- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone have an issue with threesomes? (This has become a holy war)
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:52 pm to shel311
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:52 pm to shel311
quote:I can provide a basis for moral reasoning with God. You can't provide one without God. Your moral reasoning would essentially be nothing more than arbitrary personal preference. Being able to point back to morality being defined by the character of God is rational. Saying "because I feel this way at this particular time" as a basis for your moral framework isn't rational.
I mean, let's not act like you're better than the other side and the other side can't do the same exact thing and say, "so what" that you base your opinion on the Bible.
1
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
My question was about being selfish and acting in a way that results in your spouse and children being heartbroken, potentially destitute, and missing a stable environment for growth.
Hate to cut in here, but I thought it was settled that Falwell Jr. wanted to watch his wife get railed by the pool boy. He wasn't heartbroken at all.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:54 pm to CFFreak
quote:Only the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, moral or otherwise. Other holy books either don't claim to be revelation from God and/or directly contradict the claims of the Bible, which does claim to be the very word and revelation of God. The God of the Bible provides a rational basis for intelligibility of the universe, be it morality, reason, science, etc., while the other holy books do not.
So why are the other holy books wrong? If you're basing everything just on the bible.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Why should people not be allowed to do things that have adverse affects on others, is that your question? That IS the question you asked but it makes no sense to ask that question as the answer is obvious.
Why should anyone tell them they're not allowed to do something that does have adverse affects?
quote:Immoral isn't the question, saying someone should have the ability to make decisions that adversely affect others and that's ok is illogical IMO
Why does having adverse affects make something immoral?
quote:I don't know what "evolved pond scum" is.
Why are actions by evolved pond scum any different?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:58 pm to shel311
quote:Not necessarily. I've force my children to eat foods that they thought were poison before, only to have them think it was delicious and want more of it.
Both, but they go hand in hand. If someone is forced to do something against their will, that is doing harm, so you kinda gotta have both.
Not every act of coercion is harmful. Plus, you need to define "harm".
That said, if it's "both", then is it OK to coerce someone so long as they aren't harmed, and is it OK to harm someone if they consent? Why is non-harm + consent the magic formula for moral goodness in your worldview?
quote:Logic pertains to our ability to make connections between propositions. It's logical to say that causing harm will lead to discomfort, but there is no logical statement that says morals must be derived from concepts of harm and consent.
My code is based on logic, there isn't much more logical than that
It's just as logical to say that what is morally good is that which provides me the most benefit, therefore if harming others without their consent provides me the most benefit, that action is morally good.
quote:Again, it's not a matter of logic. We're talking morality here, which is a different concept.
I can give my opinion on that, but I can say pretty darn close to factual who is more logical.
This post was edited on 8/25/20 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 8/24/20 at 3:59 pm to longwayfromLA
quote:Falwell is beside the point right now. We're talking about moral reasoning in general, not what Falwell did specifically. Or at least I am, at this point.
Hate to cut in here, but I thought it was settled that Falwell Jr. wanted to watch his wife get railed by the pool boy. He wasn't heartbroken at all.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:This is most certainly factually incorrect.
I can provide a basis for moral reasoning with God. You can't provide one without God.
That is clearly an opinion, nothing factual about that statement.
quote:You hinted at it before, but now you're just basically admitting you feel superior to others and better than others.
Your moral reasoning would essentially be nothing more than arbitrary personal preference.
quote:Again that's an opinion that can very easily be picked apart to be shown very irrational.
Being able to point back to morality being defined by the character of God is rational.
quote:Why did you add "at a particular time?" I told you what my code was, there was nothing at all about things changing at any time. But I'd ask you, do you follow the good book? Do you truly follow ALL of it? If we want to talk about rational and irrational, you'll have to start there.
Saying "because I feel this way at this particular time" as a basis for your moral framework isn't rational.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:02 pm to shel311
quote:Because it causes pain and discomfort? So what? So does cancer, but cancer isn't immoral.
Why should people not be allowed to do things that have adverse affects on others, is that your question? That IS the question you asked but it makes no sense to ask that question as the answer is obvious.
So why are the actions of humans different? And what if I think that causing adverse affects is morally good?
quote:Immorality is the entire question. We're talking about the basis for right and wrong (morality). You're saying something is immoral if it causes harm (adverse affects) without consent.
Immoral isn't the question, saying someone should have the ability to make decisions that adversely affect others and that's ok is illogical IMO
Why is causing harm illogical?
quote:It's us, in an evolutionary worldview that rejects God.
I don't know what "evolved pond scum" is.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:03 pm to CFFreak
quote:
Is he gay? That's a nice jumper he has on. Not judging but just observing.
