C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

[Cypress]

Premise--->"Queers didn't fare well in the Christian world. I certainly would like Cypress to explain it to me, but alas, I know he never will. He can't."
Cypress: "You assume I am required to accept the premise of your question, which I don't."

It's a FACT that Homosexuals were scorned and killed throughout history. You 'accepting the Premise' is required. Like 'Climate Deniers', if you reject the Premise, you can make up anything you like.

Modern People, the secular types that use Reason & Logic, were the ones that liberated the Homosexuals from the persecution of the religious. It wasn't the 'Devout Religious-types' that granted 'Equality' to the Queer Community. It was 'Common Sense' people who rejected the Dogma of the Religious Manuscripts of the Past.

Now, I now you will twist and twirl, point to Philosophers, call out their Names, and return to your 'Religion is the Greatest Gift' mentality. I have no problem with you wallowing in it. I see it here ALL THE TIME.

Irrelevant to anything I wrote.

Marriage customs, sexual preference, and property ownership are your issues.

They are not at the core of a universal moral order that has been discussed since Socrates and Confucius.

Virtually no premminent moral philosophers of the last two thousand years have devoted much time or energy writing about marriage contracts, real estate deals, or sexual preference.

 

[Jack]

Irrelevant to anything I wrote.

Marriage customs, sexual preference, and property ownership are your issues.

They are not at the core of a universal moral order that has been discussed since Socrates and Confucius.

Virtually no premminent moral philosophers of the last two thousand years have devoted much time or energy writing about marriage contracts, real estate deals, or sexual preference.

I'm going to stop trying to have a Discussion with you on this. You seem extremely defensive of your position and when confronted you repeatedly run to your Bookshelf, jot down a number of Philosophers, then toss a dozen names out as though that confirms your position. You've done this so often, it seems like your 'Go To' option. Have a nice day, Cypress. You seem like a nice guy, just unable to have an honest Discussion.

 

[Cypress]

I'm going to stop trying to have a Discussion with you on this. You seem extremely defensive of your position and when confronted you repeatedly run to your Bookshelf, jot down a number of Philosophers, then toss a dozen names out as though that confirms your position. You've done this so often, it seems like your 'Go To' option. Have a nice day, Cypress. You seem like a nice guy, just unable to have an honest Discussion.

I am not compelled to accept your premise no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

My understanding of a universal moral order is not based on property transactions or sexual preference

And these people and institutions are on my wavelength; they are not discussing real estate deals or sexual preference:

Aristotle's ethics -->
Courage
Temperance
Magnanimity
Patience
Liberality
Truthfulness

The Five Vows of Jainism -->
Non-violence
Absolute truthfulness
Chaste living
No stealing
Non-attachment to material possessions

Buddhist eightfold path -->
Correct intention, avoiding thoughts of attachment, hatred, and harmful intent
Correct speech, refraining from verbal misdeeds such as lying, divisive speech
Correct livelihood, avoiding trades that directly or indirectly harm others, such as selling slaves, weapons, animals for slaughter, intoxicants, or poisons,
Correct effort, abandoning negative states of mind that have already arisen, preventing negative states that have yet to arise, and sustaining positive states that have already arisen

 

[BidenPresident]

Aristotle never argued for a universal moral code. Quite the opposite.

 

[Cypress]

Jack is arguing that gay sex has some kind of universal appeal in the natural ethical affinity of humans.

In the way that normal humans feel drawn to truthfulness and freedom

I don't think gay sex and relationships have a universal appeal that humanity naturally bends towards. I am personally repulsed by gay sex, though I would not tell others what to do or oppress them if they find an appeal in it

 

[Cypress]

Aristotle never argued for a universal moral code. Quite the opposite.

The fact that Aristotelian ethics, Buddhist ethics, Confucian ethics, Zoroastrian ethics, etc. seemingly start arcing towards some kind of convergence (within a margin of error) means something to me.

The scientist in me is not so quick to dismiss observable patterns.

I don't think this universal arc through human history is totally random, completely inexplicable, nor do I think the currently understood mechanisms of biological evolution can fully explain them.

I don't know what it means, but it means something.

 

[BidenPresident]

The fact that Aristotelian ethics, Buddhist ethics, Confucian ethics, etc. seemingly start arcing towards some kind of convergence (within a margin of error) means something to me.

The scientist in me is not so quick to dismiss observable patterns.

I don't think this universal arc through human history in totally random, completely inexplicable, nor do I think the currently understood mechanisms of biological evolution can fully explain them

I'd steer clear of pontificating on Aristotle if you never read him.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I never heard Jack say he was gay!
He wrote something you assumed was saying he was gay!
Then you ran with it trolling.

