M
mwok
Guest
funny, you call it respect. I call it not having the prudence to know when someone is hurting themselves or others. But, tomatoes-tomahtoes I guess.
says who?
who decides what is my business and what is yours?
- Status
S
Serious
Guest
I am not making that value judgment. I only say that “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have no right to hurt you, but as long as I do not hurt you, I can do whatever I damned well please. And it is no one else’s business.
S
Serious
Guest
Hurting themselves and hurting others is worlds apart. If they hurt themselves, and you can rationally assume that they do it out of ignorance, then your warning is fine.
Says the one and only rational ethical principle: “the principle of reciprocity”. Also known as the Golden rules. Just lie you do not welcome those slef-appointed do-gooders stick their nose into your private affairs, you do not it to others. Yes, the word is “respect”. “Ar-ee-es-pee-cee-tee” - sang Aretha Franklin.
What does not hurt you, is none of your business.
Why did you ask these questions? Are the answers not obvious? Surely you heard of the Golden Rules.
M
mwok
Guest
So a doctor may not perform surgury? Or only when everyone agrees that the patient cannot feel pain?
M
mwok
Guest
So according to your “Golden Rule” if I came across you being savagely beaten I should try to avoid confrontation and see if I can get someone else who seems to have more of the authority that you loath to do something about it?
Or should I not fire an employee because I would not want them to fire me?
M
mwok
Guest
Or maybe the “Golden Rule” that states that if someone were to come across me being savagely beaten I would want them to cover me with their own body to protect me from the assault, since that is what I would most likely do for you. So should I demand you do that for me out of respect for reciprocity?
S
Serious
Guest
These questions have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Make a new thread if you want to talk about them.
But I am going to make one remark. The Golden rule has two forms, the positive one and the negative one. In this case I am talking about the negative version: “Do NOT do unto others that you would NOT want them to do unto you”.
M
mwok
Guest
then why argue them in the first place?
And what does that mean? It’s the same rule!
My point is that moral relativism dictates that you do absolutely nothing to the benefit of your fellow human race because it lacks the prudence to take any action in correcting anything because there is nothing to correct. I wonder, is anarchy the form of government in your country?
S
Serious
Guest
Not at all.
The positive rule is: “Do unto others that you would want them to do unto you”.
The negative rule is: “Do NOT unto others that you would NOT want them to do unto you”.
Don’t you see the difference? Amazing. I will translate: Leave others alone, do not bother them. If they ask for help, by all means provide it. If they are not in the position to ask for help, but it is obvious that they would ask for help if they could, certainly provide it. (These are the corollaries of the positive golden rule.) But otherwise nothing they do is your business (as long as they do not hurt someone - it ridiculous that I have to add this disclaimer each and every time, but some nincompoop would try a derailment if I left it out).
N
Neildown
Guest
In contrast - if I were an inexperienced house builder and I was nailing boards with a bat, I’d greatly appreciate it (even if it startled me at first) if some random passerby were willing to give me a hammer and show me how to use it.
In other words, its simply a matter of courtesy to give people the truth in place of flaw. Since the Church professes truths we are duty-bound to try to give bat-wielders good hammers instead - they ultimately make that choice for themselves though and will be judged based on it. If that is such an offensive mission then it would almost appear as if those not in favor are saying they wish to be ignorant.
M
mwok
Guest
I think you added the NOT to the rule to try to explain to others why you are apathetic.
S
Serious
Guest
Well, certainly, but this is not what we are talking about. Did you read the thread?
The church merely “claims” that it has the truth, but that is not the point. The poster of the OP would support punitive measures (so far spoke only about laws, but laws without enforcement and punishment are not “laws”) against those who wish to conduct a “sinful lifestyle”. I would urge you to read the thread. It is interesting.
S
Serious
Guest
You are wrong.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
In response to the OP: hear, hear. It is always good to know that people can and do take the teachings of the Church seriously when it’s hard as well as when it’s easy. I can only know intellectually that the cross is heavy and can be born, but your experience with both can be used as inspiration to those who have the same cross.
In regards to the random tangent we appear to be on:
Or, to use your positive/negative formulation: Suppose that someone is walking with a blindfold on. Now, that person has checked his path before doing so, and so is confident that it is safe. You, however, notice that he took a wrong turn at some point, and the path he is currently on is leading over a cliff. You call out to him, but he ignores you, or replies “don’t be stupid, I couldn’t be walking towards a cliff, I know where I’m going”.
Now, if you were in the situation of the blindfolded guy exactly, you would perceive some idiot bugging you about walking over a cliff that you know doesn’t exist. You would not want to be bothered. However, if somehow you could observe this scene from outside it with full knowledge, you would know that far from trying to bother you, this person is trying to help save you.
So, unless we are required to assume the other’s ignorance (in which case the rule is stupid and I deny that we are bound to give it any credence whatsoever), the negative rule, as you call it, does not prevent us from acting.
And yes, the cliff is really analogous to a real thing. A person walking blindly in sin with his hands over his ears saying “leave me alone, I can’t hear you, go away” is strolling along the edge of a cliff. I bet you can guess what’s at the bottom of that cliff.
