Posts by PSacramento

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

If good and bad, right and wrong, become concretly subjective then where do we draw the line? WHO draws the line? and will that line stay there?

I don't think that allowing homosexuals to marry will bring down the human race of course and I feel that people should be as free to disagree with it just as those that are free to agree with it.

I think that if laws are passed based on a democratic vote and the law passes that it means (ideally) that the majority of society agrees on that Law ( Of course we knwo that isn't always the case and some laws are passed without societies approval, taxes anyone!).

That said, a civil law like that should not be forced on forced on a memeber of a religion that has doctrines against it.

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

It was both her age and being a cousin.

Was the marriage illegal?

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

The essence of the issue is "do no harm". The relationship must be consensual. For instance, an adult but paralyzed hospital patient is in a vulnerable, dependent position so if a staff member indulges in their prediliction, it is not consensual. Pyromaniac, high potential for harm. Kleptomaniac, did not receive permission from the victims.

But people concent to harmful things all the time...

Young adults who are dependent and living at home, not in a position to offer a consensual relationship.

According to whom?

So impulse control is still required in a civilized society.

But only if the impluse is harmful right?

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

'Why?' You're dialing in from Arkansas eh?

No, but you made my point there, didn't you?

Was the issue her age or being his cousin?

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

I remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin who was like 13 or 14, started a firestorm of issues on several levels.

Why?

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

Of course, the issue of harm CAN be a complicate done too, I mean, we would have to prove that an activity truly does HARM another annd prove to what degree.

And that can truly get us into a very trickly slope, so can the issue of consent.

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

Terry,

I feel for you but the reality is that the only way one can view a born natural inclination as acceptabe is IF it doesn't harm anothe rperson or themelves.

Something being natural in the sense that a person is born that way does NOT make it permissibale.

Some people are born with violent tendencies, some with fetishes that are dangerous to themseves and others, a born inclination that is dangerous to the person may even be viewed as a "birth defect" of sorts.

Basically what is permissiabel is NOT based on whether someone is born that way but if it harms themselves or another.

Of course that MAY lead us into a philosophical discussion as to whether homosexuality is truly harmless, but I don't think that is what you are asking.

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

PSacramento

Just because someone is born a certian way, doesn't mean that acting that way is in their best interest or societies or even the "right" thing to do.

That said, we tend to accept what I just wrote IF the behaviour in question is harmful to themselves and/or society.

128

Jesus and the Mosaic Law...

by mP in

ive had many chats with tec and shes always fun but i must disagree with her angle on jesus and the mosaic law.

she always claims that jesus repealed the law.

ive asked for many times and she has yet to give the exact quote.. perhaps the most damning scripture for tec and friends is mat 5:18 where jesus unequivacably says the laws is perfect and will last forever.

PSacramento

I mean Jesus addressed how overly legalistic the Sabbath had become, for example and how the Pharisees were more concerned with outword cleanlinees and what goes in the mouth ( dietary laws) than what comes out of the mouth.

The issue of divorce was another example, soemthing that was suppose to be strickly about adultery ( breaking of the marriage vows) became a legalistic way for some to get out of a marriage they no longer wanted to be in.

128

Jesus and the Mosaic Law...

by mP in

ive had many chats with tec and shes always fun but i must disagree with her angle on jesus and the mosaic law.

she always claims that jesus repealed the law.

ive asked for many times and she has yet to give the exact quote.. perhaps the most damning scripture for tec and friends is mat 5:18 where jesus unequivacably says the laws is perfect and will last forever.

PSacramento

It is important to understand that many of what Christ did was challenge and/or correct INTERPRETATIONS of the Law and not always the Law themselves.

He also correct the overly legalistic way the law was USED.

Also important to understand that we are simply expressing our views and opinions based on our own understandings, that goes from BOTH sides of course and as such, we may be right or wrog but we must be open to understanding the other side of the argument.