This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
No, that's the line I said she believes. Hence my stating it's reckless to teach that something is an abomination if you're not emphasizing that you believe God will forgive them.
My mother has already defined her theology herself, but my siblings do not. I'm afraid that they will continue hating homosexuals because that's what they think my parents believe. In the absence of elaboration, simply saying that something is an "abomination" can lead to hatred.
Post by
Squishalot
How do you know what she believes? Is that because she's told you?
Has she not taught you and your siblings that God forgives? Based on what you've said before about what you understand Christianity to teach, it seems clear that she has indeed passed that message on. Hence why I'm saying that you need to take 'abomination' in context with all the other moral teachings she's been feeding you. The elaboration is everything you've been growing up with - confession, forgiveness, be saved.
Post by
Skreeran
That's because I've opted to talk to her about it.
But I'm really getting tired of arguing, and a lot of things. I just got through listening about them meeting a guy in the Israeli government and my dad submitting his resume as a sort of reserve emergency worker type thing. humanitarian, I suppose, but this is right after they made a joke about wanting to do a parody of Rebecca Black's Friday video with a "Palestinian waking up at 7:00 AM and pulling on his ski mask and his green 'thing' and strapping on some bombs... and since it's Friday, in the mosque they all have their butts in the air hahaha."
I'm not even submitting that as a debate point. I'm just sick of it all. It makes me sad and angry and more than anything just weary.
You can have the last word if you want.
Post by
Squishalot
It's crude, and fair enough, you're sick of their attitude to things.
But I'd honestly try to give them a bit more credit than you are. I don't know what they talk to your siblings about when you're not around, but the key thing is that you don't either. All things considered, they raised you, and your siblings are being raised in generally the same environment that they raised you in. If you don't consider yourself too out of whack with the world, then chances are, your siblings will probably end up fine once they get to your age too.
Just remember - being a Christian doesn't automatically make them an evangelical lunatic. My two brothers and I are some of the most clear-cut agnostics out there. Our three cousins go to the most evangelical, 'born again' churches in Australia. That doesn't mean that we can't relate about anything, it means we just have different beliefs, that's all. We're intelligent enough not to let it get to us.
If you're intelligent, then chances are, your siblings are intelligent as well, and will be able to deal with things appropriately as they get older, as and when they need to.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, part of my worry is just the fact that getting where I am now was a painful experience that left me suicidal more than once. Best case scenario, and they're as intelligent or more so than I am, I'm still worried that they'll have to hurt like I did.
But I guess I give up. I'm done now.
Post by
Lombax
Sooooo I'm a lazy moron who haven't read these last pages, there for I am going to post my opinions.
1. It's wrong to tell your children that homosexuals are abominations. (probably spelled that wrong)
2. It's wrong to home school them by biblical views.
3. It's wrong to even say anything along the lines of men being the superior gender.
4. I don't believe that you have any right to raise your child to being either a homophobe, a racist or a person that thinks that men are the superior gender, reason for that being that they will have big problems in their later life.
And once agian these are just my opinions, so tell me if I'm wrong in any way...
Post by
Tartonga
The very fact that they can arbitrary change shows that morality cannot be based on them.
Why?
Because arbitrary morality is a meaningless concept.
The fact that morality is based on law, which is not arbritary, but still not static doesn't prove that morality has to be arbitrary as well.
By contraceptives you meant abortion
What?
Contraceptive =/= abortion
Condom (what you said) = a contraceptive (what I said)
Then I'm afraid to let you know you are wrong, contraceptives as a whole are not illegal in many countries, only abortion.
Their laws are what their morally beliefs are.
Exactly. The people who instituted the laws believed that certain actions were immoral, and thus made them illegal.
I'm glad you agree with my point. Now the question is: now that their laws are settled down...can someone who is born there have a different belief (in terms of morality) and not brake the law? If the answer is no, then you see my point. The law generates the morality instruction, you don't have another choice what you can teach your children in that case. (Edit:) But to be honest, I think we are looking at the sides of the same coin.
So, let me get your point...You say that rapists and gays feel the same in terms of social morality?
I say that opinions have the exact same intrinsic "harming" power, whether they are against gays or rapists or Catholics or Asians.
I get your point, but I think gays are affected more because the opinions about them involve what they are, while rapists involve what they did. I think it's a much strongly sad feeling to be judged for what you are. Poor asians. And I mean, I don't think it's ok to judge others for what they are, like the Church does.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The fact that morality is based on law, which is not arbritary, but still not static doesn't prove that morality has to be arbitrary as well.
