Your Moral Compass

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Why do you think you need someone to say who is right or wrong on morality questions?

Are you saying that, if you cannot conclusively say 'this is moral', 'that is immoral', then a debate over morality is valueless?

I'm saying that unless you have a standard that everyone equally is bound by
all you have is a debate nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You dodged the question.

The Bible accepts the practice of slavery. Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

The Bible acknowledg's it and sets boundries around it, it does mean it was ever
the goal or the place God wanted man. The Bible also is divided up into OT and NT
where man and God's relationships change, where God's goal towards man is that
man gets set free from everything that binds him, going way beyond that of
slavery.
Kelly

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You could just consider the question and answer it rather than trying to dodge, but I appreciate you'd find that difficult. It does rather shred your argument, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't shred my argument at all.
Kelly

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
In fact Whodey there's plenty of documentary evidence to show that slavery was abhorred by many, if not most people back in the 1800s, and even back in ancient times. It doesn't take a 'skewed' morality to see that ownership of human beings by other human beings is a bad thing.

If you were to enter into that discussion in times where it was accepted you'd have
people debate you on its merit, I abhore it, but time and place it wasn't always
thought of like that. This is a good place for this discussion, because if you were
in an area that accepted it, who are you to tell them different? I'd be there with
you by the way, but we would be pushing our point of views over someone else
who disagreed with us. In order for us to be right over them, they would have
to be bound to the same set of rules we believe in and if they don't agree with us
than what?
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual
based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category,
such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or
religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

As I pointed out, if you accept one point of view over someone else who differs
it can be discrimination either way, you CANNOT get round it once you set a
standard.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out, if you accept one point of view over someone else who differs
it can be discrimination either way, you CANNOT get round it once you set a
standard.
Kelly

You cannot call losing an argument as being discriminated against!
Nor can you say those that don't get their way are being discriminated against.

I am using the terms discriminate and discrimination in their common way and
not as you would like.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You cannot call losing an argument as being discriminated against!
Nor can you say those that don't get their way are being discriminated against.

I am using the terms discriminate and discrimination in their common way and
not as you would like.

Do you accept people who have different views on sex, some feel somethings
are okay others everything is. If you side with either you stand against the
other, so how are you not discriminating?
Kelly

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, I think TOO has dealt with this one better than I could in Biblical terms.

I never sought to compare in relative terms different types of slavery. The Romans often treated their slaves well. I said that the Bible accepted the practice of slavery. It does.

Today, those same practices are outlawed by almost all nations. The world is a more moral place as a result.

ser·vi·tude

1. slavery or bondage of any kind: political or intellectual servitude.

2. compulsory service or labor as a punishment for criminals: penal servitude.

3. Law. a right possessed by one person to use another's property.

These practices are not outlawed by almost all nations. They are still an accepted part of the entire world. It is only the way that they have been used that has been changed or "outlawed" as you claim.

😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you accept people who have different views on sex, some feel somethings
are okay others everything is. If you side with either you stand against the
other, so how are you not discriminating?
Kelly

Let's take homosexuality for example.

If person A takes the stance that it should be illegal (and this view prevails), then homosexual B's freedom is curtailed.

If B's homosexuality is not illegal, A's freedom is not curtailed.

Can you see how the concept of "discrimination" is in play in this situation?

Originally posted by FMF
Let's take homosexuality for example.

If person A takes the stance that it should be illegal (and this view prevails), then homosexual B's freedom is curtailed.

If B's homosexuality is not illegal, A's freedom is not curtailed.

Can you see how the concept of "discrimination" is in play in this situation?

You can use bestiality, man child, whatever you want, if someone disagrees
and doesn't want any part of it and thinks it needs to be avoided, and you make
them be forced to accept it then you've curtailed their freedom. It is never the
examples you like that are going to bite you, it is the ones you don't.
Someone who views life at conception, should they forced to help pay for
the death of an unborn child? Once you draw the line, you are going to
force someone else to not be able to do something or forced into accepting
something they stand against.
Kelly

Originally posted by FMF
Let's take homosexuality for example.

If person A takes the stance that it should be illegal (and this view prevails), then homosexual B's freedom is curtailed.

If B's homosexuality is not illegal, A's freedom is not curtailed.

Can you see how the concept of "discrimination" is in play in this situation?

Why would you only believe one side can have their lives curtailed? If the practice
is an abomination to the one that is against it, being forced to be exposed to it will
without a doubt lower their standard of life.
Kelly

Originally posted by FMF
Let's take homosexuality for example.

If person A takes the stance that it should be illegal (and this view prevails), then homosexual B's freedom is curtailed.

If B's homosexuality is not illegal, A's freedom is not curtailed.

Can you see how the concept of "discrimination" is in play in this situation?

I think we must all discriminate between what is true and what is false and what is good and what is bad. How we do this has always been a matter of debate. I don't suspect anyone on this forum will come up with the ultimate solution to that debate. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can use bestiality, man child, whatever you want, if someone disagrees
and doesn't want any part of it and thinks it needs to be avoided, and you make them be forced to accept it then you've curtailed their freedom.

Animals and children cannot give informed consent so they are irrelevant to a discussion about legalizing homosexuality. No one would curtail your freedom by "forcing" you be a homosexual. No one would curtail your freedom to be a heterosexual. But making homosexuality illegal curtails other people's freedom. The existence of homosexuals who do not fear legal sanctions is not a curtailment of your freedom.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would you only believe one side can have their lives curtailed? If the practice
is an abomination to the one that is against it, being forced to be exposed to it will
without a doubt lower their standard of life.
Kelly

You want laws to protect you from being exposed to things you don't like?

What freedom of yours is "curtailed" when homosexuals lead their lives as they want to?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Once you draw the line, you are going to force someone else to not be able to do something or forced into accepting something they stand against.

Explain how the legalization of homosexuality "forces [you] to not be able to do something"?

What concept of freedom is it you have if whatever other people do or are must be "accepted" by you?