LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

For one thing, that definition of morality is a pretty bald assertion, and alien to most systems of moral philosophy (Christian and otherwise). For another, whatever an omnipotent, omniscient Being can do, it doesn't follow that He will do just anything. And so far from being alien to questions of morality, what He will or will not do/countenance/say is as good a way of defining the lineaments of valid morality as we're likely to get (again, taking His existence and omnipotence as givens for the sake of argument).

edited 10th Dec '12 10:44:47 AM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

Can does not mean will. By that logic, if God follows any sort of consistent plan or idea, He's limiting himself.

edited 10th Dec '12 10:45:53 AM by Boredman

cum

You did not answer my question. Why wouldn't a being like this be subject to a valid moral standard external to said being? You have asserted that a being like this wouldn't be subject to a valid moral standard external to said being, but you have given nothing to back up said claim.

This thread moved kinda quickly while I was asleep so let me address this:

You keep saying morality is meaningless and not a real thing without explaining why. And how could it never cross the mind of an individual? Surely if they actually sat down and thought about morality they could come to some conclusions.

But that's exactly my point. We've got some good ideas about where life came from. Our modern view, supported by scientific reasoning and evidence, is likely what actually happened. Loads of people before have tried to explain where we came from, and they gave wildly different explanations. For a long time it was theorized that we'd never know where life came from. The same could be true of morality. Just because we haven't had a single, concrete definition throughout all of human history, that doesn't mean we never will.

I never said we had. Yet.

edited 10th Dec '12 10:54:18 AM by Boredman

cum

I'll refer you once again to the definition of the word "omnipotent."

Ah, now we get to the interesting questions. Hats off! You're referring to a paradox*

that has exercised better minds than mine or yours put together for a long, long time. Orthodox Christology has had a lot to puzzle over w/r/t the whole fall-out from the original Edenic felix culpa, and it's not done yet. In fact, I'll sabotage my own side by throwing in an extra paradox: in the Pentateuch, God actually "repents" (the translation isn't far off base) of one of His earlier intentions ofter having His mind changed by Moses! WTF?

Theologians are honest enough to grant that much of the stuff you refer to constitutes a mystery (in the most precise and original senses of that word). So what, then? Is God somehow not Lord in limited conditions? Or is this more an indicator of His nature, and stronger evidence that the "shape" of an infinite Mind and Will is bound to look bizarre and paradoxical to finite minds? Damned good questions.

Borges once quoted a hypothesis that, if all the footsteps a given man took from his birth to his grave were laid out in space like a choreographer's diagram, it would look as natural, coherent, and comprehensible to the Divine Mind as a triangle or circle does to us. If that's even remotely so, then maybe methods like the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Atonement, and Resurrection aren't as counterintuitive or contrived sub specie aeternitatis as they look to us. That's not very rigorous, of course, so take such thoughts for what little they're worth.

edited 10th Dec '12 11:04:58 AM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

So, re posting this because I didn't get an answer. I don't want to be annoying, but I'm also honestly curious.

So, a question for the religious members of the forums:

My brief, brief time in church (my parents had me visit a service for each of the major denominations when I was young. They were atheist, but they wanted me to be able to make a choice, and be informed about religion) made me thing that for a religious person, denying someone the ability to sin is immoral. After all, God desired us to have the free will to commit sins, otherwise, the concept of sinning is meaningless. Is that the case, to your knowledge? And if so, how do they reconcile that view with outlawing "sinful" behavior (such as homosexuality).

This is related to the past discussion. How can forcing someone to *not* sin be moral in the eyes of God? Isn't the point that you're given the chance to sin, and of your own free will, reject it?

That does not answer my question in the slightest. Omnipotent means can do anything, not is justified in doing anything.

@Your response to my thing about Jesus: But why even make the first system when it was flawed enough that he had to change it? Why not just make the second system from the start?

@Boredman: Without society or interaction with other beings, morality has no applications. It has no reason to exist. And if their principles are truly trancendent, why don't they apply to earthquakes, or tsunamis, or asteroids?

Ugh. I'm having trouble arguing my position because I honestly find yours utterly nonsensical. How exactly does morality exist outside of society? If you can explain that, I might be able to tell you why my opinion differs.

@jhimmi. This is actually one area I think I can agree with you on. You proposed a deity that was all-powerful, not all-finesseful. Just because It can do anything, doesn't mean it can do anything in the simplest manner imaginable.