You already got rid of morality/ethics as a foundation of law, so it is arbitrary. That Law A says that X is illegal is just as valid as Law B saying that X is legal. Without right or wrong, you can't make any claims saying that a law should or shouldn't exist. Thus that Law A is employed instead of Law B is arbitrary. Even something as simple and "utility" is an ethical system because it's based on the assumption that utility is better than non-utility. Take away the ethics, and choosing utility over non-utility because arbitrary.
Then I'm afraid to let you know you are wrong, contraceptives as a whole are not illegal in many countries, only abortion.
England under Edward I
The US in 1872
Italy under Mussolini
Etc. Etc.
Am I to assume that you didn't read what I said properly?
Contraceptives
have been
illegal in many, many countries
over the years
.
I'm glad you agree with my point. Now the question is: now that their laws are settled down...can someone who is born there have a different belief (in terms of morality) and not brake the law? If the answer is no, then you see my point. The law generates the morality instruction, you don't have another choice what you can teach your children in that case. (Edit:) But to be honest, I think we are looking at the sides of the same coin.
The answer is yes.
Abortion is legal in the US. I believe its immoral. There's your proof right there.
I get your point, but I think gays are affected more because the opinions about them involve what they are, while rapists involve what they did. I think it's a much strongly sad feeling to be judged for what you are. Poor asians. And I mean, I don't think it's ok to judge others for what they are, like the Church does.
Your actions are the outward expression of who you are.
Post by
Tartonga
You already got rid of morality/ethics as a foundation of law, so it is arbitrary. That Law A says that X is illegal is just as valid as Law B saying that X is legal. Without right or wrong, you can't make any claims saying that a law should or shouldn't exist. Thus that Law A is employed instead of Law B is arbitrary. Even something as simple and "utility" is an ethical system because it's based on the assumption that utility is better than non-utility. Take away the ethics, and choosing utility over non-utility because arbitrary.
But morality can be arbitrary as well. Teaching your kids, for example, that stealing is ok. Even if it's the son of the main judge of the supreme court, he can't change the law arbitrarily. As I said, I think we are looking at 2 sides from the same coin.
England under Edward I
The US in 1872
Italy under Mussolini
Etc. Etc.
Am I to assume that you didn't read what I said properly?
HsR said:
Contraceptives have been illegal in many, many countries over the years.
Wait then, I missed the part where that was somehow relevant.
The answer is yes.
Abortion is legal in the US. I believe its immoral. There's your proof right there.
You got out of context.
By contraceptives you meant abortion, that is illegal in a lot of places (it's considered killing), but I meant using condoms. Where is it illegal to use a condom? An 80% of the countries that consider homosexuality illegal are african countries, on the rest of the world it's legal. Sex before marriage is only illegal on muslim countries mostly and they are 14 in total. So, as you see, they are countries with a big unique religious influence. They consider legal what a divinity supossedly thinks so. Their laws are what their morally beliefs are. However, that was the beginning. If you were born now in a place like that, you won't have an alternative choice for your morality, because it will be based on the laws. If you oppose what the general beliefs are, which are the Law, then game over for you.
-
I get your point, but I think gays are affected more because the opinions about them involve what they are, while rapists involve what they did. I think it's a much strongly sad feeling to be judged for what you are. Poor asians. And I mean, I don't think it's ok to judge others for what they are, like the Church does.
Your actions are the outward expression of who you are.
Yep, rapists are rapists...we can't do much about it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But morality can be arbitrary as well. Teaching your kids, for example, that stealing is ok. Even if it's the son of the main judge of the supreme court, he can't change the law arbitrarily. As I said, I think we are looking at 2 sides from the same coin.
Relative =/= arbitrary.
Everything you're saying seems to demonstrate that you don't understand what to be a moral or ethical system means.
Post by
Tartonga
Oh really? Am I? I'm actually just trying to get your point, you know...
arbitrary morality is a meaningless concept.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Morality or ethics, if being employed, implies a system based on some preexisting principle. If, on the other hand, things are determined arbitrarily, then there is no system. The two are not mutually compatible.
Post by
Tartonga
Ok good...we are getting to understand each other. But...why isn't this compatible:
Law, if being employed, implies a system based on some preexisting principle. If, on the other hand, things are determined arbitrarily, then there is no system.
I'm seriously asking, no fooling.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Law, if being employed, implies a system based on some preexisting principle. If, on the other hand, things are determined arbitrarily, then there is no system.
Law is based on the moral and ethical principles employed in its creation. The primary of which is that the person/institution instituting the law has the authority to do so (whether by force, agreement, whatever -- as determined by the moral/ethical system in place).
Post by
Tartonga
Ok good, seems right to me.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.