morality: the difference between icecream and physical violence
Is there a difference between your opinions about icecream and your opinions about spanking (or causing harm or any other right/wrong)? (mrsmcmommy)
Groan. It’s painful having conversations about ‘morality’ with some people. You can spend hours painstakingly describing it in completely natural terms but still get a question like this thrown at you a couple of weeks later.
So, what’s the problem here? It seems that some people who believe there is an invisible creator hiding somewhere inside or outside the universe, also believe this creator god set invisible rules that help humans know how to behave. The creator god holds all the answers concerning human actions that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
The impartial observer will already spot several probems with this theory:
1. The very notion of absolute rights and wrongs is nonsense. Most actions cause a mixture of harmful, positive and maybe even neutral outcomes. Some actions are clearly wrong, in that the harmful outcomes hugely outweigh the positive outcomes e.g. murdering random people. Other actions are clearly harmful in some general respects but have potentially significant positive outcomes e.g. murdering Hitler. But absolute? Never.
2. If this mysterious invisible god does indeed exist, when it created our existence it gave us the tools to evaluate the outcomes of our actions on our own – no invisible signposts required. We evolved on the back of our co-operative characteristics that help us work together and form social groups. Empathy is a human characteristic that helps us see things from someone else’s point of view, and care about their experiences. We are more than capable of using our empathy and reasoning to calculate how harmful potential actions are for all involved, and make decisions based on these calculations.
3. Our opinions about icecream very rarely have significant impact on other humans, although we may well find it morally objectionable if the animals involved in the production of the icecream were mistreated in any way. Our opinions on spanking can affect how we treat our children, or how other people treat their children, which can have lasting impact on their lives and their behaviour (for more information, read my post on spanking with full discussion and links to further reading in the comments section)
It’s disturbing that some religious people have such a confused view of life without gods that they project such vapid nonsense onto atheism. Sometimes I get round to attempting to clarify these things, like now, and other times I wonder if I should just groan and turn off the computer.
(For anyone interested in following or jumping into the original discussion, you may have to head over to the Branyan blog, as mrsmcmommy isn’t a fan of leaving her safe space.)
Here in words of good Violet herself is an expression of such nonsense that in a rational person, it would destroy brain cells from sheer cognitive dissonance:
“2. If this mysterious invisible god does indeed exist, when it created our existence it gave us the tools to evaluate the outcomes of our actions on our own…”
How can good Violet possibly know that?
The truth is, good Violet doesn’t know that because just the opposite is true.
But like a good evangelical atheist she simply makes up nonsense and assigns it to her opposition.
That way, good Violet can argue with herself and win.
LikeLike
Thanks SOM. Do you not feel you have those tools?
LikeLike
Violet,
Christianity teaches those tools and it takes a lifetime of continuous practice to develop them.
There is just something about human nature that if left to its own devices, is prone to veer off in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
I’ve found decisions about my actions much easier since I deconverted. I used to do stuff … just because. Now I investigate and attempt to live by useful standards. It’s not perfect, but it’s fresh air being grounded in reality.
LikeLike
Violet,
Using your brain to reason out the best course of action is a good thing.
Cults that encourage the shutting down of a person’s brain are definitely to be avoided.
Unfortunately, social and legal standards have to be universal (objective).
Otherwise one group of people simply forces their personal standards on others.
Such a state of affairs has been the tragic state of human affairs until the American Revolution.
LikeLike
Amanda is fairly worthless as a thinking conversation partner. She tried very hard to butt into a question I asked directly to jb last night. With much persistence I did my best to get her to understand the very basic concept of interrupting someone else’s conversation, something even her children probably understand and she probably corrects them on. But to no avail. She’s a lost cause
LikeLike
Here is another bit of absolute nonsense courtesy of good Violet:
“1. The very notion of absolute rights and wrongs is nonsense.”
