Same-sex couples begin marrying

[Auster]

I'll just slip this in here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Cultural_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Jewish_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_...ism#Christian_abandonment_of_Jewish_practices

If I remember correctly Christ represented the passing from a monotheistic relgion with polytheistic roots to a purely montheistic religion. Of course, in steed of multiple Gods you have multiple incarnations of God in the form of the trinity. . .

This is a conjecture and philosophical/theological musing. This would be only opinion.

Its been awhile since I studied it but I do believe Jesus broke from the traditional teachings and then after his death when the modern church was created they further removed themselves form the Jewish faith.

See links above.

From some standpoints, Christ grew up a Jew but then rejected their teachings as he developed his new teachings. Some years after his death I think before the apostles started their widespread missionary work the 'church' as it was back then decided that Jesus had rejected many of the old teachings, so they should also reject all of the old values and base their morals on Jesus' teachings.

From the Jewish standpoint, this is exactly what happened, albeit officially later than I originally mentioned.

 

[Timshel]

Hang on. Im not staking any position out. Im clarifying history. Now what is wrong, factually wrong with this? Aside from perhaps the exact timing of it?

No, I am not interested in that diversion. We are disussing whether morality can change. You either acknowledge thst it can, that the old testament was immoral or that practices I mentioned are morally proper.

It is quite obvious that morality changes. It must with new technologies and shifting cultural issues. What is "natural" changes.

Farming was once seen as "unnatural." That is even depicted in the bible. The way we produce food now would seem "unnatural" to the founders and it is beginning to change so rapidly that it will likely seem very "unnatural" to us before we die. The terms moral and natural are highly subjective, like it or not.

 

[Auster]

Morality is cultural, and any living culture will have a changing morality by virtue of it organic nature. The holy books are living documents and wth every version, every translation they change. That their meanings and morals change is only inevitable.

However, for any larger scale shifts to become possible one of two critiea must be met. Either a rapid change or gradual change over time (at least centuries). The gradual change is organic and natural. This fast change is brought about by a variety of thing; usually armed revolutions but with the recent technological advances it is more and more possible to change the culture in the span of a generation via the media and education.

The very essence of conservatism is an attempt to retain traditional values while still accommodating new culture. Different sects have different endpoints in mind.

The very essence of liberalism is change towards a system that its members view as better, superior, progressive, allowing more freedom amoungst its members. Again differing sects have different opinions.

That culture and morality shifts is obvious. New knowledge and technology almost necessitates it. It has historically been a gradual shift, however, and slow enough that over one, two, or even three or more generations morality remained the same. If your arguement is that these small accommodations equate to a radically new moral codes than it is wrong.

In continuation, any argument that argues that one man or group's moral flexibility is capable of defining a whole generation is equally wrong.

This arguement should not be as simple as 'does society, culture, or the resulting morality change?', but 'does the evolution of culture, language, and society grant permission for one to have a flexible morality?'.

I answer no. The moral of our culture do not change so fast as to grant one the ability to say "I think I'm going to fuck this guy over because morality is slippery!" Morality as all other things is usually a graded thing.

All this is not to say that a certain amount of moral flexiblity is not required for those in power. Absolutes are dangereous, and that applies to leadership as well, esp if one believes the state must attempt to survive. Machiavelli proved as much to me.

 

[DamnYankee]

The people who the south switched along with the parties. They were Democrats, now they are Republicans. They support the same adgenda and ideas.... just switched parties.

Yes I've heard that theory before; it has no basis in fact. Keep repeating the lie though as I find it incredibly amusing that you would believe it.

 

[DamnYankee]

Wait, so then God was immoral/amoral? All the people of the Old Testament and their teachings were immoral/amoral?

You have problems with the fact that your church has changed its moral positions over time too, but I want to understand the above first.

None of us has the authority to judge God's actions. Many OT people were immoral. Ham was certainly immoral. Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. Many were moral, beginning with Noah.

 

[Phantasmal]

Jesus was the one to institute marriage as man, woman, so No!

Bawahahaha, ridiculous.

 

[Phantasmal]

So then from the beginning of time, how do we know murder is wrong, thievery is wrong,

Altruism, contract of society.

 

[Phantasmal]

Sure, he wasn't a flamer like you

Better a flamer than a faux Christian and according to your good book, g-d's judgement will be very harsh on faux Christians!

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You've never dented any of my arguments never mind "shredded" any of them. I do find that terribly amusing though, in fact my sides are now hurting.

Your anti-gay argument of "It is unnatural, unhealthy, immoral and abnormal, and that is why gays should not be allowed to marry" was thoroughly destroyed. If you want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead.

Your use of Paul Cameron as a reference was another bit I destroyed. That was even more amusing.

And the entire thread on the diameter of the bullet and bore of the .308 Winchester became a source of entertainment for numerous people.

So yeah, I have enjoyed our chats.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It's standard liberal pap. Morality requires people to be personal responsible and above everything else liberals despise personal responsibility.

And somehow this personal responsibility effects gay marriage?

There are moral issues that are inviolate. But there are also moral issues that can be fluid as societies change.

For example, murder is morally wrong regardless of changes in society (outside of the capital punishment/abortion arguments). But greed has been both denegrated as immoral and celebrated.

The main arguments calling homosexuality immoral are based on religious dogma. That has no place in our system of laws.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

But that is why they say the want to get married, to have the same insurance rights as legitimate married couples of opposite sex

One estimate I have read listed upwards of 1,400 benefits that married couples enjoy. Insurance rights are just one of those benefits. They want equality.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Well some animals eat their young are you saying that we should follow their example there also!

