toldailytopic: What opinion do you hold that would surprise others?

[zippy2006]

I truly enjoy theology and philosophy, but I find theology to be a bit humorous and superfluous at times, especially when I find myself getting too entrenched, for example:

God made us in His image, gave us life, and lets us partake in His creation and everything in it thumb. He even came down and taught us how to love and bailed us out of the prison we put ourselves into, and then we spend half of our time sitting around gossiping about what he might be like or arguing over who's conception of God is more accurate :chuckle:. I just have to assume God does one of these every once in awhile: :doh:.

 

[Traditio]

I suppose the fact, with respect to my scientific views, I affirm the theory of organic evolution.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Little Boy, You're Going to Hell - James Hetfield

 

[Traditio]

What is your biblical view of this behavior? Permitted? Sin?

AMR

I really don't see why you keep asking me my "biblical views." You should know by now that I don't base my opinions on the Bible, at least, not generally.

That said, yes, I clearly think that all of these things are contrary to the Moral Law. However, they aren't the kinds of things that the government really should concern itself with. The government should be in the business of protecting rights. Nothing you can do in the privacy of your own home, insofar as it doesn't involve anyone else, can possibly constitute the violation of a right.

Watching pornography (of any sort) and masturbation don't involve anyone else. Therefore, they can't constitute the violation of a right. Therefore, they ought not to be illegal.

Likewise, homosexuals having gay sex with each other aren't doing anything to each other that they conceivably wouldn't be doing to themselves in the confines of their own bedroom. Consequently, they're not violating each others' rights. Therefore, gay sex ought not to be illegal.

God can take care of personal sins Himself. He doesn't need the courts to do it for Him.

 

[Quincy]

God can take care of personal sins Himself. He doesn't need the courts to do it for Him.

In other words, stop messing with consenting adults eh? :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

In other words, stop messing with consenting adults eh? :chuckle:

Yeah. Unlike Christian Evangelicals, I make a distinction between morally wrong and legally criminal. However, and don't start dancing yet, Quincy, unlike liberals, I also make a distinction between legal permission and legal endorsement. Whereas I think that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, fornicators, etc., I also think that the government cannot endorse these acts legitimately. That is, no "gay marriage."

That said, I'm not sure that you all fully understand what I'm saying. I am saying that all pornography viewing should be legally permissible. For example, it is a crime in this country to rape, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal to watch videos of women getting raped.

Whereas I thoroughly agree that rape ought to be illegal (it constitutes a violation of a right), I think that you should never be able to get arrested for watching pornography alone in your room. Consequently: If you have someone who's watching "illegal" videos of women getting raped, I don't think that he should be arrested, since he himself is not guilty of infringing upon anyone's rights. He's not raping anyone. He's alone in his room. There's noone else around.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah. Unlike Christian Evangelicals, I make a distinction between morally wrong and legally criminal. However, and don't start dancing yet, Quincy, unlike liberals, I also make a distinction between legal permission and legal endorsement. Whereas I think that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, fornicators, etc., I also think that the government cannot endorse these acts legitimately. That is, no "gay marriage."

That said, I'm not sure that you all fully understand what I'm saying. I am saying that all pornography viewing should be legally permissible. For example, it is a crime in this country to rape, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal to watch videos of women getting raped.

Whereas I thoroughly agree that rape ought to be illegal (it constitutes a violation of a right), I think that you should never be able to get arrested for watching pornography alone in your room. Consequently: If you have someone who's watching "illegal" videos of women getting raped, I don't think that he should be arrested, since he himself is not guilty of infringing upon anyone's rights. He's not raping anyone. He's alone in his room. There's noone else around.

I think we need to distinguish between marriage and 'government marriage' before we make any steps toward or against same-sex marriage.

 

[Traditio]

Incidentally, the above also can be extended to cover any and all kinds of drug use (though not, perhaps, the production and sale of drugs), suicide, etc.

 

[Traditio]

Your ideas here seem a bit jumbled Trad :think: So can you be arrested or not in your bedroom? I also think you may have missed some negations in that second paragraph.

I think we need to distinguish between marriage and 'government marriage' before we make any steps toward or against same-sex marriage.

I take it as a general axiom that the government has no authority to legitimize what is intrinsically illegitimate. Another way of saying it: gay unions are intrinsically immoral. For the government to have these sorts of "government marriages," or even "same-sex unions" for homosexuals is for the government to endorse what is intrinsically immoral. The government has no authority to do this.

Another way of saying this: I think that it shouldn't be illegal to watch videos of women getting raped. That said, I think that the government has no right to disseminate said videos. :idunno:

 

[Selaphiel]

I'm a supporter or theological naturalism and I believe panentheism is a better model for understanding God than traditional theism. Meaning, among other things, that I believe that any systematic theology must reflect on the scientific understanding of the world as it is described by current scientific models of reality if it wishes to be relevant today.

 

[Traditio]

Your ideas here seem a bit jumbled Trad :think: So can you be arrested or not in your bedroom?

Not insofar as it doesn't involve anyone else. If you're making and disseminating computer viruses, causing wanton destruction of property and/or stealing identities with said viruses, I think that the police should break into your bedroom and shoot you in the head. :idunno:

I also think you may have missed some negations in that second paragraph.

I reread it. I'm not seeing it. Help me out?