If someone broke into good Violet’s home and killed everyone but her, it is absolutely obvious to anyone with a brain that such a murderous rampage was absolutely wrong.
Unfortunate, as good Violet demonstrates so eloquently with this post, atheists just aren’t anyone with a brain.
LikeLike
I know, I know… I says to myself.
Good Violet survived.
Therefore the atrocity wasn’t absolute after all.
LikeLike
And if, as a result of that, a cure was found for people wanting to kill? That rampage itself would still be wrong but not in an absolute sense, given that many other people would be saved.
LikeLike
Violet,
Hallucinating alternate realities isn’t a ration argument.
And curing killers, although a good thing, doesn’t bring back your slaughtered loved ones.
The act of slaughter is still absolutely wrong.
Thus disproving your assertion that absolute right and wrong don’t exist.
LikeLike
What about Hiroshima?
LikeLike
Violet,
Why are you changing the subject to Hiroshima?
LikeLike
A horrendous slaughter that many people argue had positive outcomes.
LikeLike
Violet,
To understand Imperial Japanese culture and how they carried out their war in Asia and the Pacific, is to understand America’s use of atomic weapons to end the war.
LikeLike
So that particular slaughter wasn’t absolutely wrong?
LikeLike
Violet,
If you slaughtered the attackers before they slaughtered your family, would that be absolutely wrong, or a moral good?
Christian ethics provides a clear, reasonable answer to that question.
The atheist who is without a moral compass will have trouble answering that question.
LikeLike
I would prefer to talk them out of it. Is that an option?
LikeLike
Violet,
Do you actually think an attacker bent of slaughter is open to verbal persuasion?
LikeLike
In the case of the Imperial Japanese talk was not an option.
That was because the Allies demanded unconditional surrender.
We have conversed about the moral imperative to exterminate evil from the face of the earth when it rises up to enslave mankind.
LikeLike
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan had very little to do with destroying military targets. They were dropped on non-combatant civilians in order to demoralise the nation and its leaders.
And I notice the irony of your comment about negotiation with the Japanese was not an option. Not because the Japanese refused to negotiate, but because the Allies refused to negotiate. In other words, the bombing was justified because the Allies didn’t want to negotiate. And that’s not evil?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barry,
After Pearl Harbor, there was no more negotiating.
The NAZI and Imperial Japanese proved themselves to be liars many, many times.
With genocidal maniacs, negotiation is sign of weakness and only serves to inflame their murderous passion.
The atomic bomb ended World War II by bring Japan to its knees.
Additionally, all of Japan was a military target since even the civilians were willing kill and fight to the death.
LikeLike
If somehow America was invaded by let’s say Iran, don’t you think many American civilians would be willing to fight to the death to protect their country and way of life? Using your argument, the invaders would be justified in using weapons of mass destruction to stop that from happening.
LikeLike
Barry,
That’s exactly right.
The concept is called total war which involves everyone, especially civilians.
There were far more civilian casualties in World War II than combatant casualties.
But most of that was due to the rampant, willful, intentionally cruel slaughter of civilians by the Axis.
The Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany required that they be bombed out of existence.
Also, more Japanese civilians were killed by conventional bombing than by the nukes.
And after the Dresden bombings, the Germans simply stacked the dead bodies along the streets in need piles, just like cord wood.
I recommend a study of the Rape of Nanjing to all victims anti-American propaganda that puts the blame for Hiroshima on the United States.
LikeLike
I find it fascinating and disgusting that people can justify the atrocities done by their own military because the other side was doing it too.
Whether more civilians were killed by conventional bombing than by nuclear bombs has no relevance. The fact is civilians were targeted in order to change the outcome of the war, as was the firebombing of Dresden.
My father was court marshalled because he refused order his platoon to open fire on a group of unarmed Italian soldiers during the Allied advance through Italy. The Italians were given no chance to surrender and were all slaughtered by those who weren’t under my father’s command. His description of the event is sickening.
