|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 26 2014 07:34 IgnE wrote:
I specifically didn't say anything about self-righteous hatred, saying responsibility or moral opprobrium is another issue entirely. Besides we are talking about a limit case here where the identity of a person is bound up in the prohibited act (such that they not only have done it, but are attracted to it and want to do it again).
My point was only that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a valid moral principle, and one that can reasonably be applied to public policy. The fact that ostensibly liberal people have lately taken to trashing this principle of secular as well as Christian ethics is troubling, and seems a rhetorical overreaction to the silliness of the fundamentalist position on homosexuality.
I happen to agree with you that banning homosexuality seems insensible (and I also happen to think it is unchristian). If your argument is only about these "limit cases," I'll let it go, even though I think it leaves you in a bad place even in such limit cases (think pedophiles or serial killers).
|
I have no problem saying that pedophiles and serial killers are deficient humans.
|
On September 26 2014 10:11 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2014 07:34 IgnE wrote:
I specifically didn't say anything about self-righteous hatred, saying responsibility or moral opprobrium is another issue entirely. Besides we are talking about a limit case here where the identity of a person is bound up in the prohibited act (such that they not only have done it, but are attracted to it and want to do it again). My point was only that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a valid moral principle, and one that can reasonably be applied to public policy. The fact that ostensibly liberal people have lately taken to trashing this principle of secular as well as Christian ethics is troubling, and seems a rhetorical overreaction to the silliness of the fundamentalist position on homosexuality. I happen to agree with you that banning homosexuality seems insensible (and I also happen to think it is unchristian). If your argument is only about these "limit cases," I'll let it go, even though I think it leaves you in a bad place even in such limit cases (think pedophiles or serial killers).
Eh, it really isn't a valid moral principle. The act itself is the defining characteristic of the population. To call the act a sin is to define the population as sinners.
|
The Obama administration has agreed to pay the Navajo Nation a record $554 million to settle longstanding claims by America's largest Indian tribe that its funds and natural resources were mishandled for decades by the U.S. government.
The accord, resolving claims that date back as far as 50 years and marking the biggest U.S. legal settlement with a single tribe, will be formally signed at a ceremony on Friday in Window Rock, Arizona, the capital of the sprawling Navajo reservation.
The deal stems from litigation accusing the government of mismanaging Navajo trust accounts and resources on more than 14 million acres of land held in trust for the tribe and leased for such purposes as farming, energy development, logging and mining.
In return for $554 million, the Navajo agreed to dismiss its lawsuit and forego further litigation over previous U.S. management of Navajo funds and resources held in trust by the federal government.
The deal does not preclude the tribe from pursuing future trust claims, or any separate claims over water and uranium pollution on its reservation, Navajo Attorney General Harrison Tsosie said.
He declined to quantify the total sum the Navajo had claimed it was owed before the settlement, saying he needed to review non-disclosure clauses.
Source
|
On September 26 2014 10:33 IgnE wrote:
I have no problem saying that pedophiles and serial killers are deficient humans.
Well then, that's the disagreement. Of course they're deficient, sinful. But the Christian point is that so is everybody else, and that trying to deal with the sin, not simply cast out or stone the sinner, is the right way forward. Pedophilia is a mental illness. There are mental illnesses that cause violence. There's no sin in being born one way or another, but there is a sin in acting out in a way that hurts other people, even if your makeup makes you more susceptible to it. Society's problem is then how to deal with these sins and how to regard the people who commit them. On the one hand, you have the people who call for the death penalty over every little thing. On the other, people who are trying to make society better in ways that will help everybody, "sinners" included.
|
So I guess that makes homosexuality just a mental illness that hurts other people in the context of this discussion.
Edited after Nyx and Yoav talked about some non-existent strawmanning.
|
Outside of the Bible Belt pretty much most Christians are reasonable people that don't believe that being gay is wrong. Criticizing Christianity is fine, but the "oh my god all Christians think homosex is evil!11" strawman is getting a little old.
|
On September 26 2014 11:15 IgnE wrote:
So I guess that makes homosexuality just a mental illness that hurts other people.
As Nyx points out, most American Christians (particularly pastors and others with actual education) are just fine with homosexuality. I myself am pretty convinced there's not the slightest thing wrong with being gay, as I've already said like 3 times in this discussion. The important fact being that it doesn't hurt anybody. If it did, I'd feel differently, as I would and do when it comes to sexual practices that do hurt people. If Greek-style pederasty were being widely practiced, for instance, that would constitute an actual moral violation.
What I'm saying is the the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" formulation is independent of one's opinion of homosexuality, and is a principle that should not be thrown out due to blind association of all Christian thought with a handful of Christians' opposition to homosexuality.
|
No one said all Christians. No one said throw it out. This is a narrowly circumscribed discussion based around this comment:
Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation.
I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so.
This "stop beating up the strawman" thing is getting old.
|
And what do you want to discuss now, exactly? Yoav already pointed out that the principle isn't that hard to grasp. "hate the sin and not the sinner" is the religious version of "hate the game and not the player". It's a pretty simple and universal idea.
|
I think this whole thing was quite illustrative, even though it only reinforced something I already knew: the point is too often ignored for the example used. Instead of talking about the apparent refusal by some people to first understand that which they are objecting to, they latch onto the example as not good enough, or perhaps not good at all.
it also was an excellent display of the Two Sentence Post rule: Never respond to a post less than 2 sentences.
Edit for clarity: People should be more careful to avoid falling down the rabbit hole and instead focus on the point being made. Just IMO.
|
Norway28804 Posts
On September 26 2014 10:11 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2014 07:34 IgnE wrote:
I specifically didn't say anything about self-righteous hatred, saying responsibility or moral opprobrium is another issue entirely. Besides we are talking about a limit case here where the identity of a person is bound up in the prohibited act (such that they not only have done it, but are attracted to it and want to do it again). My point was only that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a valid moral principle, and one that can reasonably be applied to public policy. The fact that ostensibly liberal people have lately taken to trashing this principle of secular as well as Christian ethics is troubling, and seems a rhetorical overreaction to the silliness of the fundamentalist position on homosexuality. I happen to agree with you that banning homosexuality seems insensible (and I also happen to think it is unchristian). If your argument is only about these "limit cases," I'll let it go, even though I think it leaves you in a bad place even in such limit cases (think pedophiles or serial killers).
I think love the sinner hate the sin is a valid moral principle. It's how I want to feel about serial killers and pedophiles. But while it makes sense to feel this way about pedophiles and serial killers (while I am neither, it is my impression that people belonging to either group are normally stuck in a semi-permanent state of soul-crushing self-loathing), because they might be otherwise decent people who for reasons foreign to me feel strongly compelled to commit terrible crimes, homosexuals cannot be compared to either. Their actions don't hurt people, and there's no reason why they should be subject to the same soul-crushing self-loathing.
Basically if you don't let what to me looks like a faulty interpretation of Jesus' teachings influence you, there's nothing sinful about homosexual acts..
|
In the context of homosexuality, "love the sinner, hate the the sin" is better than "hate the sinner, hate the sin" (because, for example, if you love the "sinner" you might not stone them to death), but it's still hateful.
The poster above me put it perfectly: there's no reason why gays should feel soul-crushing self-loathing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh, still sourced from the same prejudice. who cares if your particular system of belief then mixes it with some humanistic pprinciples. it makes things worse in fact, when you are led to believe that it is consistent to love the person and hate what the person is, and falsely attribute it to some derpy idea of agency.
this 'distinction' is just a part of a clusterfuck of random interactions between an ancient prejudice and some newfangled humanism, you are better off just ditching the prejudice. why not
|
To be clear: I believe policy decisions should be made based on sound moral principles. I also think that these principles should be internally consistent. To lay out the principles I'm enumerating in this case:
1. Nothing is morally wrong with homosexuality, or homosexual sexual behavior.
As alluded to in the responses above, this is because gay sex fails to qualify as a violation of the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Ergo, nothing wrong with being gay or doing gay things.
2. "Love the sinner, hate the sin"
I realize that this phrase has been shanghaied into use over the gay sex thing. And, for what it's worth, I think it's a better position on gay sex than the Westboro "God hates fags" kinda thing. But of course it is an incomplete position on homosexuality. It remains valid for all sorts of other things.
3. Just because something is basic to your self-image doesn't make it inviolable and holy.
This is a bad argument advanced by pro-gay folks all the time. While I am pro-gay myself, it makes me cringe every time I see a version of this. It is bad argument and bad principle. Take our above examples of serial killers or pedophiles. Everybody has their own naturally-inclined temptations to whatever. Lying, cheating, stealing, selfishness, blindness to the needs of others, violence, hatred, double-parking, talking at the theater, or blithe disregard for self-improvement (check this box if you think you don't have any sins).
|
On September 26 2014 21:29 oneofthem wrote:
this 'distinction' is just a part of a clusterfuck of random interactions between an ancient prejudice and some newfangled humanism, you are better off just ditching the prejudice. why not
We can also all gouge our eyes out, then no one will see race any more, hurray! As with all ideologies religious or not, they often come with good things and bad things. Religion plays an important positive part in many people's lives, just because some people make a caricature of it and twist it doesn't mean you should ditch the whole thing.
|
|
|
Kansas' budget woes are so dire that the state government has resorted to selling off furry handcuffs and vibrators seized by its revenue department.
The Topeka Capital-Journal first reported on the sale Wednesday, explaining that the new bounty, numbering in the thousands of items, resulted from a five-shop, four-city raid on a company that owed more than $163,000 in state taxes.
Kansas negotiated with the owner, returning the merchandise under the condition that he auction off the toys and use the money towards paying back the state.
Democrats noted the irony of the sale, given that Republicans allied with Gov. Sam Brownback (R) had criticized Brownback's Democratic challenger Paul Davis for being at a strip club during a drug raid in 1998.
“Brownback is so desperate to fill the massive hole in the state budget caused by his reckless income tax cuts that the state of Kansas is now in the porn business,” state Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D) said in a statement. “This is the same governor whose supporters spent this past week attacking his opponent for a strip club incident.”
Kansas is expected to face a $238 million budget shortfall by the summer of 2016. Brownback remains supportive of the income tax cuts passed into law in 2012, despite the fact that the state brought in $282 million less in personal income tax revenue than it expected in fiscal 2014.
Source
|
I don't get it. Company owes taxes, government grabs stuff, stuff gets auctioned to pay taxes. How is that news?
|
Doubt it will get much attention given the nature of the US media to start focusing on entertainment scandals etc. when such news ins revealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
