Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

WWJD: Would Jesus approve of your Ideology?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 12:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hope everybody who opens this thread will at least give a yes or no. Obviously I would hope you expand and defend yourself as to why he would, or else express your indifference as to why he would not. I'm not asking whether you care if he does, just whether your interpretation of what he stood for is consistent with your attitudes and beliefs.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 1:26:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, all my beliefs support and are supported by the teachings of Jesus. I provide secular reasons for Jesus' teachings and I use Jesus' as a base for the things I support or am against.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 1:32:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil unions or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

I don't support all relationships that could qualify as a civil union, but I believe that these relationships should still be able to file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, ect. I don't support national health care on legal grounds, not moral grounds. I believe in helping each other in the same sense as national health care through a volunteer act, and not through the workings of the government.
Nolite Timere
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 2:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think there's any sound source for knowing exactly what Jesus believed; but most likely not, seeing as I hold allot of Nietzsche's opinions on Christian morality.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 5:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just saw a post from Danielle on Facebook, quoting Huckabee that MLK Jr would have compared gay marriage to the holocaust. I think that ties in nicely here, as we explore what great people in history WOULD have thought about what we are doing. The fact that we can disagree so strongly about how somebody would have felt on an issue, when in reality that person would have had something to say but just never got to say it, fascinates me.

At 6/24/2014 1:32:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Yes, all my beliefs support and are supported by the teachings of Jesus. I provide secular reasons for Jesus' teachings and I use Jesus' as a base for the things I support or am against.

What do you mean you use "secular reasons for Jesus' teachings"?

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message trancended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

I don't support all relationships that could qualify as a civil union, but I believe that these relationships should still be able to file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, ect. I don't support national health care on legal grounds, not moral grounds. I believe in helping each other in the same sense as national health care through a volunteer act, and not through the workings of the government.

Again, Jesus would not have delved into this discussion.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 5:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 2:38:44 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't think there's any sound source for knowing exactly what Jesus believed; but most likely not, seeing as I hold allot of Nietzsche's opinions on Christian morality.

The Bible is our source for what Jesus believed, and I believe I understand what he was saying. What Nietzchean belief are you most concerned with? We will determine ourselves just how much they would have disagreed. Skip the metaphysics for now, let's stick to ethics ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:23:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 12:29:01 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I hope everybody who opens this thread will at least give a yes or no. Obviously I would hope you expand and defend yourself as to why he would, or else express your indifference as to why he would not. I'm not asking whether you care if he does, just whether your interpretation of what he stood for is consistent with your attitudes and beliefs.

No, but I think he can forgive me for it. I'm doing the best I can, I imagine he knows this.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:06:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:23:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

No, but I think he can forgive me for it. I'm doing the best I can, I imagine he knows this.

I am inferring the assumption that Jesus did actually know the 'best way' (if you will), but you are unable to find it. Is that right? If so, what is the hold-up?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:49:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 5:52:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I just saw a post from Danielle on Facebook, quoting Huckabee that MLK Jr would have compared gay marriage to the holocaust. I think that ties in nicely here, as we explore what great people in history WOULD have thought about what we are doing. The fact that we can disagree so strongly about how somebody would have felt on an issue, when in reality that person would have had something to say but just never got to say it, fascinates me.

At 6/24/2014 1:32:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Yes, all my beliefs support and are supported by the teachings of Jesus. I provide secular reasons for Jesus' teachings and I use Jesus' as a base for the things I support or am against.

What do you mean you use "secular reasons for Jesus' teachings"?

Jesus would obviously support certain things based off God ect. I can use Jesus's positions and support them without necessarily bringing God into the matter.

I am against gay marriage both out of the teachings of the Bible, but also out of secular reasoning regardless of what the Bible says.

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Mmm, that's an interesting proposition. I think as a whole, there is no moral position on civil unions and natural healthcare. It is completely subjective upon the society.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message trancended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Precisely why Jesus probably wouldn't have a position on national health care and civil unions. We know that Jesus wants us to treat other people selflessly and with love. Does that imply having to support national health care? I don't think so, because the same thing can be done without it.

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

We can illegalize many immoral things, but it is impossible to illiegalize all of them without restricting human dignity and freedom.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

Murder and stealing is illegal. These are immoral things.

I don't support all relationships that could qualify as a civil union, but I believe that these relationships should still be able to file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, ect. I don't support national health care on legal grounds, not moral grounds. I believe in helping each other in the same sense as national health care through a volunteer act, and not through the workings of the government.

Again, Jesus would not have delved into this discussion.
Nolite Timere
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 1:26:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, all my beliefs support and are supported by the teachings of Jesus.

This is a sure sign they aren't.

I provide secular reasons for Jesus' teachings and I use Jesus' as a base for the things I support or am against.

@op, I would certainly hope so. But I would guess some are and some are. Since I don't have infinite time, and I'm not infinitely smart I don't have the resources to suss out all of the (probable) deeper hidden inconsistencies. Best I can do is try to resolve the one that come to my attention.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:08:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:00:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2014 1:26:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, all my beliefs support and are supported by the teachings of Jesus.

This is a sure sign they aren't.

Clarify?

And if your clarification is what I think it is, you would be correct that perhaps I am ignorant of whether or not some of my stances correspond with the teachings of Jesus. However, according to the knowledge I have, they are.

I provide secular reasons for Jesus' teachings and I use Jesus' as a base for the things I support or am against.

@op, I would certainly hope so. But I would guess some are and some are. Since I don't have infinite time, and I'm not infinitely smart I don't have the resources to suss out all of the (probable) deeper hidden inconsistencies. Best I can do is try to resolve the one that come to my attention.
Nolite Timere
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:47:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:17:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My Ideology is "F*ck b*tches, get money".... So, ya, I doubt Jesus would approve lol

Do you approve? In 10 or 20 years, will your ideology be the same?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:56:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:47:20 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:17:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My Ideology is "F*ck b*tches, get money".... So, ya, I doubt Jesus would approve lol

Do you approve? In 10 or 20 years, will your ideology be the same?

Do I approve of living a life of sex with females and financial growth?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:06:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:49:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

I am against gay marriage both out of the teachings of the Bible, but also out of secular reasoning regardless of what the Bible says.

The Bible =/= Jesus. I've never read anything that Jesus said that condemns homosexuals.

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Mmm, that's an interesting proposition. I think as a whole, there is no moral position on civil unions and natural healthcare. It is completely subjective upon the society.

Agreed.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message transcended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Precisely why Jesus probably wouldn't have a position on national health care and civil unions. We know that Jesus wants us to treat other people selflessly and with love. Does that imply having to support national health care? I don't think so, because the same thing can be done without it.

agreed

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

We can illegalize many immoral things, but it is impossible to illiegalize all of them without restricting human dignity and freedom.

For me, the clincher is that immoral acts can be so very small. Cutting somebody off on the highway out of spite, for instance... we cannot regulate the entirety of morality.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

Murder and stealing is illegal. These are immoral things.

Does not murder and stealing hurt the person doing these things? By establishing our "coercion" we don't encourage people to be closer to God, we replace God with artifices of man which then become part of a risk analysis. Instead of considering whether an act is right or wrong, we consider the odds of getting caught versus the rewards. This type of thinking leads one away from morality, always trying to intellectually justify decisions while minimizing the feelings of selfishness and such that really should be the basis of the decision, not the perception of utility.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:10:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:56:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:47:20 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:17:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My Ideology is "F*ck b*tches, get money".... So, ya, I doubt Jesus would approve lol

Do you approve? In 10 or 20 years, will your ideology be the same?

Do I approve of living a life of sex with females and financial growth?

Just sayin', you might meet a girl you don't want to lose someday and "f*ck b*tches" isn't going to be a very good principle to keeping her. Also, would you sacrifice happiness to get more money?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:55:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:10:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:56:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:47:20 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:17:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My Ideology is "F*ck b*tches, get money".... So, ya, I doubt Jesus would approve lol

Do you approve? In 10 or 20 years, will your ideology be the same?

Do I approve of living a life of sex with females and financial growth?

Just sayin', you might meet a girl you don't want to lose someday and "f*ck b*tches" isn't going to be a very good principle to keeping her. Also, would you sacrifice happiness to get more money?

More money = happiness in my books. You can do anything you want to do, fly anywhere you want, buy anything you want...How could that be a bad thing? And variety is the spice of life; living the rest of my life only having sex with one girl seems like hell to me. It's sort of like chewing on the same piece of gum forever.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:40:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:55:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:10:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:56:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:47:20 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:17:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My Ideology is "F*ck b*tches, get money".... So, ya, I doubt Jesus would approve lol

Do you approve? In 10 or 20 years, will your ideology be the same?