LikeLike
Barry,
War is indeed an atrocity.
But if you condemn the nukes used against the Japanese than you must also condemn the entire war effort.
If you do that then condemn yourself.
LikeLike
I think you forget what country I live in. We are a country that has collectively preferred to burn than be protected by nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are simply weapons of mass destruction and can not be justified.
LikeLike
Barry,
The self-righteous and cowardly nations of Europe held the same view leading up to World War II.
It took the Brits, the Canadians, the French, the Pols and the Americans
to rescue them from the NAZI terror.
I understand the Aussies and even the Kiwis were involved too.
Barry, you are just a repeat of one of the biggest failures in human history.
LikeLike
Did you know that New Zealand was the only country that spoke against appeasement and urged international action against the Germans instead. Perhaps if we had been listened to then the war would not have been so devastating.
As for your comment that you understand NZ was involved in the war, I’m not sure if you’re trying to be clever or not, but yes we’d been involved for three years before the US joined in. And we didn’t wait until we were attacked before doing so. As a consequence, our casualty rate was more than double that of the US.
I’m going to ignore your last sentence. It’s not worth responding to. But if you want to continue the discussion, drop the personal insults.
LikeLike
Barry,
There was plenty and ultimately futile international action against both NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.
Like I already said, you are simply a repeat of the greatest failure in human history.
LikeLike
I like your blog, but… The nuclear bomb over Hiroshima was one of the most horrendous crimes ever committed. Japan was losing the war anyway, and several of the main actors behind the bombing have admitted the main reason was to test the bomb in warfare. Justifying it is extremely dangerous. Nuclear bombings of cities and civilians can never be justified. Ever. Imagine one in your home town with all your family and friends in it. What consequences would be necessary for you to admit that to happen? How sure would you have to be?
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, I completely agree with you. I’m a pacifist. My point to silenceofmind was that ‘many people argue’ it had positive outcomes (including him) thus contradicting his own statement that ‘an act of slaughter is absolutely wrong’. I was trying to get him to explore the lack of logic in absolute morality statements, from his own perspective – and failed as usual. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aha! I see I misunderstood 🙂 Dangerous traps of irrational moral fundaments, that one. Keep writing, thanks!
LikeLike
Sorry, I’m still not seeing the answer to my question… I know you think that saying something about “impacting others” is an answer, but it isn’t. It only requires that I change the questions slightly. (“How are your opinions about icecream different from your opinions about harming others?”)
What I’m getting at is: are all of your opinions REALLY just opinions, as you claim? Or are the ones regarding morality somehow MORE SIGNIFICANT than others?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eating icecream, as demonstrated in the post, can be a moral question too. Morality is just a label about outcomes. Some actions have more profound outcomes than others.
LikeLike
So your opinions about morality are more PROFOUND than your opinions about icecream?
How so?
LikeLike
No, my opinions on icecream can have moral consequences, so I wouldn’t separate them. The outcomes of our actions vary in terms of how DEEPLY they affect people, animals, the planet.
LikeLike
You’re actually misrepresenting Amanda’s position on this. What she believes is staggeringly odd, but she gets filthy mad, literally unhinged, when you question her on it.
Unlike her father, John Branyan who believes Yhwh changes its mind on matters of what is right and what is wrong, which is strange in and by itself, Amanda thinks that Yhwh is, in fact, the moral bedrock, but, and it’s a big BUT, he hides this truth from humans who have to stumble through life and eons discovering for themselves that things like slavery, for example, is actually wrong. That is to say, we humans are working towards a “goal,” as she puts it, which is known to Yhwh, but no one else.
Sounds a lot like human cultural/moral/ethical evolution right?
Apparently it’s not.
Actually, it’s even worse. Yhwh, according to Amanda, deliberately deceives humans, which is evident in the existence of the bible which says one thing (slavery is good), but that’s actually a lie.
Why Yhwh would do this I really can’t say… and neither can Amanda, which is why you should really, really never question her on those awkward details.
