Page 17 of 17 [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,001
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 8:00 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
You misunderstood. I'm NOT Catholic.


Sorry, my bad. You wrote in defense the Roman Catholic Church though, so other than the part about your church affiliation, my post still stands. You cannot seperate the RCC from the atrocities committed by the Inquisition, both the Roman and the Spanish Inquisition (which was also a Catholic initiative), and of course there is no excuse for the crimes that are still being committed and covered up by the RCC in this day and age.

Good point. Criticism of the RCC is something I prefer to avoid doing myself. 91, who IS Catholic, once tried to engage me in a debate over Protestant perception of Catholic doctrine and practice because I made one or two comments critical of the church. I might have written a short paragraph or two, and I refused to go any further than that. And that's on principal. I also strongly disagree with LDS, but on principal I avoid getting into a deep discussion over it.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

08 Feb 2012, 9:20 pm

AngelRho wrote:
@CrazyCatLord: I'm not going to pursue the issue of homosexuality in this thread as it seems to me an attempt to change the subject and bait me into saying something the mods might find ban-worthy. Attack my beliefs and opinions, fine. I find it highly disturbing that puddingmouse would even bring up the idea of banning someone for merely expressing thoughts that happen to be unpopular with several people on this site. That makes it PERSONAL, and I'm appalled that a mod on WP would behave that way. I've NEVER had any reason to post anything negative about a mod. I was under the impression that we could openly discuss religion and personal beliefs or ideas here. Apparently expressing that particular view is tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you wish to continue mistakenly believing that homosexuality and Biblical Christianity are somehow compatible, then that is your choice. For the sake of civility, I'm choosing not to discuss it.

I'll be happy to look at evidence as to why I should give up my faith in favor of no faith or another faith as per comments you and abacacus have made.


I wasn't baiting you. If you do really believe homosexuality should be illegal and should have punished by law- I just want to bear that in mind so I can avoid you. It would be a waste of time to discuss it with you if you thought that way.

You said that you believed homosexuality to be immoral and you would support cultures that held it illegal. I just wanted further clarfication on this view of yours I find it, frankly, totally disgusting. You're entitled to think that way and I wouldn't ban you for it. I only thought you were afraid to answer because homophobic attacks are against the rules of this site, but holding homophobic opinions isn't.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

09 Feb 2012, 3:54 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
[
You said that you believed homosexuality to be immoral and you would support cultures that held it illegal. I just wanted further clarfication on this view of yours I find it, frankly, totally disgusting. You're entitled to think that way and I wouldn't ban you for it. I only thought you were afraid to answer because homophobic attacks are against the rules of this site, but holding homophobic opinions isn't.


Funnily enough, most of what we today consider moral and what modern moral philosophy is build on are the teachings from ancient Greece. Now in ancient Greece love between two men was viewed as the purest and greatest form of love, so I'm not really sure that argument holds up. Kant is central to modern moral philosophy, the categorical imperative in particular, I prefer the naturalist formulation of "Act as if your action through your will should become universal law" or in "non Kantian" "Whatever you do will by universal law become how everyone behaves in a similar situation", in the case of the statement "Homosexuality should be punished" (If it's illegal it has to carry some sanction in order to make the law have a purpose), with the additional premise "Sexual orientation is biological" (FACT). It follows that the result would be punishing people because of their DNA, and I think we can all see why that's immoral.

Now on the other hand, with the statement "Most people regardless of sexual orientation has the capacity and desire for love", it follows that according to Kant the result of letting more people experience love is a "right act".