No, he has lived and worked in Africa for years.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Did forcing delicious foods on your kid have an adverse affect on them? No, it didn't. I assume every decision you make for your children are done so for positive future effects on their lives, so I have no clue what you're going for here. If you're making decisions for your children that you feel will have adverse effects on them going forward, that's pretty shitty of you.
Not necessarily. I've force my children to eat foods that they thought were poison before, only to have them think it was delicious and want more of it.
quote:So it's not harmful, there ya go.
Not every act of coercion is harmful.
quote:Give me an example
then is it OK to coerce someone so long as they aren't harmed
quote:There's also nothing logical about moral must be derived from God, if we're going there.
but there is no logical statement that says moral must be derived from concepts harm and consent.
quote:You're talking nonsense right now.
It's just as logical to say that what is morally good is that which provides me the most benefit, therefore if harming others without their consent provides me the most benefit, that action is morally good.
quote:Disagree. My opinions on what is right or wrong are based on logic, so yes logic is involved here.
Again, it's not a matter of logic. We're talking morality here, which is a different concept.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:09 pm to NakaTrash
Jesus's work on the cross is the pivotal event that ties together the old covenant and the new covenant and the old and the new testament. He was the atoning sacrifice that fulfilled the law. After He ascended at the Mount of Olives, Jesus with the Father sent the Holy Spirit as the solution to our sin problem here on earth. The Holy Spirit is your guide and helper to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh. If you sin and mess up, ask for His forgiveness, just as man can forgive one another so can God and He can even forgive better then you or me.
We see a lot of examples in the old testament where people were unclean, had leprosy, or touched a dead thing were made to separate themselves from the camp. These things are types that point towards Jesus. Jesus healed the sick, the blind, the lepers, the unclean, and brings life to the dead.
It is Him and His atoning work that brings us back to the "camp" of God.
If anyone is reading this and remembers in Luke 24, when Jesus suddenly "stands in the midst of them", obviously in His new resurrected body. He then ask for something to eat (of all things). Then He gives you a big hint of the the entirety of Scripture is about Him!
"44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures." Luke 24:44-45
this same idea is stated in Hebrews 10:7
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
What an awesome tool to use to study the bible, knowing that when you put Jesus in the middle of verse in the old testament, it helps to make it more clear!
Salvation is available for those who give their life and heart to Jesus. Salvation is gift that works in the past, present and future.
In the past to separate you from the wrath of His judgement of sin, in the present to separate you from the power of sin (by His Holy Spirit), and in the future to separate you from the presence of sin.
We see a lot of examples in the old testament where people were unclean, had leprosy, or touched a dead thing were made to separate themselves from the camp. These things are types that point towards Jesus. Jesus healed the sick, the blind, the lepers, the unclean, and brings life to the dead.
It is Him and His atoning work that brings us back to the "camp" of God.
If anyone is reading this and remembers in Luke 24, when Jesus suddenly "stands in the midst of them", obviously in His new resurrected body. He then ask for something to eat (of all things). Then He gives you a big hint of the the entirety of Scripture is about Him!
"44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures." Luke 24:44-45
this same idea is stated in Hebrews 10:7
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
What an awesome tool to use to study the bible, knowing that when you put Jesus in the middle of verse in the old testament, it helps to make it more clear!
Salvation is available for those who give their life and heart to Jesus. Salvation is gift that works in the past, present and future.
In the past to separate you from the wrath of His judgement of sin, in the present to separate you from the power of sin (by His Holy Spirit), and in the future to separate you from the presence of sin.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:11 pm to salty1
quote:Maybe then, MAYBE your all bets ARE off regardless of what goes on over there in "live and let live" world.
Most of us down here are “live and let live” type thinkers. I personally don’t give a shite what anyone does as long as it isn’t negatively impacting me and mine. Once it crosses over to causing me grief, all bets are off.
And MAYBE that is why a creator with creator wisdom, that is VASTLY more wisdom, has made the rule in the first place. With wisdom that ultimately it does cause grief, and acceptance of "live and let live" with creature levels of wisdom is a slippery slope that will also cause grief in itself.
Did you ever notice how foul-mouthed the men and women protesters are in videos. Women have not always been that way, and in fact, in my youth, they were not. Men were not as verbally crude as they currently are. Much "live and let live" through the decades. Much bitter crudity grew as a result. Is there a wisdom that could enlighten and improve all of us from just reversing the slippery slopes that "live and let live" contributed?
I wonder what effect would come from reducing our verbal crudity. Everyone would benefit from the wisdom of everyone being more upright is my guess.
and this is just one thing..
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:WTF are you talking about, cancer...this makes no sense whatsoever in this discussion.
Because it causes pain and discomfort? So what? So does cancer, but cancer isn't immoral.
quote:Than cancer? You don't know the answer to that question? You're really not making any sense man.
So why are the actions of humans different?
quote:Now we're back to the "Well some murderers don't think murdering babies is wrong so who are you to say they are in fact wrong" logic?
And what if I think that causing adverse affects is morally good?
quote:Yes or no, do you think individuals should be able to harm others without consequence? I don't need an explanation of why, simple yes or no will suffice.
Immorality is the entire question. We're talking about the basis for right and wrong (morality). You're saying something is immoral if it causes harm (adverse affects) without consent.
Why is causing harm illogical?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:13 pm to shel311
quote:My moral reasoning is based on God's moral law, which in turn is based on His perfect moral character. God's character is the basis for all moral reasoning, for without God morality would not exist objectively. Morality, then would be nothing more than individual preferences and opinions for each person based on what they, individually, think is right.
This is most certainly factually incorrect.
That is clearly an opinion, nothing factual about that statement.
Logically speaking, if the God of the Bible doesn't exist, there is no basis for objective moral reasoning, and without objective moral reasoning, all there is is opinion, which none is better or worse than another.
quote:Not at all. I'll say with Paul that I'm the chief of sinners. Christ is Lord, not me. God is perfect while I am not. I'm a sinner, deserving of God's wrath, and it's only by God's grace that I am reconciled through Christ.
You hinted at it before, but now you're just basically admitting you feel superior to others and better than others.
quote:Feel free to pick it apart.
Again that's an opinion that can very easily be picked apart to be shown very irrational.
quote:Because people's opinions change over time.
Why did you add "at a particular time?"
quote:It's your opinion at this time.
I told you what my code was, there was nothing at all about things changing at any time.
quote:I am a sinner and therefore I sin. When I sin, I'm not conforming to God's commands as understood in the good book. Therefore, in that sense, i don't follow the good book perfectly though I believe it to be God's revealed will. I'm a sinner and therefore act inconsistently with what I believe to be true, though I still believe it to be true.
But I'd ask you, do you follow the good book? Do you truly follow ALL of it? If we want to talk about rational and irrational, you'll have to start there.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Only the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, moral or otherwise.
Based on what?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:15 pm to CFFreak
You shall not commit adultery - God (7th Commandment)
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:No, that is not logical...at all.
Logically speaking, if the God of the Bible doesn't exist, there is no basis for objective moral reasoning, and without objective moral reasoning, all there is is opinion, which none is better or worse than another.
quote:Would that be comparable to picking and choosing the parts of the Bible to live by and teh parts to ignore?
Because people's opinions change over time.
quote:Your arrogance is showing again. You seem to get to decide how my opinion will change, all the while still ignoring how people's opinions of the BIble and their own morality change as well, no different.
It's your opinion at this time.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:21 pm to shel311
quote:My point was that you said consent and lack of harm are your guiding principles. I'm saying that you cannot be consistent with that even from your perspective. There are times when lack of consent is actually a net positive and times with adverse affects on one person may not morally bad.
Did forcing delicious foods on your kid have an adverse affect on them? No, it didn't. I assume every decision you make for your children are done so for positive future effects on their lives, so I have no clue what you're going for here. If you're making decisions for your children that you feel will have adverse effects on them going forward, that's pretty shitty of you.
I'm trying to point out to you the arbitrariness of your professed moral standard.
quote:I just did. Coercing my children to eat foods they don't want to eat is an example.
Give me an example
quote:Yes, there is.
There's also nothing logical about moral must be derived from God, if we're going there.
Without God, there is no rational basis for objective moral reasoning. The logical necessity of God's existence for objective moral reasoning is the rationale.
quote:Not at all. What I'm saying is that you can make a logical argument that flows from a set of propositions to a rational conclusion from an alternate moral framework.
You're talking nonsense right now.
If A and B then C
If A is "that which provides me the most benefit is moral"
and B is "harming others without their consent provides me the most benefit"
Then C (the logical conclusion) is that harming others without their consent is moral.
quote:I'm showing you how your premise is irrational because it is based on pure opinion. Your opinion is that morality is the combination of that which causes no harm and that which is consensual and I'm saying that anyone can have any other standard you can think of and be just as valid, because morality isn't a logical construct.
Disagree. My opinions on what is right or wrong are based on logic, so yes logic is involved here.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:22 pm to CFFreak
quote:Based on the impossibility of the contrary.
Based on what?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:25 pm to CFFreak
As long as you are not hurting yourself, someone else, or a child, I do not want to know or hear about your sex kinks...
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News