Don’t ask, for example, somethig like is Yhwh keeping secrets as to what is right and what is wrong ethical? Questions like that make her act like a cornered animal and she loses her mind… and will delete every comment (on her father’s blog) that has led up to that moment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That sounds interesting. I wonder if she’ll discuss it with me. They like to lead the conversation, I’ve noticed, and so far I’ve found it difficult to get them to say what they believe. Why they confess to you is a mystery!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps because I ask questions? 😉
LikeLike
I think you scared her off John. It’s obviously too much work to stay here and clarify things without a cheerleading squad and the delete button.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m telling you, she HATES being drawn on the question of Yhwh’s questionable ethical behaviour in keeping secrets as to what is right and what is wrong. Pop goes the weasel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and thanks for pointing out another ‘misrepresentation’ – deary me. I clearly speak another language from these English speakers I’m communicating with. Interesting she’s commented and not accused me of it though. Yet.
LikeLike
This right here ^ Is why I don’t bother visiting other blogs, Violet.
Y’all can make up shit about what I believe without me! (In fact, I know for a fact it’s usually easier for you to do so when I don’t get involved.)
The original thread at MY place was about Atheism–but I know Atheists don’t like to go more than three seconds without flipping back to what Christians supposedly believe again. So, far be it from me to break up the party.
Carry on!
*Crawls back to safe space*
LikeLike
Well, the discussion spawned from where it was led by the blog host, and you said you were interested in discussing it, so here we are. Scuttle off if you must – I’ll stay here and defend you. 😀
LikeLike
So, Yhwh doesn’t keep secrets?
LikeLike
If I may, Amanda.
Exactly what do you think is wrong about Atheism?
Can be you be point specific?
LikeLike
Not to be impolite here Violet, but you seem to be unable to accept that homosexuals do indeed troll for children and utterly ruin lives. Then you claim spanking is wrong, but killing a fetus is virtuous and kind.
Is there some reason why anyone in their right mind would accept that your very subjective perception of morality is the right one?
LikeLike
Once again Insanity, please refer to evidence, not myths, in terms of the harm done to children by pedophiles. It’s not difficult, and your continued insistence in the face of the facts is disgusting.
Spanking, refer to the evidence from every relevant group of professionals, not your holy book.
Abortion, I’ve never said it’s virtuous and kind. I’ve argued that women need access to it, and we need to work towards helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies. You don’t even disagree there. Or maybe you do. I’m starting to give up on you holding any factual, logical or non-harmful viewpoint.
If you’ve any comments on the method in the actual post, please feel free.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The question I asked was, “Is there some reason why anyone in their right mind would accept that your very subjective perception of morality is the right one?”
The only answer you ever seem able to provide is that I’m disgusting and perpetuating myths. That’s a totally subjective opinion, not an actual reason based answer to the question.
LikeLike
Your behaviour is disgusting. You seem like a person who’s been through a lot, but should still know better.
People shouldn’t accept my opinion. They should weigh up the merits, discuss the faults and come to their own conclusions.
LikeLike
“Your behaviour is disgusting. ”
Based on what and who’s morality?
Somewhat funny, but I believe a few of your Christian fans recently also believed my behavior was disgusting. So, how do we objectively determine if IB’s behavior really is disgusting? We weigh and measure it against the bible, the character of God, and what He asks of us. That’s how we reach an objective view of what is and is not “disgusting.”
Outside of that objective perception of right and wrong, there is nothing but the subjective opinions of various lunkheads, each who have their own agendas,biases, and set of experiences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Insanitybytes
If it is true ( and I don’t know if it is, not having researched) that some homosexuals trawl for kids and ruin lives does this mean all homosexuals are pedophiles?
If some Catholic Priests abuse children in a similar fashion does this make all Catholic Priests pedophiles?
