I assume you're going off of the chat I had with Revolutionary.

If you're asking what the bible says about being an accomplice in sin ... I have to admit, I honestly don't know. I suspect the answer would be that yes, helping a person sin is in itself a sin, but I couldn't give you a scripture reference. But I don't feel comfortable talking about what 'God will punish me' for. It's very much-so an avoidance of pain stance, which I at least hope not to operate by.

Rather, I feel like we can agree on it as a secular moral stance. Comitting an action that is morally wrong is indeed morally wrong. Intentionally and knowingly assisting someone in committing a moral wrong is also a moral wrong. The driver of the get-away car does bear some responsibility for the crime, even though driving from the bank to the warehouse is not in itself a crime.

The only counter-argument I feel we can make here is that we bear no responsibility for the actions of others. But frankly, I feel like that's making an 'I'm an island! Don't blame me!' argument. Our actions have consequences, good or bad. We are responsible for our actions. When we act, knowingly, to help bad actions occur, we bear some degree of responsibility for those bad actions. My selling drugs, or teasing the suicidal girl, or driving the get-away car may not *be* seriously bad behavior out of context, but our actions never occur 'out of context'.

So yes, in a nut-shell, I think pretty strongly that if I, with fore-knowledge and intent, assist a person in committing something which I believe to be morally wrong, that I myself bear responsibility for that wrong. That is independent of marriage politics. If I believe that some behavior is wrong, I don't think the government should be requiring that I support that behavior directly, or with my own property.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:51, Tue 12 June 2012.

I'm not sure why we would care what an unreliable book says about the transitive properties of anything.  We know Bats are not birds, as the "Scripture" says.  We know that insects have 6 not 4 legs, as the bible says.  We know that the earth is not flat and doesn't have four corners, as the "liable" says.  We know that it's silly to think 'g-d' walked on "clouds" in the "heavens"...  We know that there is no way that there wasn't "death" before the "fall".

Further, the most directly "moral" claims of the book are silly tribal superstitions or claims of a very neurotic god.  (Hell, not even the MAJORITY of the 10 commandments are the least bit moral in their nature).

You believe the bible is unrealiable, but good luck convincing those who believe otherwise.

That's another conversation entirely.

I don't bother to "convince" someone that a bat is not a bird :)

That's an either you get it or you don't...and if you don't; I'd say you're unreliable as a person in the same way the book is.  You will believe anything on insufficient evidence.  You just might believe my human sacrifice is needed.

1) That's a bit rough, Rev. I understand you disagree with the Bible on fundamental grounds, but a little tact will get you a long way.

2) If you want to discuss the factual content or reliability of the Bible, we have a thread for that that I'm happy to dig out and put up.

3) It's really not relevant, since I myself, in my own post, said that I don't like to refer to the Bible, and I avoided doing such except to say 'yeah, IF you want to go there, it probably says that'. I don't think you can debate with kertook on this, because I suspect he already agrees with you, and you can't be debating with me on it because it's a question I specifically avoided answering.

That's fine if you feel that way, but your perspective is not that of those who believe in the bible and can and will defend it to their death.

They can easily say 'thw word for bird is flying animal and a bat is a flying animals' or some such thing ad the problem is solved.

So while you feel that the bible is an unreliable text (and I share your opinion) you simply have to come to terms with the fact that massive numbers of people believe otherwise and many of them are highly intelligent and top notch individuals who happen to have good intellectual reasons for believing what they believe.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:49, Wed 13 June 2012.

I don't have to come to any such terms.

Massive people used to believe in Witchcraft, Astrology, reading entrails for the future, the Philigeston theory of heat...etc.

And, the more and more we make it painful, utterly painful for people to believe things on insufficient evidence, the sooner these authority based assertions and bubblegum and band-aid "fixes" will be abandoned.

For example, there's not fix to the problem that "Jesus" cannot ADD.

