Gay marriage, sexual morality and the media

[rossum]

So does the same thing apply to “moral truths”?

How do we know what is, and what is not, a “moral truth”?

eating prawns?

keeping slaves?

charging interest on loans?

Many different people claim many different things as “moral truth”, pointing to many different sources to justify their choice. Moslems point to the Qur’an to justify a man having four wives. Is that a “moral truth”?

If you dig deep enough into the source of moral law, then you will end up at the Euthyphro Dilemma.

You are on a website that has a plethora of answers to common objections like the one you posed…might I suggest this response:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

That piece may well be authoritative for Catholics. I am not Catholic.

rossum

 

[Ben_Carmine]

c) It most certainly does. One of the worst aspects of modern thought is a certain petulant and asinine insistence that “what I do only affects me me me” and whoever else I enter into the activity with. In a very real way it is anti-incarnational and denies the organic bonds between communities at large and, indeed, between all people. What you’ve done here is actually denied a fundamental aspect of marriage (see second-to-last clause of this paragraph). If gay “marriage” only affects John and Andy then why don’t they stop blabbing and demanding that somebody please recognize it? And please don’t say, “Oh, they don’t need your approval;” marriage is an inherently public thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

This doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t deny anyone anything, what exactly is being denied? Organic bonds between communities? What is that and how is it being denied?

You say that gay marriage only affects John and Andy, then say why don’t they stop blabbing and demanding that somebody recognise it, but that’s the thing; they’re not married in the first place because it’s largely illegal in the US. Saying their marrige only affects them then in the same breath saying that they’re not legally married is contradictory. How can their marriage be affecting anyone if they’re not married?

 

[shockerfan]

How do we know what is, and what is not, a “moral truth”?

eating prawns?

keeping slaves?

charging interest on loans?

Many different people claim many different things as “moral truth”, pointing to many different sources to justify their choice. Moslems point to the Qur’an to justify a man having four wives. Is that a “moral truth”?

If you dig deep enough into the source of moral law, then you will end up at the Euthyphro Dilemma.

So your contention is that there are no moral truths?

That piece may well be authoritative for Catholics. I am not Catholic.

rossum

But your initial contention is that we pick and choose is not the case. You misrepresent our beliefs then try to argue against that misrepresentation. I provided you an explanation for our beliefs. I’m not going to spend my time arguing red herrings, but if you want to challenge Catholic belief, then that’s fine, just make sure you argue against what we actually believe.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Kind of like my favorite new term. . . . homosexualists. . . .

Homosexualism is to racism as homosexualist is to racist. A new term that LGBs and their supporters include in their “don’t use” list. Not hacking the meaning of an old word that has meant only one configuration - union of a man and a woman. Homosexualists also changed the meaning of “homophobia.”
,

 

[rossum]

So your contention is that there are no moral truths?

I am Buddhist, so I contend that there are actions and the consequences of those actions. If you do not want the consequences then do not do the actions:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

In this situation, “moral truths”, are not particularly relevant; actions and the resulting consequences are much more important.

rossum

 

[shockerfan]

I am Buddhist, so I contend that there are actions and the consequences of those actions. If you do not want the consequences then do not do the actions:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

In this situation, “moral truths”, are not particularly relevant; actions and the resulting consequences are much more important.

rossum

But would you agree that most people have an in-born idea that, for example, murder or stealing is wrong? I realize not everybody, but most people do. I don’t think it has to be taught, most people tend to know that those things are wrong. Agree or disagree?

p.s. I would agree for the most part with your point about actions and consequences.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am Buddhist, so I contend that there are actions and the consequences of those actions. If you do not want the consequences then do not do the actions:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

In this situation, “moral truths”, are not particularly relevant; actions and the resulting consequences are much more important.

rossum

Your quotation includes the phrase “evil mind”. I assume that you just mean by “evil”, then, pursuing some action whose consequences you do not desire?

 

[SMGS127]

Kind of like my favorite new term. . . . homosexualists. . . .

I just asked my best gay [male] friend, who is actively gay, what he would think if he overheard religious people using certain terms. Here we go:

“Homosexualist” – “Oh *** that’s almost as bad as queerosexual, I would just assume ignorance and tune out.”

“Homosexual lifestyle” – “I assume that they assume that drinking, drugs and prostitution are exclusive to minority groups that they don’t like because their people are too good for that.”

This coming from a man who has been completely fine remaining one of my closest friends despite my conversion and my flip to opposition of gay marriage and belief in the mortal sin of same-sex physicality. So I hope people really think long and hard about their word choices. Is it better to anger people or to evangelize? Which really brings us closer to God in the end?

 

[Rau]

How do we know what is, and what is not, a “moral truth”?

eating prawns?

keeping slaves?

charging interest on loans?

