• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? [W:45]

Then you must be wrong. There is only 1 God with 1 truth (the Bible). You are free to be wrong, but God is not relative. There is but 1 God, 1 truth, and all else is wrong. No wiggle room.

Except my God has no problem with homosexuality... and it's the actual ancient Hebrew translation... how it was originally written... that I use. So, the one God, and one Bible says you are wrong. No wiggle room.
 
Nothing has gotten kicked. You guys just don't know the truth, I can't help that.

You haven't presented the truth. You don't seem to understand what "truth" is.
 
So if it's a personal perception, then they shouldn't mention it publicly or use it in an argument, right?

When did I say that? Of course they can... depending on context.

Reality is relative.

Wow that was easy! Now if you respond with anything else, I'll just say I know something you don't and you just can't see the truth.

Except that you have failed to prove your argument. Unlike me.

What's the criteria for this distinction?

Whether one is talking about themselves/an individual or society in general. I would think this would be obvious.

Then why did you state that morality is relative? Were you trying to spark a philosophical debate about the nature of ethics?

Because some folks seem to believe that morality is universal. Which it is not.

Everything is acceptable, like our present marriage laws.

To some individuals and to certain areas of society.
 
Last edited:
Some morals are relative, some are absolute.

No, not at all. You can keep saying it, but it's been proven wrong.

Mankind extends morals based on a relative nature with the majority/those in power dictating what is right and wrong.

True.

However, there exists a moral code set by God that is absolute under which all humans will be judged.

In your opinion.

Homosexuality is sin, humans can ignore that and set their own societal values on it but at the end of the day in the eyes of God it is still sin and this is absolute.

In your belief system.

It's much like a personal opinion vs a legal system. To scale it down a bit we can make a comparison to the legal system. A household may have the opinion that it's ok to steal. Their moral code may be that if you have the strength and power to take something then that thing belongs to you, a survival of the fittest attitude. They can hold their belief and steal, but the legal system does not care. The absolute letter of the law says that it is illegal to steal and when caught and judged those who stole won't have a leg to stand on, their personal morals or relative morals for their household are wrong and that does that excuse their theft. In much the same way humanity can create relative morals for itself, but the absolute moral code still dictates what is right and wrong. The fact that a judge exists (God) with higher authority and ultimate judgement goes beyond the jurisdiction of man and when contrasting the two, the absolute morals are what is right and the relative morals of man are what is wrong.

Comparing the legal system to a belief system is like comparing apples to airplanes. The legal system is not individual. No matter what someone believes, there is a structure to govern behaviors. This is not negotiable. A belief system is individual. There are no absolute consequences... other than what one BELIEVES consequences to be. Unless you can show, DEMONSTRABLY AND WITH PROOF evidence of any consequences, NOT LEGAL, to holding a certain set of beliefs, your argument fails.

Society can accept homosexuality, society can scream and pander that it's morally acceptable and equal to heterosexuality. But at the end of the day, in light of the absolute moral code that governs all existence, homosexuality is wrong and that will not change. Under the absolute moral code individuals will be judged, it doesn't matter what individuals foolishly do with their societies or personal opinions on morals. Truth is knowable, absolute morality exists. Society can do what it wants but those relative morals can indeed be wrong and will indeed be judged by that which is absolute.

Since we have established that there is no absolute moral code... unless you can offer DEMONSTRABLE PROOF OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THIS CODE, nothing you say above has any credibility.

So, let's see the proof of consequences.
 
When did I say that? Of course they can... depending on context.

What context is that?


Except that you have failed to prove your argument. Unlike me.

When did that happen?

You should write a paper, you apparently solved a long-time issue amongst the philosophy community. I can't believe I missed such a major milestone in the advancement of mankind which occurred right in front of me.

Whether one is talking about themselves/an individual or society in general. I would think this would be obvious.

Talking about morals that apply to themselves or actions that apply to themselves?

Because some folks seem to believe that morality is universal. Which it is not.

