The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Morals, Morality and God

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3374
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by LuckyR » September 12th, 2018, 1:46 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 11th, 2018, 10:01 pm
Lucky R,

Contrary to your statement, I absolutely want Satanists to have equal time. How else can everyone see how sick they are?
You may be the exception that proves the rule.
"As usual... it depends."

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 12th, 2018, 5:20 am

Reply to Tommarcus:

It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it should remain that way because that is the message that we as society need to give to our kids. Sexuality is behavioral as well as physical which means it is learned to some degree. It has nothing to do with God.

I am struggling with the logic of these statements. It is clear that there are numerous examples where marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is not an argument for it remaining that way. Definitions describe current usage. Usage changes. That something has been a tradition does not mean that it must continue that way.

Why is it that you think that marriage between a man and a woman is a message we need to give to our kids? You have stated clearly that, “any two people who wish to form a bond or contract should be allowed to do so” and you have asserted, “It has nothing to do with God”. Why, then, would you want to distinguish marriage from any other sort of union?

But don't redefine marriage.


If you look up recent definitions of marriage I think you will find that there are numerous redefinitions, where union between a man and a woman is not mentioned. No definition is absolute, as you seem to recognise. But they do change because dictionaries define common usage. And it seems that it is extremely common usage to refer to marriage without requirement that it is between a man and a woman.

It is at this point where I think we need to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. Civil marriage concerns recognition by the State of a union and, when you say, “It has nothing to do with God”, I assume this recognition is to what you are refering. In which case, I cannot follow your line of reasoning.

I can think of instances where it has a great deal to do with God, or at least with religious belief. Many religious groups condemn homosexual union. They stress that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It is up to individual governments to resolve such conflicts. In France, for example, it is compulsory for a civil marriage to take place, usually in the Mairie, or town hall. Same-sex marriage has been ratified since 2013. The couple can then follow this with a religious ceremony, a secular service, or whatever celebration they choose, in a destination of their choice. As I understand it, the various faiths are permitted to restrict who gets married under their auspices.

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Thinking critical » September 12th, 2018, 6:45 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 11th, 2018, 10:46 pm
Thinking critical,

I strongly agree with you that two people who want to form a special relationship should not be prohibited from doing so. I actually take it one step further and believe that any two people who wish to form a bond or contract should be allowed to do so. It should make no difference if they are both gay, heterosexual, just good friends or agree to mutual companionship. That is none of my business until someone tries to force their beliefs on me by law or intimidation.

That is one reason why your assertion, that those who are against same sex marriage are either against it on religious grounds or revulsion, is wrong. I am against gay marriage but not because of either. I am for the right for everyone to form a civil union. I don't consider same sex marriage a moral issue. If your body and mind are not sexually in sync, then you have a problem but not a moral one. And all of us have problems. But my problems don't mean that I should change the definition of what is best for society.

It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it should remain that way because that is the message that we as society need to give to our kids. Sexuality is behavioral as well as physical which means it is learned to some degree. It has nothing to do with God.

So if you need to have a different relationship, do so. And if you want to make a civil union do so. But don't redefine marriage.
It wasn't my intention to steer the conversation towards the same sex marriage...........However since we are here.........I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to there personal opinion on this matter, however to this day I have never come across the reasoning for someone's opinion that has made any sense to me.

The way I see it when I married my wife it was one of the most memorable and important days of my life, I would never want to prevent others from experiencing the same thing. I see no reason why marriage should be kept strictly as a sacred ceremony between a man and a woman. There is no quantifiable difference in the level of emotions and commitment between the two so I see no reason why the ceremony would require a different label.

As far as society sending out a message to kids, it appears you maybe attempting to suggest that there exists some sort of inherently correct sexual orientation? Being sexually attracted to someone of either sex is not a learnt behaviour, sexual drive is chemically enhanced .....people aren't taught to be gay anymore that anyone else it taught to be straight. Furthermore what difference does it make? Why does it matter how many gay people there are?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 10:33 am

tommarcus:
I am sorry if I missed your point. Your question sounded like a request for my opinion. But it doesnt change my answer. Someone's weaknesses or opinions, religious or otherwise, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech.
Are you missing the point or avoiding it? The manger was supposed to be your proof of an attack on religion. It failed. The Supreme Court has not ruled against such displays because they want to attack religion or because of how some people may react, but because the display of a manger alone, excluding the religious symbols of other groups, has been interpreted as a representation of a government sponsored religion.
It sounds profound but protection of religion does not mean protection from religion.
You obviously do not understand the Constitution's establishment clause. If you did you would understand why the Supreme Court has ruled against mangers in some cases but not in others.

The pilgrims came to America because the Church of England and the Catholic Church opposed their religious beliefs. They fled because they wished to be free of external religious authority. There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They are two sides of the same coin.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 12th, 2018, 11:21 am

Fooloso4,

The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Pilgrims. They only lived in Protestant countries England and the Netherlands. Insinuating that the Catholics, who themselves were being prosecuted in England, had something to do with their voyage to America destroys credibility.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Tommarcus:
Insinuating that the Catholics, who themselves were being prosecuted in England, had something to do with their voyage to America destroys credibility.
Apparently, you are not aware that the Pilgrims were Puritans and what the term Puritan means. The term Puritan refers to the purification of the Church of England of Catholicism.

