LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Elfive, you're not making an argument. You're just asserting your conclusion without giving sufficient reasoning behind it. Sure, morality has changed between times and cultures, but that has no bearing on whether or not absolute morality can be determined. Creation myths have changed over time and between cultures, but you wouldn't say that abiogenesis is something we can never figure out.

cum

There's no particular reason that would or should be the case. He might have made it thus anyway, but it's not like reality has a requirement document mandating that.

Can morality exist independantly of social structures? If so it should be a demonstrable and explicable phenomenon, yet theistic morality rarely elaborates beyond 'God says'. If not, it would be far more reasonable to apply Occam's Razor.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:44:12 AM by Snipehamster

I wasn't making an assertion at all. I was calling bullshit on one.

Think about it, without society, what is morality? It's meaningless. Just a bunch of useless hypothetical conjectures that would never even cross the mind of an individual living that way.

Abiogenesis is a thing that happened, and yes there is a concrete mechanism behind it. What the hell does that have to do with creation myths? They are the product of people who knew jack shit about it making up stories involving strange supernatural beings that raise more questions than they answer.

What makes you think we've found absolute morality then? The Aztecs thought they had found it when they were sacrificing people to the sun.

edited 10th Dec '12 3:13:10 AM by Elfive

My morality comes purely from myself. I consider things and situation and stuff like that, then I come to conclusions of whether or not they are moral. I wrestle with issues and think long and hard about things, often changing my position when reconsidering. As such, I would never accept that any god is moral because he created everything. I would judge him by my own ideas about morality, as I do with everyone, then come to a conclusion as to whether of not he is moral.

Well see pigeon, that's why I trust my Christian faith. The way I figure it, I can spend hours; days; years; trying to figure things out and still be wrong. My recent shift on economics is one such example.

The Bible is kind of a beacon; a steadying star for me to follow.

Yes, I know what you're going to say. "Starship, you actually want to be a mindless drone?? No, I don't. But I find the argument compelling'' (not proven to 110% certaintly) that a God who could construct that Universe might know more than I on any number of subjects.

The fact that the Bible's dictates have actually worked in my life gives me added incentive.

It was an honor

That's the thing, just because the Abrahamic God knows more doesn't mean that the Abrahamic God is going to do what I find morally correct. Having knowledge does not make someone a good person. That's why I would not assume that the Abrahamic God is right because he made everything. That's why I would judge him for myself.

Your god, maybe, but the people who actually wrote the bible? Pfft.

Fair enough.

Elfive, why did that make me smile?

It was an honor

All morals are opinions. Saying that something is right or wrong "because God says so" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, since it relies on the underlying assumption that simply being powerful automatically makes you morally superior to the weaker. Being more intelligent doesn't make you better, either.

By that reasoning, I should be a slave to anybody who was smarter or stronger than I am.

edited 10th Dec '12 8:36:21 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

And even if someone is willing to follow a faith,it is not their place to be the hand of any god.

The Abrahamic Faiths all preach how sinful and distant man is from god, so they are not qualified to act as his mouth or arm. Preach the word, yes. But leave the judgment to god.

If someone believes my life is going counter to their all knowing and all powerful god, then their god will know and will deal with me accordingly. A god of that stature doesn't need some insignifigant human to have its back.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

I truly don't think this could've been said any better.

It was an honor

You're quite right that simply being more powerful or intelligent doesn't automatically make you morally superior to the less powerful or intelligent. For reasons stated above, though, if we grant the idea of an absolutely powerful & intelligent Being, then the logic of His nature arguably does point towards a similar absoluteness w/r/t morality. Such a Being might grant you the discretion to tell Him "Non serviam" ... but it's hard to see by what moral standard you'd support such a decision, since He already encompasses every possible basis for such a standard. Metaphysically speaking, you're trying to violate the laws of thermodynamics here.

edited 10th Dec '12 9:44:17 AM by Jhimmibhob

No it doesn't.

I'll refrain from returning the rhetorical favor with "Nuh-huh, does too," and direct you to the preceding pages. To summarize them: if an omnipotent, omniscient Being is less than perfectly moral, then He fails a standard external to Himself. A Being powerless enough on any front to be subject to such external standards—much less fall short of them—wouldn't be omnipotent, strictly speaking.

He wouldn't be subject to them. We can think whatever we like about such a being. It makes no difference.

Failing our standards of morality wouldn't make it any less powerful. It wouldn't give a shit.

Given that premise, then an omnipotent, omniscient being cannot exist as different people have different moral standards that are often contradictory, so no being can fall short of no moral standard. Therefore, there is at least one external standard that the being would fall short of, which, by your logic, would mean that the being would not be omnipotent.

The being in question — all-powerful or otherwise — is claimed to have carried out destructive actions up to and including global omnicide. Setting aside the question of its existence or the validity of the writings that allude to it, please forgive me if I'm a little slow to accept it as a moral authority.

and I didn't mean to be unclear: it's not plausible that an omnipotent, omniscient Being is subject—much less subject to failing—any valid moral standard external to Himself. From this it also suggests that, if a valid moral standard be possible, one can only look to the Being in question for it (again, and for the Nth time, presuming His existence for the sake of argument).

Hey, that's totally your call. I wouldn't dream of limiting your options.

edited 10th Dec '12 10:19:40 AM by Jhimmibhob

Why wouldn't a being like this be subject to a valid moral standard external to said being?

Morality doesn't work that way. It's just a set of judgments on hypothetical actions. An omnipotent being can by definition do anything, so it actually makes no sense for such a being to be anything but completely amoral, as adhering to any sort of standard would put a limit on it's potential actions.

Biblical literalism is not exactly the only view of God.

edited 10th Dec '12 10:30:40 AM by Boredman

cum

I'm glad I have your permission to disagree with a being that allegedly wiped out all life on the planet.

Of course not, but the content of the Bible can't simply be ignored either. I distinctly recall being told the story of the flood as a child, not as literal history but as an example of God's mercy, which if anything makes it worse*

. For less extreme examples, you could look at the stories of, say, Job or Abraham. Or Sodom and Gomorrah. Or the plagues of Egypt. And so on and so on.

In other words, this alleged font of morality has a startling propensity for Kill It with Fire.

edited 10th Dec '12 10:41:36 AM by Snipehamster

Or, even better, let's look at Jesus. He sacrificed himself to himself to improve the system he created and ran. If God were really omnipotent and omniscient, could he not have made the system in the better way the first time or, failing that, just change it without having to come down to Earth as his own son? Therefore, wouldn't all the failings of the first system be his fault for not doing it the better way when, as a being that is omniscient, he would have known about the better way when he first created the system and know that it was a better way?

Gay Marriage in Brittan is looking to not only go ahead but also be made something that can be done by churches. Now the churches can opt out but this will still allow those religious institutions that want to marry gays to do so. Also the plan is getting support the Conservative leadership (though not so much from the actual membership) alongside the Labour party and the Lib Dems. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20669983

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran