23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfI don't think we are really in agreement because we do not believe in a similar referential framework.
You seem to have sidestepped what I have put to you several times now. It was this: If you, like me, want homosexuals to have the same freedoms as you and I do, and for government to respect and protect those freedoms without discrimination, then we are in agreement. So, can you be unequivocal? Are we in agreement?
I don't support their perceived "right" to get married. I also do not buy into the liberal thought process of considering everything in terms of freedoms. I don't really know what is meant by freedom here.
I don't really know what you mean by freedom and can only assume you have some pretty vanilla vision of late 20th century America.
I guess I'll learn more as I interact with you more. 🙂
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThe revealed word of God in the Bible and the traditions within the Church are the absolute truths.
Much of what you have written on this thread seems to be "begging the question".
What would be the basis for determining what is or is not "moral"? If it is the views of a particular religious tradition, then the problem is whether or not any given viewpoint was ever "moral" to begin with.
Of course, I understand that in a public forum you cannot rely on this so I'll gladly engage in apologetics. But I am not a Thomist and do not believe in natural theology or that there is some rationalist system that can lead you to the same conclusions.
... Do you suggest Christianity was not moral to begin with? Obviously, this is a big topic. Feel free to take your time jumping into it.
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIt's been clear what I mean by freedom from my posts. Do you want me to copy paste the sentences?
I don't really know what you mean by freedom...
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo, you mean you don't want homosexuals to have the same freedoms as you and I do, and you don't want government to respect and protect those freedoms without discrimination?
I don't think we are really in agreement because we do not believe in a similar referential framework.
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIn what way? I've never been to America.
...you have some pretty vanilla vision of late 20th century America.
23 Jan 18
I also think the 'begging the question' thing is pretty excusable.
This whole conversation we have had FMF talking about "muh rights." Virtually every modernist and postmodernist just assumes that you accept not just Muh Rights, but a very specific interpretation of them, and if you don't... You might be a bigot.
I am not saying that racism or sexism is good... but the fact that these words are pejoratives are proof of how ingrained this fallacy is not just in our society but, in all likelihood, in all of humanity...
A lot of modern political dialogue revolves around "Muh rights", "that's racist," "that's sexist." None of these concepts are ever taken to their proper depth.
But definitely... Let's do it. Let's go there, every time, because if we don't we aren't being thorough and we are begging the question.
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou think government should step in to prevent homosexuals from living together as married couples? You think the government should intrevene to stop religious groups from conferring some blessing on such unions? What consequences do you think there should be - or would you like to see - from you not supporting people's and institutions' rights to do these things?
I don't support their perceived "right" to get married.
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @js357I said nothing about a police force, or any instrument of the state.
We need to organize our personal self defense, or become a Mad Max state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
“...In other words, [Max] Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to W ...[text shortened]... timation.”
It’s a big risk, delegating the physical resistance to violence to a police force.
I agree that "the man" often has too much discretion to kill anyone he wants.
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleRights are the freedoms exercised when people are able to do things and say things without government forbidding them, punishing them, or discriminating against them backed by government power. I am not talking about any "right" people might have not to be disliked or disapproved of by religious people.
This whole conversation we have had [b]FMF talking about "muh rights." [/b]
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleThe Bible is widely open to interpretation. As such, at best it is the "interpreted word of God" rather than simply the "revealed" word. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be the reportedly 20K different denominations of Christianity. There would not have been suchh disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral".
The revealed word of God in the Bible and the traditions within the Church are the absolute truths.
Of course, I understand that in a public forum you cannot rely on this so I'll gladly engage in apologetics. But I am not a Thomist and do not believe in natural theology or that there is some rationalist system that can lead you to the same conclu ...[text shortened]... oral to begin with? Obviously, this is a big topic. Feel free to take your time jumping into it.
So the question still stands: What would be the basis for determining what is or is not "moral"?
23 Jan 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIn this dialogue you haven't been accused of being a bigot or a racist or a sexist. Do you believe I have used these words in speaking to you? If not, why are you introducing these words into this conversation? Can you not wait at least until someone takes that tack with you and then confront them?
This whole conversation we have had FMF talking about "muh rights." Virtually every modernist and postmodernist just assumes that you accept not just Muh Rights, but a very specific interpretation of them, and if you don't... You might be a bigot .I am not saying that racism or sexism is good... but the fact that these words are pejoratives[/ ...[text shortened]... acist," "that's sexist." None of these concepts are ever taken to their proper depth.[/b]
23 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI noticed you capitalized "Social Justice Warrior" earlier. And here you are using a word that isn't even a word - "muh" - and you're capitalizing it to make "Muh Rights". What is the effect from this that you wish to have?
Virtually every modernist and postmodernist just assumes that you accept not just Muh Rights, but a very specific interpretation of them
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThat's a fair question and a fair point. I will address it in three ways:
The Bible is widely open to interpretation. As such, at best it is the "interpreted word of God" rather than simply the "revealed" word. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be the reportedly 20K different denominations of Christianity. There would not have been suchh disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral".
So the question still stands: What would be the basis for determining what is or is not "moral"?
(a) I accept anyone that confirms the Nicene creed as a Christian. I will even be liberal with some of the interpretation of the trinity.
(b) The 20k+ figure comes from the fact that many non-denominational sects are not registered with official denominations. However, they still have to register as a Church to be recognized as a charity. As a result, Pastor John Doe's "Living Word Church of Eau Claire, Wisconsin" gets recorded as an official denomination.
You can probably break down these 20k+ denominations into much less.
Let's also keep in mind that some of these divisions hold no significant difference and are completely interchangeable. A Serbian Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox have only differences of local flavor, not differences of doctrine. Likewise, you got people that go to very similar Lutheran churches but are parts of different sects simply because someone's grandparents came from Germany and settled in Wisconsin and someone else's grandparents came from Norway and settled in North Dakota.
(c) We need to also make a further distinction...
There is the basic category of morality, and then there is the general overview of how a public society should function. As such, you can find a person who is a Libertarian and another who is a Monarchist that might have near identical personal moralities but have extremely different views on how society ought to operate.
I will overwhelmingly trust other Christians, even those of different denominations, to make accurate and great judgment calls based off of the revealed truth of GOd. Indeed, much of the differences I have with, say, Baptists, would boil down to how we believe people are saved and stuff liek "Faith Vs. Works," not on what the literal revealed truth is. A lot of idsagremeent is mechanical.
And so I argue against other Christians politically on a very different basis: I argue against their non-Christian views. I merely support a public morality and government likewise based off of Christian worldview. This is where my actual discrepancies with other Christians seems to chiefly come about and it is quite different than a dispute over what the revealed truth is.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfIt's just a relevant example of begging the question.
In this dialogue you haven't been accused of being a bigot or a racist or a sexist. Do you believe I have used these words in speaking to you? If not, why are you introducing these words into this conversation? Can you not wait at least until someone takes that tack with you and then confront them?
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfI don't really know. I used to know how to think along these terms but I don't really do that anymore and if I were to do so it'd be a wrong way to handle this situation.
Rights are the freedoms exercised when people are able to do things and say things without government forbidding them, punishing them, or discriminating against them backed by government power. I am not talking about any "right" people might have not to be disliked or disapproved of by religious people.
I do not believe it is a good idea for me to step into your framework for political reasoning.
This framework of political reasoning, while internally consistent, is generally just a bad way of viewing the world.
It's bad software. I don't use it anymore.