No one has said we should do as all animals do. What has been said is that something that occurs in numerous species of animals cannot be called "unnatural".

 

[Phantasmal]

From some standpoints, Christ grew up a Jew but then rejected their teachings as he developed his new teachings. Some years after his death I think before the apostles started their widespread missionary work the 'church' as it was back then decided that Jesus had rejected many of the old teachings, so they should also reject all of the old values and base their morals on Jesus' teachings.

Its been awhile since I studied it but I do believe Jesus broke from the traditional teachings and then after his death when the modern church was created they further removed themselves form the Jewish faith.

If I remember correctly Christ represented the passing from a monotheistic relgion with polytheistic roots to a purely montheistic religion. Of course, in steed of multiple Gods you have multiple incarnations of God in the form of the trinity. . .

I don't even know where to start with this,so many things wrong in this post!

 

[Auster]

I don't even know where to start with this,so many things wrong in this post!

Why not name 3 then? If you can say this than surely 3 legitimate things isn't asking too much?

I'm hearing this a lot here. 'You're wrong', and then never any proof, any further rebuttal. hmmph, I smell a resigner.

EDIT:
Just to point out my previous statement:

Spoiler

I'll just slip this in here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ral_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Jewish_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_o...wish_practices

If I remember correctly Christ represented the passing from a monotheistic relgion with polytheistic roots to a purely montheistic religion. Of course, in steed of multiple Gods you have multiple incarnations of God in the form of the trinity. . . This is a conjecture and philosophical/theological musing. This would be only opinion.

This is a conjecture and philosophical/theological musing. This would be only opinion.

Its been awhile since I studied it but I do believe Jesus broke from the traditional teachings and then after his death when the modern church was created they further removed themselves form the Jewish faith. See links above.

See links above.

From some standpoints, Christ grew up a Jew but then rejected their teachings as he developed his new teachings. Some years after his death I think before the apostles started their widespread missionary work the 'church' as it was back then decided that Jesus had rejected many of the old teachings, so they should also reject all of the old values and base their morals on Jesus' teachings. From the Jewish standpoint, this is exactly what happened, albeit officially later than I originally mentioned.

From the Jewish standpoint, this is exactly what happened, albeit officially later than I originally mentioned.

EDIT: It has become known to me that the links above are not valid because they are for some reason abbreviated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Cultural_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Jewish_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Cultural_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Jewish_views

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So then from the beginning of time, how do we know murder is wrong, thievery is wrong,

They have been against laws in almost every culture. They were against the law in the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the 10 Commandments. There were laws against murder and theft in China long before they were exposed to any judeo-christian influences.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Then don't advocate changing laws based on emotion, and lack of religion

I advocate changing laws to promote equality and to exclude religious dogma as the sole basis for laws.

 

[Phantasmal]

They have been against laws in almost every culture. They were against the law in the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the 10 Commandments. There were laws against murder and theft in China long before they were exposed to any judeo-christian influences.

Eygpt also had laws before the Big Ten which actually only contain two laws, well, three if you consider bearing false witness. The others were religious in nature.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I agree with 3, so stop trying to force your morals on me, homosexual marriage is something that has never existed and it comes down to money in the end, IE insurance coverage, life insurance, wills and such

It also comes down to equality. I also comes down to being able to make decisions for your spouse if they are unable. It also comes down to being able to insure your spouses last wishes are carried out. It also comes down to being able to visit your spouse in a hospital where only family is allowed. It also comes down to being parents in an adoption.

And no one is forcing any morals on you. If gays marry it will not effect you one iota. But you want your morals to be used against them. Funny how that works.

 

[Howey]

Well some animals eat their young are you saying that we should follow their example there also!

If only your mother had followed the example...

 

[Timshel]

Morality is cultural, and any living culture will have a changing morality by virtue of it organic nature. The holy books are living documents and wth every version, every translation they change. That their meanings and morals change is only inevitable.

However, for any larger scale shifts to become possible one of two critiea must be met. Either a rapid change or gradual change over time (at least centuries). The gradual change is organic and natural. This fast change is brought about by a variety of thing; usually armed revolutions but with the recent technological advances it is more and more possible to change the culture in the span of a generation via the media and education.

The very essence of conservatism is an attempt to retain traditional values while still accommodating new culture. Different sects have different endpoints in mind.

The very essence of liberalism is change towards a system that its members view as better, superior, progressive, allowing more freedom amoungst its members. Again differing sects have different opinions.

That culture and morality shifts is obvious. New knowledge and technology almost necessitates it. It has historically been a gradual shift, however, and slow enough that over one, two, or even three or more generations morality remained the same. If your arguement is that these small accommodations equate to a radically new moral codes than it is wrong.

In continuation, any argument that argues that one man or group's moral flexibility is capable of defining a whole generation is equally wrong.

This arguement should not be as simple as 'does society, culture, or the resulting morality change?', but 'does the evolution of culture, language, and society grant permission for one to have a flexible morality?'.

I answer no. The moral of our culture do not change so fast as to grant one the ability to say "I think I'm going to fuck this guy over because morality is slippery!" Morality as all other things is usually a graded thing.

All this is not to say that a certain amount of moral flexiblity is not required for those in power. Absolutes are dangereous, and that applies to leadership as well, esp if one believes the state must attempt to survive. Machiavelli proved as much to me.

You claimed to find it curious that jarod would say morals are fluid. You seem to acknowledge they are and of course they are and must be.