In fact, does it make all Catholics pedophiles? Perhaps, SoM being a known Catholic, is in a better position to answer this question?
But on the face of it, would you personally think it more likely that SoM , being a Catholic, though not a Priest, is as likely as a Priest to be a pedophile?
As Pink is gay, does this mean he is also likely to abuse kids and ruin lives or as he is homosexual is he more likely to become a Catholic Priest?
If Pink was straight would it still be likely that he could be come a Catholic Priest just to abuse girls or could he simply become a Catholic without necessarily becoming a Priest?,
In fact , if Pink decided to become straight, as we know it is scientifically proven that it is a Life Choice, and had a Catholic Priest exorcise the Gay Demon that resides in him would he feel morally obliged to become a Catholic, but not necessarily a Priest with no proviso to abuse children and ruin lives?
Maybe it might be simpler if he just teamed up with SoM and the Pope, bought a van and cruised the streets of Venice. Pink could advise on designer black tracksuits and matching pumps, and simply drive the other two around to known hot spots?
And they could make a Reality Show, and you could be the host?
LikeLike
Ark,
Since the pedophile priest scandals the Church has forced all Catholics wishing to serve (choir, sacristan, Eucharistic minister, etc.) in various church-sponsored activities to go through a short training on how to spot sexual predation.
During training they used an example of a priest who had molested a female.
They had to go back to the 1950’s for that one.
The truth is the vast, yes really, really vast majority of pedophile priests are homosexuals who go after boys.
As a 13 year old, I unwittingly found myself in a group of homosexual men. I had to fight them off.
The sexual world of gay men is wild and wooly and dangerous, contrary to present day propaganda.
LikeLike
I have no experience of the wild and woolly world of gay men, ( I did not realise they had a penchant for free form knitting? Interesting) any more than I have experience of pedophile priests. Though I was married by a priest, he did not disclose any homosexual or pedophile tendencies before during or after the service.
Has the rate of abuse declined in Catholic Priest circles? And is this simply because so many abusers are now languishing in goal at the Vatican, or is it still a dangerous religion to be part of, especially for a kid?
And yet, from the stats/links which Pink provided, the rates of child abuse for evangelists seem very high, and could suggest that by becoming evangelical this might lead one to sexually abuse youngsters, and yet we do not endorse killing off evangelicals.
Although, there may well be a case made that if they were removed from society and forced to undergo some form of psychiatric reevaluation to reduce their dependence on supernatural god-belief garbage they may also become disinclined to abuse kiddies?
LikeLike
Ark,
The Church banned homosexual candidates to the priesthood.
I know from experience that candidates for the priesthood are put through anal psychological examination (no pun intended) with regard to their sexual proclivities.
Pink is a gay man pushing the gay agenda, which is a pack of lies.
LikeLike
I am unfamiliar with any gay agenda. Does it involve trolling in a van and rampant pedophilia akin to certain aspects of Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity?
LikeLike
Ark,
Your unawareness is not only legendary but you proudly put it on display everyday for everyone to see.
LikeLike
See below for new thread.
LikeLike
@Insanity – how do I evaluate if your behaviour is disgusting? It’s a personal thing, I’m not speaking on behalf of anyone else. You are spreading a myth that is harmful to a marginalised and often oppressed group of people; you aren’t offering a shred of evidence, only your biased observation; you either haven’t read comprehensive evaluations of relevant studies that have been sent your way or you’ve dismissed them without providing any rebuttal (ie, based on nothing other than your bias); in the face of the facts you continue to state obvious lies. I find this disgusting. Others might say it’s ignorant, harmful or even evil.
LikeLike
What morality? Let’s see. “Do not bear false witness”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I should add that my emotional response, in terms of ‘disgust’ is fed by disappointment and embarrassment. I’ve defended you on more occasions that I can count for being far more intelligent than some people around here treat you. I just can’t get over you not reading or responding to very clear, unbiased summaries from numerous studies that blow your harmful accusation out the water. It reveals a level of willful, self-imposed ignorance that truly disgusts me.
