways anyone is meant to be committed to a partner.
Technically, sexuality refers to attraction not just sexual relations.
As I said before, I choose to believe in God for all the subjective, intuitive, and mystical reasons that anyone else chooses to do so. It's a belief I constantly question. I also believe in evolution because of all the evidence that has been compiled to support it. But that too is a theory which I constantly question. Teleology and naturalism are not as opposed as you might think on the philosophical level.
You cannot prove your position is defined by God outside of your book. Your entire belief system is relative to your book. In fact, had you been born to a different family, a different culture, a different point in history, etc. then you very well could believe an entirely different holy scripture's conception of God. So you entire conception is relative to your situation and the book you choose to believe largely because of the situation you were born into. By the way you have twisted the definition of moral relativism, that means you are a moral relativist until you can prove that your book is the absolute word of God since your choice to believe such is entirely based upon relative/subjective reasons.
However, there is nothing relative to obtaining truth from the objective study of the world around us. If I drop an apple, the probability that apple will fall to the ground is high. I don't have to go read a holy scripture to know that is true. That is a true absolute standard, and one that will remain true regardless of what family I was born into, what culture I was born into, what my personal circumstances are, or even what holy scripture I would choose to believe in.
As I said before, I leave you to your moral relativism. Go ahead and preach your relative/subjective belief in what God thinks is immoral based upon a book your circumstances have lead you to believe without question and I will look to his true works, the world itself, to decide for myself what his moral truths are.
An absolute moral, as defined by God, is the same in all cultures around the world and in every family around the world regardless of whether or not people acknowledge it. As I said before, immoral sex is always wrong. Stealing is always wrong. Murder is always wrong.
Relative morals, as you point out, change with respect to which culture or family or country you may be in. That is the very definition of relative. That you reject the Bible as a moral authority is just a sign that you prefer to embrace a moral standard of your own making rather than the standard set by God.
You see, societies make morals that tend to cater to the behaviors the majority of the people are comfortable with. Hence, societal morals are the minimum acceptable standards of behavior expected by a society. They serve the purpose of keeping things somewhat ordered. Absolute morals as defined by God are something else entierly. Whereas sociatal morals are an easily met minimum standard, God's morals require us to become better people, they require us to live upto a higher set of expectations. They require us to live above our most base desires including our sex drives. It is a much harder standard to meet which is why people prefer to define their own moral code - it makes them feel better about doing things that an absolute standard prohibits.
You have made your choice and you must live, and die, with the consequences of that choice. Please do not try to redife terms to suite what you wish to be true.
People can derive that stealing and murder are wrong simply by observing the world around them. They don't need a Holy Scripture to tell them such. There are laws against stealing and murder that long predate Christianity and Judaism.
As I've said before, my moral proposition comes from careful, objective study of the world around me. If you believe God created this world, then you could say I am determining how to live my life based on his works. Thus I am not embracing moral standards of simply of my own making, but one's derived from the world itself.
Yes, societies tend to define their morals by writing Holy Scriptures. Not unlike how the Israelite's wrote the Old Testament to cater to their desire to promote increasing their population and Christians wrote the New Testament to cater their desire to provide order. Had you accepted the Torah, Qur'an, or some other Holy Scripture, then your conception of God would be very different.
Your argument about people defining their own moral code for sexual behavior is irrelevant as I derive mine from the world itself, not my personal circumstances. Unlike you, who have derived yours subjectively from a book you have chosen to believe in.
The same to you. If you wish to live your life condemning homosexuals as immoral simply because of the book you have subjectively chosen to believe in, then you must live and die with the consequences of that choice.
And as I have said numerous times, my moral standards come from careful observation of the world, God's true objective works, not from a book I subjectively choose to believe in. I don't make my morals to suit my personal circumstances. If it was observed that homosexuality was truly harmful in the case of monogamous relationships, then I would argue that homosexuality is immoral. However, the evidence does not show that is the case anymore than the evidence shows an apple will rise up in the air when I drop it.
But perhaps you could answer one question for me...
What is wrong with deriving your moral propositions from objective study of the world as opposed to getting them out of a Holy Scripture of which you cannot prove the validity?
Despite what you claim, you must have misstated what you meant in the OP.
I'm not a libertarian, but freedom loving in a number of similar ways. Simply, a monarchy is a better form of government.
This is a contradiction in terms. If it is an imperfect moral, it isn't the truth.
