Real simple: (1 Viewer)

[cherokee]

lol, I know but you gotta admit that was a good one :lol: I still luv u NikEy---even if u do like homosex but won't admit it

Nikey you like homosex? You poor, poor guy...
Did some bad gay man get you pregnant?

 

[jallman]

Nikey you like homosex? You poor, poor guy...
Did some bad gay man get you pregnant?

Did someone say "homosex"?

Yes please!!!

:rock :devil: :rock

 

[cherokee]

Did someone say "homosex"?

Yes please!!!

:rock :devil: :rock

Hey nikey say hello jallman.
He can help you sort those feelings out.



and he wont get you pregnant again..
:2rofll:

 

[MrFungus420]

Secondly, it is just bull-puckey or cowardice when a person claims he or she has no right to judge.

Funny, I would have thought that was a very Christian attitude. I seem to remember something along the lines of: "Judge not lest ye be judged".

What you are really saying is that you believe in a relative morality--one that depends on no set of absolute definitions or facts.

Like it or not, morals are relative. If they weren't, then every society would have the same morals.

IOW--Other people's perspectives are just as accurate as yours are NO MATTER WHAT.

Not quite. Other people's perspectives on what constitutes moral are just as valid, not necessarily accurate.

Ultimately, if you leap way ahead on the logic path, that means that everything everywhere is without meaning anywhere.

Up until now you've been talking about morals, now you are talking about meaning. They are two very different things. Genocide may not be moral, but it can be very meaningful.

Is that what you really think? And if so--how can you have an opinion about ANYTHING? Can you see it is chaos and nihilism?

No, it is your opinion that everything needs an "absolute reference". I say that actions are meaningful in and of themselves.

 

[MrFungus420]

CONTRADICTION = "I don't agree (assuming that means you believe it wrong), but it's okay for others"

There is no contradiction. To use another example, I think that religion is one of the most reprehensible things that mankind has ever created. However, I feel that everyone is entitled to the freedom to choose to worship in their own fashion.

 

[1069]

CONTRADICTION = "I don't agree (assuming that means you believe it wrong), but it's okay for others"

See, that's my definition of "tolerance".

But for me, it would be more "I don't choose to do that, personally", (there is very little- perhaps nothing- that I believe is "wrong", so long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights), "but it's okay for others."

To you, it's a negative thing ("contradiction").
To me, it's a positive thing ("tolerance").

 

[Jerry]

See, that's my definition of "tolerance".

But for me, it would be more "I don't choose to do that, personally", (there is very little- perhaps nothing- that I believe is "wrong", so long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights), "but it's okay for others."

To you, it's a negative thing ("contradiction").
To me, it's a positive thing ("tolerance").

Moral relativism is bad enough, but to now show linguistic-relativism undermines everyone's ability to communicate.

There exists universal definitions of "tolerance", and it shears nothing in common with "contradiction".

As with morality, there are no personal definitions of words, only objective universal definitions of words.

 

[ngdawg]

Moral relativism is bad enough, but to now show linguistic-relativism undermines everyone's ability to communicate.

There exists universal definitions of "tolerance", and it shears nothing in common with "contradiction".

As with morality, there are no personal definitions of words, only objective universal definitions of words.

Morality IS personal, as is tolerance. Linguistics aside, these are abstract and subjective feelings based on someone's own personal insight. To go back to a simplistic example I'd used before: I hate coffee. The smell makes me gag. However, I tolerate it mostly because other people partake of it. Same with perfumes, only I tolerate them less as they give me headaches and make my nose run. Is that contradictory that I would find these things repugnant yet not protest their existence(well, I did once in an airplane when the young woman next to me whipped out her perfumed handcream a second time)?
Morality is the same thing. I find nothing wrong with sexual pornography, others find it a moral abomination.
Personal definition, in the sense of totally changing usage, is not prudent; personal outlook is the essence of these words in how they are used. It is not the personal definition that's a problem, but the inability of some to understand the personal usage of these abstracts because they confuse the two.

 

[jallman]

Morality IS personal, as is tolerance. Linguistics aside, these are abstract and subjective feelings based on someone's own personal insight. To go back to a simplistic example I'd used before: I hate coffee. The smell makes me gag. However, I tolerate it mostly because other people partake of it. Same with perfumes, only I tolerate them less as they give me headaches and make my nose run. Is that contradictory that I would find these things repugnant yet not protest their existence(well, I did once in an airplane when the young woman next to me whipped out her perfumed handcream a second time)?
Morality is the same thing. I find nothing wrong with sexual pornography, others find it a moral abomination.
Personal definition, in the sense of totally changing usage, is not prudent; personal outlook is the essence of these words in how they are used. It is not the personal definition that's a problem, but the inability of some to understand the personal usage of these abstracts because they confuse the two.