Do I approve of living a life of sex with females and financial growth?

Just sayin', you might meet a girl you don't want to lose someday and "f*ck b*tches" isn't going to be a very good principle to keeping her. Also, would you sacrifice happiness to get more money?

More money = happiness in my books. You can do anything you want to do, fly anywhere you want, buy anything you want...How could that be a bad thing? And variety is the spice of life; living the rest of my life only having sex with one girl seems like hell to me. It's sort of like chewing on the same piece of gum forever.

I'm young, I have enough money that I do not work unless I want to. I have a nice girl, great kids, small home, some dogs, a cat and a truck.

I feel blessed. I think your attitude is quantity over quality. If you get more to spend more money, if you get more women just to have more women, eventually you are going to get to a point where you have nothing.

Because everything you had in your hands, you spent or let go of. A day will come when your empty hands are not filled up so quickly by mo money or mo women.

I suggest what ever comes into your hands you treat as if it will perish in no time. Take care of everything like a good steward. Then things that come in your life last till the end of your life.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:17:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:06:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:49:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

I am against gay marriage both out of the teachings of the Bible, but also out of secular reasoning regardless of what the Bible says.

The Bible =/= Jesus. I've never read anything that Jesus said that condemns homosexuals.

Well the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals first off. Second, the teachings of the Bible as a whole and the teachings of Jesus are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other, lest you do not have the complete image of God.

God already made it clear that marriage was between man and woman in Genesis, therefore there was no reason Jesus would have to go over it again.

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Mmm, that's an interesting proposition. I think as a whole, there is no moral position on civil unions and natural healthcare. It is completely subjective upon the society.

Agreed.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message transcended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Precisely why Jesus probably wouldn't have a position on national health care and civil unions. We know that Jesus wants us to treat other people selflessly and with love. Does that imply having to support national health care? I don't think so, because the same thing can be done without it.

agreed

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

We can illegalize many immoral things, but it is impossible to illiegalize all of them without restricting human dignity and freedom.

For me, the clincher is that immoral acts can be so very small. Cutting somebody off on the highway out of spite, for instance... we cannot regulate the entirety of morality.

Exactly. But we can regulate the bigger things.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

Murder and stealing is illegal. These are immoral things.

Does not murder and stealing hurt the person doing these things? By establishing our "coercion" we don't encourage people to be closer to God, we replace God with artifices of man which then become part of a risk analysis. Instead of considering whether an act is right or wrong, we consider the odds of getting caught versus the rewards. This type of thinking leads one away from morality, always trying to intellectually justify decisions while minimizing the feelings of selfishness and such that really should be the basis of the decision, not the perception of utility.

The point of law is to keep society healthy and stable. If we create laws against immoral things then we are showing that these immoral things are bad and work against human beings. This then in turn gives secular reason to support the teachings of Jesus. It is not the fault of the law or its makers that some people would think that way, rather it is a fault of that person and such a thought process is innately selfish.
Nolite Timere
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:17:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:06:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:49:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

I am against gay marriage both out of the teachings of the Bible, but also out of secular reasoning regardless of what the Bible says.

The Bible =/= Jesus. I've never read anything that Jesus said that condemns homosexuals.

Well the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals first off. Second, the teachings of the Bible as a whole and the teachings of Jesus are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other, lest you do not have the complete image of God.

God already made it clear that marriage was between man and woman in Genesis, therefore there was no reason Jesus would have to go over it again.

Now this point I've seen many times, and I've never understood it. He did say be fruitful and multiply and talked about a man marrying a woman, but he didn't condemn gay marriage, so why is Genesis treated like it does? If He had said "I like apples," does that mean oranges are bad and immoral?

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Mmm, that's an interesting proposition. I think as a whole, there is no moral position on civil unions and natural healthcare. It is completely subjective upon the society.

Agreed.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message transcended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Precisely why Jesus probably wouldn't have a position on national health care and civil unions. We know that Jesus wants us to treat other people selflessly and with love. Does that imply having to support national health care? I don't think so, because the same thing can be done without it.

agreed

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

We can illegalize many immoral things, but it is impossible to illiegalize all of them without restricting human dignity and freedom.

