moralist Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Sacred and profane. Is that religious and secular? No. There can be decent secular people and immoral religious people. It's about values. A church wedding would be sacred (especially Christian) and if it's not heterosexual it's profane if in that church if it violates doctrine? Religious doctrine is not what determines what's objectively right and wrong it's only a response to it. There can be moral doctrine as well as immoral doctrine, just as there are moral churches and immoral feminized leftist churches. How are the Episcopalians doing with this? I have no idea. I know nothing about them. Sacred and profane applied to law seems to be the interjection of religious doctrine into a state legal function and it just got kicked out. Homosexual "marriage" is the joining of the secular political religion of feminized leftism and the State. No one complains about the separation of church and state when it's the promotion of feminized leftist immorality! Now the country is going to hell--is soon to be there? Is there? WTF? Your question doesn't make any sense. There's no hell to "go to" as it's here. Each of us chooses to live in hell or paradise right here and now. America has already forfeit it's physical protection (2001) as well as it's financial providence (2008) and now its moral authority to lead the world. (2015) No one has yet noticed this latest loss. America is no longer leading the world. It's going to take a long time for this one to sink in because people are so dense and dulled. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Michael writes:Do you think so?In regards to homosexual "marriage"... yes. The present dominant view reverses thousands of years of moral precedence. This is to what I was referring about removing the distinction between the sacred and the profane.GregGreg,Homosexual marriage was not my question. Neither was any distinction between sacred and profane. The role of government in marriage was. Specifically whether the majority of people supported marriage controlled by government. That's what I was talking about. Here's a question for you, but I doubt you will answer it with a simple yes or no.Do you believe the government should enforce with guns the sacred on people who do not want it and prefer the profane?Do you think people should legally be forced to go to jail for refusing to adhere to the sacred?Just for shits and giggles, let's restrict this to activities that do not infringe any rights of others. Just things regarding their own responsibility to themselves.(Don't worry. I expect a dodge, not an answer. But I gotta try... )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Michael writes:Do you think so?In regards to homosexual "marriage"... yes. The present dominant view reverses thousands of years of moral precedence. This is to what I was referring about removing the distinction between the sacred and the profane.GregThe abolition of slavery reversed thousands of years of "moral precedence". Are you against that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Good one, Bob. Right between the ribs.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes:Do you believe the government should enforce with guns the sacred on people who do not want it and prefer the profane?Yes. It already does, Michael.The government enforces with guns the sacred "You shall not murder" on people who prefer the profanity of murder.The government also enforces with guns the sacred "You shall not steal" on people who prefer the profanity of stealing what rightfully belongs to others.We're each on two different tacks. My point is about the consequences of erasing the line between the sacred and the profane in regards to marriage.I fully realize that my opinion regarding marriage as being sacred is the minority......and that (for example) you, Brant, and Bob all make no distinction between homosexual "marriage" and heterosexual marriage. You all ascribe to the majority view.This is because for secularists there can be no such thing as "sacred", because for them there is no God, so they acknowledge nothing as being greater than themselves to which they are morally accountable. So good and evil are just differing subjective opinions and whatever happens to be the collective popular societal majority in any given moment wins.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Bob writes: The abolition of slavery reversed thousands of years of "moral precedence". Are you against that? Slavery is an immoral precedent. With all of your government education, why don't you know that simple truth? Never mind... I just realized that "government education" already answered my question. It taught you to be valueless. And what makes you think there isn't slavery in America. You're a blind fool, Bob. Millions of stupid idiots are slaves of their own DEBTS! Much of slavery was indentured servitude. That's how debts were repaid, with labor. You should be well familiar with this, being a cog in someone else's machine. Your government education groomed you to be a cog if not a public employee cog. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Morality has two subsets or derivatives: the moral and immoral. Or there is moral morality and immoral morality.The sacred and profane belong in law only if religion is the state and the state is the religion. That's wrong. That's immoral. That's profane--on stilts. The separation of church and state is sacred. The actual laws are right or wrong only.And this is why Iran is in a state of profanity.The union of a man and woman in marriage is a sacred expression of love, reproduction possibility, family. Nothing to properly do with the state as such. The state was just stuck in there and it's a profanity, but not a very bad one. It's properly for church. The church makes its own rules and standards.A secular marriage is a contract. You usually get a better show in a church.I think the the essential sacredness of marriage--what's most important--is the love. Who has the monopoly on that? If the secular marriage has that then the sacredness washes over it too. Who has the monopoly on that?And, finally, marriage is what you make of it.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes:Do you believe the government should enforce with guns the sacred on people who do not want it and prefer the profane?Yes. It already does, Michael.The government enforces with guns the sacred "You shall not murder" on people who prefer the profanity of murder.The government also enforces with guns the sacred "You shall not steal" on people who prefer the profanity of stealing what rightfully belongs to others.Greg,You just answered some question of your own, but it wasn't my question.I fear you didn't understand my question since you left out the qualifier and only gave examples I eliminated (I said, "... let's restrict this to activities that do not infringe any rights of others").Or you dodged.In other words, you can't answer my question or you won't. I don't believe you are a stupid man, but neither way gets my question answered.No biggie, though.If you don't want to answer, I'm fine with that.Like I said, I expected it.I'll try a more specific question if you are game. Supposing homosexual marriage were not legal. In that case, do you think the proper role of government is to arrest (with guns) and jail homosexuals who marry of their own volition?And maybe arrest and jail the person who performed the ceremony as a sacred ritual?You don't have to answer that, either.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Slavery is an immoral precedent.Greg,I agree, but Jesus didn't seem to mind it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Slavery either is or isn't a metaphor. Slavery as debt is a metaphor. Don't segue from one type of bad to another. It's unseemly.