I find this whole crusade against relativism a bit transparent and convenient in any event. The Church, in an effort to reclaim some of it's lost authority, is making an active effort to villainize the idea of moral relativism. You can see in felicity's posts almost word for word talking points that are actively being taught in Church services. I was the captive audience of one such "sermon" this past weekend.

 

[ngdawg]

I find this whole crusade against relativism a bit transparent and convenient in any event. The Church, in an effort to reclaim some of it's lost authority, is making an active effort to villainize the idea of moral relativism. You can see in felicity's posts almost word for word talking points that are actively being taught in Church services. I was the captive audience of one such "sermon" this past weekend.

Quite frankly, this whole 'relativism' thing escapes me to the point where I had to look it up.:mrgreen: I'm not stupid, but it seems this is this week's 'buzzword' to be tossed about willy-nilly by those who really don't either want to understand/compromise or are loathe to admit they do understand but need to defend their own agenda.
The concept of tolerating that which we personally would never subscribe to is not a difficult one to grasp-we all do it to a degree. What would be defensible if everyone merely said, "oh, I can understand that!" My arguments and many who share the same viewpoint of tolerance without subscription seem to have to defend that over and over simply because the 'other side' defiantly refuses to utter those 5 words. It'd kill their whole program.

 

[Felicity]

I was the captive audience of one such "sermon" this past weekend.

Nice to here you went to mass, jallman!

 

[jallman]

Quite frankly, this whole 'relativism' thing escapes me to the point where I had to look it up.:mrgreen: I'm not stupid, but it seems this is this week's 'buzzword' to be tossed about willy-nilly by those who really don't either want to understand/compromise or are loathe to admit they do understand but need to defend their own agenda.
The concept of tolerating that which we personally would never subscribe to is not a difficult one to grasp-we all do it to a degree. What would be defensible if everyone merely said, "oh, I can understand that!" My arguments and many who share the same viewpoint of tolerance without subscription seem to have to defend that over and over simply because the 'other side' defiantly refuses to utter those 5 words. It'd kill their whole program.

Well, it's not really their faults. I mean it is, but at the same time it is being spoonfed to them by a "pope" who is determined to bring the Church back 75 years to a time when being intolerant was acceptable. The Church sees moral relativism as a great evil because it devalues the authority and supremacy of the church. The moral integrity of the church is already in question due to the recent sex abuse scandals and the subsequent investigations into cover-ups by Ratzinger himself. It makes total sense that the Church would claim a high ground against a philosophy which undermines their moral authority also.

 

[jallman]

Nice to here you went to mass, jallman!

Yes well, mothers can often make unruly demands that are hard to say no to. Especially at 7:00AM over eggs benedict and a mimosa to make her son more pliable...

 

[Felicity]

Well, it's not really their faults. I mean it is, but at the same time it is being spoonfed to them by a "pope" who is determined to bring the Church back 75 years to a time when being intolerant was acceptable. The Church sees moral relativism as a great evil because it devalues the authority and supremacy of the church. The moral integrity of the church is already in question due to the recent sex abuse scandals and the subsequent investigations into cover-ups by Ratzinger himself. It makes total sense that the Church would claim a high ground against a philosophy which undermines their moral authority also.

And yet you still claim to be Catholic....??? You know--it's not like being a Jew--being Catholic is not in any way related to your ethnicity. You don't have to be Catholic if you despise it so. On fact, as a Catholic, I hope you did not defile God by receiving the Body and Blood this weekend.

 

[jallman]

And yet you still claim to be Catholic....??? You know--it's not like being a Jew--being Catholic is not in any way related to your ethnicity. You don't have to be Catholic if you despise it so. On fact, as a Catholic, I hope you did not defile God by receiving the Body and Blood this weekend.

What...and give up the free booze?

Kidding, kidding. But obviously, you were not raised catholic or you would understand that catholicism is a family heritage. And why do you take my candid criticism as hostility or a hatred of the Church. Perhaps if you loved your Catholic heritage more AND had a healthier respect for God and less infatuation with his clergy, you would find the courage to force reform by speaking out. Just a thought.

 

[Felicity]

What...and give up the free booze?

Kidding, kidding. But obviously, you were not raised catholic or you would understand that catholicism is a family heritage. And why do you take my candid criticism as hostility or a hatred of the Church. Perhaps if you loved your Catholic heritage more AND had a healthier respect for God and less infatuation with his clergy, you would find the courage to force reform by speaking out. Just a thought.

Actually, I am a convert, but the Church ISN'T a democracy--it is God's institution. Maybe you should learn more about what the faith actually is rather than relying on poor grade school catechesis. Sometimes I think we converts are at an advantage for the very reason that we are not lulled by habit, but rather zealous for love of God's gift the Church. There are licit ways to make preferences known--but ultimately, God is the one who makes the rules--and the rules are for the love of His creatures.

 

[jallman]

Actually, I am a convert, but the Church ISN'T a democracy--it is God's institution. Maybe you should learn more about what the faith actually is rather than relying on poor grade school catechesis. Sometimes I think we converts are at an advantage for the very reason that we are not lulled by habit, but rather zealous for love of God's gift the Church. There are licit ways to make preferences known--but ultimately, God is the one who makes the rules--and the rules are for the love of His creatures.

Oh my God, you have shown me the light. Your revelations as a convert have given me so much more insight than 12 years of Catholic school, catechism, and hours of conversation with my uncle who is a priest. Thank you...thank you so much for showing me the path!!!! :roll:

No one says the Church is a democracy. But it isn't a totalitarian dictatorship left to the whimsy of the clergy. And it certainly isn't a tramping ground for new converts and their misguided notions of doctrine and faith. It is a centuries old institution steeped in tradition, ritual, and majestic manifestation of God's glory. I hardly think the clergy's failure to live up to their vows and their recent embarassments are a reflection of God's majesty. The congregation is the Church...the clergy are the servants of the Lord. And when a servant fails at his task, he must be corrected. The clergy of the Church is at a serious disadvantage right now...and there is serious discontent among the congregations. That discontent is becoming more open and more hostile and more justified with every passing day and every added scandal.

For those of us who do love the church and love God, it makes no sense to sit idly by and watch the clergy continue to fail us and fail our Lord. To call something evil and refuse to stand against it is equivalent to complicity in the deed. It is because I love my church and my fellow catholics and my God that I AM willing to speak out against the elephant in the room. What makes you so weak in your faith that you believe criticism is unjustified when you can blatantly see the issues at hand? Believe me, the Vatican is doing everything in its power to spin the issue as hard and fast as they can...so new converts like you, too weak and new in the faith, will be so addled that they won't say anything. That is all this moral relativism garbage is about. It is about maintaining an illusion of moral authority in the absence of moral credibility.

 

[Jerry]

Morality IS personal, as is tolerance.

One has to first disregard the authority of God in order to agree with that Humanist/Atheist view, hence our disconnect.

Linguistics aside, these are abstract and subjective feelings based on someone's own personal insight.

I care not for feelings. I care about actions.

The carpenter in me looks to a universal unit of measurement for everything from building a house to morality. Morality is clearly defined in scripture, which is why I work to adhere to it as best I can, just as I adhere to the Standard system of measurement.

Actions, like the length of a 2X4, can be measured by a universal constant.

To go back to a simplistic example I'd used before: I hate coffee. The smell makes me gag. However, I tolerate it mostly because other people partake of it. Same with perfumes, only I tolerate them less as they give me headaches and make my nose run. Is that contradictory that I would find these things repugnant yet not protest their existence (well, I did once in an airplane when the young woman next to me whipped out her perfumed handcream a second time)?

What you describe is tolerance, which I shear with you regarding Gay 'marriage.

However, your post does not address the point of dispute:

I would consider myself pro-life because I don't agree with abortion. But I do think every woman has the right to make her own decisions about her own body

Perhaps Felicity was in error by asserting a claim of contradiction in response to this, because the above is clearly a traditional Pro-Choice position and not Pro-Life at all.

Morality is the same thing. I find nothing wrong with sexual pornography, others find it a moral abomination.

As before, that is a Humanist/Atheist reasoning, which titles why I do not concur.

Personal definition, in the sense of totally changing usage, is not prudent; personal outlook is the essence of these words in how they are used. It is not the personal definition that's a problem, but the inability of some to understand the personal usage of these abstracts because they confuse the two.

Just as others have been patient with my difficulties with the English language, so will I be patient with 1069's difficulties with the English language.

 

[ngdawg]

She has no difficulties that I see, it's merely your lack of reception to the concept that one can be tolerant and have morals without caving to religious doctrine.
Your claim to not caring about feelings is a crock or you would not continue these discussions with the fervent hope that your view is taken. It's understood and not of consequence to me, but I can not see the same coming from your direction. You seem to have this POV that those that do not follow your religious dogma are heathens without morals and nothing could be further from the truth. I've known more people with NO religion that have more spiritual heart than those who claim to follow religions, simply because they keep open minds without bowing to a book.

 

[Felicity]

No one says the Church is a democracy. But it isn't a totalitarian dictatorship left to the whimsy of the clergy. And it certainly isn't a tramping ground for new converts and their misguided notions of doctrine and faith. It is a centuries old institution steeped in tradition, ritual, and majestic manifestation of God's glory. I hardly think the clergy's failure to live up to their vows and their recent embarassments are a reflection of God's majesty. The congregation is the Church...the clergy are the servants of the Lord. And when a servant fails at his task, he must be corrected. The clergy of the Church is at a serious disadvantage right now...and there is serious discontent among the congregations.