It’s one thing to have biased opinions, it’s another thing to read the available evidence and find reasonable objections, but it’s a whole pot of stupidity to consciously ignore years of research because you think you already know the truth through ‘observation’.
“As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: “The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however” (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143″
“In a later literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).”
Some snippets for you. Read the whole thing and see what you think. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Or find me a similar summary of research that backs what you’re saying. That’s how discussions based on facts, not myths or bias, work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ IB
Completely off topic, IB. Have you deleted my reply to Wally on your latest thread or is it still in moderation?
LikeLike
To the original question: The difference between your opinions on ice cream and your opinions on spanking is that (at least some of) your opinions about spanking carry a prescription.
Sure, you can assert that if you prefer vanilla over chocolate, then you ought to choose vanilla. But, that merely states something about your personal relationship with ice cream.
If you say that one ought not strike their child, you are stating something about child- striking in and of itself. You are saying that it has a moral property which tags child-striking as something that, by dint of the very same property, informs your attitude, and so, your behavior.
Of course, the problems with moral properties and moral facts are massive, but there’s the purported difference between moral and aesthetic judgements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All your morality is consequentialist. You might find virtue ethics interesting. Even deontology, rule-based ethics, has some value in some cases. Your consequentialist arguments about spanking are hardening into a rule in British society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare, what is the legality of spanking in the UK?
LikeLike
Oh come on, what’s Wikipedia for? In England and Wales, it appears “moderate and reasonable correction” by a relative is lawful, and to be assault injuries “must be more than transient and trifling”. But people in the street may disapprove of physical punishment. In Scotland it is unlawful to use an implement on a child, and injuring the child physically would probably be criminal. Scots statutes are not always brilliantly drafted.
LikeLike
I’m using the WP app on my android phone so can’t browse, and for some reason my phone web browser won’t start. Under the circumstances you were a convenient alternative 🙂
Thanks for the info. A bit different to the situation here then. No form of physical assault is permitted for the purpose of correction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to the site “Police-information”, assault in Scotland remains a common law offence. There must be criminal intent- an intent to correct your child, at the moment, would not be. It is imaginable that society might move on so that we were all so disgusted by physical punishment of children that such an intent would be treated as criminal by the courts; but is not, now.
LikeLike
I know that when the law was ammended here to remove the right to smack children there was some unease in large sections of the community, and angry indignation by fundamentalists that their “God given right” was being removed. But within a year the concerns were all but forgotten by everyone except for the fundamentalists who still argue that God requires children to be physically punished.
LikeLike
@SoM
Agreed. Would you, therefore, please tell me what is this Gay Agenda?
Is it anything like the Catholic agenda or the Evangelical agenda?
LikeLike
Ark,
I recommend google.
It is so easy anyone without a brain of their own can use it.
LikeLike
I am concerned with bias here, SoM, especially as we have a fundamentalist in Insanity up-thread who has defended the killing of gays in Africa.
So if there is a Gay Agenda I would prefer to hear from you what it is.
It can’t be that complicated surely?
LikeLike
Ark,
Your concern for bias should first concern yourself.
There must be a mirror nearby, no?
LikeLike
So it seems your reluctance to fairly and factually address the issue of a Gay Agenda would suggest that you are in fact simply making this all up.
For why would anyone say such a ridiculous thing unless they had ample evidence to back such an assertion?
In fact, this sounds exactly like something a person indoctrinated with religious propaganda ( though not exclusively) would suggest.
Is this in fact perhaps a feeble attempt to deflect from latent pedophile tendencies you may have as a result of being Catholic after being rejected for the priesthood and you mum turning you out the house?
Or is this simply your suppurating hate rising to the surface after your narrow escape from being gang banged as a thirteen year old who unwittingly found himself as a rent boy?