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes: Greg, I agree, but Jesus didn't seem to mind it. Because in His time what you call slavery was indentured servitude. That's how people repaid debts. They worked them off. No different than today. The only difference is the Shemitah figures into that. By law every 7th Sabbath year on Elul 29 all debts were cancelled. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Brant writes: Slavery as debt is a metaphor. In my view it is quite literal. It's called indentured servitude. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes: I fear you didn't understand my question since you left out the qualifier and only gave examples I eliminated (I said, "... let's restrict this to activities that do not infringe any rights of others"). Ok. Can you offer a real life example of what you mean? And I'll give it a go. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes:I fear you didn't understand my question since you left out the qualifier and only gave examples I eliminated (I said, "... let's restrict this to activities that do not infringe any rights of others").Ok. Can you offer a real life example of what you mean? And I'll give it a go. Greg,Sure.Supposing homosexual marriage were not legal. In that case, do you think the proper role of government is to arrest (with guns) and jail homosexuals who marry of their own volition?And maybe arrest and jail the person who performed the ceremony as a sacred ritual?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes:Greg,I agree, but Jesus didn't seem to mind it.Because in His time what you call slavery was indentured servitude. That's how people repaid debts. They worked them off. No different than today. The only difference is the Shemitah figures into that. By law every 7th Sabbath year on Elul 29 all debts were cancelled.Greg,Your history is off.That condition only applied to Jews (from Mosaic Law).Like I said, Jesus didn't seem to mind slavery. Instead, he said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." That would include lifetime slaves. Chattel. Property.What you just called "immoral precedent."Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Apey, do you think that it is immoral and/or profane for female humans to marry male apes?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes: That condition only applied to Jews (from Mosaic Law). I know. As far as I'm concerned that's the only law that matters. Anyone could join them and enjoy living under that same law. It was that moral law which made them the most highly civilized people on earth. Under their law it was forbidden to make your "slave" work on the Sabbath. That's better treatment than most employees today! As much as you believe it is a failing, Jesus was not a liberal politician. It was not His purpose to resolve macro social issues... ...only micro personal ones. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Michael writes:Supposing homosexual marriage were not legal. In that case, do you think the proper role of government is to arrest (with guns) and jail homosexuals who marry of their own volition?No.Homosexuals are perfectly free to go to their feminized leftist churches who will perform their "marriage" vows for them.In most states homosexuals already have all the legal rights of marriage in civil unions.But this is not about legal rights at all. It's ALL about erasing the distinction between the sacred and the profane.And maybe arrest and jail the person who performed the ceremony as a sacred ritual?That's silly.In America today, even Satanists have the legal right to perform ceremonies as their sacred rituals! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Jonathan writes: Apey, do you think that it is immoral and/or profane for female humans to marry male apes? You can do anything you want, Jonathan... ...because by moral law you get exactly what you deserve as a natural result of your own actions. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 As much as you believe it is a failing, Jesus was not a liberal politician...Greg,This is one of the reasons I don't engage with you much.I'm not a fan of mindreaders.I don't believe what you said I believe--in fact that is so foreign to my beliefs that I don't know how to keep a communication line open.You have no way of knowing what kind of politician I believe Jesus was, much less a liberal one. Or which is a failing or a success. You certainly didn't get any of that from my written words because I have not expressed an opinion about it.In fact, I have never considered it until now. And, frankly, it's not important enough to me to formulate an opinion.The effect of your presupposition--the immediate feeling I get--makes me wonder why in the world I am wasting my time with someone who would say something like that.But this is not about legal rights at all. It's ALL about erasing the distinction between the sacred and the profane.This is exactly part of the problem.I asked a question about legal rights. You answered a question about something else in your head and then made false presuppositions about my beliefs.There's a difference between talking to people and talking at them.So I gotta beg off for now.You've got a good flame in you. I see it. That's what I like about you. Make sure you don't smother it with bullshit, though. I see a lot of that that in your posts, too.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Jonathan writes: Apey, do you think that it is immoral and/or profane for female humans to marry male apes? You can do anything you want, Jonathan... ...because by moral law you get exactly what you deserve as a natural result of your own actions. You didn't answer the question, Apey Clinton. Do you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to all of your other cognitive dysfunctions? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'm an ape, you're an ape; a gorilla is an ape too--Brantbring in the females (time's a wasting) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Greg wrote:Slavery was an immoral precedent.Michael wrote:I agree, but Jesus didn't seem to mind it.Greg wrote:As much as you believe it is a failing, Jesus was not a liberal politician. It was not His purpose to resolve macro social issues... only micro personal ones. Michael, I took your comment that Jesus didn't mind slavery to mean you thought He should have cared about slavery. If that is not what you meant, would you like to rephrase what you said to better fit what you actually meant?People commonly believe that Jesus' purpose was to remedy macro social issues like ending slavery, instituting social justice, curing inequality, ending racism and bigotry, and eliminating poverty and disease......preventing global warming, banning guns, legalizing pot, blessing homosexual "marriages", reducing CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, fining environmental polluters, and selling carbon credits! The only reason he had wisely commented "render to Ceasar..." was to prevent Him being dragged off to the Romans for execution because He saw the evil intent of the people who asked Him the question.Jesus was not about implementing government public policy. He was not concerned with "legality"... only morality.So the only slavery He actually cared about was each individual's own slavery to acting on their irrational thoughts and transient emotions......because that is the only way evil can enter this world......through us.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Jonathan writes: You didn't answer the question... That's right, Jonathan. I didn't answer because your question is infantile and your attitude is ugly. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 When am I going to get my magic punishment? It hasn't happened yet.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now