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 21:51:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2711 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > > > 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.
>
> 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.
I think you just dodged the question here-- unless you're insinuating that
science should dictate our morals? IE that *because* we can eliminate STD's
if we stick to having one partner, that it's morally good?
But back to the point. Let's suppose that you're guaranteed that there's no
STD's involved in the equasion. Let's suppose it's the year 2973 and we've
cured all STD's. SpaceBob wants to sleep with SpaceSophia, who is SpaceJim's
wife. SpaceJim, SpaceBob, and SpaceSophia all *LOVE* this idea. Suppose we
also guaranteed that no other person would ever find out whether or not they
had sex or not? Given all that, doesn't the Bible *STILL* deny them to
engage in this pleasure? Why is it immoral *now*?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
