Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[Mango Elephant]

Yay! The West is in moral decline! Now it's official!

That depends on how you define 'moral.' Personally, I don't believe worship of the past is healthy and I'd consider it immoral, I can give examples if you want. I don't see how inequality based on prejudice is moral. On the contrary, I'd consider that immoral. I don't see how anyone couldn't.

EDIT: Oh, lord, did I respond seriously to a post that was joking? I'm so embarrassed. My apologies, CELTIC.

 

[_random_]

I don't see how Conservative Christians can really claim we've entered a moral decline. I mean, near the beginning of the Bible, there are literally only four people on the entire planet, all part of the same family. Seems like the sort of situation that would allow you to forge close bonds and have plenty of space if you need some time alone to cool off, but we all know how that story goes. Fratricide is a terrible thing, but I think it's a sign of moral progress that it no longer occurs in 100 percent of families.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Yes but that is the same part of the Bible where homosexuality is forbidden.

The Book of Romans is not recognized as Jewish.

 

[GamezRule]

The Book of Romans is not recognized as Jewish.

But the Torah is.

 

[Leonel]

Yay! The West is in moral decline! Now it's official!

You only had to see the GOP debate where people booed the Golden Rule to see that.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You only had to see the GOP debate where people booed the Golden Rule to see that.

Pardon my ignorance, but when was that?

 

[GamezRule]

When Ron Paul suggested that perhaps China should invade the United States if hackers take down their security network, or something.

 

[Evie]

It's God's place to judge sins. Not man.

Man's place is to decide - for himself - what he believes God (if he belives in God) considers a sin, or what is immoral according to whatever fundamental principles he believes (if he does not), and then apply that belief in his own life. This is hating the sin: rejectin the sin in your own actions.

There may be some legitimacy to informing people of what you consider a sin. Once. Un-antagonistically. There is no legitimacy to telling them all the time, yelling it at them, or otherwise trying to drive the point home. They know you think it's a sin. Telling them fifty other times is harassment, and is hateful toward the sinner, not the sin. Trying to pressure them (social pressure, etc), cutting ties with them, or in any other way acting agaisnt in a way that punish them for the sin is hateful against the sinner, not the sin. And trying to forcefully prevent them from engaging in the sin, via the law, is again hateful to the sinner, not the sin.

When you're hateful to someone, it doesn't matter if you are doing it "because of what they do" (the sin) or "because of what they are" (the sinner). You're still being hateful, and the rest is sophistry.

 

[Cutlass]

Yay! The West is in moral decline! Now it's official!

Morally in many ways the US is becoming more liberal. That's moral ascension, not moral decline.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's God's place to judge sins. Not man.

Man's place is to decide - for himself - what he believes God (if he belives in God) considers a sin, or what is immoral according to whatever fundamental principles he believes (if he does not), and then apply that belief in his own life.

There may be some legitimacy to informing people of what you consider a sin. Once. Un-antagonistically. There is no legitimacy to telling them all the time, yelling it at them, or otherwise trying to drive the point home. They know you think it's a sin. Telling them fifty other times is harassment, and is hateful toward the sinner, not the sin. Trying to pressure them (social pressure, etc), cutting ties with them, or in any other way acting agaisnt in a way that punish them for the sin is hateful against the sinner, not the sin. And trying to forcefully prevent them from engaging in the sin, via the law, is again hateful to the sinner, not the sin.

The way church discipline works is fairly complicated in legitimate Evangelical circles, and if you are interested, you can PM me and I'll explain it when I finally heal of being sick.

But, the short version is its only applied against someone who is considers themself to be a born-again Christian. The non-Christian is outside church discipline. We are called to love them and to try to get them to understand the love of Jesus which cleanses all sins. To get them to change their life before they change their thinking is purposeless.

For the believer the principles are far more complex, but still similar. We are supposed to treat them in love. The only difference is, if they ignore all the steps of church discipline, they are eventually supposed to be treated as unsaved.

 

[Arakhor]

And the good thing about being "saved" or "unsaved" is that only God knows at the end, so most evangelicals are just fooling themselves.

 

[Evie]

I liked Joan of Arc's statement on divine grace at her trial - "If I am in God's grace, may he keep me there, and if I am not, may he guide me there." Ultimately, who is in God's grace and who is not is for God's to decide (provided there is a god), and no human, no group of human, no matter their claim, have any legitimate ground to tell you whether God condemns you or accepts you.

Of course, there is an actual question to be asked about whether or not a religious group who have a specific definition of sin among their belief have a legitimacy in kicking out of the group members who chose to set aside those beliefs.

Personally, I think that while there is an argument in theory, in practice, doing so is hateful to the sinner, because of the social impact of losing one's religious organization. Organized religions are, first and foremost, social organizations, not just a set of belief. Being cast out of the social circle is hateful toward the sinner. IF there was a way to tell someone he is not welcome in the church anymore without otherwise affecting their position in the social circles involving members of the church (good luck!) then that might work better.

 

[RobAnybody]

how isn't that amendment about reconstruction?

Try this.

Moderator Action: Trollish spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kramerfan86]

I find it funny we are supposedly in moral decline when back in the day it was considered acceptable to brutally murder and torture your fellow man for differences in opinion and slavery was in style. But oh noes, gays can marry, we are heading straight into the toilet!

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I find it funny we are supposedly in moral decline when back in the day it was considered acceptable to brutally murder and torture your fellow man for differences in opinion and slavery was in style. But oh noes, gays can marry, we are heading straight into the toilet!

Both are morally wrong.

 

[kramerfan86]

Both are morally wrong.

In your eyes perhaps, but either way wanton violence and brutality used to be much more common, yet some how despite most of that disappearing we are in decay because of the gays. Really makes no sense when people claim this. The planet is at a high point in terms of morality and basic decency.

 

[civ_king]

Yup.

...Was that a trick question?

W00t, I'm heterophobic!

If you're homosexual you have homosexual type of attraction - attraction to the same sex. It pretty much defines your life in the same sense that me being attracted to girls defines and drives me.

If somebody told me "Your attraction to women is wrong and has to stop. I hate it. But I don't hate you", I'd get offended. Wouldn't you?

It's akin to saying "I don't hate that you're black, but I hate your blackness"

It doesn't make much sense.

If you ignore that heterosexual intercourse has been what has sustained man since um the beginning of mankind then them asking that you stop engaging in sex with women isn't the worst thing for them to say.

It's akin to saying "I don't hate that you're black, but I hate you speaking in ebonics", being black is an essential part of who you are, but ebonics is by no means a necessary part of being black

Yes but that is the same part of the Bible where homosexuality is forbidden.

The OT has been abolished, precepts of natural law remain.

 

[Evie]

Indeed (@Kramerfan).

There's so much that has improved in terms of morals over even the past century (women rights, segregation, human rights, rules of warfare), even more so two hundred, that the idea of a moral decline over gays is laughable.

 

[say1988]

More good news! Washington has just passed a bill legalising gay marriage, just need the governor to sign it now.

Which is where this case can become important, as once this law is enacted in Washington, this case becomes a precedent to stop repeal

 

[Arwon]

It's akin to saying "I don't hate that you're black, but I hate you speaking in ebonics", being black is an essential part of who you are, but ebonics is by no means a necessary part of being black.

Hahaha you say that like it isn't terrible.