Homosexuality - a moral issue?

[Woody]

Quote:

[MoeJoe] said it best...read what he has to say...after all, he does have my Calvin image as an icon..

Trouble is: I am not aware of any moejoe on this site. WEll - many of us have moejoe - but no one has that name that I'm aware of.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

Why would you want to hug them in their sin, when you could help them to overcome their sin?

If what you are doing ... is considered help - WOW !!!

Do you ever offer anything other than prejudiced ad hominem to discussions?

[M. T. Cross]

Okay, so this "divine" is the source of all absolute moral standards.

So what is this "divine", please qualify it for me.

The mind, the force, the source, the power behind all things. How would you explain omnipotent power using our limited vocabulary?

[Twilight II]

Quote:

what you have done here, is ask me to abandon the basis of my worldview and instead adopt empiricism as the foundation of my beliefs.

Exactly - what's wrong with asking someone to abandon (or at least reconsider) their world view? How else will we ever learn anything worth learning if we are not willing to learn the reasons why we should (or shouldn't) believe what we believe? When Christian evangelists go to places where no one has ever even heard of Jesus, isn't that exactly what we are asking others to do (abandon their own worldview)? or is that something completely different?

You believe that when someone invites you to abandon the basis of your worldview, the Bible, and step onto their gound of feigned neutrality, you should?

Consider these words for a moment and ask yourself if there is any indication here that you should abandon your ultimate authority, the Bible, when discussing issues of life:

In the beginning, God...

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Okay, so this "divine" is the source of all absolute moral standards.

So what is this "divine", please qualify it for me.

The mind, the force, the source, the power behind all things. How would you explain omnipotent power using our limited vocabulary?

Is this force, personal or impersonal.

Does it have an identity?

[M. T. Cross]

Is this force, personal or impersonal.

Does it have an identity?

If all things are a manifestation of it, its pretty personal to all things.

Yes, many identities.

[Neil D]

Trouble is: I am not aware of any moejoe on this site. WEll - many of us have moejoe - but no one has that name that I'm aware of.

Oh, just follow the Calvin icon...After all, anyone who uses any form of Calvin must have important things to say....

Can't say much about those sweedish beagles, though.....

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Is this force, personal or impersonal.

Does it have an identity?

If all things are a manifestation of it, its pretty personal to all things.

Yes, many identities.

So it is an individual entity, a single source of authority?

[Woody]

Twilight - I am happy to let the reader decide in this case. I trust their judgment.

[Woody]

Quote:

Can't say much about those sweedish beagles, though.

So who do you think you ARE? Do you think you alone can have the last word on the Swedish Bagels?

[M. T. Cross]

So it is an individual entity, a single source of authority?

Yes and no. I don't think you can call something that is the source of all things an individual entity per say.

As for its authority - if all things come from it then in order to exist all things must follow its laws of existence. Those laws however are obviously different for all things. But I think it allows things to evolve and grow and experience. It allows for a great deal of change. In fact I believe that is pretty much the point. Growth and change. So the basic moral code is when you do something that impedes or damages growth it is wrong. When you stunt somethings natural journey it is wrong. Being destructive is wrong.

[Bravus]

Y'all *have* been busy! Over 150 posts in this thread since I last dropped in.

Carry on.

[Neil D]

So who do you think you ARE? Do you think you alone can have the last word on the Swedish Bagels?

Bagels? we have Portland Bagels here...pretty good place to eat but rather expensive, IMHO for what they serve...Tis a good thing that they are not going to the dogs though....That would be a travesty in this small town...

[M. T. Cross]

Y'all *have* been busy! Over 150 posts in this thread since I last dropped in.

Carry on.

Oh I don't know Bravus. I think I have run out of breathe to waste.

[Neil D]

Y'all *have* been busy! Over 150 posts in this thread since I last dropped in.

Carry on.

Hi Bravus.....

I think my fingers started running away with what I wanted to say, as I think about 25 of those posts are mine.....sorry..

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Y'all *have* been busy! Over 150 posts in this thread since I last dropped in.

Carry on.

Oh I don't know Bravus. I think I have run out of breathe to waste.

You are so right EC. And it seems our voices are not being heard by the individual anyways.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

So it is an individual entity, a single source of authority?

Yes and no. I don't think you can call something that is the source of all things an individual entity per say.

As for its authority - if all things come from it then in order to exist all things must follow its laws of existence. Those laws however are obviously different for all things. But I think it allows things to evolve and grow and experience. It allows for a great deal of change. In fact I believe that is pretty much the point. Growth and change. So the basic moral code is when you do something that impedes or damages growth it is wrong. When you stunt somethings natural journey it is wrong. Being destructive is wrong.

Okay, so lets examine this now.

Let us say that various parts of this eternal source expressed themselves as gods.

Would they be able to define morality differently, or would they be carbon copies of each other morally?

Would they be self deterministic or just reflect the properties of the source?

If they were just expressions of the source, then the source would have to supply the rational basis for absolute morality.

And it would also have to supply a solution for immorality...

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Yes and no. I don't think you can call something that is the source of all things an individual entity per say.

As for its authority - if all things come from it then in order to exist all things must follow its laws of existence. Those laws however are obviously different for all things. But I think it allows things to evolve and grow and experience. It allows for a great deal of change. In fact I believe that is pretty much the point. Growth and change. So the basic moral code is when you do something that impedes or damages growth it is wrong. When you stunt somethings natural journey it is wrong. Being destructive is wrong.

Okay, so lets examine this now.

Let us say that various parts of this eternal source expressed themselves as gods.

Would they be able to define morality differently, or would they be carbon copies of each other morally?

Would they be self deterministic or just reflect the properties of the source?

They would be individuals like each and every other thing in existence. Some would define their existence by striving to further the growth and experience and others would not. Take your own Yahweh and Satan for example. Very different goals and defining roles that they have chosen (as defined the current incarnation of the scriptures). But they all know and understand the basic design of this Divine source.

For the record I use the word Divine as my personal title for this. It just come closest to defining it. Still it fails as a title as well.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Okay, so lets examine this now.

Let us say that various parts of this eternal source expressed themselves as gods.

Would they be able to define morality differently, or would they be carbon copies of each other morally?

Would they be self deterministic or just reflect the properties of the source?

They would be individuals like each and every other thing in existence. Some would define their existence by striving to further the growth and experience and others would not. Take your own Yahweh and Satan for example. Very different goals and defining roles that they have chosen (as defined the current incarnation of the scriptures). But they all know and understand the basic design of this Divine source.

For the record I use the word Divine as my personal title for this. It just come closest to defining it. Still it fails as a title as well.

Okay, so lets say that you are correct, and God and satan are just an expression of this source, how do you account for the fact that they both express different standards of absolute morality?

They do not, they disagree, so that mechanism fails to account for an absolute morality.

For there to be an absolute morality, there must be one single moral (by implication intelligent and self-deterministic source) to define that absolute moral position.

Of course in my worldview that makes sense.

But yours cannot allow for that, as it can only account for subjective morality.

And if you have subjective morality, you cannot have concepts of good and evil.

As nothing is essentially good or essentially evil.

The question is now, do you live by the standards that your worldview demands?

Which is no absolute moral standards?

Or do you live by the absolute moral standards of God, the Creator of the universe, as He has expressed through His Word?

[M. T. Cross]

Okay, so lets say that you are correct, and God and satan are just an expression of this source, how do you account for the fact that they both express different standards of absolute morality?They do not, they disagree, so that mechanism fails to account for an absolute morality.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

And if you have subjective morality, you cannot have concepts of good and evil.

As nothing is essentially good or essentially evil.

For the most part no. At the core of things nothing is essentially good or evil. The intent with which it is used decides if it is good or evil.

You are saying that absolute moral standards do exist.

And then you say that the concept of good and evil are not absolute.

These ideas contradict each other.

They both cannot be true according to laws of logic.

Your worldview is internally inconsistent because it is contradictory and therefore illogical.

It does not work as a rational explanation of the meaning of life.

So it fails the basic test of a rational accountable and testable worldview.

You have built your house on shifting sand..

[doug yowell]

But just so I am clear, anyone who takes the position that they know what God is saying, [iOWS emphasising one thing and ] ignoring other principles that the bible espouses, sets himself up for hate speech...

[doug yowell]

A simple answer to all those questions lies in one's belief or hope about whether or not there is or isn't an objective Judge Who will judge objectively on an objective standard of law which has been objectively understood by those who are judged.Otherwise it's probably an exercise in futility. Two different worldviews in which never the twain shall meet.

[Neil D]

""...Jesus came to Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying..."repent, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15) and "Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me"

Quote:

or calling people an abomination...

So what shall we call them, friends of God?

If the "gospel of the kingdom of God" is about repenting of behaviors, then pharasees should have the first place among the redeemed...But if the Gospel of the kingdom of God is about relationships, and friendships and reconciling man to God thru the relationship of being a friend, emphasising behavior becomes dysfunctional in any relationship. Friendship seeks the betterment of another person rather than the boundarys of exclusion....it is to awaken trust within another, of learning to love better than any plain person can....

This is why God called Abraham His friend...a high honor....one for all of us to achieve. The goal of friendship is to make friends, obviously....not to limit another, but to seek out those good parts of yourself and share them with other....Salvation is automatic, and the sin problem is totally that which God controls within us..

To emphasis that our relationship is based upon behaviors, that we need to stop doing [insert behavior/sin of choice]

shows that our hearts are still of stone....

The principles of reconciling another to God does not start out with " You sinner! You're going to hell!"....that just doesn't endear a person to God, nor does God live up to His name as a "Friend of sinners"...It is NOT our responsibility to force someone to listen to us about God, nor is it our responsibility to tell everyone that they are going to Hell...It is our responsibility to tell everyone just how good it is to know Jesus, and what a good friend He is...

To do any less is to tarnish the principles of holding others in a higher esteem...a betrayal of Christ's friendship...

[debbym]

yes, Wow Neil!!

yes, and yes again.

To express, to make known God's character and love for those around us, or to with hold that communication, that is the moral issue.

Quote:

from Neil The principles of reconciling another to God does not start out with " You sinner! You're going to hell!"....that just doesn't endear a person to God, nor does God live up to His name as a "Friend of sinners"...It is NOT our responsibility to force someone to listen to us about God, nor is it our responsibility to tell everyone that they are going to Hell...It is our responsibility to tell everyone just how good it is to know Jesus, and what a good friend He is...

Awesome.

debjm