LikeLike
Ark,
It is your reluctance to get a brain of your own and put it to good use that makes me reluctant to explain anything to you.
You seem to be beyond caring about learning the truth about anything.
Abuse is what you do.
I only ask that you go do it someplace else.
LikeLike
The problem I face is that if I do go research the Gay Agenda, I will immediately be accused of being a biased atheist who will certainly research all the false liberal-leftist propaganda sites thus making all that Googling a waste of time as you will rightfully deny it straight away.
So it is much more conducive to a grown-up evidence based conversation if you provide all the factual, well researched and peer reviewed evidence for your statements about Gay Agenda, and the benefits of being an evangelical christian or even a catholic who are not pedophiles or priests.
Please, SoM, I am appealing to your straight (sic) forward no nonsense factual approach.
We don’t want a disgusting old baggage like Insanity running down Catholick Priests, Catholicism and Homosexuals and making out as if they are synonymous with pedophilia.
LikeLike
Ark,
You are a sicko.
Get lost.
LikeLike
Stop saying horrible things Ark. It’s not clever to make light of horrendous things that happen to real people just to attempt to ‘win’ a discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I generally don’t enter a discussion to win. Notably because I hate losing.
I merely wanted to clarify if SoM, being Catholic, had any latent homosexual tendencies or predilections to trawl in his van for kids, that’s all.
LikeLike
Ark,
I had PTSD for decades and didn’t know it.
Once I became aware of my malfunction all the great aspirations I had for my life died, one by one through the years.
Now I live each day, one day at a time just trying to get through one moment to the next.
It’s kind of like living life in a medieval way, something that post moderns have no way of comprehending.
LikeLike
So therefore you must be able to address the issue of the Gay Agenda and offer all the relevant details and expert information.
Please tell us.
LikeLike
Ark,
Therefore, I have lived a rich, meaningful life.
I don’t have to abuse people so I can feel alive.
LikeLike
That’s marvelous, even though you just said: ”…all the great aspirations I had for my life died, one by one through the years ” suggesting your entire life was metaphorically flushed down the crapper.
So what evidence do you have for a Gay Agenda, please, aside from your own experience which it would be fair to say might have biased your unbiased view just a tad.
You would not want us all to think that you were simply here with an agenda would you?
LikeLike
Ark,
Ironically, tragedy has many lessons to teach.
The Greeks began contemplating the mystery of tragedy nearly 3000 years ago.
I recommend the same for you since your major malfunction is going to take you down sooner or later.
Hopefully, sooner so you have time to deal with it.
And it would seem that later-life malfunctions are particularly pernicious and almost impossible to deal with.
LikeLike
Possibly, and I defer to your greater experience in this regard.
So, can you now provide us with details of this Gay Agenda you have been punting or are you going to continue with this pernicious diatribe you have been effusing?
LikeLike
Perhaps I can offer an answer as SoM seems so reluctant. I seem to recall that the agenda is for the 14th Amendment to apply to them. What that means, I haven’t a clue but I’m sure it means something to somebody. I think that specific agenda only applies to homosexuals in the USA. Gays elsewhere have a different agenda I believe. Just goes to show how disorganized the gay movement is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I eat soy-milk ice cream as I can’t tolerate dairy.
One of my favorite games out there always created multiple solutions to every problem:
1.) brute force – sure, it works; but it can cause problems down the road.
2.) delegate – why take care of someone yourself when others will do it for you?
3.) persuade – sometimes a silver tongue will open up other options.
Sometimes with morality, it’s almost always an either/or or black/white or right/wrong approach – particularly evident with the way that Christians are taught. It’s actually a comforting way to look at things because it takes a lot of responsibility off of your shoulders; but it’s also a dangerous one.
