|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2008 8:33:03 GMT
Dear Hazelireland, If courtesy is your primary concern then why are you not practicing any yourself? If disagreeing with you is not courtesy then I will not be courteous I am afraid. I am not admonished to agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 3, 2008 10:48:40 GMT
Yes, we are not tolerant and yes I could give a damn of what you say! I do not care in the numbers of posts atheists made. I could give a damn. Matt 7:1-2 "Judge not, that you be not judged.”
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2008 14:01:48 GMT
The thread topic was designed to create an imaginary world absent of law then discuss what it would be like to live in it. I am glad you have clarified this as the initial post in the thread now makes a lot of sense. The notion that such a world will arise simply because of a couple of law changes is... like you say.... imaginary. There is no indication of such a society rising. The initial posts on this thread did indeed make it look like such a society was to be expected given current changes. However since even the law changes referred to were in themselves imaginary (abortion is not legal in Ireland) I guess it should have been clearer that this thread was an exercise in fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2008 1:21:36 GMT
I think the original argument is overstated; man is a political animal whose nature is to form society, so there will always be a tendency towards law and order in any human society. Similarly there will always be some degree of injustice in even the best-ordered society; our task is to work to minimise that injustice and cruelty, in part by defining what is injustice and cruelty. The City of God and the City of Man, the wheat and the tares, will only befinally celebrated on the last day. Whatever Guillaume's faults I am with him on this: I believe the changes in society referred to by the general term "the sexual revolution" have done more harm than good, that on the whole they weaken human relationships, make it harder for children to experience a secure upbringing, and degrade the public sphere by coarsening and debasement (exhibit A, the foul antics of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand at the public expense). I admit that some of these changes have had good effects in exposing certain forms of cruelty and hypocrisy, but IMHO the bad effects outweigh the good and the good could have been obtained by other means. This is not purely a concern of Christians; I refer you to the essays on this subject of Dr. Anthony Daniels (alias Theodore Dalrymple) who is an atheist. Discuss?
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 4, 2008 7:34:01 GMT
So does your estimate of man's tendency toward society explain why millions of infants are destroyed in the wombs of their mothers, entire nations nearly wiped off the map, certain races of peoples and religions murdered brutally because they do not fit the mold, wars of nations against nations have killed hundreds of millions since the creation of man, homosexuality devastating normal relations to the point where marriage is what anyone cares to define it, theft and fraud is at an all time high to the extent that governments are developing fraud traps and international identity cards, genocide is currently the rage in establishment of rogue governments, entire populations of the world are currently on the extreme danger watchlist, terrorist groups are on the rise and are being hunted down by over 1/2 the world's military. Should I go on? What small, hidden corner of the world do you reside in that you miss all the news? Your list of grievances seems to be: Abortion Murder Genocide Prejudice War Homosexuality Theft Fraud Violence If these things are the sign of an absence of all law, then there has been an absence of all law since the incipience of humanity which has run unchecked from that moment to this. Nothing you have an issue with is new. All are as old as humanity itself.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 9:31:43 GMT
SS,
I am not sure where I claimed to be "ahead" of you here in this thread. Can you quote what you mean? This is not a race. Or are you doing your usual putting words in people’s mouths?
Your original post assumes that there is a natural progression from the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality to an absence of all law. You even laid out a sequence of events which would lead to this including "murderers, molesters, drug dealers" claiming to "have a right to freedom of lifestyle" and that the government will "agree with them".
Clearly, like the referenced change of law in abortion, this is a fantasy and I am glad you have clarified that the entire post is nothing but fantasy and reflect reality not a jot. I think this is important to have had clarified and that you have done so. The thread and its contents are a complete exercise in fantasy and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 9:38:01 GMT
Whatever Guillaume's faults I am with him on this: I believe the changes in society referred to by the general term "the sexual revolution" have done more harm than good, that on the whole they weaken human relationships, make it harder for children to experience a secure upbringing, and degrade the public sphere by coarsening and debasement (exhibit A, the foul antics of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand at the public expense). Hibernicus, Thank you again for your opinion, but so far all it is is an opinion. It is not yet an argument or a point. Can you back it up? Can you show, for example, a direct corollation between "sexual freedom" and children having a less secure upbringing? How is one leading to the other? How is gay marriage by civil union harming the upbringing of children? Or the more common use of contraception? Or is it some other form of "sexual freedom" you refer to. It sounds like a very general term which could fit just about anything. If you use terms general enough you can make anyone guilty by association. In short, an interesting position you hold and I am agog to hear the back up and development of it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 15:56:52 GMT
Your false analogy to water makes no sense. We live in a society with laws. There have been CHANGES in the law. There has been NO indication that we are heading towards lawlessness.
So your analogy is non-sensical. We are changing the contents of the cup of water, not pouring it out.
So again I say that this conversation about us heading towards a lawless society is a complete fantasy and should be treated as such.
1) Changes in the law gives NO indication of a movement towards a society with no law 2) The laws you refer to have NOT been made in Ireland. Abortion is not legal. 3) Changes in laws on abortion and homosexuality have NOTHING to do with laws on murder and theft.
So almost the entire content of your first post is fantasy. It reflects reality not a jot.
When a law is violated it violates both the paper and the society that has democratically established those laws. There is no evidence that there are laws "written" on our hearts as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 4, 2008 23:47:11 GMT
The thread topic was designed to create an imaginary world absent of law then discuss what it would be like to live in it. Where is the law? Is it in our hearts or on a piece of paper? How does one obey the law if not from the heart? In this Imaginary World you have hypothetically created, if there is an absence of all law, the law cannot be anywhere, not on paper, nor in our hearts. I repeat (for the sake of clarity): if there is an absence of law, it absent from our hearts and anywhere else. Unless of course you have now moved the debate from the Imaginary World you created for the sake of this thread, back into the "real world" where there is law, and where your argument that abortion and homosexuality are direct causes of rape, theft and other lawlessness, holds no water. If this is so, perhaps you could put a header at the top of your posts to let other people know when you are describing things in your Imaginary World, and when you describing things in the Real World. Although I must confess, it makes little difference either way, as your premise is either a). false, or b). imaginary. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 5, 2008 0:55:05 GMT
Saintstephen: I am perfectly well aware of the horrors to which you refer; they do not disprove my point. Your argument implies not only that law is ceasing to exist, but that it has never existed anywhere. Catholicism posits a belief in natural law which exists in all societies, however imperfectly. You seem to see law as an external imposition by God which is foreign to humanity, so that when mankind breaks with divine law it immediately ceases to possess any law at all. This is more like the dominant Islamic view of an utterly transcendent God, or the Calvinist belief that original sin involves total human depravity, than Catholicism. If this is your basic assumption, I begin to see why we have all been talking at cross purposes.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 5, 2008 1:07:20 GMT
Hazel: The basic argument is that a society which takes the view that the primary aim of sexual union is the mutual pleasure of the parties, and that either may (nay should) break the relationship at their own will if they no longer derive emotional satisfaction from it, (a) penalises the search for intimacy and encourages an emphasis on immediate gratification (b) Since the human child, by comparison with our primate relatives, requires a period of nurturance and protection stretching over almost two decades, such a view of relationships will tend to be damaging to the child. I further object to the view that homosexual relationships should be placed on a level with heterosexual, because such relations by their nature do not produce children and are oriented more towards mutual pleasure. The widespread use of contraception (especially outside marriage) also encourages such a view. To anticipate a point: I fully admit that the former marriage practices of this society were not perfect, that they tended to encourage the view that the purpose of marriage was to practice sex lawfully and to downplay wider mutual understanding, and often led to a view of children as unwelcome byproducts of such licence. I still think the newer view tends to produce more misery over time.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 5, 2008 3:16:58 GMT
