Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread

[Crucifer]

Gic wrote:

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


I have some things to say about this topic but first I need to go take a bowl movement in my living room..

Get back to ya..

A bowl movement? You're gonna move a bowl around your living room? Oh, well Shabbat Shalom..

 

[katherineofdixie]

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? :

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

 

[Schultz]

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? :

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

 

[katherineofdixie]

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? :

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

But again, who gets to decide what constitutes direct and immediate harm to another's life and liberty? Who makes the laws? Where do you draw the line and why?

 

[Marc1152]

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? :

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

GIC is fine with bestiality. It wasn't a slip or a joke. He is actually trying to defend it, LOL. His caveat is the most minimal moral postion next to no moral position at all.

I think this is a good demonstration of the bankruptcy of Atheism.  Moral codes are done on the fly. It seems to assume an Animalistic World view. Society has been through that kind of mentality before and the results were not pretty, or healthy or beneficial to the Human Race ( or Sheep).

The Christian system appears to me to be far superior and far more sophisticated no matter the sneers from the sidelines that it is based on "superstition"

 

[Schultz]

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? :

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

But again, who gets to decide what constitutes direct and immediate harm to another's life and liberty? Who makes the laws? Where do you draw the line and why?

In American society, the law is made by the various representative assemblies whose laws are checked by various court systems and the executive branches in each of their respective political entities. 

This is really basic stuff here.

Again, I do not agree with GiC, but he's being consistent with what he believes.  Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

 

[katherineofdixie]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

 

[Asteriktos]

Supposing that we're talking about a relationship between two adults... the adults decide. It's the same whether you're a Christian or not, the main difference is what might be agreed to as acceptable. Admittedly, the Christian couple's discussions might be a bit more mundane, something like "Can Bob go out with friends every Friday night to play darts?"  While a non-Christian couple might discuss something like "Is it okay for Sally to have a girlfriend since she's a bisexual?" In both cases the couple are going to set limits in the relationship.

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

 

[Papist]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Why not?

 

[katherineofdixie]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

 

[Marc1152]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

 

[greekischristian]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.

 

[Papist]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.

Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?

 

[Papist]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.

I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

 

[Schultz]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.

I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 

 

[Marc1152]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.


Thomas Jefferson:


“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

 

[Papist]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.

I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 

Why?

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.

Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?

Are they allowed to? As in should they be immune to threats of violence from the state for causing emotional harm? Of course. Is it professional and should a licensing body give its approval to such a counselor? Of course not. Do you honestly believe that we are incapable of functioning as human beings unless the state legislates every last detail of our daily existence?

 

[Papist]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.

Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?

Are they allowed to? As in should they be immune to threats of violence from the state for causing emotional harm? Of course. Is it professional and should a licensing body give its approval to such a counselor? Of course not. Do you honestly believe that we are incapable of functioning as human beings unless the state legislates every last detail of our daily existence?

Of course not. I am just trying to determine what is and is not protected by your "secular state".

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

 

[Marc1152]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

 

[Schultz]

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.

I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 

Why?

Because I know quite a number of women who think like he does. 

To paraphrase a Mae West quote GiC used to use, if that shocks you, you really do need to get out more

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

 

[Marc1152]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.

 

[Jetavan]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

So, if I reject Jesus' divinity, and yet follow Jesus' ethical code, I am a Christian?

 

[ialmisry]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Do tell the courts that you have abolished distress from the common law. I guess duress has to go too: all contracts are valid, no matter the gun to your head.

 

[greekischristian]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.

Well, I'm not going to impose my definitions of your religion on you. So if you insist that Jefferson was a Christian, ok. In that case, I just wish more Christians could be like him and that his form of Christianity rather than the more traditional forms would influence our political thought. He was certainly a deist and believed in some 'first cause' and he respected the teachings of Jesus, at least the ones he kept after going through and editing the gospels. He certainly didn't buy the virgin birth, resurrection, or even the divinity of Christ...though he thought Jesus was a great philosopher.

 

[Liz]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.

Well, I'm not going to impose my definitions of your religion on you. So if you insist that Jefferson was a Christian, ok. In that case, I just wish more Christians could be like him and that his form of Christianity rather than the more traditional forms would influence our political thought. He was certainly a deist and believed in some 'first cause' and he respected the teachings of Jesus, at least the ones he kept after going through and editing the gospels. He certainly didn't buy the virgin birth, resurrection, or even the divinity of Christ...though he thought Jesus was a great philosopher.

To be honest, I care a great deal less about whether or not Jefferson were a Christian (and for once, it's me asking if we've not strayed off topic), than I do about this idea that emotional distress 'doesn't count'.

 

[Marc1152]

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

So, if I reject Jesus' divinity, and yet follow Jesus' ethical code, I am a Christian?

It's better than a sharp stick in the eye...

 

[Irish Hermit]

Any updates on the "Gay Conference"?

Have Moscow or Constantinople said anything?

"A REPORT ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE
IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF FINLAND"

COMPILED IN AUTUMN 2009 AD BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT KOSMAS OF AITOLIA, JOENSUU FINLAND


http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

"A REPORT ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE
IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF FINLAND"

COMPILED IN AUTUMN 2009 AD BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT KOSMAS OF AITOLIA, JOENSUU FINLAND


http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

Thanks for posting this.  I just read the whole thing.  May the Lord Jesus Christ guide the Church of Finland into truth.

 

[Vlad]

Weird. May the Lord guide the Finnish Church back to Christianity.

 

[Vlad]

Looks like us Orthodox have our own weirdo Episcopal style Church. Is this normal for Orthodoxy? Since I am still rather new I really dont know.

 

[ms.hoorah]

May the Finnish Orthodox Church be placed under the guidance of a strong Patriarch.  (I know they are currently autocephalous.)

 

[Robert W]

Thank you Irish Hermit for that link.

Vlad, I would urge you to keep in mind that the loud minority wishing to reinterpret historical teaching does not represent a majority consensus.

ms.hoorah, The Finnish Orthodox Church is not autocephalous it is autonomous under the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Alpo]

Looks like us Orthodox have our own weirdo Episcopal style Church.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Vlad, I would urge you to keep in mind that the loud minority wishing to reinterpret historical teaching does not represent a majority consensus.

Nah, facts are boring. It's much more satisfying to label things with groundless but arousing claims.

 

[ozgeorge]

Thanks for the inspiration.

LOL! I love the new jurisdiction!