You quoted some of his "queer" posts. Read them. He comes out.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jack is arguing that gay sex has some kind of universal appeal in the natural ethical affinity of humans.

In the way that normal humans feel drawn to truthfulness and freedom

I don't think gay sex and relationships have a universal appeal that humanity naturally bends towards. I am personally repulsed by gay sex, though I would not tell others what to do or oppress them if they find an appeal in it

Jack is the second gay man, after Katzgar, that is angry about being gay. People can't help how they feel, they can only use their reason to guide they behavior.

Will Smith should have used his reason rather than give into emotional desires.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm going to stop trying to have a Discussion with you on this. You seem extremely defensive of your position and when confronted you repeatedly run to your Bookshelf, jot down a number of Philosophers, then toss a dozen names out as though that confirms your position. You've done this so often, it seems like your 'Go To' option. Have a nice day, Cypress. You seem like a nice guy, just unable to have an honest Discussion.

He doesn't seem defensive to me, Jack. OTOH, like Katzgar, you seem very angry about being gay, or "Queer" as you labeled it.

Why are you so angry, Jack? Can't you control yourself anymore than Will Smith?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think Saint Augustine said something like the church is a place first and foremost for sinners, not for saints.

Nearly all normal people admire the fierce integrity and morality of Jimmy Carter, and are repelled by by the avarice, sleaziness, and amorality of Donald Trump.

Something in human nature is drawn to a model of morality.

But it is remarkable how few MAGA, and even lefties, could really emulate a role model of true humility and fierce integrity

Most of that is cultural; learned behavior. How many years have American males been praised for the "notches on their belts" but women are labeled sluts for doing exactly the same thing? There's nothing Holy in that hypocrisy, IMO.

Human beings are civilized from birth in most cultures. It's that "civilizing" that instills in them cultural morals. The question here is "Who originated those morals?" In some cases they simply evolved, in others they were introduced from foreign lands. Some seem to have a genetic relation in human behavior as you point out with the similarity of many religions.

 

[Cypress]

I'd steer clear of pontificating on Aristotle if you never read him.

You have never read the entire text of Biden's infrastructure bill or the build back better bill, but you routinely post on them and comment on them.

aka, you are exactly like me: you don't have unlimited amounts of time in your life to read everything humanity has ever produced, so you rely on journalists, experts, scholars to give you information about topics.

 

[Cypress]

Jack is the second gay man, after Katzgar, that is angry about being gay. People can't help how they feel, they can only use their reason to guide they behavior.

Will Smith should have used his reason rather than give into emotional desires.

I think I would have just walked up to Chris Rock, refused to shake his hand, and just whispered in his ear that he was a complete fucking asshole for cracking that joke.

I don't see what is gained by bitch slapping him in a public forum among your professional colleagues and peers.

 

[BidenPresident]

You have never read the entire text of Biden's infrastructure bill or the build back better bill, but you routinely post on them and comment on them.

aka, you are exactly like me: you don't have unlimited amounts of time in your life to read everything humanity has ever produced, so you rely on journalists, experts, scholars to give you information about topics.

weird, as usual

 

[Jack]

Jack is arguing that gay sex has some kind of universal appeal in the natural ethical affinity of humans.

In the way that normal humans feel drawn to truthfulness and freedom

I don't think gay sex and relationships have a universal appeal that humanity naturally bends towards. I am personally repulsed by gay sex, though I would not tell others what to do or oppress them if they find an appeal in it

Uh, no.
YOU, Cypress, are arguing about and promoting a 'Natural Law', which you feel is divinely inspired, but which you will not admit to.
I, Jack, have asked about the 'Natural Law', and Homosexuals, which the 'divinely' have stated as 'abominations'.

So, since you can't EVER explain that, you turn to any and every tactic to avoid the Question.
See. The ONLY explanation for Homosexuals being treated as equal Individuals here on Planet Earth is through Logic & Reason. NOT through some Cosmic Transcendent Esoteric Code that through your brain is 'from religion'.

The only reason I have returned here is your assertion "Jack is arguing that gay sex has some kind of universal appeal' that you know is a lie and is simply another one of your tactics at diversion.
You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel here, Cypress. A bit disappointing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think I would have just walked up to Chris Rock, refused to shake his hand, and just whispered in his ear that he was a complete fucking asshole for cracking that joke.

I don't see what is gained by bitch slapping him in a public forum among your professional colleagues and peers.

After the performance? Agreed, that's the most civil thing to do.

OTOH, it's a joke. When someone puts themselves out there as the poster child of Alopecia, in that business they should expect to take few shots. The whole "no such thing as bad publicity" thing, unless one comes off as a violent asshole.

