If sin creates victims, then Gays and prostitutes are innocent.

[MSizer]

...Morality, in an Abrahamic religion, is determined by the will of God.

Very true indeed, and your statement can be backed by the many immoral notions brought to us care of the big 3.

 

[TheKnight]

Very true indeed, and your statement can be backed by the many immoral notions brought to us care of the big 3.

Morality based on nothing is worthless to me. Your judgment of certain aspects of Abrahamic religion as immoral is meaningless because you have no valid standard by which to judge something immoral.

 

[Aquitaine]

There were a couple different justifications i've heard from biblical scholars, none particularly relevant anymore.

1) Homosexuality was practiced religiously by some of their rival tribes. The hebrews, in an effort to distinguish themselves, banished this practice in much the same way that they banished constructing golden calves.

2) Without a decent understanding of anatomy and safety, sodomy is dangerous. Many of the laws laid down in Leviticus had practical health reasons for their creation, it's where "kosher" comes from too, so it would make sense to ban dangerous sex play.

3) The guys who wrote the bible were a bunch of big fat bigots who didn't like the idea of dudes doing each other and the book reflected that.

Could be any or all of these, plus i'm sure there are more. Take your pick.

Well, a Hetero-Sexual couple can get infections and diseases without protection, and I'm sure many people did back in the day (and some still do to this day!).

So it can't be number 2

 

[Aquitaine]

The fact that you have not understood it is because of how you are looking at it. You say "Why is it that Abrahamic religions have a grudge against gays, how is it harmful?" Your question implies that you believe that Abrahamic religions base morality (right and wrong) on what harms people and what does not. This is not the case. Morality, in an Abrahamic religion, is determined by the will of God.

So Abrahamic "morality" is not based on what harms people and what does not?

Wait....... arn't you supposed to be arguing in defense of Abrahamic religions?

 

[MissAlice]

O RLY?

I thought it was the whole link between someone being attracted to the same Sex to someone being attracted to children or animals.

I mean, there's so clearly a link there (that's been confirmed by both scientist and the holy books) that once someone chooses to become Gay (because after all, it's merely a choice - duh!), then afterwards they move onto bigger things like Peadophilia and Beastiary, and then after that they all start murdering people and kitten huffing etc.

Isn't that true though, I mean, it makes perfect sense.

And don't forget, in some abrahamic religions as long as your straight, it's alright to marry children as young as 9....

 

[TheKnight]

So Abrahamic "morality" is not based on what harms people and what does not?

Yes. There is no such thing as "morality" based on what does and does not harm people. Said "morality" is a fantasy and at best only works well in a broad social environment where you have multiple religious ideas attempting to coincide in peace. In a single-minded social environment, morality is absolute and objective. IE the will of God.

 

[Aquitaine]

And don't forget, in some abrahamic religions as long as your straight, it's alright to marry children as young as 9....

And engage them at 6, and have 11 wives

 

[Autodidact]

The fact that you have not understood it is because of how you are looking at it. You say "Why is it that Abrahamic religions have a grudge against gays, how is it harmful?" Your question implies that you believe that Abrahamic religions base morality (right and wrong) on what harms people and what does not. This is not the case. Morality, in an Abrahamic religion, is determined by the will of God.

Exactly. They are completely irrational. For example, if God commands you to slaughter an innocent baby, refusing to do so is a sin. Wearing clothing of mixed fibers is a sin. Buying Mexican slaves is not a sin. Trimming the corners of your beard is a sin.

There's no point in trying to impose rational ethics on a set of ancient tribal taboos.

Sin has nothing to do with hurting other people. That's why it's important to jettison these primitive standards for a rational ethics.

 

[TheKnight]

Exactly. They are completely irrational. For example, if God commands you to slaughter an innocent baby, refusing to do so is a sin. Wearing clothing of mixed fibers is a sin. Buying Mexican slaves is not a sin. Trimming the corners of your beard is a sin.

1. Are you God that you can determine someone's innocence?
2. is hiring a servant immoral in your eyes?

 

[MSizer]

Morality based on nothing is worthless to me.

