timdiggerm

Jaster Mareel

Caring about continuity and retconning.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Personally, I don't buy into the false dichotomy that homosexuality is either a choice or something that a person is born with. The causes of homosexuality in humans probably vary between individuals.

 As far as morality goes, it's not even that important. Naturally having certain desires doesn't imply much if anything about the morality of acting on those desires, right or wrong.

DarthKenobi said:

I don't have any messages or anything. How can it be full?

 Even ones you read?

Inspired by my favorite Jeopardy! categories, here are a few that I've written.

BEFORE & AFTER: This gathering over frozen dairy dessert covers such topics as history, government and psychology.
What is ice cream social studies?

BEFORE AND AFTER: Before taking photos for The Daily Planet, he was portrayed on Full House by siblings.
Who is Jimmy Olsen Twins?

BEFORE AND AFTER: How sweet the sound that saved the star of Dial M for Murder and Rear Window.
What is Amazing Grace Kelly?

BEFORE, MIDDLE & AFTER: The sun never sets on this film where Yoda lives in Hill Valley, CA.
What is The British Empire Strikes Back To The Future?

BEFORE AND AFTER: This 1980 sci-fi blockbuster started the business for chiropractors.
What is The Empire Strikes Back Pain?

BEFORE AND AFTER: This Minnesota Senator was successful in his quest to create life from death.
Who is Al Frankenstein?

BEFORE & AFTER: An oft-lambasted plea for consideration for Turin & Niniel.
What is "Won't somebody please think of the Children of Hurin?"?

BEFORE & AFTER: This Hindu praise song by George Harrison tells the story of a hobbit named Frodo.
What is "My Sweet Lord of the Rings"?

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 Protestant here, but the idea is that it's the best thing to do. Like a lightbulb illuminated or an engine turning, it's what you're intended to do.

Now, what qualifies as worship maybe a broader category than you imagine, I dunno.

TV's Frink said:

Dude, you're better than this.

 This.

Yeah, and that's fine. My argument is, as I think you know, just that atheists can't say the holocaust is wrong for any justified reason, not that they caused it.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Just replace it with "Noooooooooo!", GL has proved time and again that a scene can always be improved by adding a "Noooooooooo!".

 That.

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

What makes a person evil?

 Feeling empathy yet ignoring it.

 Okay, so the guards at the death camps may have been evil, but Hitler, sufficiently insulated from the messy reality of the gas chambers, was probably fine?

Of course, this all ignores the real problem that your definition is totally arbitrary.

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Short easy answer = Because I feel empathy.

I don't need a God to tell me that something is wrong because I can work it out for myself using my brain. e.g. I would miss my family if somebody murdered them so I know somebody else would be sad if I commited murder.

That of course extends and answers every other moral question.

It doesn't though. Lots of people have felt empathy for some and still done terrible things to others. 

Those people were wrong.

 Says who? You? Why do you say that, and how could you justify the statement to them?

To go back a step, when you said "terrible things" what did you mean? I'm guessing you mean something that you consider morally wrong because your feelings of human empathy tell you they are "terrible things".

Okay, I should be more clear. I meant something I consider morally wrong because it's not loving towards people, because that's the ultimate (albeit fraught with difficulties of interpretation, I admit) standard handed down from on high. Not all theists will agree on standards, of course, as I'm particularly a Protestant Christian and not the mythical generic theist.

Humans can be wrong, stupid, sociopaths, ill informed, evil, manipulated, drunk, high etc etc allowing them to ignore, deaden, forget or bypass their feelings of empathy (For sociopaths they never had them of course).

 What makes a person evil?

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Short easy answer = Because I feel empathy.

I don't need a God to tell me that something is wrong because I can work it out for myself using my brain. e.g. I would miss my family if somebody murdered them so I know somebody else would be sad if I commited murder.

That of course extends and answers every other moral question.

It doesn't though. Lots of people have felt empathy for some and still done terrible things to others. 

Those people were wrong.

 Says who? You? Why do you say that, and how could you justify the statement to them?

Jaitea said: Yeah, thats no problem, I just found that your original question - 'can you morally condemn the holocost?',...being atheist, & understanding Hitler's religious beliefs......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

The Most Reputable Source said:

The adult Hitler did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism.

So there's that.

I know right from wrong

How?

Reegar said:

But while the question may be relevant to some religions, the question is irrelevant to someone's lack of belief in God.

Sure it does. If a belief system has undesirable or unappealing end-results or implications, that changes how people view it.

Morality and theism at their core are two different things. Christians, for example, are a bunch drawing an abstract connection between the two.

I'm not saying atheists don't have morals and I'm not saying theists do. I'm interested in the justification for those morals.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Short easy answer = Because I feel empathy.

I don't need a God to tell me that something is wrong because I can work it out for myself using my brain. e.g. I would miss my family if somebody murdered them so I know somebody else would be sad if I commited murder.

That of course extends and answers every other moral question.

