22 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere whodey and I will disagree is about "sin" and some kind of "risk" of 'harming oneself in the estimation of God' kind of religionist thing. For me, morality is about the governing of the way we interact in society and the ways we exercise our freedoms in each others proximity. So drinking may be disapproved of, in and of itself, by whodey's 'God figure', but I do not accept this, for the reasons I have laid out; nor do I accept that I can be censured for anything other than my deeds in so far as they impact or impinge upon others.
So its only a moral issue when you see a risk. When whodey sees a risk, then its not a moral issue?
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIs it wrong if we destroy ourselves by bad choices? No, I don't reckon so.
Why if it harms others? Why not if it harms the one drinking too, even if it is a
choice being made by the one drinking doesn't that still mean something, it isn't
wrong if we destroy ourselves by bad choices?
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFI agree that some theists tend to confuse morals with sin. It could be argued that sin is immoral (because you are harming God?), but I think it is more a case of misuse of the word 'moral'.
Where whodey and I will disagree is about "sin" and some kind of "risk" of 'harming oneself in the estimation of God' kind of religionist thing.
But have you actually determined that his reasons for being against alcohol or promiscuous sex are purely because they are sin? Or is that what you are trying to determine?
For me, morality is about the governing of the way we interact in society and the ways we exercise our freedoms in each others proximity. So drinking may be disapproved of, in and of itself, by whodey's 'God figure', but I do not accept this, for the reasons I have laid out; nor do I accept that I can be censured for anything other than my deeds in so far as they impact or impinge upon others.
I can't find anywhere whodey suggested that you should act solely based on what his God approves of. I think he has argued that his God is more intelligent than us and his God is a better judge of what things will likely cause us or others harm. Thus he sees God as a better moral judge than us. So he is still using a moral argument and not one of 'personal preference of God'.
22 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOn this particular thread. I went back and read through most of his posts (rather skimmed through them, I must admit).
What? Never? Or on this particular thread?
[edit]
whodey says:
What if no one gets "hurt" or no "crime" has occured? I suppose we revert back to the tale of Adam and Eve in the garden. It is just a harmless apple, but the apple led to what we have today. Our wisdom on such matters is often shortsided and falls short.
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you think I asked him the questions that I asked him? jaywill has urged him not to answer any questions about his point of view. Although in this flurry of posts I may have glimpsed one by him where - in terms of the laws that govern us - his views might be fairly close to mine, but that he DID want to talk about "sin" rather than "law". Not sure. I'll go back and look at it in a bit.
But have you actually determined that his reasons for being against alcohol or promiscuous sex are purely because they are sin? Or is that what you are trying to determine?
22 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe said this a couple of pages back: "So the discussion has moved from what is a "sinful" to what should be illegal? Ok, I had not made the leap as of yet. That discussion is a different one in my view, especially in a secular government." You said you can't find anywhere whodey suggested that we should act solely based on what his God approves of. Isn't "sin" more or less "what his God [dis]approves of"?
On this particular thread. I went back and read through most of his posts (rather skimmed through them, I must admit).
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFNot only does that suggest that he doesn't expect people not in his religion to follow the rules in question, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Gods 'disapproval' is purely on moral grounds. In fact, the piece I quoted suggests that is what he was suggesting.
He said this a couple of pages back: [b]"So the discussion has moved from what is a "sinful" to what should be illegal? Ok, I had not made the leap as of yet. That discussion is a different one in my view, especially in a secular government." You said you can't find anywhere whodey suggested that we should act solely based on what his God approves of. Isn't "sin" more or less "what his God [dis]approves of"?[/b]
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou thought I was saying we should never have laws restricting people?
My main objection was that I thought you were arguing that everyone should be free to make their own judgements as to what is moral and what is not and that we should never have laws restricting people. But it seems I may have misunderstood you.
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell you're just after having said "I agree that some theists tend to confuse morals with sin." whodey is explicitly using the word "sin". So is it ok for whodey to conflate "morals" with "sin" for the purposes of this discussion?
Not only does that suggest that he doesn't expect people not in his religion to follow the rules in question, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Gods 'disapproval' is purely on moral grounds. In fact, the piece I quoted suggests that is what he was suggesting.
22 Aug 12
Originally posted by whodeyThe person who disciplines him or herself and starts at the narrow end of the funnel will still be at the narrow end of the funnel 40 years later, no different than when they started out. It's all voluntary restrictions of your lifestyle and you will not be more free later on, just as restricted as you started out. You had the freedom to do all the nasty things that hurt you later on when you started and you have the freedom to really let loose 40 years later and don't. Seems like they are still in the narrow section of the cone to me.
I heard a pastor make an interesting comparison between freedom and a funnel. Basically, the small end of the funnel symbolized a lack of personal freedom and the wide top of the funnel symbolized enhanced personal freedom.
So if you begin your journey doing as you please like having sex with whoever you desire, doing drugs because it feels good, dropping ...[text shortened]... lease and pleasure yourself, your personal freedom expands as the funnel is turned on its head.