You are trying to avoid the issue by claiming I am insinuating something that does not follow from anything I said. The point is that religious freedom is not a matter of theism versus atheism or even Christian versus non-Christian. At the heart of the issue of religious freedom in America was Christian versus Christian. The Pilgrims were Puritans. The Puritans wanted to establish a “pure” Christian state in America. They were antagonistic to the arrival of another group of English settlers, the Society of Friends, the “Quakers”. The Puritans did not want to extend the freedom of religion they enjoyed to others. In order for others to enjoy freedom of religion it was necessary for there to be freedom from religion, that is, the rejection of a Christian state by Christians and non-Christians, theists and atheists, alike.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 12th, 2018, 2:02 pm

I see you guys are having a conversation about nothing.
The Pilgrims were fleeing Britain, not because they were persecuted but they were fleeing latitudinarianism. In effect they were fleeing too much Toleration.
Rather than live in a religiously free country they preferred to establish the Kingdom of God in the New World complete with their own particular form of cant and bigotry.

In this way North America became the repository for every crack-pot religious extremism from Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Shakers, and Fakers.
It's no wonder that the USA is a hot bed of religious stupidity from Morons, to Scientologists.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 2:49 pm

ThomasHobbes:
I see you guys are having a conversation about nothing.
The Pilgrims were fleeing Britain, not because they were persecuted but they were fleeing latitudinarianism. In effect they were fleeing too much Toleration.
I said nothing about persecution. tommarcus said they were “prosecuted”, but I assume he meant persecuted.
Rather than live in a religiously free country they preferred to establish the Kingdom of God in the New World complete with their own particular form of cant and bigotry.
You are repeated what I said:
The Pilgrims were Puritans. The Puritans wanted to establish a “pure” Christian state in America.
If what I said is nothing then do you think it becomes something by repeating it? Nothing + nothing = something?

This was not only a theological and moral disagreement, it was political. King Charles I dissolved parliament in order to deny his enemies, many of whom were Puritans, a share in power. Put more precisely, the theological, moral, and political are all religious determinations.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 12th, 2018, 4:49 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 2:49 pm
ThomasHobbes:
I see you guys are having a conversation about nothing.
The Pilgrims were fleeing Britain, not because they were persecuted but they were fleeing latitudinarianism. In effect they were fleeing too much Toleration.
I said nothing about persecution. tommarcus said they were “prosecuted”, but I assume he meant persecuted.
Rather than live in a religiously free country they preferred to establish the Kingdom of God in the New World complete with their own particular form of cant and bigotry.
You are repeated what I said:
The Pilgrims were Puritans. The Puritans wanted to establish a “pure” Christian state in America.
If what I said is nothing then do you think it becomes something by repeating it? Nothing + nothing = something?

This was not only a theological and moral disagreement, it was political. King Charles I dissolved parliament in order to deny his enemies, many of whom were Puritans, a share in power. Put more precisely, the theological, moral, and political are all religious determinations.
Charles I was somewhat temporary..
I think what you said is not exactly what I said; certainly not "repetition". But close enough given your hostile response.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 5:00 pm

But close enough given your hostile response.
Is accusing someone of saying nothing considered a hostile response or only the hostility engendered by being accused of saying nothing? It took me time and effort to say nothing, as I wanted to make sure I was saying it correctly.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 12th, 2018, 5:38 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 5:00 pm
But close enough given your hostile response.
It took me time and effort to say nothing, as I wanted to make sure I was saying it correctly.
Congratulations; you succeeded.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 12th, 2018, 7:04 pm

Fooloso4,

Sorry, but if you think that the Pilgrims were fleeing the Catholic Church or that the term "Puritan " is derived from the purification of the English church of Catholicism, then you gave lost significant credibility.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 7:13 pm

ThomasHobbes:
Congratulations; you succeeded.
Ha! Good one.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 12th, 2018, 8:27 pm

Fooloso4,

Sorry, but if you think that the Pilgrims were fleeing the Catholic Church or that the term "Puritan " is derived from the purification of the English church of Catholicism, then you gave lost significant credibility.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 12th, 2018, 8:30 pm

tommarcus:
Sorry, but if you think that the Pilgrims were fleeing the Catholic Church ...
Sorry, but I said nothing of the sort.
… or that the term "Puritan " is derived from the purification of the English church of Catholicism, then you gave lost significant credibility.
Well, here are several sources that support what I said. Looking forward to reading what your sources say that contradict this.
Puritans were strict Protestants who wanted to ‘purify’ the Church and get rid of all traces of the Catholic faith. (https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zgw3wxs/revision/4)
The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to "purify" the Church of England from its "Catholic" practices, maintaining that the Church of England was only partially reformed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans)
In its original meaning it signified "those who strove for a worship purified from all taint of popery" (Maitland, op. cit. inf., 590) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12581a.htm)
Puritanism, a religious reform movement in the late 16th and 17th centuries that sought to “purify” the Church of England of remnants of the Roman Catholic “popery” that the Puritans claimed had been retained after the religious settlement reached early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Puritanism)
The roots of Puritanism are to be found in the beginnings of the English Reformation. The name “Puritans” (they were sometimes called “precisionists”) was a term of contempt assigned to the movement by its enemies. Although the epithet first emerged in the 1560s, the process through which Puritanism developed had been initiated in the 1530s, when King Henry VIII repudiated papal authority and transformed the Church of Rome into a state Church of England. But the Church of England retained much of the liturgy and ritual of Roman Catholicism and seemed, to many dissenters, to be insufficiently reformed. ([https://www.history.com/topics/colonial ... puritanism)

Post Reply