As far as I see, somebody made a claim that something was immoral and your response was that morality was relative. I have to assume that you were either debunking their point or trying to spark an unrelated philosophical debate. Clearly, if you believe morality is relative and you believe it's appropriate to speak their mind on morality, you would simply note their opinion but would have no reason to point out that their opinion is their opinion unless it being their opinion was somehow a detriment. Which, of course, is impossible, because all morals are just opinions. Unless you think all morals are bad.

This is getting hard to follow.



To some individuals and to certain areas of society.

Do you believe our marriage laws are moral for a societal perspective? How about a personal perspective?
 
Some morals are relative, some are absolute.

Sorry to cut out a bit from your post, but I'd like to point out that it's impossible to make such a distinction because it's impossible to separate the two. Even if you use the natural law theory that some morals are set by a higher power, which of these laws apply and which don't are impossible to differentiate because while I can say the law against theft makes sense naturally (or, if I was religious, that my higher power compels me to believe so), another individual can merely state that theft does not seem wrong naturally to them, or that their higher power does not compel them to believe so. How, then, do you state that this is certainty an absolute moral?
 
Some morals are relative, some are absolute. Mankind extends morals based on a relative nature with the majority/those in power dictating what is right and wrong. However, there exists a moral code set by God that is absolute under which all humans will be judged. Homosexuality is sin, humans can ignore that and set their own societal values on it but at the end of the day in the eyes of God it is still sin and this is absolute. It's much like a personal opinion vs a legal system. To scale it down a bit we can make a comparison to the legal system. A household may have the opinion that it's ok to steal. Their moral code may be that if you have the strength and power to take something then that thing belongs to you, a survival of the fittest attitude. They can hold their belief and steal, but the legal system does not care. The absolute letter of the law says that it is illegal to steal and when caught and judged those who stole won't have a leg to stand on, their personal morals or relative morals for their household are wrong and that does that excuse their theft. In much the same way humanity can create relative morals for itself, but the absolute moral code still dictates what is right and wrong. The fact that a judge exists (God) with higher authority and ultimate judgement goes beyond the jurisdiction of man and when contrasting the two, the absolute morals are what is right and the relative morals of man are what is wrong.

Society can accept homosexuality, society can scream and pander that it's morally acceptable and equal to heterosexuality. But at the end of the day, in light of the absolute moral code that governs all existence, homosexuality is wrong and that will not change. Under the absolute moral code individuals will be judged, it doesn't matter what individuals foolishly do with their societies or personal opinions on morals. Truth is knowable, absolute morality exists. Society can do what it wants but those relative morals can indeed be wrong and will indeed be judged by that which is absolute.

You cannot prove this. You can believe it, but others believe differently and that is why all morality is subjective, not just some. It is also why "homosexuality is a sin" is a subjective statement. You can't prove it either way on this plane of existence. It could be a "sin" in God's eyes, or it could also be completely fine, or heterosexuality could be the true sin and we really were meant to clone each other in order to reproduce and reproducing via sex is truly wrong whereas using artificial means is completely fine. No one knows truly until they die, because you cannot prove what God truly wants. If we could, there would not be thousands of religions.
 
I see what you're doing, but sadly you are so far mistaken.

It's not "my opinion vs. your opinion" it's "there is 1 absolute truth, all else is wrong." The Bible is the Word of God with Yahweh being the One True God. Proof is evident in fulfilled Biblical prophecy and the works of the Holy Spirit.

Many choose to reject the Bible, they refuse from the wickedness and stubbornness in their hearts that prophecy is fulfilled. Many are uncomfortable with living by God's moral code so they choose to reject it, "rationalize" it away, or flat out just refuse to be rational on the issue. The fact remains that there is 1 truth, and that truth if the Bible. All else is wrong, there is no changing that. People can refuse to believe the Bible, they can choose to ignore the factual basis behind it being the word of God, they can adopt some other belief. But at the end of the day people, all beliefs, and all actions will be judged by the One true God under the truth. No exception, that's just the fact of this world

It is your belief, and beliefs cannot be proven. You can believe it with all your heart, but it doesn't make you automatically right.
 
Back
Top Bottom