Author Topic: So the dissolution of marriage and perhaps even the sancticty of life to be...  (Read 715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/07/01/schwarzenegger.divorce/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline sainthieu

  • Abstractor of the Quintessence
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
There is no longer any concept that may reasonably be called 'the sanctity of life'. There has been none for the last 30 years, since abortion was legalized.

(Between the two of us, that's the secular argument against abortion: no one's life is sacred anymore. Even an atheist can understand that. If an innocent baby can be sacrificed on the altar of utilitarianism, then it is a mere matter of time until we discover the circumstances under which our own lives--much less innocent--can be forfeited. It's not only the infant who's dying in the abortion clinic; it is us. The acceptance of that child's demise makes it much easier for the state to dispense with our lives, for whichever reason it chooses---cost, for example.)

Sorry if I'm off topic.

As regards many so-called 'scientific' papers these day, I would only suggest that many are dishonest and informed by a political agenda.  Unfortunately, too many 'researchers' these days decide upon a conclusion they want to reach, and then cherry-pick evidence to support it. That's not science. Science is the pursuit of truth---wherever it may lead.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 01:14:03 AM by sainthieu »

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,037
"We all like sex . . ."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/07/01/schwarzenegger.divorce/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Wait . . . Women like sex? //%=(

According to my many data points I say this is garbage science from this obviously false statement alone.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Naturalistic fallacy. Case closed.

Too bad most people don't think logically, despite bowing down before the altar of Reason with a capital R.
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Even if it were acceptable to have indiscriminate sex with people because it is somehow "natural," that ignores the fact that when you marry someone, you vow to not have sex with other persons.  The fact that Arnold slept with someone without his wife's permission would mean he broke an agreement with her.  How people can say that is a good thing, I don't know (and I am not arguing here that this is the only reason you shouldn't have an affair, it is just the only argument left when a person becomes so deluded as to think sex outside marriage is acceptable).
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Quote
It goes against our nature as humans. "
"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above. "
Rose Sayer (Katharine Hepburn), African Queen.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

So certain things are moral for you but not for me?  Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me.  Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

So certain things are moral for you but not for me?  Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me.  Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...

Ok har har rli funny NOT. But there is certain things which are better decided plitically and not religiously so, if the majority decide (by voting) that murder is bad for society as a whole (which is what we have got right now) then that law should govern. Not religion because law can be for everyone and decided by vote in a democratic country and but religion can't be because everyone has different religions and some none. So one religious group shouldnt moralise for another group of people. It should be decided by politics and votes!!!

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Its not garbage.
It is when you are taking out the trash.
Quote
If your not religious then you can still have morals.
Arbirtrarily speaking perhaps, but then you would be excising any sort of objective ground for morality.

Quote
And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons.
No. The comment was it is completely natural to have multiple partners engaging in sexual activity with no consequences. Welcome to the postmodern worldview.

Quote
It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many.
I'm going to use my own body to kill whoever I want and how many I want. I am the sole arbiter of my persons and I shall not be infringed upon.

Quote
Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!!
Well everything is permissible then.
Quote
Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??
By sharing the Good News
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

So certain things are moral for you but not for me?  Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me.  Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...

Ok har har rli funny NOT. But there is certain things which are better decided plitically and not religiously so, if the majority decide (by voting) that murder is bad for society as a whole (which is what we have got right now) then that law should govern. Not religion because law can be for everyone and decided by vote in a democratic country and but religion can't be because everyone has different religions and some none. So one religious group shouldnt moralise for another group of people. It should be decided by politics and votes!!!

Poppy,

1) Aren't you imposing your moral views on others with your "shoulds"? "It should be decided by politics and votes". Why? Because you said so?

2) If a vote is taken and 60% of the population vote in favour of a particular issue (let's say, deporting illegal immigrants), isn't that 60% of the population imposing its moral views on the other 40%?

3) If something is legal (lets say invading another sovereign country and bombing civilians), and I say that it is morally wrong, how am I "moralizing for another group of people"? I am simply stating my conviction that a particular action is morally reprehensible- my speaking out doesn't stop the action, it simply voices my opposition to it.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

So certain things are moral for you but not for me?  Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me.  Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...

Ok har har rli funny NOT. But there is certain things which are better decided plitically and not religiously so, if the majority decide (by voting) that murder is bad for society as a whole (which is what we have got right now) then that law should govern. Not religion because law can be for everyone and decided by vote in a democratic country and but religion can't be because everyone has different religions and some none. So one religious group shouldnt moralise for another group of people. It should be decided by politics and votes!!!

I wasn't really trying to be funny.  I was making a point.  If you say that you can't tell someone that what they are doing is immoral without being a tyrant, then you cannot tell me not to murder you without you being a tyrant.  As well, have the majority voted that something is only immoral if the majority agree through a vote?  No.  They have not.  Therefore, you have violated your own principles by declaring that someone can't believe something immoral and say so unless the majority agree.

As well, you are mixing a few words up.  You seem to be under the impression that "religion" and "morality" are equivalent.  As well, you seem to think that saying "That is immoral, you shouldn't do that" is equivalent to saying "If you do not stop doing that now, I will use force to cause you to stop."  On the first point, 'religion' is a system of beliefs usually involving some sort of rituals.  'Morality' is a system of ethical beliefs, that is, of what is and is not acceptable behavior (in a more broad sense than manners and offense).  One the second point, telling someone that they are acting immorally is not forcing your religion on them, it is expressing your personal conviction that people shouldn't do whatever it is that that person did - which is precisely what you've done by telling me that I shouldn't say Arnold has acted immorally.  This is different that using force to stop someone from having extra-to include pre-marital sex, because it is merely telling someone something.  I have not advocated physically separating men and women, nor arresting people who engage in such behaviors.