 

[Cypress]

Uh, no.
YOU, Cypress, are arguing about and promoting a 'Natural Law', which you feel is divinely inspired, but which you will not admit to.
I, Jack, have asked about the 'Natural Law', and Homosexuals, which the 'divinely' have stated as 'abominations'.

So, since you can't EVER explain that, you turn to any and every tactic to avoid the Question.
See. The ONLY explanation for Homosexuals being treated as equal Individuals here on Planet Earth is through Logic & Reason. NOT through some Cosmic Transcendent Esoteric Code that through your brain is 'from religion'.

The only reason I have returned here is your assertion "Jack is arguing that gay sex has some kind of universal appeal' that you know is a lie and is simply another one of your tactics at diversion.
You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel here, Cypress. A bit disappointing.

I don't think gay romantic relationships have ever been considered a universal, natural human desire --- like you do.

I think normal humans naturally tend to get drawn to things like freedom and truth. Because as Thomas Jefferson wrote, these natural truths are self evident.

I also never, anywhere, said that religions, in and of themselves, established any moral truths.

This is from my very first post in this thread -->

Though one can (and should) be trained in ethical thinking and moral behavior, the teacher does not make up the code; he or she merely receives and passes it on.

I never said that religions, universally, had everything right two thousand years ago. I indicated that philosophers, theologians, intellectuals, and normal everyday humans have generally been on an arcing trajectory - at least since the Axial Age - towards a convergence on some kind of natural moral order.

Some people call it the long conversation.

I don't know what it means, but I know how to make careful observations.

I could also be totally wrong

That is the other part of the scientist in me: I am a skeptic and admit when I don't know what something means.

 

[Jack]

I don't think gay romantic relationships have ever been considered a universal, natural human desire --- like you do.

I think normal humans naturally tend to get drawn to things like freedom and truth. Because as Thomas Jefferson wrote, these natural truths are self evident.

I also never, anywhere, said that religions, in and of themselves, established any moral truths.

This is from my very first post in this thread -->



I never said that religions, universally, had everything right two thousand years ago. I indicated that philosophers, theologians, intellectuals, and normal everyday humans have generally been on an arcing trajectory - at least since the Axial Age - towards a convergence on some kind of natural moral order.

Some people call it the long conversation.

I don't know what it means, but I know how to make careful observations.

I could also be totally wrong

That is the other part of the scientist in me: I am a skeptic and admit when I don't know what something means.

Cypress. I really have no interest in getting into this again with you because you seem like a dishonest Discussionist.

Cypress: "I don't think gay romantic relationships have ever been considered a universal, natural human desire --- like you do."
Cypress: "I think normal humans naturally tend to get drawn to things like freedom and truth. Because as Thomas Jefferson wrote, these natural truths are self evident."

Jack: Sadly, you're a lying sack of shit. I've never said that and you know that. 'Freedom and Truth' would be the concept of Homosexuals being treated as equal individuals and citizens. Something brought about by Logic & Reason of Modern People. NOT some 'religious-types' that have labeled Homosexuals as 'Abominations'. You can't explain this, so you dishonestly try and lie your way out of answering. This really shakes my view of you as attempting to actually be an intelligent person. These are tactics of FRAUDS.

Cypress: "I never said that religions, universally, had everything right two thousand years ago. I indicated that philosophers, theologians, intellectuals, and normal everyday humans have generally been on an arcing trajectory - at least since the Axial Age - towards a convergence on some kind of natural moral order.'
Jack: Yeah. I asked if this may have had anything to do with 'religion' deminishing and secular thought arising. Again, dodged the simple question.

Cypress: "That is the other part of the scientist in me: I am a skeptic and admit when I don't know what something means."
Jack: No. You've convinced me you are no 'scientist' or intellect with much interest in Knowledge. You're some guy with pre-determined religious-based philosophy that tries to surround and toss out as many philosophical names as possible as a way to 'prove' any point you try to make.

I have more respect for the Religious Quacks that are honest in their Beliefs than some Dishonest Person like YOU.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Cypress. I really have no interest in getting into this again with you because you seem like a dishonest Discussionist.....

Cypress is being nice. You know me, Jack the Queer, I'm not so nice. LOL

The only dishonest person in your discussion with Cypress is you; you set up your strawman bullshit and then get angry when people won't knock them down with you. WTF, Jack? Are you setting up to have another manic episode?

Sexuality is a Earth thing. For all we know other species bud off their kids or split in half. Only a manic moron would make a claim about the universality of homosexuality, Jack.

 

[BidenPresident]

Jack: No. You've convinced me you are no 'scientist' or intellect with much interest in Knowledge. You're some guy with pre-determined religious-based philosophy that tries to surround and toss out as many philosophical names as possible as a way to 'prove' any point you try to make.

He's kind of a joke. He opines on people like Aristotle yet admits he never read Aristotle.