Nigeria imposes State enforced religion

It is not only wrong by your standards, but wrong by the standards of humanity.

Removing the eyes of your children universally lowers their well beings for no other reason other than to adhere to a silly holy book. Human well being, with its many peaks and vallies, can still be used as a universal means of determining ethics.

Moral relativism is an intolerable position, if such a position is true, then the holocaust was quite acceptable. Something the moral relativists will never admit to.

 

Yes, and you will continuously change the rules.

It is yoru favorite subject, make a case that is relevant to the subject rather than random emotional moral contingencies.

Honestly, what are we supposed to do when someone insists on hijacking their own therads?

We play by the forums rules, not yours self worshipper. No one but you has to follow your rules. Claro?

 

You have no sense of irony.

 

As relativistic as saying respect my culture and values! And then deliberately disrespecting someone else's values?

As relativistic and insulting people and then crying like a baby when someone says it is unacceptable?

Like I have said, atheism very much appears to be whatever it needs to be to knock people down. The abscence of standards and accountability are clear in posts like the one above.

 

And reported. Off-topic, and again aimed at poster. Play by your own rules.

 

Very good you have applied your ethical stance to another culture. Becuase you know what is right and what is wrong. You know what is better for them then they do becuase of your experiance and the teachings of your culture.

Now would you have a moral obligation to stop the blinding of the children? Just as many abolitionists help slaves in the undergroung railraod. Or would you alow it to continue becuase it is there way of life?

 

I am saddened to see the imagined preservation of culture is more important preventing the blinding of every third child.

I would suggest referring to The Moral Landscape.

 

I dont understand I agree with your possition

 

Eh, my sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

My apologies.

 

accepted the written word does not always convey feelings.

 

That is very true. Its difficult on forums to convey feelings.... more in so text messages.

All of the humor lost in text messages........ *cries*

 

One, this presumes that homosexuality should be accepted as normal and indeed SUPPORTED by the state in a culture where such sexuality runs directly against the familial lineage of the culture.

Two, it also assumes that our sexuality controls us, rather than the other way around - which is not only not exactly a forgone conclusion, but one that many people think is just flat out wrong. We see this manifest itself in homosexual rights and in attacks on celebates. I find it perplexing that a person would hink a homosexual should have a right to express himself however he sees fit, and call it a crime against humanity itself when this is denied - and then turn around an attack celebates as repressed and immoral, sexual deviants in their own making.

So, your moral obligation is not use exaggeration and other clear cut cases of right and wrong, it is to make a case that this policy is damaging NIGERIA and not your feelings. No one in Nigeria cares about your hurt feelings.

Methods of redress are also a worthy topic of discussion. Abolition did not happen in a day, and it took a great deal of time, effort, and ultimately blood, to remove the stain of slavery from our cultures. How exactly are you going to FORCE a culture to accept homosexuals a valid? The answer is - you aren't.

So you had better get cracking with something that will change someone's mind.

 

I dont know why you quoted me I am just having a discussion about his hypothetical child blinding society.

 

You are also saying that you are agreeing with Wolvy.

The subject is Nigeria banning homosexuals.

Funny that Wolvy started this thread, eh?

http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/219610-how-far-can-we-divert-debates.html

And yet, in a thread about homosexuality in Nigeria, which others are attempting to discuss, he is wanting to talk about the non-existant blinding of every third child?

...while whinning to the mods about how OTHER people take threads off topic? Oh, some things are just delicious.

 

Tell the truth I gave my answer about the Nigeria thing being wrong and then concentrated on the much more interesting question. The moral obligation to right a percieved wrong. Something that I hope wolvy will consider when speaking agianst Christians becuase we see the wrong of not acepting Christ into your life. We see the great harm that can and will come to those that do not take the Lord as their savior. Also we see the fall they are heading for and need to do what we can to SAVE all that we are able. To do other wise would be alowing the "children" to be blinded. To us the "children" are those not converted and those wielding the knives the people that turn others away from the light of God.

Or at least that is what I came away with

 

In case you missed the point of that, people are subscribing to relativistic morals in this particular thread.

The reason for my presenting up the notion of blinding every third child is an argument against such moral relativism.

This is painfully obvious.

I was not the one who said it not my place to say whether or not imprisoning people for years for petty crimes is wrong. In fact, you are one of them.

 

The only issue with this, is that Christianity is not the only religion that offer salvation or punishment for the rejection of such salvation. There is little reason to assume that any particular religion offer a "more real" salvation than others, less those that offer an enlightenment of sorts of ethics and morals.

No offense, however I do not handle the issue of religion with kid gloves. You seem to be a level headed poster with the ability to reason. I do not mean to dismiss you as a person, however my opinions and comments are directed towards the beliefs. Not necessarily the person who holds them. This is a distinction that many fail to recognize.

I do not believe that Christianity is a moral goal, there are so many injustices found in the Bible, so many inhuman and vile atrocities occur and are condoned by the god of the Bible. Killing homosexuals, unruly children, and unbelievers is hardly a moral light house. The New Testament does not fully resolve this issue, still clinging to the idea of eternal punishment for the victimless crime of denying the holy spirit. None of those are moral constructs that I wish to worship above all others.
In my mind, it is wrong, immoral, and vile in some aspects. The existence of such verses make it easy for people to justify particular bigotries with little criticism because of the untouchable nature of religion.

I don't have an issue with taking bits and pieces of the belief here and there and adding to my own ethical resume'. Some of views coincide with the Bible, for example I prefer modest conservative women over what many would call "sluts", I get to know people through conversation, I don't pick up women from the bar, I help my neighbors without expectation of reward, I don't care for hateful or negative music.

Music with a certain spirituality I find most appealing, Tool is a wonderful example of largely secular music with a bit of spirituality. However the adoption of particular religious morals/ethics stops there in the sense those are a part my own secular morals that just happen to coincide with religion X.

The Problem of Evil doesn't push me towards accepting the notion of a theistic god either. There could be a god, I do not out right rule that out, however if my mind, if there is a god that is deserving of worship, most of our religions do not accurately describe it. A god is not described accurately by a group of desert nomads bent on conquest.

So you won't see me accepting Jesus or any other character as my savior anytime soon. The future doesn't seem to welcoming to the notion either. However, I will continue to seek ways to become a better person without the fear imposed by religion, but by the love of the people in my life.

 

In case you missed the point, you too use moral relativism.

Homosexuality is not murder, so why are you comparing a sex question to obvious murder?

How about a simple, the law is wrong because .... vague ideological positions concerning moral relativism?

How about you address the Nigerian cultural issues?

Or perhaps we should just use the same logic in reverse: If you support homosexuals, you clearly ALSO support the Halocaust. Is that right?

How about you address the Nigerian circumstance?

 

Christ...... red herring and strawmen galore.

 

Trolling alert.

Asking this poster to focus on the question of homosexuality in Nigeria (an issue he introduced for discussion) and how it effects the culture and is viewed by the poeple is apparently a red herring and off topic.

So, once again, the intent is clearly to simply bash religion. For attempting to engage on the actual subject equates to the above.

 

Unless of course, you simply fail to actually look at them - i.e. are a moral relativist that pcks and chooses things. The simple fact of the matter is that almost the entire world disagrees with you. They find something where you see nothing, and it is YOU again at the center.

No offense, but you do not 'handle' the reality if religion at all. All the rest of this is, qute literally, a maangerie of standard atheist criticisms that have absolutely nothing to do with:

a. homosexuality.

b. Nigeria.

c. Religion.

In fact, its pretty much your stardard rant about fear and such, and basically has no bearingon anything. Its just atheist propoganda, and, as usual, has little or no bearing in the actuality of anything other then your prejudiced view of other people's faith.

The discussion is about the Nigerian Law banning homosexuality.

 

Really?

I think some christians like to feel oppressed, whether they are actually oppressed or not. It seems to somehow give them a sense of purpose and makes them feel like they are enduring a hardship.

 

Does that mean we will see a reduction in AIDS in Nigeria. And isn't that a good outcome?

Whilst I don't agree with the lax attitude towards the Homosexual community in the Western world, I certainly don't agree it should be treated as a criminal act, unless of course, if you have AIDS and engage thereafter in unprotected sex.

 

Really? THis from the guy that is constantly complaining about the repression of religion forcing itself through government on him ... by giving him an education, ane econmic system, jurisprudence, etc?

It has nothing to do with opression and everything to do with standards, which is very clear in context and why non-contextual quotes are such a bad thing.

Indeed, IN CONTEXT, watching our young hero bash Nigeria, its familial culture, and hand wave over their concerns and the reasoning behind theis ban ... but we are supposed to pretend that anything critical of the homosexual lifestyle is out in out hatred, and of course, what we believe in terms of homosexuality is, of course, monolithic and not defined by us, but by angry little atheists?

Respect is a two way street, and if making that point is spun into some kind of pot shot about feelings of oppression ... then some atheists have a long way to go before they fulfill their preaching about the golden rule.

 

Are you sure this really has anything to do with religion? These people may simply not like homosexuals. It has nothing to do with religion, although they may use religion as a justification. These people may simply find homosexuality repulsive and want to force homosexuals into hiding, if not eradicate them entirely. (The latter endevor seems impractical though.)

It would take incredible gall for someone to publicly say to the world "I hate homosexuals because they make me uncomfortable and demand they be oppressed and/or killed to keep me from having to see them!"
However it is much easier to say, "god hates homosexuals, I'm just following divine orders here."

Your thoughts?