He says he'd be gone for 3 days 3 nights, and it's at best 3 and 2 and more like 2 and 2.

The one thing we must stop, is acting as if "beliefs" deserve any protection of any sort of at.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:26, Wed 13 June 2012.

Fair enough.  With an attitude like that I fail to see how any of us will have any ability to have reasonable conversations with you.

But at least you're honest about where you stand.

In reply to Doulos (msg #28):

My presentation impacts your ability to be reasonable?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:13, Wed 13 June 2012.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg #27):

Moderator Post: Calling another individual's beliefs 'stupid' and disrespectful statements against other religions or philosophies are violations of this forum's constitution. Please amend the post or it will be moderated.

I simply feel it's important to realize that there are others in this world who hold viewpoints that make zero sense to me personally, but are deeply ingrained into the very fabric of their being.

Treating others who hold those views as lesser intellectual beings, while it might make me feel superior, serves only to make conflict worse in every way.

I truly believe that there are ways to build bridges and treat the 'other side' with respect, even when they refuse to do the same.  To do otherwise, in my opinion, only results in a spiral of hate and misunderstanding that achieves nothing.

It's useful to separate an issue.

While there is probably solid reason to consider there to be some kind of intrinsic human value, there are many ways in which we "reduce" that value.  One of the most obvious or universally accepted is "behavior".

We lock up people who the laws of the land consider to be a "criminal" or "violent". Then consensus forms that the person "is" a criminal, etc.

Well, I submit to you that "thinking" and "opinion" are special kinds of behavior and are actually MORE relevant to "judge", and all the more because ...generally speaking... the "State Power Monopoly" has largely ignored criminalizing this area of behavior.

A bridge between objective reality and subjective myth is a pointless bridge.  A bridge spanning deeper rationalism with whatever remains of rationalism among a 'believer' may be useful in limited sense.  So long as it makes no room for protection or 'reverence' to these wild beliefs.

There is very little to be gained from bridging the "gap?" between someone who says, MY god can square the circle.  Or that my god is a married bachelor.  Or any of the many other incoherent claims people of faith make about their god.

Finally, polarization is a path to progress.  If we had a special class in school today for people who still believe in Witchcraft, we're bridging and being 'understanding' and 'accommodating needs'.  However, I'm more than happy to forgo applying those otherwise useful humanistic values in the cases of something which does so much harm.

Do you bridge the "gap" with Racists?  Neo-nazis? Fred Phelps?

So much better to pave over the gap and give them a mass grave.

Thank you for clarifying your stance on things.

I do not hold to those beliefs.

In reply to Doulos (msg #33):

You don't believe people have intrinsic value?

Or you don't believe that belief in Witchcraft or the selection of our leaders by Astrology is on the decline?

In reply to Revolutionary (msg #34):

And to get a little more on topic.

The religionists (at least the anti-gay ones) have clearly lost.  Marriage equality is going to be a full reality and probably faster than any of us can reasonably expect.  It won't be a str8 line (no puns intended), to be sure.  And it will bring out ugliness, but it's a foregone conclusion.

We won.

Faith lost.

Now wait for the results show.

I don't believe that slaughtering people because they believe differently (or even in "evil" ways) accomplishes anything positive in this world.

In reply to Doulos (msg #36):

You confused my wish to bury the dead with wishing to be their executioner.

So I'm glad I snarkily had you clarify.

I guess I misinterpreted the end of your statement regarding mass graves. I'm not sure what you meant then.

In reply to Doulos (msg #38):

IT was a metaphor to mean, I wish we could just bury "them" (and more accurately the resistant strain of these ideas) "all at once" ...hence mass.

But I do see how that is an easy one to have confused.  I'm not suggesting anything eugenic.

This sort of us vs them is what I wish could be removed from both sides personally.

I do understand that both sides see the other as evil though so the chances of that happening are essentially zero.

I don't mind if they say...

"We lost"

"They won" :)

1) Revolutionary, thank you for bringing this back on topic. While I like keeping stuff in their threads, I hate digging through to find said threads :P

2) I do agree with Duolos. I don't think this is a 'faith vs. [whatever]', and I hate it when people on either side do that. I think it doesn't make logical sense, and it's ultimately destructive to all parties.

To move on to the most interesting post in a while ...



Okay, following you here. We judge people based on a number of factors, including behavior.



... and our language supports that.



Now you're losing me. You've made a few jumps here;
1) Judging is good (before you just pointed out it happens).
2) We should choose how we judge.
3) We should prefer the method of judging the government does NOT use.

I could argue either way on the first two, but the third seems too far out. I've got to be missing something here.



At first I was on board, thinking you were saying that we can't hope to understand subjective reality in terms of objective reality or vice versa, but no, you seem to be saying:

1) that we must judge based on objective reality only (a fair statement)
2) Anyone who holds a 'subjective myth' is perhaps self-deluded? (Again, I have to be mis-understanding, because ALL of us hold subjective myths).
3) Subjective myth is bad? (And again ... not sure if that's your point. But it seems a tough point to argue.)



I honestly don't understand your point here.



I cannot disagree more. Polarization is the path to excluding ideas based on politics, to shutting down discussion, to self-insulating behaviors, to strengthening subjective 'myths' and reality.

Maybe you mean conflict is the path to progress?



Are you referring to Wiccans? Because I know some. One swore to me she summoned a fire sylph. She did go to special classes and groups for that. I don't need to be understanding though. And she also attended secular schools like everyone else.



Okay, now we get to the meat. My understanding (and it could be wrong; I clearly missed your intent several lines ago), you're saying:

People have subjective beliefs
Some of these beliefs are without merit
Beliefs must be measured based on objective metrics, such as harm
If a subjective belief is determined to be detrimental, the subjective belief SHOULD BE eliminated

Correct?

(I don't want to actually respond until I'm sure of what your point is, so please excuse me for not actually providing any constructive content here.)

Yes, from earlier discussions with Revo I take it that you are against homosexual marriage and believe you should not be forced to sell to gay customers, for example.  My thought here is that you believe it is wrong, and you bear some responsibility for supporting it.  But the 'bad consequence' is very abstract. You don't even fervently believe that you would be punished for this behavior, but maybe.  Maybe the gay people would be punished, too, but you really aren't sure in your own mind. If there is no clear answer, why not adopt the attitude of "God will do what he needs to, so I'm not going to put in my own two cents here."

This is a question I often have thought about for religious folks:  Absent a legal crime with a clear, objective victim, if you are so sure [which you are not, I understand] that God is going to punish someone for something, why not let him and don't get involved?

I agree with Revolutionary [if I am paraphrasing accurately] that in making public policy, we should use an objective standard because that is the one that protects the most people and it protects identifiable interests and the victims of crime, for example. The objective standard here is--being gay is not a crime (well maybe in a few states...) and there is no ascertainable harm to anyone who is not a consenting adult.  But you denying service just because you think something "bad" is going to happen is very subjective. So the state has to come down on the side of ascertainable harm--denial of a service and good that other people can get easily, vs. your abstract feeling that something bad is going on. In my view there is no need to look further, even though there is more meat here than this.

Now you may say the state is forcing you to do stuff with your private property that you disagree with, but that happens all the time.  Emminent domain for example, parking tickets, etc... Your freedom of belief is not really impinged on here, you can still believe it's wrong, you can pray for their salvation, you can even close down your wedding dress shop if the moral cost to you is so high that its better to not sell that dress. You are free to go into a line of business where you never have to deal with a gay customer so that you don't have to violate your beliefs.

Gotcha.

Since you're asking about my personal beliefs ... I personally believe the bible says it's wrong for people to get homosexual marriages. I myself am not a homosexual, so I'm okay with that. HOWEVER, I also believe that if you choose to harm yourself with sin, that's between you and God, and I'm not in any sort of specially vantaged view (in regards to homosexual marriage in any case) to be interfering with that.

HOWEVER, I recognize that there are some things that I, and all people, are convinced (dare we say, 'know' are immoral). I think late-term abortion is wrong, comparable with infanticide. I think suicide is wrong. I think murder is wrong. I'm sure there are some things that you also feel are wrong.

Yes, I do separate this from consequences. I think if I supported a murder and got away with it, that would still be bad. I don't need God or the police to tell me that's bad. In fact, to the contrary, I'd LIKE to think that I'd risk getting arrested to AVOID supporting a murder that otherwise I'd get away scott-free with.


In this particular case, the fact that it was gay marriage is just incidental. Forget about that. Imagine instead the woman walks in and reveals she's going to marry and rape a child (I think we can all agree that that's wrong, yes?) And suppose for the sake of argument, this is legal (as it is in very many countries).

So this lady comes into your shop to buy a dress and a length of rope. You happen to ask why while making chit-chat, and she offers that tomorrow she's going to marry this child, then tie her up and rape her, but it's cool, because it's all legal. So how much for this rope again?

I don't think you or Revo believe in God. And this is legal. So do you sell the rope and dress? Are you okay with that? Speaking for myself, I'm not.

Now this isn't speaking to making public policy. I honestly don't have a problem with legalizing gay marriage. I don't have a problem with legalizing drugs either. But don't force me to be a participant in them. Permitting someone else to do something sinful is one thing, but forcing me to directly support it is not acceptable.




These are very specific and limited conditions. You're also specifically talking about what the government can do. You can't come to my door and demand I pay $20 for no reason though. As a vendor, I can choose to accept or deny customers on whatever basis I want. I can serve only people named Jim if I want. This is the definition of 'personal property'. If I don't have control over my property, how is it 'my' property?

And to add another step to it, what harm is being done to the bride by telling her she needs to go to another shop? Is she now unable to get married? It's not like she's being denied life-saving surgery.



What line of business would that be?

HOWEVER, I recognize that there are some things that I, and all people, are convinced (dare we say, 'know' are immoral).

In this particular case, the fact that it was gay marriage is just incidental. Forget about that. Imagine instead the woman walks in and reveals she's going to marry and rape a child (I think we can all agree that that's wrong, yes?) And suppose for the sake of argument, this is legal (as it is in very many countries).

[above is katisara--sorry not quite getting the quote thing yet]


I didn't say just because it's legal it's ok.  You are showing examples where there is an scertainable harm to a concrete victim (unwanted rape to the specifc, unconsenting child.) That is pretty objectively wrong [we can get into why, but let's assume we agree there], and I can agree on that. But that's very different from something that you just think is wrong (immoral) based on a dogmatic position. [yes, tie-in to my other thread].

Suppose for [silly but not too far from the truth I'd wager] example, you lived in a community dominated by a specific religion where eating lemon pie by your gender [for example] was "immoral" but you really loved lemon pie and you used to be able to eat it in your home country because it was not a religious thing there.  Lemon pie is neither legal nor illegal. You go from store to store trying to get lemon pie but to no avail as everyone operates under your assumption and says "no lemon pie for women" and its ok to do that, while all the men around get lemon pie as much as they want.  How fair would that be? Aren't your interests being unduly harmed for the benefit of the lemon pie monopolists who know better than you what's "wrong" ? In other countries/cultures there would be no way to get that lemon pie without risking a stoning or some similar punishment for the "immorality" your were committing. But that would be ok?


Doesn't matter. Writing technical manuals for computer parts, or similar. The point is why make the public at large suffer for you following your dogma rather than have you make a practical/financial sacrifice for your deeply held beliefs? After all, aren't thay more important than money or what job you have?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:07, Thu 14 June 2012.