Gamaliel

I do consider that non-acceptance bad, because unfair treatment is bad...however, red hair and bad vision do not manifest themselves in the things that I do.

1. I don't think the question is ambiguous...it is a theoretical question that defines how we view the world and live our lives.

2. "Says who? Me"...If every moral decision can be made on an individual basis then nothing can be wrong, even my position. By the way, Hitler gets to decide also...

G

long winded fool

If I may interject for just a moment?

The condemning of homosexuality by fundamentalist Christians is not completely reflective of what they read in the bible. When read objectively, homosexuality is not the only sexual sin. Heterosexuality the way it is exists in probably all 'straight' people on the planet is just as much of a sin. According to the bible, lust is the sin and therefore the fundamentalists are as guilty as the homosexuals. To "look at a woman with lustful intent" is as bad a sin as "homosexuality," assuming all sins are created equal. (Catholics don't believe this, of course.) This means that unless you read the sports illustrated swimsuit issue solely for the articles, you are committing as grave a sin as a gay person lusting after a member of the same sex. A man loving another man is not a sin. It is, in fact, the most important commandment according to Jesus. A man who looks at another man with lust in his heart is sinning in the same way and to the same degree as a man who looks at a woman with lust in his heart. It is as difficult for a gay person to control his or her lusts as it is for a "straight" person, therefore any persecution of the gay community is ridiculous and completely hypocritical. If the sin is lust, then the god of the bible must see no difference between a gay sinner and a straight sinner. If the sole purpose of sex is procreation, then anyone, gay or straight, who has sex for any other reason (which I'm willing to bet is everyone gay AND straight) is disobeying a divine commandment and "misusing" God's gift. Even those Christian married couples who are trying to have kids and raise a loving family are almost assuredly also having sex for other, more selfish reasons whether they admit it or not. For that matter, even chaste people who completely abstain from sex are equally guilty if they have ever experienced any kind of lust. The sexual act itself is a gift, but entertaining lust is a sin and should be frowned upon even within the bonds of marriage! (A very strange and seemingly unachievable notion, but it appears this way in the text. Yet another arcane mystery of the bible.)

The most upright, heterosexual Christian family man or woman calling the most promiscuous homosexual prostitute a sinner is truly the pot calling the kettle black. Theists don't like the idea of people whom they presume to be morally inferior to them being judged by the same standards as they are, but their own holy book makes this clear. While there are value assessments in the bible, these appear solely to serve as a moral guide, not as a framework for understanding divine judgment, nor as pretext for taking on the responsibility of judgment ourselves. A gay person can't be said to be any more or less hell-bound than Mother Teresa. A sinner is a sinner. (Again, assuming that God despises all sins equally and that certain sins aren't worse than others. The only theists who generally have a problem with this are the theists who refer to authorities other than just the bible.)

ImGod

Is anything wrong with anything? Y/N

I guess I don’t see the need to answer this theoretical question Yes or No and then using the answer to start a moral system. Maybe that’s just the wishy-washy independent in me talking. I answer Yes and/or No depending on the each “anything”. We approach most issues that way unless we don’t want to be bothered with understanding them. If we are speaking in theory I say that every situation can be both wrong and right at the same time. It depends on your point of view. I suppose you could interpret that as a no to your original question. You can see this concept occurring by reading the opinions all over the board here.

Even the most clear cut examples of moral behavior can fall into the gray area. Take killing for example. Let’s say I had killed 200 people in the last 10 years. I could be a serial killer, the Texas state executioner, or a fighter pilot. How we define killing and in what context it is done weigh greatly on a particular group's “killing morals”.

In a similar manner, we can approach moral definitions as you have in #2, by saying in effect that every moral decision is made on an individual basis. Your position is your position and how wrong or right that position is will depend on who you associate with and how you or your group is viewed by those who don’t hold the same position. Morality starts with the individual and is expanded when you join a group with similar overall moral definitions. Competing moralities collide when some attempt to impose their "correct" morals on other groups. This occurs, locally, regionally, nationally, and globally. Added complexity occurs when an individual fits within a groups overall moral definition, but does not agree with that group on some specific issues. The winning group is the one that changes their opponent’s position through convincing argument or force.

Everyone seems to get around to Hitler at some time or another in a moral discussion because the name provides an instant demonizing effect and a mental "low bar" for morality.* So I guess we should continue using him as an example. Within his own group he was a likable, charismatic fellow. He had a mother, a father, some friends, a wife, some dogs, heck he even made it to “president”. We assign a bad moral system to him (rightfully so, if you ask me) because both he and his group's domestic and foreign policies didn't fit our moral standards. There would probably not have been a conflict had he enacted his policies in Germany and not tried to spread them to Europe. We may not have agreed with what was going on in Germany, but we probably wouldn’t have thought is necessary to fight over it. Sad, but we make those judgments as a country now. As it happened in the end, there was a global conflict where the large competing groups trying to impose what they viewed as the correct system on the other. We won, so they now follow a similar moral system. Does it mean that our system is better? Depends on whom you ask. As time goes on, moral systems change and the different competing moral groups will cause another conflict. It’s a part of human nature.

Now that I re-read this, what I’ve said is as theoretical as what you asked initially (and somewhat rambling). But, that’s because I believe morality is subjective and don’t have enough time to spell out my entire moral code for review. However, I hope this provides you with a better insight into what I meant than “Says who, me”. In the end we’re probably not far apart from each other in our definition of morality no matter how arbitrary we view each other basis for those definitions. But, since it’s subjective, if there is anything we disagree on, I’m right.

*A minister I knew used to say you should not compare yourself to the worst examples when determining your morality and how live your life, i.e. I’m better than Hitler, or the prostitute over there, or that guy who beats his wife, etc., etc.. He said shoot for a better example. I’m sure he meant jesus, but I think he spent too much time walking around, teaching new age stuff, drinking wine at parties, and hanging out with prostitutes, hypocrites, thieves, and other guys. If I acted like him my family and friends would have me committed.

Gamaliel

QUOTE] Heterosexuality the way it is exists in probably all 'straight' people on the planet is just as much of a sin. According to the bible, lust is the sin and therefore the fundamentalists are as guilty as the homosexuals. [/QUOTE]
Agreed...Biblically, all sin seperates us from the love of God and provokes His wrath...would we also agree on the solution?


I appreciate your honesty...I seem to be a little confused, (which is a norm), since morality is subjective wouldn't the phrases:

homosexuality is bad

and

homosexuality is good

ultimately be the same thing???

G

ripdog

...my actions must be defined and governed by my creator...

So are you saying that actions are right or wrong because God commands it?