As well, what would you do if 60% (or 80%, or 90%) of an area was of the same religion and voted in lock-step to illegalize extra-to include pre-marital sex, despite the fact that the other 40% (or 20% or 10%) of people in the area believe that such activity is moral - or even required?  Is such political action not forcing your religion on someone else, even though you've voted it?  What you apparently support is the tyranny of the simple majority.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:

"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.

We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "

So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".

Where do people get this kind of garbage?

Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??

So certain things are moral for you but not for me?  Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me.  Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...

Ok har har rli funny NOT. But there is certain things which are better decided plitically and not religiously so, if the majority decide (by voting) that murder is bad for society as a whole (which is what we have got right now) then that law should govern. Not religion because law can be for everyone and decided by vote in a democratic country and but religion can't be because everyone has different religions and some none. So one religious group shouldnt moralise for another group of people. It should be decided by politics and votes!!!

Poppy,

1) Aren't you imposing your moral views on others with your "shoulds"? "It should be decided by politics and votes". Why? Because you said so?

2) If a vote is taken and 60% of the population vote in favour of a particular issue (let's say, deporting illegal immigrants), isn't that 60% of the population imposing its moral views on the other 40%?

3) If something is legal (lets say invading another sovereign country and bombing civilians), and I say that it is morally wrong, how am I "moralizing for another group of people"? I am simply stating my conviction that a particular action is morally reprehensible- my speaking out doesn't stop the action, it simply voices my opposition to it.

Oh for flip sake.... ok then it "can easily be" be decided by majority vote and NO thats not a moral imposition its to do with politics and what is the best way to work out things that matter and have to do with ALL of the people.

No its not 60% imposing because the people who came out to vote agreed on the system and to accept the outcome so that means noone is imposing anything on them, they accept thas the fairest way to reach agreement on what laws and rules to live by. Noone can impose something on you if you signed up for that system.

(3) sure you can have your opinion and your morals but you might be in the minority. BUT on other things you might be in the majority  ;)

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
Quote
Arbirtrarily speaking perhaps, but then you would be excising any sort of objective ground for morality.
well thats pants!!! nothing arbirtrarily about it.

Quote
No. The comment was it is completely natural to have multiple partners engaging in sexual activity with no consequences. Welcome to the postmodern worldview.
Ok well i wouldn't call it natural in the way that its something that everyone HAS to do because of biological needs because everyones needs are different but it is normal maybe thas what they mean??

Quote
I'm going to use my own body to kill whoever I want and how many I want. I am the sole arbiter of my persons and I shall not be infringed upon.
were talking about sex ... which is legal....not something illegal  :o

Quote
Well everything is permissible then.
now your being ridiculous!!!


Quote
By sharing the Good News
Its not good news to some people
even God don't force his "good news" onto people

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
Quote
If you say that you can't tell someone that what they are doing is immoral without being a tyrant, then you cannot tell me not to murder you without you being a tyrant.
 
I never said that, dont twist up what i did say

Quote
As well, you are mixing a few words up.  You seem to be under the impression that "religion" and "morality" are equivalent.

Hold the bus!!! i was the one who said that you dont have to be religious to have morals lolOl

Quote
telling someone that they are acting immorally is not forcing your religion on them,
Opleeez!!! yeah it is IF that morality is based in a religious ideolagy that hasn't chaanged for a gazzillion years or how ever many years it is.

Quote
which is precisely what you've done by telling me that I shouldn't say Arnold has acted immorally.
noooo, your free to say it. Everyones got a opinion. Opinions are like..... (oh bummer!!!whats that expression now??? haha...)

Quote
As well, what would you do if 60% (or 80%, or 90%) of an area was of the same religion and voted in lock-step to illegalize extra-to include pre-marital sex, despite the fact that the other 40% (or 20% or 10%) of people in the area believe that such activity is moral - or even required?
Move house

Quote
Is such political action not forcing your religion on someone else, even though you've voted it?  What you apparently support is the tyranny of the simple majority.
Nope thas not what i said either. Its not a imposition if everyone agreed to the voting system. If everyone agrees thas the best way to work out things that apply to everyone. And anyways religion and politics is better seperate.

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
well thats pants!!! nothing arbirtrarily about it.
You're only kidding yourself.

Quote
Ok well i wouldn't call it natural in the way that its something that everyone HAS to do because of biological needs because everyones needs are different but it is normal maybe thas what they mean??
No. The comment was that because it is "natual" there should be no consequences to engage in extramarital sex or multiple partners for that matter. This is the crux of the matter.

Quote
were talking about sex ... which is legal....not something illegal  :o
And the Law I'm referring to transcends any sort of manmade law. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you are right in doing it.

Quote
now your being ridiculous!!!
If nothing governs us from a moral perspective, then yes I am permitted to do anything.

Quote
Its not good news to some people
even God don't force his "good news" onto people
Just because you reject the Truth doesn't make it stop being the Truth.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline Poppy

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,030
    • im the pretty one!!! lolOl
I don't know about you but, because of the moderation, i can't consentrate properly on a serios discussion as the posts don't come through in sequence properly and so WAIT until the August 1, and i will come back to this and be on you like a raincloud in britain haha.... seriously, if you can wait then i get back to you.