For me, the clincher is that immoral acts can be so very small. Cutting somebody off on the highway out of spite, for instance... we cannot regulate the entirety of morality.

Exactly. But we can regulate the bigger things.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

Murder and stealing is illegal. These are immoral things.

Does not murder and stealing hurt the person doing these things? By establishing our "coercion" we don't encourage people to be closer to God, we replace God with artifices of man which then become part of a risk analysis. Instead of considering whether an act is right or wrong, we consider the odds of getting caught versus the rewards. This type of thinking leads one away from morality, always trying to intellectually justify decisions while minimizing the feelings of selfishness and such that really should be the basis of the decision, not the perception of utility.

The point of law is to keep society healthy and stable. If we create laws against immoral things then we are showing that these immoral things are bad and work against human beings. This then in turn gives secular reason to support the teachings of Jesus. It is not the fault of the law or its makers that some people would think that way, rather it is a fault of that person and such a thought process is innately selfish.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:00:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:35:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:17:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:06:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:49:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

I am against gay marriage both out of the teachings of the Bible, but also out of secular reasoning regardless of what the Bible says.

The Bible =/= Jesus. I've never read anything that Jesus said that condemns homosexuals.

Well the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals first off. Second, the teachings of the Bible as a whole and the teachings of Jesus are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other, lest you do not have the complete image of God.

God already made it clear that marriage was between man and woman in Genesis, therefore there was no reason Jesus would have to go over it again.

Now this point I've seen many times, and I've never understood it. He did say be fruitful and multiply and talked about a man marrying a woman, but he didn't condemn gay marriage, so why is Genesis treated like it does? If He had said "I like apples," does that mean oranges are bad and immoral?

It is much more logical that God point out what marriage is, instead of making a list of everything marriage is not. There are many, many things in Genesis which point out the nature of marriage. Simply by comparison we know gay marriage does not fit into the nature of marriage shown, and by deduction we know gay marriage isn't marriage at all.

I think some of my beliefs such as being Pro civil union or Con national healthcare are neutral positions and do not go against the teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Jesus would not have had an opinion on civil unions nor national health care. I will agree with that statement, until somebody challenges it.

Mmm, that's an interesting proposition. I think as a whole, there is no moral position on civil unions and natural healthcare. It is completely subjective upon the society.

Agreed.

Jesus never particularly clarifies on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

I again agree. Jesus' message transcended politics. Politics is a discussion for small-minded individuals who are really only interested in their own security, in one sense or another.

Precisely why Jesus probably wouldn't have a position on national health care and civil unions. We know that Jesus wants us to treat other people selflessly and with love. Does that imply having to support national health care? I don't think so, because the same thing can be done without it.

agreed

Should we make all things immoral, illegal? Or is it just important that we do not commit immoral acts and it is irrelevant whether it is legal or not?

I agree with the second statement. I believe the first statement is impossible. Besides, we cannot illegalize imperfection.

We can illegalize many immoral things, but it is impossible to illiegalize all of them without restricting human dignity and freedom.

For me, the clincher is that immoral acts can be so very small. Cutting somebody off on the highway out of spite, for instance... we cannot regulate the entirety of morality.

Exactly. But we can regulate the bigger things.

In this sense I follow the teachings of Aquinas, which would be that making immoral acts illegal provide coercion to keep people from committing immoral acts, which ultimately leads us to being better people and becoming closer to God.

How could we possibly make immoral things illegal? As far as I can see, very few people truly understand morality. Perhaps no one outside of Jesus.

Murder and stealing is illegal. These are immoral things.

Does not murder and stealing hurt the person doing these things? By establishing our "coercion" we don't encourage people to be closer to God, we replace God with artifices of man which then become part of a risk analysis. Instead of considering whether an act is right or wrong, we consider the odds of getting caught versus the rewards. This type of thinking leads one away from morality, always trying to intellectually justify decisions while minimizing the feelings of selfishness and such that really should be the basis of the decision, not the perception of utility.

The point of law is to keep society healthy and stable. If we create laws against immoral things then we are showing that these immoral things are bad and work against human beings. This then in turn gives secular reason to support the teachings of Jesus. It is not the fault of the law or its makers that some people would think that way, rather it is a fault of that person and such a thought process is innately selfish.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 3:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is literally the philosophical bedrock of Rawlsian liberalism.
Tsar of DDO