Smidgey

As I said, I was being facetious - in case you didn't read my post.

I never said that, a nice straw man.

He doesn't need to support these things, I made quite clear the distinction between personal morality and wanting your personal morality enshrined in law (that is the twisted thing). I think adultery is wrong, I never think it should be illegal. I have noticed in what must be the last three correspondences we have made, you have incurred the same logical error all three times. You conflate is with ought.

There is nothing twisted about any of these things, which is why I never criticised him for holding these views...

Did you read the same post that I wrote?

I said that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on marriage, I never said that he couldn't support the institution of marriage.

I never said anything about Catholic Adoption agencies, I have always believed property rights are one of the foundational rights and that the governments move in this instance is immoral (unless of course the Catholic adoption agencies were taking money from the public purse). Ron Paul was right when he said: "If you get into bed with government, expect the diseases it spreads."

So, to sum up, three attacks on three points I never even made...

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

rjt

You may not have made them directly but your views are well known to me Smidgey and if you dont like the way I have responded to you then the only thing that remains for me to do as a christian is to quote the Bible to you and say Go Forth and Multiply.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Smidgey

Are your trying to decide my own opinion for me? That is rather arrogant to say the least.

The moral theory I hold to - a strand of Kantian contractualism, is universal. It places the bar for individual morality in a universal and places political morality firmly in the scope of negative legal rights. Anyone who wishes to bridge the divide between political morality and social morality is the immoral one. If one requires force to back up their morality, they are immoral - no ifs, no buts.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

rjt

What a complete load of gibberish, which bearded accademic did you learn that from, I doubt even the person who came up with it would understand it fully. Just sounds like accademic speak to justify abortion and fornication and the other diseases of imorality which have perverted our society.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Smidgey

Immanuel Kant didn't have a beard. He was an 18th century German philosopher.

Of course, I am being facetious again...

Anyway, your post stinks of self import. You automatically assume that your 'moral' theory is correct because some supposed Messiah said it, yet you dismiss all others because they were written down by philosophers, despite the fact that these great thinkers had a far better understanding of ethics, logic and human motivation than Jesus ever could.

Furthermore, you don't even understand your own faith if you think moral philosophy is meaningless. Christian philosophers have long held onto many moral theories, especially those of Aristotle, Aquinas and Leibniz.

Finally, I find it extremely telling that the only argument you have so far given for your moral position is a blank, unsupported statement of your position. No wonder the government is currently trampling upon Christianity if that is all you have to offer...

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Britannist

I wonder if I could just respond to your comments above Smidgey (I know they are a reply to RJT but I have a point I want to make).

Not all opposition to the horror of abortion is based on religious views. There are atheists and agnostics who are members of anti-abortion organisations.

Indeed, one would think all atheists would want to encourage life on Earth and oppose abortion (which is the ending of life) in view of the fact that they (the atheists) do not believe in an afterlife.

And, of course, some opponents of abortion are not Christians (many Muslims rightly oppose the ending of the life of the unborn baby too as do people of other religions).

Britannist

Jesus understood more than any other who has walked this Earth.

And Jesus - unlike Immanuel Kant - gave His life for us.

Britannist

I am glad you recognise, Smidgey, that this Labour regime is trampling on the rights of Christians.

They do so because the aim of the EU, europhiles and of anti-Christian politicians is to be 'the supreme authority'. The Christian Church (and other religions) get in the way of their ambitions to control all.

RJT and others (including me) have long held the view that this Government hates committed Christians.

Smidgey

By all means.

Indeed there are. I hold the view that abortion should be reduced form the current 24 weeks to 14 or 16 weeks. I also hold that abortion is often an immoral thing to do, especially in selfish cases such as wishing to further ones career. However, there are times when it is moral, such as after a rape or when the woman could die. This is one of those moral things I do not think the state should legislate upon - like adultery.

Atheists can still believe in an afterlife (Buddhists for example), but I understand you are using the every day meaning of the term 'atheist'. I think what really matters more is ones definition of the self and of personhood, atheism usually hold to materialist philosophies (that is all that exists is matter) and so that is why many atheists do not believe that an embryo is a person.

Indeed.

Which makes me wonder why He didn't teach something far more useful, such as an ethical theory that doesn't collapse when examined.

I fail to see how human sacrifice aids me in any way.

I also find it extremely odd that Jesus would have to solve a problem that his own father (or Himself, whichever way you look at it) created in the first place. It hardly makes it a great sacrifice. At least Prometheus was punished for giving us something useful - fire.

I may disagree with Christianity and Christian morals, but I will always believe that property, freedom of thought and freedom of speech come above ones own personal opinion.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Britannist

Thank you for spending the time to answer my points in detail, Smidgey.