In regards to the random tangent we appear to be on:
This interpretation just does not work. I do not think, for example, that Jesus went up to the woman at the well and said “I see that you have been promiscuous and are now engaging in either fornication or adultery, however since you have not indicated that you have a problem with this I will leave you alone and hope that you decide you are wrong before your path leads you to hell.”
Or, to use your positive/negative formulation: Suppose that someone is walking with a blindfold on. Now, that person has checked his path before doing so, and so is confident that it is safe. You, however, notice that he took a wrong turn at some point, and the path he is currently on is leading over a cliff. You call out to him, but he ignores you, or replies “don’t be stupid, I couldn’t be walking towards a cliff, I know where I’m going”.
Now, if you were in the situation of the blindfolded guy exactly, you would perceive some idiot bugging you about walking over a cliff that you know doesn’t exist. You would not want to be bothered. However, if somehow you could observe this scene from outside it with full knowledge, you would know that far from trying to bother you, this person is trying to help save you.
So, unless we are required to assume the other’s ignorance (in which case the rule is stupid and I deny that we are bound to give it any credence whatsoever), the negative rule, as you call it, does not prevent us from acting.
And yes, the cliff is really analogous to a real thing. A person walking blindly in sin with his hands over his ears saying “leave me alone, I can’t hear you, go away” is strolling along the edge of a cliff. I bet you can guess what’s at the bottom of that cliff.
S
Serious
Guest
Just for the fun of it, I am going to take your interpretation seriously. I am the guy in blindfold. I hear you give me the warning. I respond: “Fine, I am taking off my blindfild, you show me the cliff”. You start to mumble…: “well, that cliff is not really here… it is somewhere else”. So I ask, which direction, and how far is it? You say, you cannot tell, but if I trust your word, I will surely avoid the cliff.
Now I try to find out, how trustworthy you are. It turns out that you have never seen that cliff, you have never met anyone who has seen that cliff… it just an urban legend. Then I ask you some more questions, and your answers show that you are seriously delusional. (Sorry, but that is my perception.)
As such, I will disregard your warning, just as you would disregard the waring of someone whom you would consider delusional - because he would talk about leprechauns, goblins, elves… and other fairy tale creatures. If you wish to be taken seriously, better get some hard facts unto the table.
Of course the problem is different. Empty warnings as merely a sign of delusion, but the OP poster does not wish to stop here. He would like to see laws enacted to prevent people from conducting some “sinful” lifestyle. So far he did not specify what kind of enforcement method and what kinds of punishments he has in mind for those who dare to deviate from his “loving plans”… I can hardly wait for these details.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
No no no. You see, the blindfold isn’t an actual physical blindfold because this is an analogy, so you can only take it off within the analogy - in which case, within the analogy, you would see the cliff because of what the removing the blindfold is analogous for. The cliff would be right there. Now, this is the case in this analogy, because I’m right in the analogy because, well, I believe I’m right and because the golden rule is “Do [not do] unto others as YOU WOULD have them do [not do] unto YOU.” Not “don’t do unto others as they don’t want you to do unto them.”
Thus, within the analogy, if you take off the blindfold, you would clearly see the cliff. Because it’s clearly there. Because this is an analogy. Which based on what I believe. Because 1) I actually believe what I believe and 2) because the golden rule as it applies to my actions references me, not you.
If you want an atheist analogy, that’s fine, but it would be a different analogy that you made that may very well step around point 1 but will still have a lot of trouble with point 2.
This is going into what you believe about what I believe which is completely irrelevant to the Golden Rule, unless you can convince me to change what I believe to correspond with what you believe. But doing so would be a tangent even to this tangent, so if you want to try to convince me that my beliefs are unfounded delusions (good luck with that) you’ll have to do so elsewhere.
J
JNdoum
Guest
Dear Serious,
Truly, for me the issue with “leaving people alone” is that I care about everyone too much to do so. As I see it, what I believe isn’t some “urban legend.” People used to think germs were an urban legend, and sickness was caused by ill winds or something. And seeing as I care for strangers, I can’t see how doing my best to help them is wrong or intrusive.
True, I wouldn’t support going running into a homosexual’s house and condemning them. I wouldn’t support peeking on them and calling the “sodomy cops” or whatever. I would strongly support giving my views whenever it came up. I would support explaining my views and the reasons why I believe they are the right views. Most importantly, I would advocate respecting the persons who have the issue.
I truly do know homosexuals, and people who do drugs, and people who engage in premarital sex and use contraceptives. I writhe in my seat whenever I meet people I know and care for who do things I believe are wrong. But I don’t shove it down their throats. I explain my point of view. And much of the time, they’ll agree with me, and do it anyway. Which I find frustrating, and which makes me want to force them to do it. But, I know that I can’t. At the same time, I cannot advocate legislation which lets them do bad things; I’m morally obligated to try to stop them. I don’t see this as bad, because they’ll do it whether it’s legal or not, like Prohibition.