Abstract concepts can still "exist" if their applications don't. If there are no computers, that doesn't mean that programming stops being a concept. It would just have no applications, like you said. Having no applications doesn't mean it stops being a thing, though. And they don't apply to all that stuff because they have nothing to do with morality. It doesn't apply to everything in the universe.

cum

Yes, but as an abstract concept its very nature can be redefined on a whim. It is subjective. What one person finds attractive differs from what another person finds attractive, and neither of them are wrong. Attractiveness has no concrete definition. Morality is the same. It varies from person to person, culture to culture. I don't think "absolute morality" exists because there is no reason for it to exist.

In fact, the very notion strikes me as an absurdity.

Morality is an idea. Ideas can only exist if someone is having them.

edited 10th Dec '12 11:45:27 AM by Elfive

That's not what "abstract" means. Numbers are abstract concepts, but you don't see people claiming mathematics are subjective.

You could say that about literally everything.

cum

@Elfive - Do you think justice doesn't exist anywhere but as a conept? A shared construct?

It was an honor

Yes.

And numbers are not an abstract. I am sitting in front on one computer, typing with ten fingers. Numbers are simply a way of describing very concrete things.

Sorry to jump in like this, but I wanted to give my objection to the whole "God as ultimate source of morality" thing.

The reasoning goes: God is the highest moral authority because God is the most moral being in the universe. So far, so good...but when pressed for a definition of "morality," people taking this position usually come up with some variation on "whatever is most like what God would do." So you're left with "God is the most Godly being in the universe," which is true in the tautological sense but tells us nothing about morality. For the statement "God is the most moral being in the universe" to have any meaning beyond the tautological, there must be a standard external to God by which we can judge its actions as moral or immoral.

Stuff what I do.

You guys are missing the point. It's quite possible that morality exists outside of that kind of edict, but you're rather arrogantly declaring it must be a hard and fast requirement when it would be more of a concession.

Anyway, getting back on topic,

I'm not sure why there would be a legal hangup in that part of the process anyhow. When a church marries people it just acts as a middleman in the legal process. Were a church to allow gays to marry, it would go through exactly the same channels as before...unless the state is pulling some kind of separate but equal.

edited 10th Dec '12 12:41:57 PM by Pykrete

They already pulled that with civil partnerships. Personally I don't see it as a huge problem. Church marriages are dwindling here anyway.

None of that makes numbers concrete. It just means they have applications.

[/derail]

edited 10th Dec '12 1:00:02 PM by Boredman

cum

Several Churches are objecting to the legalisation of gay church marriages on the ground that they would be forced to marry gay people. Despite the fact that everyone has made it very clear that no one is going to force a church to marry gay people. H I don't know if this protection will extend to non church entities that perform marriages, he'll do we even have a British equivalent to the drive though Elvis?

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

Well yeah. I guess on a second reading that it doesn't come across, but the first time I thought it implied there was extra overhead to let them do so at all rather than the opposite.

Eh, I'm tired today. Whatevs.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:40:43 PM by Pykrete

@Boredman: I think you have maths a little confused as a concept in your head. Numbers are not abstract. They are as real and concrete as tables and lamps and the colour blue.

They can be used to describe abstract things. Some people think that this means that numbers themselves are abstract, but really it just means that the people who think that didn't pay enough attention in maths.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:40:47 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Er...speaking as someone with a minor in mathematics, yeah they're abstract concepts. And as you go up the ladder, they get way, waaaay more abstract from there.

They become abstract and higher levels. They are not themselves abstract. Everything becomes abstract at higher levels.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Math is basically logic. Of course it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Heh.

Okay. Show me two.

Like, not two things. Not a symbol representing the concept. Show me a physical two.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:00:38 PM by Pykrete

@ Dr Tentacles

As a devout and practicing Latter Day Saint, I will say that yes, it is immoral and a sin to force another not to sin. It must be the choice of the sinner to do the sin, as sin is separate from sinner. In other words, the act is what is wrong, not the person. The reason this works is because in the New Testament, Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of all the world and suffered the ultimate consequence of all of them. So, anyone who murdered can be forgiven in front of the Heavenly Father because Christ "volunteered as tribute," so to speak, and took their place on the cross and died to amend the murder.

Also, in the Articles of Faith which are spelled out in the Book Of Mormon by ancient prophets and reiterated by the modern prophet Joseph Smith; "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Of course, this is merely the opinion of a Mormon, so I suggest others of different faiths pipe up and help to answer this guy's question.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:05:26 PM by CalamityJane

Please consider supporting my artwork on Patreon