"Morality based on nothing"? What in the heck does that mean? Morality is made of emotion and reason. Without emotion and reason, morality doesn't exist. Therefore to "morality based on nothing" is to speak of nonsense.

Your judgment of certain aspects of Abrahamic religion as immoral is meaningless because you have no valid standard by which to judge something immoral.

Oh? The capabilities approach to ethics is not a valid standard by which to judge something immoral? Sure it is. According to the capabilities approach to ethics (which is essentially a moder version of Aristotilian virtue ethics combined with some elements of Kantian deontology) states that a human being flourishes when permitted certain specific freedoms, including freedom from bodily and emotional harm. The abrahamic faiths teach that torture is a form of punishment delivered by god. Not only torture, but eternal torture. Such a grossly flawed notion of justice is reprehensible, and, to answer your question, immoral according to my moral standards outlined in the capabilities approach to ethics.

Don't assume that other people have put no thought into the basis for their moral evaluations and deliberations. Just because the big 3 dumb it down to "cuz god said so", it doesn't mean there aren't others who treat morality as a much more elaborate topic deserving of deep contemplation and consideration.

 

[Aquitaine]

Exactly. They are completely irrational. For example, if God commands you to slaughter an innocent baby, refusing to do so is a sin. Wearing clothing of mixed fibers is a sin. Buying Mexican slaves is not a sin. Trimming the corners of your beard is a sin.

There's no point in trying to impose rational ethics on a set of ancient tribal taboos.

Sin has nothing to do with hurting other people. That's why it's important to jettison these primitive standards for a rational ethics.

Also, it is in my opinion that if "Morality" was objective then it wouldn't be Morality, it would just be a bunch of people following a protocol, rather than thinking for themselves.

Of course, there are many universal things that all Humans find immoral that we can all agree on etc, but generally-speaking, if people were told "this is Moral, this is Immoral" then they'd just be living their lives off pre-determined Protocols, like a Robot just following orders.

What makes "Morality" so interesting to me is that it's....... unanswered, and complex, and it prompts you to think about things from other people's perspectives, y' know.

Besides, life would be boring if everything had been "solved" or could even be solved.

Don't mistake me for being a Sociopath or whatever, for saying that lol!

 

[Autodidact]

1. Are you God that you can determine someone's innocence?

Well, by me if you're a little baby, you lack the moral or intellectual capacity to commit a crime that merits capital punishment.

2. is hiring a servant immoral in your eyes?

No, but buying a slave is. If you can't tell the difference, I would suggest that's because your religious morality is retarding your moral judgment.

 

[MSizer]

Morality based on nothing is worthless to me. Your judgment of certain aspects of Abrahamic religion as immoral is meaningless because you have no valid standard by which to judge something immoral.

I'm still waiting knight for your critique of my standards for morality. I lined them up for you all in a row nicely. So please do proceed, I'd like you to explain how I have no valid standard to judge something immoral. You don't have to do any guessing. I've layed out my standards clearly for you (I think I have at least - just ask pls if you'd like some more detail).

 

[Aquitaine]

I've still yet to hear from any believer of the Abrahamic faith why one beong Homo-Sexual is harmfull or should be considered a "Immoral".

I'm waiting.........

 

[Kerr]

Can anyone please tell me how a Homosexual, or Homosexual activity can be hurtfull of harm others?

This is one big thing I've never understood: why is it all the Abrahamic religions have this grudge against Gays, how is one being Gay harmfull?

As I understood, it is not about it being harmful but being against the will of God.

 

[Kerr]

I've still yet to hear from any believer of the Abrahamic faith why one beong Homo-Sexual is harmfull or should be considered a "Immoral".

I'm waiting.........

It is because the concept of immorality is authority based, basically morality for them is derived from God, so if he say it is immoral then it is. No other factors are important to such a system, it is basically just an empty word for obidience and that is one of the reasons I dislike that kind of morality as much as I do.

 

[MSizer]

It is because the concept of immorality is authority based, basically morality for them is derived from God, so if he say it is immoral then it is. No other factors are important to such a system, it is basically just an empty word for obidience and that is one of the reasons I dislike that kind of morality as much as I do.

Yes, which of course begs the Euthyphro question. If we're wating for answers for our questions, imagine how Socrates feels after having waited 2500 years and still not received an answer to his question.

 

[TheKnight]

The abrahamic faiths teach that torture is a form of punishment delivered by god.
Not only torture, but eternal torture. Such a grossly flawed notion of justice is reprehensible, and, to answer your question, immoral according to my moral standards outlined in the capabilities approach to ethics.

Please don't assume that all Abrahamic religions teach eternal torture. Judaism does not have such a disgusting concept.

Well, by me if you're a little baby, you lack the moral or intellectual capacity to commit a crime that merits capital punishment.

Is death a punishment?

No, but buying a slave is. If you can't tell the difference, I would suggest that's because your religious morality is retarding your moral judgment.

Can you show that the Jewish concept of slavery is any different than the concept of hiring a servant?

I'm still waiting knight for your critique of my standards for morality. I lined them up for you all in a row nicely. So please do proceed, I'd like you to explain how I have no valid standard to judge something immoral. You don't have to do any guessing. I've layed out my standards clearly for you (I think I have at least - just ask pls if you'd like some more detail).

The reason I find your immorality lacking is because it assumes a particular approach which is accurate (in certain settings) but not the most optimal. In a social setting where there are multiple religious/moral ideas, then your morality would certainly be appropriate for determining laws and how one should behave on a social level.

It's like operating systems. Yes, Windows 95 (your morality) will work for basic computing needs. But Windows 2000 is just so much better when it comes to computing needs. So that fact that your morality sees mine as "immoral" bears no weight in my eyes. Because I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. You're operating with a less capable system.

I've still yet to hear from any believer of the Abrahamic faith why one beong Homo-Sexual is harmfull or should be considered a "Immoral".

Harmful? Well, I wouldn't say that it is physically harmful. Spiritually speaking it's not that it's harmful, it's that it's antithetical. There is the goal/end of reaching optimal existence. That consists of various things. Part of reaching that goal/end (call it "enlightenment" if you will) is following the laws of God which provide a methodology for reaching that end.

Homosexuality, just doesn't work in the system of God's laws for reaching that ends. It does not means homosexuals are incapable of reaching the ends, just not through God's laws.

As far as morality, homosexuality is immoral because to indulge it is to deny and rebel against the law of God for the sake of personal gratification.

 

[MSizer]

Please don't assume that all Abrahamic religions teach eternal torture. Judaism does not have such a disgusting concept.

I'm well aware of that. But if you want to talk about god's punishments in Judaic text, we've got genocide and rape and infantacide. Those are the first that come to mind.

The reason I find your immorality lacking is because it assumes a particular approach which is accurate (in certain settings) but not the most optimal. In a social setting where there are multiple religious/moral ideas, then your morality would certainly be appropriate for determining laws and how one should behave on a social level.

It's like operating systems. Yes, Windows 95 (your morality) will work for basic computing needs. But Windows 2000 is just so much better when it comes to computing needs. So that fact that your morality sees mine as "immoral" bears no weight in my eyes. Because I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. You're operating with a less capable system.

OK, so I'm supposed to accept it when you say "but my system is better, which means you can't understand the way I do" without providing any evidence for it?

If you like I could undress Divine Command theory. We could examine how Divine Command theory is flawed and in fact can not be a valid moral code. Would you like to go through that little exercise? I mean, of course, since I'll never know as well as you do, then really I guess it's only a game, but still, might be fun. What do you say?

Actually, better yet, you made the claim, so I think you should start. Why is your system so much better than mine?

 

[Autodidact]

Is death a punishment?

Well it's certainly not a reward. Duh. Is this the best you can do to defend the morality of infanticide, spreading your argument over several pages so no one notices that's what you're doing?

Can you show that the Jewish concept of slavery is any different than the concept of hiring a servant?

Yes, easily.

Leviticus 25: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The key points of difference named here in this verse that authorizes slavery are:
1. They're slaves.
2. You can buy them from other people.
3. They become your property.
4. You can leave them in your will as property.
5. You can make them your slaves for life.
6. In fact, you can rule over them ruthlessly, as long as they're not your fellow Israelites.