I agree with everything you say that is quoted above.

That discontent is becoming more open and more hostile and more justified with every passing day and every added scandal.

I sort-of agree with this, above.

For those of us who do love the church and love God, it makes no sense to sit idly by and watch the clergy continue to fail us and fail our Lord.

This is a blanket statement, and unfair and disrespectful to those hardworking and righteous men of the clergy who are vilified through no personal fault of their own.

To call something evil and refuse to stand against it is equivalent to complicity in the deed.

I agree with that. The Church works slowly. That is no excuse for some actions (inactions) that some have taken, but it is also no license to condemn the whole clergy with your broad brush.

It is because I love my church and my fellow catholics and my God that I AM willing to speak out against the elephant in the room.

And that elephant in the room has something to do with something you, yourself are very vocal to proclaim with impunity. THAT SMACKS OF HYPOCRISY on your part, jallman.

What makes you so weak in your faith that you believe criticism is unjustified when you can blatantly see the issues at hand?

You are making an unwarranted assumption that I believe appropriate criticism is unjustified.

Believe me, the Vatican is doing everything in its power to spin the issue as hard and fast as they can

And why should I believe you, jallman, rather than those that have dedicated their lives to the service of God and man? You can't even dedicate your sexual behavior to the dictates of the faith you claim to "love."

...so new converts like you, too weak and new in the faith,

Where on earth do you get the idea I am a "new" convert? I have been Catholic for over 18 years! And weak in the faith? HA--I teach the faith in my Parish to prospective converts like I was. I am a daily communicant during the summer when my work schedule permits, and I will mention you specifically in my daily rosary offering this evening! Please--you assume way too much jallman--you know nothing about me as a Catholic or as a person for that matter, save what precious little I reveal as I choose.

...will be so addled that they won't say anything. That is all this moral relativism garbage is about. It is about maintaining an illusion of moral authority in the absence of moral credibility.

I think you ought to research that a little more and maybe think about having an overdue chat (hopefully in a little room with the option of a screen) with your Uncle the Father.

 

[Felicity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by americanwoman
I would consider myself pro-life because I don't agree with abortion. But I do think every woman has the right to make her own decisions about her own body

Perhaps Felicity was in error by asserting a claim of contradiction in response to this, because the above is clearly a traditional Pro-Choice position and not Pro-Life at all.

I'm unclear as to what you think might be in error. She clearly states she considers her "personal views" pro-life--THAT is what is in contradiction--the position that in the matter of abortion, what you think is not personally okay for you is somehow okay for others. The title she gives herself is moot--the relativist position she claims in the matter of abortion is in contradiction with itself. abortion not okay/abortion okay--depending on who you are = the contradiction

 

[MrFungus420]

I'm unclear as to what you think might be in error. She clearly states she considers her "personal views" pro-life--THAT is what is in contradiction--the position that in the matter of abortion, what you think is not personally okay for you is somehow okay for others. The title she gives herself is moot--the relativist position she claims in the matter of abortion is in contradiction with itself. abortion not okay/abortion okay--depending on who you are = the contradiction

Again, there is no contradiction.

As the example that I already gave. I think that religion is one of the worst things that mankind has created. It has lead to more violence, intolerance and supression of knowledge than anything else. I support the right of people to have freedom of religion in spite of the fact that I feel that it is not "okay".

 

[Felicity]

Again, there is no contradiction.

As the example that I already gave. I think that religion is one of the worst things that mankind has created. It has lead to more violence, intolerance and supression of knowledge than anything else. I support the right of people to have freedom of religion in spite of the fact that I feel that it is not "okay".

Freedom of religion is not equivalent to the action of abortion. One is an abstract concept, one is a concrete action.

Your example would be better expressed:

I'm personally against religious violence, but religious violence is fine for other people.

Again--a contradiction in logic.

 

[ngdawg]

Freedom of religion is not equivalent to the action of abortion. One is an abstract concept, one is a concrete action.

Your example would be better expressed:

I'm personally against religious violence, but religious violence is fine for other people.

Again--a contradiction in logic.

Where did he say religious violence was fine for other people?
I think religion is a crock too and it IS responsbile for more wars than any other cause, but if religion floats your boat, pray away....
You're really off the mark lately....did someone tell you you can't have any more cookies?:mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

Where did he say religious violence was fine for other people?

Either slow down as you read or ease up on the sloe gin...He gave an example that was not equivalent to what he claimed...

You're really off the mark lately....did someone tell you you can't have any more cookies?:mrgreen:

Hey! You imply I have been on the the mark in the past...That's TWO "almost-compliments" from you in 24 hours! You're startin' to like me arent you! :2razz: