- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pornography is not conservative
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:24 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Maybe you don't tend to judge them as harshly, but have you looked around the past few years (especially)? The entire "woke" movement is tied up with how evil and oppressive our country is, going back to slavery. I, as a white male, am regarded as a villainy to many people
Right, but the “woke” movement is acting directly in opposition to the more widespread agreed upon belief that we judge people according to their time. Calhoun was a great Senator. If he was a senator now he’d be a moral monster. Times changes morals and also are perspective on the morals of previous eras. The left wants to throw away everything constantly and the right wants to conserve everything. My argument is and has always been conserve most things because we can imagine a free state and we can imagine an equal state, but we can’t imagine a free and equal state and we can definitely imagine and even name states that have neither freedom or equality which means perfecting society is a game that can’t be won, it can only be played well or lost
1
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:25 pm to MAADFACTS
quote:
I cannot believe that it’s primary interest is in our orgasms and how we have them.
Careful with the reductionism. I disagree with Christians and religious people in general as I don't believe in any higher powers. That said, I don't think the advice/moral codes given boil down to simply the words written on those texts.
With respect to casual sex, it's not that great for children as a whole (single motherhood and all). And who ultimately pays for children raised improperly when they finally stop being kids? Society as a whole, me and you.
There are harmful trends that societies have noticed and turned into religious tenets (I know Christians would phrase that differently), that "ancient wisdom" should be given some credence.
I was first exposed to reductionism when reading feminists blast what men find sexually pleasing. "They're just collections of fat underneath a nipple, why are guys so obsessed with them?!" I don't think I need to explain to the other guys here how that statement purposefully reduces in attempt to avoid the reality of what a breast actually is. But my early 20's self knew it was bullshite right from the start.
And I could be wrong, maybe religious moral proclamations about sexual pleasures are divorced form their larger consequences... But for me the connection between the two is too well grounded to ignore.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:28 pm to Flats
quote:
It is self evident to me that the creator sets the rules. Is it not to you?
"Sets the rules" and not only existing, but being the only source for objective morality are two different things. Right?
quote:
The ED is a false dilemma.
Because of God's nature, right? Just apply it to God's nature, then. You still arrive at the same fork in the road.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:40 pm to MAADFACTS
quote:
you can’t outlaw abortion in this country because the pope doesn’t like it,
Why not? By your own admission if we drill down far enough we hit subjective opinion. “Just because” doesn’t strike me as any more or less convincing than “because I believe God is against it.” Opinion is opinion. And if you drill down far enough into any question of good or evil, the atheist will land on “just because”.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
By the way, the form of slavery performed by our country was specifically condemned by the Bible, namely the kidnapping of free individuals for the sake of chattel slavery.
You don't think the Bible allowed you to buy slaves from foreign nations (what America did)? You don't think those foreign pagan nations only accepted slavery applicants?
shite like this is why it's so hard to take you seriously.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:45 pm to Flats
quote:
Why not?
I think he's argued that the majority sets the moral standards of a society (which seems quite true). The Pope is one person, and one cannot assume he represents all Catholics on the matter as they're often heavily divided along political lines ( yes, even on the issue of abortion). Moreover, Catholics themselves do not make up the majority of America so even if they were mostly united on a topic they still need a lot of other people to sign on.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:50 pm to Azkiger
quote:
"Sets the rules" and not only existing, but being the only source for objective morality are two different things. Right?
Wrong. If God encompasses everything, and that’s not exactly a new definition, then where does the standard come from by which to measure God’s rules? You (and Euthyphro) are trying to step outside of something which can’t be stepped outside of, by definition. It’s like saying that the laws of physics aren’t what they should be. By what standard? The other universe that does it better?
And I’ll freely admit that I don’t care for some of the typical Christian apologetics response to this, where both sides end up with this verbal and intellectual tail chasing. To me it’s a question of authority, and I can’t think of a higher one than the creator.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:53 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I think he's argued
Maybe, but it looks an awful lot like one of the “that’s religious therefore inappropriate” arguments that I see here so frequently. I agree that we’re not a theocracy and the pope’s proclamation carries as much weight as the mailman’s in that regard.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:Of course they are, but the question is why are they? Where do immaterial, invariant, universal, and necessary "laws" come from in a purely material, variant, particular, and contingent universe?
Like I said, they're self evident.
I believe they are immaterial, invariant, universal, and necessary because they are derived from the immaterial, invariant, universal, and necessary nature of God. They exist because they must exist, and they must exist because God exists.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:57 pm to Flats
quote:
If God encompasses everything, and that’s not exactly a new definition, then where does the standard come from by which to measure God’s rules?
Lets determine whether or not God's rules are indeed objective (you know, the topic of this conversation) first.
quote:
You (and Euthyphro) are trying to step outside of something which can’t be stepped outside of, by definition.
Did God have a hand in crafting/forming/determining his own nature or not? It's a simple yes or no question. And it's not one that's a paradox. I'm not being a snarky 13 year old and asking you whether or not God can create an object so big that he cannot lift.
quote:
It’s like saying that the laws of physics aren’t what they should be.
It's not at all like that. It's simply an attempt to find out who/what is behind God's morality, or God's own nature, or whatever you want to label it.
God is either the source of his own nature, or he isn't. Right? Is there a third option I'm missing?
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Where do immaterial, invariant, universal, and necessary "laws" come from in a purely material, variant, particular, and contingent universe?
Your question is loaded.
Why do they have to "come from" anywhere?
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:58 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Yep, you understand what I was saying. Thanks for the response.
This is s side-step. Intentional, I think. When making that statement you are taking something that he was obviously referring to as a philosophical hypothesis and equating it with the emotions of individuals.
He obviously didn't mean that every person would feel the same about different details of life. As a matter of fact, what he meant is that they wouldn't. The point, however, is that no one's differing values could be meaningfully criticized by another. The criticisms would be as meaningless as the values themselves, if a materialist universe with no transcendent moral authority exists.
Which is fine if you want to claim that, but when someone wrongs you or someone else in a way that all human beings universally respond to with righteous indignation, you've got to remind yourself that those feelings are just illusions and don't reflect the reality of the situation, just your perspective of it. It's one thing to make these claims theoretically, it's quite another to live according to them.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 10:59 pm to Azkiger
quote:You're right. I do believe in the uniqueness of the biblical worldview in being able to provide that which is necessary to make our reality intelligible. Others, like you, are free to disagree, but I will continue to argue for it.
From FooManChoo's perspective transcendent moral absolute = the Christian God full stop. 0% chance it's any other god or some sort of natural force/law/entity.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:03 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Lets determine whether or not God's rules are indeed objective
Yes, by definition. “Objective” means something that is independent of man’s opinion. If there’s a creator I think you’d have to admit that whatever the creator “thinks” about any topic imaginable fits that definition.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:05 pm to Flats
quote:
“Objective” means something that is independent of man’s opinion.
Lets hope aliens never land on earth during your lifetime. All of their opinions would be objective because they're not part of "man" (human demographic).
Said another way, your definition of objective needs a lot of work.
quote:
f there’s a creator I think you’d have to admit that whatever the creator “thinks” about any topic imaginable fits that definition.
Any topic? He could tell me which color is objectively the best?
This post was edited on 7/19/21 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:08 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Lets hope aliens never land on earth during your lifetime.
It wouldn’t matter; they’d be created beings as well. Again, this is a question of authority. You keep reaching for an entity outside of God that’s the basis for his morality or whatever angle you’re digging at, and it’s not there by definition.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:12 pm to Flats
quote:
It wouldn’t matter; they’d be created beings as well. Again, this is a question of authority. You keep reaching for an entity outside of God that’s the basis for his morality or whatever angle you’re digging at, and it’s not there by definition.
Next time include "created beings" in your definition of objective. And realize you're essentially doing what progressives are doing with the dictionary, just redefining words so that they win. Go look at the responses to Euthyphro's Dilemma. If it were simply as easy as pointing to the auto-win definition of the word objective why go though all the extra effort to form the rebuttals?
There's a reason you're not answering my pointed questions and changing definitions.
This post was edited on 7/19/21 at 11:13 pm
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:14 pm to anc
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:17 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Lets hope aliens never land on earth during your lifetime.
Aliens could simply be manifestation of demonic beings.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:17 pm to Azkiger
quote:
There's a reason you're not answering my pointed questions
I am, you just don’t like the answers. You want a “super-god” that can give God his values or judge them somehow. By definition there isn’t a super-god. It’s a strange argument for an atheist but it’s hardly new.
Page 24 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News