This kind of thinking and action is what I mean when I say I am “against” any issue. I don’t intend to curb stomp you or verbally bludgeon you for your opinion (I don’t mean “you” as in “you” individually). In fact, I’m usually the one who gets bludgeoned for my opinion. All that I hope for is for that person to do what I know is right, which isn’t suppressing their feelings, but living above them. Just as I’d want my siblings or children to do what’s best for themselves. Just as I want my parents and aunts and uncles to do what is best for themselves. It’s not organized oppression, it’s just what I see as my validated concern. I’m opposed to things like gay marriage for more reasons than just my faith and morals.
Sincerely,
JNdoum
Truly, for me the issue with “leaving people alone” is that I care about everyone too much to do so. As I see it, what I believe isn’t some “urban legend.” People used to think germs were an urban legend, and sickness was caused by ill winds or something. And seeing as I care for strangers, I can’t see how doing my best to help them is wrong or intrusive.
True, I wouldn’t support going running into a homosexual’s house and condemning them. I wouldn’t support peeking on them and calling the “sodomy cops” or whatever. I would strongly support giving my views whenever it came up. I would support explaining my views and the reasons why I believe they are the right views. Most importantly, I would advocate respecting the persons who have the issue.
I truly do know homosexuals, and people who do drugs, and people who engage in premarital sex and use contraceptives. I writhe in my seat whenever I meet people I know and care for who do things I believe are wrong. But I don’t shove it down their throats. I explain my point of view. And much of the time, they’ll agree with me, and do it anyway. Which I find frustrating, and which makes me want to force them to do it. But, I know that I can’t. At the same time, I cannot advocate legislation which lets them do bad things; I’m morally obligated to try to stop them. I don’t see this as bad, because they’ll do it whether it’s legal or not, like Prohibition.
This kind of thinking and action is what I mean when I say I am “against” any issue. I don’t intend to curb stomp you or verbally bludgeon you for your opinion (I don’t mean “you” as in “you” individually). In fact, I’m usually the one who gets bludgeoned for my opinion. All that I hope for is for that person to do what I know is right, which isn’t suppressing their feelings, but living above them. Just as I’d want my siblings or children to do what’s best for themselves. Just as I want my parents and aunts and uncles to do what is best for themselves. It’s not organized oppression, it’s just what I see as my validated concern. I’m opposed to things like gay marriage for more reasons than just my faith and morals.
Sincerely,
JNdoum
M
mitex
Guest
I don’t like the rampant promiscuity in the “gay” culture. But at the same I’ve also met some gay Christians in relationships who claim to have been faithful and monogamous for a number of years.
What they do is between them and God. This couple had been together for 20 years. That is a pretty incredible feet. Their faith is genuine and they truly believe they are not wrong with God.
As for judgement well we’re all sinners and I’m in no place to judge because I myself am a sinner. Best let God do that. But they truly seem to love each other so who am I to break what they’ve built up.
I don’t generally believe some of the beliefs that circulate on these forum that people say how all homosexual relationships don’t have love and are short-term filled with all sorts of promiscuity and vice. I think heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous, and have unstable relationships just like gays.
Is this true for all same-sex relationships? No I’m sure there are many broken homosexual relationships. Domestic violence is huge in the gay community. But to go and make a blanket statement that its indicative of every gay relationship. Well then that’s stupid to say.
I think a judgement has to be made on a case by case basis. As for being equal with heterosexuals well idk. Heterosexual relationships are technically for raising kids. So in a way there not the same.
But this couple I know they don’t want to call their relationship a marriage. They don’t want to adopt kids because they don’t believe either would be appropriate for them. I am not going to judge them because in the eyes God they still have worth and dignity and are worthy of his love.
What they do is between them and God. This couple had been together for 20 years. That is a pretty incredible feet. Their faith is genuine and they truly believe they are not wrong with God.
As for judgement well we’re all sinners and I’m in no place to judge because I myself am a sinner. Best let God do that. But they truly seem to love each other so who am I to break what they’ve built up.
I don’t generally believe some of the beliefs that circulate on these forum that people say how all homosexual relationships don’t have love and are short-term filled with all sorts of promiscuity and vice. I think heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous, and have unstable relationships just like gays.
Is this true for all same-sex relationships? No I’m sure there are many broken homosexual relationships. Domestic violence is huge in the gay community. But to go and make a blanket statement that its indicative of every gay relationship. Well then that’s stupid to say.
I think a judgement has to be made on a case by case basis. As for being equal with heterosexuals well idk. Heterosexual relationships are technically for raising kids. So in a way there not the same.
But this couple I know they don’t want to call their relationship a marriage. They don’t want to adopt kids because they don’t believe either would be appropriate for them. I am not going to judge them because in the eyes God they still have worth and dignity and are worthy of his love.
M
mwok
Guest
Okay, Serious:
What about the spreading of HIV through homosexual intercourse?
What about the spreading of HIV through homosexual intercourse?
M
mitex
Guest
HIV can spread even more through heterosexual intercourse. Drug use, needles, and mother to baby.
- Status