Many different people claim many different things as “moral truth”, pointing to many different sources to justify their choice. Moslems point to the Qur’an to justify a man having four wives. Is that a “moral truth”?

If you dig deep enough into the source of moral law, then you will end up at the Euthyphro Dilemma.

That piece may well be authoritative for Catholics. I am not Catholic.

rossum

A degree of historical knowledge is required to draw the distinction you enquire about . We have the Church for that. Nowadays we keep Canon Law separate from our Catechism. The Law will change as do Customs, whereas what is morally wrong wil not change to be morally good.

 

[rossum]

But would you agree that most people have an in-born idea that, for example, murder or stealing is wrong? I realize not everybody, but most people do. I don’t think it has to be taught, most people tend to know that those things are wrong. Agree or disagree?

I think what is inborn tends to be tribal: “Be nice to US, you don’t have to be nice to THEM”. Which applies to various versions of THEM. See a great deal of history (including the Old Testament) and biology for examples.

“Be nice to everyone, even to THEM,” is learned/taught behaviour which has taken time to develop and is still not universal.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your quotation includes the phrase “evil mind”. I assume that you just mean by “evil”, then, pursuing some action whose consequences you do not desire?

Correct. “unwise mind” would be an alternative translation.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Correct. “unwise mind” would be an alternative translation.

rossum

So supposing that I desire to torture other people and cause them intense pain, and I know how to do this without getting caught or suffering any bad consequences myself. You are saying it would display an evil mind for me *not *to torture people, in this case?

 

[YoungTradCath]

This doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t deny anyone anything, what exactly is being denied? Organic bonds between communities? What is that and how is it being denied?

You say that gay marriage only affects John and Andy, then say why don’t they stop blabbing and demanding that somebody recognise it, but that’s the thing; they’re not married in the first place because it’s largely illegal in the US. Saying their marrige only affects them then in the same breath saying that they’re not legally married is contradictory. How can their marriage be affecting anyone if they’re not married?

I think we may be having a misunderstanding here. I am arguing against the poster I quoted. I was using examples.

 

[rossum]

So supposing that I desire to torture other people and cause them intense pain, and I know how to do this without getting caught or suffering any bad consequences myself. You are saying it would display an evil mind for me *not *to torture people, in this case?

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Killing and torturing will get you a lifetime or three in one of the hells.

Nobody escapes the consequences of their actions. There is no equivalent to the forgiveness of sins in Buddhism. If you do the crime then you do the time. Buddhists need to think carefully before they act. Any action cannot be undone.

rossum

 

[Ben_Carmine]

I think we may be having a misunderstanding here. I am arguing against the poster I quoted. I was using examples.

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Killing and torturing will get you a lifetime or three in one of the hells.

Nobody escapes the consequences of their actions. There is no equivalent to the forgiveness of sins in Buddhism. If you do the crime then you do the time. Buddhists need to think carefully before they act. Any action cannot be undone.

rossum

Rossum, this is incredibly problematic. Consider:

You are saying that if I torture people, I should expect a lifetime in “one of the hells”. Why should I know that this is the consequence, however? Do I have to be Buddhist to know? Presumably not, since you would doubtless say that non-Buddhists shouldn’t go around torturing each other.

But then, what *makes *the consequence for torturing people hell? Presumably this is the consequence because there is something wrong with torturing people. But weren’t we saying that what makes torturing people wrong is the consequence? We are going in a circle, you see.

 

[rossum]

But then, what *makes *the consequence for torturing people hell? Presumably this is the consequence because there is something wrong with torturing people. But weren’t we saying that what makes torturing people wrong is the consequence? We are going in a circle, you see.

If you throw a rock straight up in the air, then shortly later you are going to be hit on the head by a rock. Your action has consequences, and the consequences are caused by gravity and by your initial action.

For moral actions and consequences, the equivalent of gravity is karma (in English) karma/phala (in Sanskrit). Actions have consequences, which may span one or more lifetimes.

rossum

 

[Rau]

If you throw a rock straight up in the air, then shortly later you are going to be hit on the head by a rock. Your action has consequences, and the consequences are caused by gravity and by your initial action.

For moral actions and consequences, the equivalent of gravity is karma (in English) karma/phala (in Sanskrit). Actions have consequences, which may span one or more lifetimes.

rossum

Why is hell the consequence of torture?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why is hell the consequence of torture?

Yeah, I mean why can’t I expect that if I torture people I’ll spend time in the Caribbean Islands with the 99 virgins, or whatever it is?

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Why is hell the consequence of torture?

While I’m not talking for rossum I’m going to make a guess here and say:

Karma. Torture is inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone without their consent to force them to do something. If actions have consequences then karma would put an equivalent to the pain and suffering inflicted on the person who inflicted it, which is a lifetime of hell.

But again this is just a guess, rossum will know the right answer.