Subject:
|
Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:10:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2743 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Nailing your neighbours wife is not morally right, even if you, your
> > neighbours wife and your neighbours wife's husband think it's okay.
>
> Why not? You'll have to present an argument other than "from authority" to
> convince me differently.
Forgetting authority, forget the laws of the land and forget the laws of the
bible nad foget that I'm a Christian and that you're, well, not...
Thank you for making my point so crystal clear.
(and the following point does *not* make Christians exempt for we are, *all*
of us, sinners)
STD
omigod! If I just have sex with my wife, and she just has sex with me, and
everyone does the same thing, whether it's just, or honourable, or preached
from above, or gosh darn it, just the right thing to do, for whatever
reasons, in one generation all *sexually* transmitted diseases would be
gone. One generation.
And this is not me on a stupid soapbox saying that STD's are some sort of
divine punishment from God 'cause people are sleeping around. Far from it,
it's part of the natural background, and as any scientist would tell you,
they derive from a naturally occuring and naturally happening circumstances.
That is why you shouldn't sleep around. Don't go telling me your moral
relativism is superior to my moral absolutes, because if we, all of us, had
some moral absolutes, whether God inspired or for your own reasons, we
wouldn't be facing these problems.
i have no problem with teenagers having sex. I prefer they don't but hey, I
was a teenager once and I remember the yearnings... telling them not to is
ludicrous at best. If they want to, we shouldn't admonish them and we
shouldn't make it difficult for them to 'get protection', but my goodness,
we should live as examples. We should educate and say, 'if you have sex,
you run the risk' Safe sex is a euphemism for 'I wanna do what feels good
and deal with the consequenses later' Well, the impact of that is taking my
tax dollars which should be paying the space prgram and getting me to Mars
and putting it into STD treatment (my stupid way of looking at it but hey,
is my post...)
>
> Assuming we've named all the stakeholders, and they're all consenting adults
> who actually consented (posit this for the sake of the argument, that there
> are no other stakeholders), it is *indeed* morally right. At least by my morals.
>
> Further, in an earlier post you said:
>
> > > > Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
> > > > happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
> > > > these things?
>
> Well, here's an example of denial. Nailing my neighbours wife will bring me
> happiness, if everyone's onboard with the idea. Your bible denies it to me.
>
> Therefore this question is indeed germane to the argument as you framed it.
>
> Don't try to slip out of it because you don't have a satisfactory answer by
> accusing Chris of twisting things around. He's taken your premise and shown
> contradiction.
He went in a differnt direction and tried to twist it to say that the laws
of the bible deny pleasure--they don't and moreover, you know they don't.
Your point, on the other hand, went to where I don't even need my Christian
beliefs at all--Scientific principles will prove my point just fine here.
It is fact that if people were just sleeping with their spouses, STD's gone
bye-bye.
> Now, I am not a moral relativist like Dave E. who will say my morals and
> yours are equivalently good, within our separate societal context.
>
> I say just the opposite. My morals are in conflict with yours, and we live
> in the same society, so they are pitted against one another. Further, my
> morals are superior to yours as they will generate more happiness and less
> warfare. They are more tolerant, more life affirming, more rights respecting
> and generally more efficient in the market sense.
Pardon my french here Lar (for you know I appreciate you) but like
h-e-double-hockey-sticks your morals are superior to mine. Mine don't cause
pain either physcially due to STD's or emotionally by breaking the covenant
of marraige. Instant gratification is not all that there is to life.
'Adult' lifestyles is a euphemism for not wanting to grow up and take
responsibility, and denying instant pleasure now for a more secure life with
your spouse 'No dear, i never want to cheat on you, even if we all agree' is
the truly 'adult' thing to do.
>
> THIS is what I say when I cannot brook christian interference in my life.
>
> *You* impose *your* morals on me via law. And while some of them may be OK
> (no stealing, no killing, those are rights violations which cannot be
> countenance) some (no worshiping false idols, sunday is the lord's day so
> stores are closed, be monogamous, honor your father and mother) just plain
> cramp my style, and it appears to be just because you christians in general
> are intolerant of others. Even when their behaviours cause no harm.
Don't care about the Sunday closing--I see many movies on Sunday and I go to
many restaurants, I do think that I don't want to force people to work 7
days a week. We live for the weekend, why can't others--has nothing to do
with Christian laws, people can take their 'weekend' whenever they want. I
choose Saturday and Sunday.
How does honouring your mother and father 'cramp' your lifestyle. If you
read that line outside any kind of deist law, what would be wrong with it.
For that matter, you can take 9 of the 10 commanments out of the Christian
context and they would still be pretty good ideas. Again, I wouldn't
*force* any of them on anybody, but I sure would like to live with them. I
don't steal, so I would want others not to steal my stuff. Y'know how much
insurance money goes towards theft? Again, money that can be spent on the
space program!! Grr! to all you thieves!
The Christian just takes that one additional commandment, about no other
gods (incl. science) before Him.
Thats how I live.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | christian morals are inferior to tolerant morals
|
| (...) Why not? You'll have to present an argument other than "from authority" to convince me differently. Assuming we've named all the stakeholders, and they're all consenting adults who actually consented (posit this for the sake of the argument, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