Rev continues:
Carful observation and study of the world will not lead to moral truth. One of the moral truths is that we are to have a relationship with God, which I'm guessing you will claim careful study and observation does not allow.
It's the one contained in the bible. But that wasn't the point. The point is that if we throw out all wrong conclusions about what morality is, and there is only 1 set of conclusions that is right, that 1 set must be all encompassing, logically.
Capitalism is merely freedom to transact.
So if capitalism is born out of rebellion, then it's probably because people prefer free when given the choice. Would you prefer people be enslaved?
I'm interested in your view of the nature of God when you were a Christian.
Romans 2:14-15
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Did you ever wonder why you can derive morals from observation? The above verse tells you why. God has written His law upon our hearts. To be sure, we can disregard those laws and we do with reckless abandon, but they remain upon our hearts.
Look back at the definition of moral relativism you posted early. Careful observation and study falls within that definition.Revelation said:
You but the cart before the host. Israel did not write the Old Testament, they recorded what God's profits told them and lived accordingly. Christians did not write the New Testament, they recorded Christ and His apostles teachings and live accordingly.Revelation said:
The world, in general, does not overwhelmingly support homosexuality. Go to Saudi Arabia and announce that you are gay and see where that gets you. You derive your moral acceptance of a gay lifestyle from the gay community and the agenda they are now trying to legislate. I find it interesting that one of the most liberal states in the union defeated Proposition 8 in the last election. Does that tell you anything about your views onsexuality verses the views of the greater population?Revelation said:
In point of fact, being a homosexual is no more sinful than being a hetrosexual. Both have lusts. The immorality results when one chooses to act on those lusts in a manor inconsistant with God's morals.Revelation said:
Homosexual activity is no different from an unmarried man and woman engaging in hetrosexual activity yet both are wrong. It is not about who gets hurt, it is about a higher standard of right and wrong.Revelation said:
Because such morals lead people to believe that harmful activities such as immoral sex are actually okay. There has been a disturbing tren in recent years of teens gathering for sex parties. Phsyciologists have observed that these parties result in long term problems for these kids. They cannot form long term lasting relationships. They are depressed in the extreem and have health problems because of it. It leads people to believe that talking home 5 billion dollars a year as the Walmart CEO while employees don't have medical benifets or other benifets is okay. Society does not care about being the best we can be. Society cares about getting more than the other guy and our morals reflect that.Revelation said:
Last edited:
How old were you?
Egbert
New member
Oh, wait; maybe he was molested by a younger man, that's it.
I would say man has reason and the ability to learn, that is why we can derive moral truth. But to each his own.
Oh, how so? Moral relativism argues that you can't derive unversal moral truths. That truth will always be subjectively based upon the culture, history, personal circumstances, etc. I'm arguing that universal moral truths can be derived from the world regardless of culture, history, personal circumstances, etc. However, it seems you have your heart set on calling me a moral relativist no matter how many times I restate my position, so do whatever you wish. Clearly, by your definition, anyone who doesn't follow the Bible is a moral relativist.
How do you know that? Because the book told you so? You really can't get around the fact that your entire belief in the Bible is based upon your personal circumstances and you have little to work with to prove its validity.
Appeal to Common Practice fallacy and therefore irrelevant.
Sigh...I've already stated the moral proposition for why I believe that homosexuality is fine.
Homosexuality within monogamous, consensual relationships between adults is not harmful.
I don't get that from the "gay community," it simply is an observable fact. If you would like to dispute it with some evidence outside of your Holy Scriptures, then I would love to hear it.
As far as Prop 8, I could care less. I could go to 7 other countires and get married, as well as 2 states here in the United States, or go to California and get a legally recognized domestic partnership. All your appeal to common practice fallacy tells me is that you lack a certain degree of logic.
I agree. We simply disagree in the means by which we have derived our interpretation's of God's moral truths. You have subjectively chosen a book of which you can provide little proof of its validity, and I have chosen to objectively study his creation. Therefore our conclusions are different.
Correction. Unmarried homosexual activity is no different that unmarried heterosexual activity. Good thing I'm fighting for marriage.
You have yet to provide a single reasonable argument outside of your holy scriptures as to why homosexuality is harmful. Your argument about teen sex parties has nothing to do with homosexuality within monogamous relationships, and in fact, is evidence you yourself attempt to derive moral truth about sexual behavior from observing the world.
- Status