Leonardo said:

This is an interesting question. I'll try to answer as best as I can, and Reegar, I'd like to hear your take, too.

okay,

Can you morally condemn the holocaust, and, if so, on what grounds?

You're asking me if I think genocide is bad. I'll tell you, I think murder is bad, genocide is horrific. On what grounds? Well, I wouldn't kill anybody.

Not good enough. "I wouldn't do it" is hardly a firm ground for condemning the acts of others.

The "Do unto others" rule, doesn't only exist in Christianity and probably 99% of other religions in the world (look it up). It's plain common sense, dictated by self preservation, killing people is "bad" because it would be detrimental to the survival of the species.

Unless you're killing people who would be detrimental to the survival of the species, of course.

However, you can look at the good that came from the bad. If it weren't for Schicklgruber, Von Braun wouldn't have left Germany, and maybe a German or Russian cosmonaut would've walked on the Moon. I like to think that WWII, while a horrible scar in humanity's past, has brought life to endless material for comedians, whole generations of them. Some have based their entire career on it!

It's unknowable how much good could have happened without the war, the war could have happened without the holocaust and still led to the space race, and the death of millions is hardly a satisfactory justification for men on the moon.

I'll make another example that will, no doubt, make every American cringe. We all know lots of people died on 11 Sept 2001. We all feel bad about it. But maybe (to quote comedian Louis C.K.) there were a couple of assholes that day, on the towers. We don't know for sure, but statistically we can assume at least one person saw the buildings collapse, and sighed with relief, because somebody they had a beef with, was in the middle of that disaster.

Yeah and some people sighed with relief because America had taken a blow and some people sighed with relief because the Jews were dead and... I don't see where you're going with this.

The usual idea is that, without some sort of ultimate authority, there's no way to absolutely say that something is bad.

Well, turns out there is no ultimate authority, in every sense. What was good once, may not fly today. In other words, humanity will make its own rules. If everybody agrees killing each other is good, well, guess what, it's good. But until further notice, it's bad.

I feel like I rambled. Did that answer your question?

Nope.

And Jaitea, I'm not going to defend religion being used to justify or itself causing terrible suffering. Of course it has.

EDIT: I forgot to bold Jaitea's name. Fixed that.

The issue at hand? Nitpicking? It's nitpicking if Ady says "No, drop the issue". I don't even know if that's happened here.

The usual idea is that, without some sort of ultimate authority, there's no way to absolutely say that something is bad.

Reegar said:

oh_riginal said:

The nature of Revisited, to me, is change for the sake of quality, not change for the sake of change. That is the difference. How does changing "oomphs" and "ahhhs" add up to being something that absolutely needs to be done for ESB:R when it was fine in ESB to begin with?

Why did fixing the blaster bolts in ANH need to be done?

 Because one of the goals of Revisited is a cohesive 6-film saga, and the PT blasters don't look the same.

A classic:

Can you morally condemn the holocaust, and, if so, on what grounds?

Okay, cool, you don't think it's all. The way you phrased stuff originally, it was unclear.

As for believing in God w/o being a part of a church: Jesus was proclaiming the arrival of a kingdom, not a hermitage.

Oh, I agree. But of the priests who have done those things, we can agree they're hypocrites.

I was trying to overlook his generalization, in hopes that by ignoring idiocy, we can move on.

HotRod said:

So priests bang on about homosexuality being a sinful act, yet have no problem molesting young boys. 

Fucking hypocrites. 

 Yes I don't think you'll find too many people who disagree with you there.

Ric2, thanks for the article, particularly the Petrine Primacy section (the only part I read, as per your recommendation). His point regarding everyone sitting down and listening to Peter certainly indicates they respect him, and he wants to end the bickering and move things along, but not Primacy. The difference between Peter's language and James's language, where Peter talks about God doing this and God doing that, while James is all about his opinion, follows from Peter talking about things God has done, while James is stating his judgment on what should happen next, in a way that will be acceptable to those gathered. While Peter lays it out as a fact ("Why are you putting God to the test?"), James's statements are intended to be a closure, offering something on which they can consider coming to agreement, and are thus phrased in a more inviting manner (Peter is, as usual, a little brusque?). The matter is not settled when Peter speaks, as they still have to hear Paul & Barnabas's testimony, and the text is not clear as to whether the agreement in v22 is just on James's implementation, or the whole matter.

The article asks, at the end

Carl Olson said:

If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church?

and that's not helping his point. Readers who don't think Acts 15 demonstrates Petrine Primacy probably aren't going to think the Papal claim to Petrine Succession is important.

As for Catholic-Orthodox relations, I agree that the two are more reconciled today than they have been in a very long time (while we Protestants are...all over the place), but I did mean unity.

Jesus said:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

and I've never understood how that fits with schisms. And yes, I say that despite being a Protestant.

If Peter was the first Pope, why did James preside over the Council of Jerusalem?

Why is the immaculate conception a necessity? Why does Mary have to be without sin in order to give birth to Christ? How could she be born without sin?

How can Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reconcilliation take place?