The basic argument is that a society which takes the view that the primary aim of sexual union is the mutual pleasure of the parties, and that either may (nay should) break the relationship at their own will if they no longer derive emotional satisfaction from it, Hibernicus, I have to say that this is not an accurate description of any society I know of anywhere. It is perfectly possible for a person to be free to explore and express their sexuality up until such times that they commit to an exclusive relationship with someone they want to raise children with. In fact this is the norm in almost all modern societies. I further object to the view that homosexual relationships should be placed on a level with heterosexual, because such relations by their nature do not produce children and are oriented more towards mutual pleasure. Does this mean that heterosexual married couples who don't want to have and raise children are inferior to those who do? I still think the newer view tends to produce more misery over time. Do you not think that children raised by loving step parents are more likely to be happy, and grow up with less psychological damage, than those raised by natural parents who do not love each other and who, by remaining together, create an emotionally negative, unloving, often hostile home environment?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 8:54:20 GMT
Dear Hazelireland, How does one obey the law if not from the heart? Or would you say that law abiding citizens obey out of reverence? Have you never done anything for anyone out of love? Or are all your motivations highly calculated? Doing something for love IS calculated. It is acting out of your own desires and agendas. I love therefore I want something to be just so. You make it sound like acting out of love is an act of comoplete self sacrifice when in fact you are acting to conform to the desires of your heart. Everyone wants something. Law abiding citizens can be acting in many ways. They could be abiding because they actually agree with the law. Or they could be abiding because they respect the importance of law and are following the law because this importance overrides the desire to act contrary to the law. Or they could just be acting out of fear for the consequences of breaking the law. We could go on. So again, no evidence that any law is "written" on our hearts.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 8:56:18 GMT
Also SS, I am still waiting for clarification of where I claimed to be "ahead" in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 9:06:28 GMT
Hazel: The basic argument is that a society which takes the view that the primary aim of sexual union is the mutual pleasure of the parties, and that either may (nay should) break the relationship at their own will if they no longer derive emotional satisfaction from it, (a) penalises the search for intimacy and encourages an emphasis on immediate gratification (b) Since the human child, by comparison with our primate relatives, requires a period of nurturance and protection stretching over almost two decades, such a view of relationships will tend to be damaging to the child. I further object to the view that homosexual relationships should be placed on a level with heterosexual, because such relations by their nature do not produce children and are oriented more towards mutual pleasure. The widespread use of contraception (especially outside marriage) also encourages such a view. I do not grant that society is taking the view that the "primary" aim of sex is gratification. Clearly its "primary" aim is to reproduce. However I see no evidence or arguments to suggest using it for gratification is a problem when it is between consenting adults and no one is harmed. The entire argument seems to be "oh the gays just want to use sex for their personal gratification". Yeah? And? So what? Many of the things we do have a primary function yet we sometimes engage in gratification versions of it. The primary function of eating is sustenance. How often do we eat something for pure pleasure however even when it provides no real nutritional value of note? Is this therefore immoral… wrong… or like homosexuality should there be people trying to make it illegal? The primary function of hearing is communication and awareness of our surroundings. Why then do we pleasure this sense with music? We could talk at length about the primary function of sight; however we look at art and use the sense to watch television, cinema, theatre and reading fiction for pleasure. So where does this notion that not using part of our anatomy for its primary function automatically equates to immorality or worse an absence of laws that should be enforced? I think this automatic equation exists solely in the fantasy world in the heads of those who have their own anti gay agendas. Just because our bodies are set up to reproduce does not mean every single one of us is FORCED to reproduce if we do not want to. In fact there are very strong evolutionary arguments supporting the notion that species are strengthened by their non reproducing elements and that there is no surprise that evolution selects FOR a homosexuality minority in our species. I think you need to lose these notions that: a) Unnatural automatically = wrong b) not primary function automatically = wrong When looking at studies about gay parenting the vast majority have been finding _no_ difference in their ability to raise healthy children. I did find ONE that suggested that there is a slight increase in these children being gay themselves but not a large one. I also found ONE that said children of gay parents actually fare BETTER but I take that with a grain of salt as it was run by a lesbian.
|
|