The way that some Christians read the Bible, it is right to spank children because the Bible says so. The Bible does have the golden rule: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” but that never seems to apply in the situation of a parent disciplining their child. “do no harm” isn’t a Christian practice, so Christians would harm others if it were the right thing to do because it’s not wrong. It’s quite a disconnect there, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely, and it’s impossible to properly engage them in a conversation where they investigate how murky all decisions are. SOM’s slaughter discussion is a prime example.
LikeLike
Wow; I wouldn’t have thought that the best solution would be to kill them. I would have thought that a Christian would invest in Non-lethal weapons in an effort to give even the most hardened and evil souls a chance to live long enough to repent of their crimes and be saved and go to heaven. Maybe I didn’t read my Bible right and there’s a verse in there that says that Christians should blast sinners to the next life to begin roasting in hellfire as quickly as possible. But perhaps that’s just because I remember the episode of Star Trek Voyager called Repentance where a murderer is cured and they wrestle with the morality of being a ship that’s taking a lot of death-row prisoners to be executed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When Star Trek has higher morals than any religion, surely religious people start to worry …?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christians supposedly have Jesus’ teaching to be their moral center, like the one that says “You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” Some have developed an entire theology of pacifism and being a conscientious objector because of this moral stance. And there are Christians who are pro-death penalty and dream up scenarios where it’s kill or be killed. The earliest Christians, they were the latter where some modern Christians are more along the lines of the former. Executing a murderer doesn’t bring back his or her victims, it only prevents him or her from leaving behind a higher body count if they were ever set free, which is doubtful – but it also prevents giving them time they could have used to convert to Christianity and repent of their sins. I would think that Christians who are familiar with the theology of hell – who truly believe it’s a place of eternal torment would do everything they can to keep even the worst people out of it as long as possible and give them every chance to choose to go to heaven. Why aren’t they wrestling with the morality of not giving people a chance to be saved and sending them to hell? Then again, they might not want that kind of sinner in heaven and want a classier sinner to call a brother or a sisters, tax cheaters, after all, are a safer bet. I know that the anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma is coming up soon – one of the perpetrators was executed; it closes the case but it doesn’t even begin to heal the wounds. Say a mass shooter failed to commit suicide and was later executed for what he did; isn’t death what he wanted in the first place? Does that close the case or worse; create a martyr? Looking at the other comments – why aren’t the true blue, dyed in the wool Christians horrified about these things? Why is it preferable to kill first and ask questions later? Why is a whole group of people condemned soundly without a chance to speak up for themselves or let statistics show that there’s some serious misinformation going on? Why is justice and judgement and hellfire and brimstone so vitally important when they have, from God, a get out of Hell free card? Perhaps what is most needed is for the pacifists in Christianity to take the lead, to explain how Biblical their theology is, how it’s a better moral interpretation, and correct whatever defect has created this warped interpretation of the Word.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Let them all become Quakers! We can lead the charge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All we can do to take the lead is to express our own position, and hope it is winsome.
LikeLike
Let me first say fine picture prolific nature is glorious.
Nearly all humans regardless of beliefs are moral beings. Nature is amoral hurricanes kill the good the bad and the ugly. We do not know how or when we became self-aware but as it happened we also became self-judgemental . The human conscience was born and developed. The tiger does not feel sorrow for its prey and it is not guilty of murder. Some humans are so sensitive they become vegetarians.
The brilliant thinker Freud summed up our dilemma saying ‘ we are at war with ourselves.
Religion tries to silence the war, we follow the rules , but it still rages for we cannot keep to them. Atheism is no solution for we still have an inward battle between selfish ambition and compassion towards our fellow man.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced ambition is universal. Selfish bubbles maybe. I don’t think all people are at war with themselves either. Short replies, on mobile.
LikeLike
Thank you for a reply . It’s the conflict between duty and pleasure. We try to convince ourselves that we are morally upright good people .
I have yet to meet the unambitious man or woman , nearly all have their sights on a better lifestyle , it is the very reason the migrant aims for Europe. Christians refer to it as the pull of the flesh or the old man at work inside.
LikeLike