 

[zippy2006]

Incidentally, the above also can be extended to cover any and all kinds of drug use (though not, perhaps, the production and sale of drugs), suicide, etc.

It's an interesting view; very libertarian and anti-paternal government. The practical problems come when you realize what an extreme you are at, and also that no man is an island. Sometimes it seems worth it to protect people from themselves in order to protect those that depend on them and are closely connected. They are tough issues to be sure.

 

[Traditio]

I'm a supporter or theological naturalism and I believe panentheism is a better model for understanding God than traditional theism. Meaning, among other things, that I believe that any systematic theology must reflect on the scientific understanding of the world as it is described by current scientific models of reality if it wishes to be relevant today.

1. What if the scientific models are wrong?

2. What about the claims that precede scientific claims? For example: "God created the world." Science by definition can't affirm or deny that.

 

[zippy2006]

Not insofar as it doesn't involve anyone else. If you're making and disseminating computer viruses, causing wanton destruction of property and/or stealing identities with said viruses, I think that the police should break into your bedroom and shoot you in the head. :idunno:



I reread it. I'm not seeing it. Help me out?

Okay I understand :thumb: I thought you were saying that watching rape videos should be illegal, guess I misread that, sorry. :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I'm a supporter or theological naturalism and I believe panentheism is a better model for understanding God than traditional theism. Meaning, among other things, that I believe that any systematic theology must reflect on the scientific understanding of the world as it is described by current scientific models of reality if it wishes to be relevant today.

Why do you believe Panentheism is a better representation?

I agree with a lot of what you said. DR has some interesting views on this and we had a small conversation on it the other day.

 

[Traditio]

Okay I understand :thumb: I thought you were saying that watching rape videos should be illegal, guess I misread that, sorry. :e4e:

No, no. They are currently (I think). However, I don't think that they ought to be. Or, let's take this to the extreme. Suppose I enjoyed watching videos of newborn children being slaughtered en mass. Like, suppose that there's this really twisted gang which gathers up these newborn babies, brutally tortures them, and then just runs over them with a steam roller.

And let's say that I love watching videos of it!

Should that really be illegal? The first reaction is: "Dear God! What kind of person would like that? That's sick! You should be in prison!" Think about this, though: why? Yes, I agree, it infringes the rights of the babies that they be abducted, tortured, and then killed like that.

But I'm not doing it. I'm sitting alone in my room looking at a computer screen. I've never met those babies, or even the men who are doing these things. To make things more clear, let's suppose that I'm not even paying for it. A CD was just sent to me in the mail one day by an anonymous stranger.

Am I infringing on anyone's rights? Well, let's go over the basics. Am I causing anyone to lose property which rightfully is theirs? No. I'm alone in front of a computer screen. Am I infringing upon anyone's liberty? Am I causing those babies to be abducted? No, I'm alone in front of a computer screen. I didn't pay for the CD (let's say). It just came in the mail. Am I infringing on anyone's life? Am I maiming or killing anyone? Am I causing injury? No. I'm home alone in front of a computer screen.

That shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Traditio]

Why do you believe Panentheism is a better representation?

I agree with a lot of what you said. DR has some interesting views on this and we had a small conversation on it the other day.

Aren't you a Catholic, Zippy?

 

[Selaphiel]

1. What if the scientific models are wrong?

Irrelevant. Science must be falsifiable in principle, so an indisputable final scientific answer is not even possible in principle. But science is the systematic approach of reason applied to empirical data which is explained by a framework of ideas called a theory. These are ideas that must be taken seriously, they are the best portrayals of empirical reality we have. A theology that is based on a world view that is outdated and inaccurate has no real meaning today, they become empty formulas.

2. What about the claims that precede scientific claims? For example: "God created the world." Science by definition can't affirm or deny that.

I'm not saying that science is everything, that is not theological naturalism. In this case, the idea of God the creator must be reflected upon in the context of a modern understanding of empirical reality. It would be meaningless to reflect upon God as a creator using an antique world view which has no real relevance today.
So the idea of God as creator is maintained, but it may have to be re-interpreted and expressed differently than it was was let us say 1500 years ago. This really is no different from the church fathers writing their theology through the world view of the philosophy of antiquity which was the dominant world view of their time.

 

[zippy2006]

Am I causing those babies to be abducted?

This may be the only logical argument I could make against it. I'm guessing your approval or interest or demand does have an effect. :idunno:

I think your general idea is right though. Lewis talks about this in one of his essays: the fact that people should be punished based on desert and actions committed rather than psychological factors or current beliefs about how a person 'should be.'

 

[Traditio]

It's an interesting view; very libertarian and anti-paternal government. The practical problems come when you realize what an extreme you are at, and also that no man is an island. Sometimes it seems worth it to protect people from themselves in order to protect those that depend on them and are closely connected. They are tough issues to be sure.

This is the problem with that: for you to say that the government should "protect us from ourselves" for that reason is to say that people have a legal right to the labor, service, etc. of others. That's slavery. Whereas I may indeed have moral obligations to serve others, nobody has a legal right to my service.

 

[zippy2006]

Aren't you a Catholic, Zippy?

First of all, I have theistic beliefs rather than Panentheistic beliefs. The things I agree with are some of the other things

And no I'm not. Born and raised, but after 'leaving' (it's arguable whether I was ever there) I've made my way back to Christianity and not yet Catholicism. It is safe to say I am moving in that direction though.

:e4e: