Define sex

[Confidence Man]

I was talking to this Christian girl the other day. She said she's a devout Catholic but lives with her boyfriend. I then pointed out that if she was a devout Catholic why is she living with her boyfriend before they are married because Catholics don't believe in sex before marriage. She replied that they hadn't had sex yet. I was shocked and said something like "well that must be a bit shit, how do you resist the urges when you live with each other and sleep in the same bed?". She then said that aslong as they didn't actually have penetrative sex then it was ok. So things like oral sex and mutual masterbation are ok, just as long as actual "penis in vagina" sex is saved til after they wed, according to this girl and her bf.

Now to me this sounds a bit strange. Maybe I've got it all wrong but I doubt God would be sitting there in heaven watching them getting playful, jump out of his seat at the sight of them "sinning" and then think "phew it's ok. She's only sucking his nob". I mean it's not like it says in the bible "No sex before marriage but hand jobs are fair game" either.

So I said to her that those "other things" she was doing are actually sexual acts and so technically she was still having sex with her bf before marriage. I also said that she was just trying to get around the system and cheat. But now I feel a bit bad because I don't know if I was right or not. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys think?

[dead man walking]

id love to have oral with my lass, bet the boyfriend loves it getting blown off all the time.


but yes she is in the wrong she is cheating the system!

[Freestyler]

I too think that she is cheating the system, does it not mean that any type of sexual gratification you recieve is an actual sexual act?!? :confused:

[Luke]

The catholic religion is bullshit. You know how Catholic religion is against divorce and that you can't remarry or anything, well I know a relative (that got divorced) was pardoned for it and allowed to re-marry. Apparently they said that when she was younger she didn't know what she was getting herself into. They just chop and change rules whenever, it's a total farce.

[Confidence Man]

Well they have to bend with the times really I suppose. I'm a christian and there are certain parts of the bible which I actually don't follow because they make no sense these days. For example "thou shalt not steal" is pretty unrealistic in today's society.

[Emmet J]

The catholic religion is bullshit.

Is it just Catholics you have a problem with on this charge?

[Plastikman]

The catholic religion is bullshit. You know how Catholic religion is against divorce and that you can't remarry or anything, well I know a relative (that got divorced) was pardoned for it and allowed to re-marry. Apparently they said that when she was younger she didn't know what she was getting herself into. They just chop and change rules whenever, it's a total farce.

She got an annulment not a divorce. The "rules" (lol) havent changed in 2000 odd years.

I had guessed you were very ill informed about catholic ideology with the 1st sentence, but you at were good enough to confirm that for me with the rest:D

(Thats not to say I agree with ALL aspects catholicism)

To answer C_M's point, yeah she is exploiting a loop hole in a manner of speaking, but imo she is right to do so, the no sex before marriage/only having sex if you intend trying for a baby is ridiculous and outdated.

[Emmet J]

Are you a Catholic Plastikman?

[Plastikman]

Are you a Catholic Plastikman?

Yep I am, but not devout by any means (don't go to church and "sin" regularly etc)

[Emmet J]

Yep I am, but not devout by any means (don't go to church and "sin" regularly etc)

So then you're a bad Catholic.

[Plastikman]

So then you're a bad Catholic.

In the strict sense of the word, absolutely.

[Daihlo]

Well they have to bend with the times really I suppose. I'm a christian and there are certain parts of the bible which I actually don't follow because they make no sense these days. For example "thou shalt not steal" is pretty unrealistic in today's society.

??? how is that unrealistic? stealing is stealing isnt it regardless of what society and time its done in?

[Plastikman]

??? how is that unrealistic? stealing is stealing isnt it regardless of what society and time its done in?

He's just working his gimmicky "morally vacant" angle. Ignore it lol

[Emmet J]

Here is the problem I have with people claiming to be 'bad Catholics:' they aren't Catholics, they are Protestants.

By the very fact that they disagree with some of the basic tenants of the Catholic Church they define themselves in protest to it.

[Plastikman]

Here is the problem I have with people claiming to be 'bad Catholics:' they aren't Catholics, they are Protestants.

By the very fact that they disagree with some of the basic tenants of the Catholic Church they define themselves in protest to it.

In the martin luther sense of the word protestantism yeah you're right, but there isnt a single religion that i agree with 100%. Which is why is dont practice actively.

The "Love thy neighbor" commandment is the main guideline i adhere to, essentially Do un to others as you would have them do unto you, you cant really go wrong.

[Emmet J]

In the martin luther sense of the word protestantism yeah you're right, but there isnt a single religion that i agree with 100%. Which is why is dont practice actively.

The "Love thy neighbor" commandment is the main guideline i adhere to, essentially Do un to others as you would have them do unto you, you cant really go wrong.

That makes you a Christian (in the simplest and loosest sense), not a Catholic.

[Plastikman]

That makes you a Christian (in the simplest and loosest sense), not a Catholic.

It makes me a lapse catholic, as the Christian beliefs that i hold are more closely aligned with Catholicism, then any other branch of Christianity.

For example, my disagreement with the no sex before marriage rule puts me at odds with both catholicism AND Protestantism, as both say you should wait till after marriage.

[Emmet J]

Here's a test I just invented:

1, Do you believe that Jesus was God personified, i.e. God in human form walking on the earth?

2, Do you believe that when a priest prays over wine and a piece of wafer during mass it actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus?

3, Do you believe that Mary was so holy that she never actually died but just ascended straight to heaven in bodily form?

4, Do you believe that life is sacred and that therefore any act that leads to death (murder, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, etc) is wrong no matter what the circumstances?

5, Do you believe that God gave us sex with the intention that every time we have sex we should be open to conception, and that therefore to use contraception is almost tantamount to murder, or in the least case, abortion?

6, Do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope, and therefore that anything he says is a fact and endorsed by God?

[Plastikman]

Here's a test I just invented:

1, Do you believe that Jesus was God personified, i.e. God in human form walking on the earth?

2, Do you believe that when a priest prays over wine and a piece of wafer during mass it actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus?

3, Do you believe that Mary was so holy that she never actually died but just ascended straight to heaven in bodily form?

4, Do you believe that life is sacred and that therefore any act that leads to death (murder, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, etc) is wrong no matter what the circumstances?

5, Do you believe that God gave us sex with the intention that every time we have sex we should be open to conception, and that therefore to use contraception is almost tantamount to murder, or in the least case, abortion?

6, Do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope, and therefore that anything he says is a fact and endorsed by God?

Sounds more like a mormon test then a catholic one.

[Emmet J]

Sounds more like a mormon test then a catholic one.

Put it this way, if you didn't answer 'yes' to all of it then you're not really a Catholic, and if you didn't answer 'yes' to at least three of them then you aren't anywhere near being "alligned" towards Catholicism.

[Plastikman]

Put it this way, if you didn't answer 'yes' to all of it then you're not really a Catholic, and if you didn't answer 'yes' to at least three of them then you aren't anywhere near being "alligned" towards Catholicism.

Rubbish, in this day in age you wouldnt even find a single catholic priest of sound mind that would answer 'Yes' to all of those.

[Emmet J]

Rubbish, in this day in age you wouldnt even find a single catholic priest of sound mind that would answer 'Yes' to all of those.

So you're saying that becuase nobody else is doing it properly you don't have to?

Those are still six very basic teachings of teh Catholic Church, in fact they are simply held to be 'truths.'

If you don't believe them you can't be a Catholic. It's like saying: "yeah I'm a Christian; I don't believe that Jesus came back from the dead or that there's such a place as heaven, but I'm fine with all the rest."

It's a faith system with very specific rules, not a pic n' mix.

[Plastikman]

So you're saying that becuase nobody else is doing it properly you don't have to?

Those are still six very basic teachings of teh Catholic Church, in fact they are simply held to be 'truths.'

If you don't believe them you can't be a Catholic. It's like saying: "yeah I'm a Christian; I don't believe that Jesus came back from the dead or that there's such a place as heaven, but I'm fine with all the rest."

It's a faith system with very specific rules, not a pic n' mix.

ok ill play ball...

1. Yes I do believe that jesus was the son/spirit of god.

2. Yes I do believe that once communion and altar wine are blessed they become a symbol of the body and blood of christ.

3. As for mary heading up to heaven lock stock and barrel, 'the assumption' is just an interpretation of the bible, combined with having no soild proof where her remains lie, it is NOT considered a truth by any means.

4. I disagree with the blinkered views of the church when it comes to abortion, i believe there are circumstances where it should be allowed (rape victims should have a choice for example) I dont believe it should just be an option available if people just dont want the child.

5. Ive made my opinions clear on this.

6. Yes i do think the pope is gods representative on earth, and he is infallible on on theological issues, not on everything

[Confidence Man]

Get off my thread plastikman you bell end!

[Plastikman]

Get off my thread plastikman you bell end!

oh no ive been pwnt, im such a noob. C_m you fuckin ROCK at the internet.

[Confidence Man]

You haven't experienced a fuckin proper pwnerizing yet son.

[Plastikman]

You haven't experienced a fuckin proper pwnerizing yet son.

Haha god will protect me.:rolleyes:

[Emmet J]

Alright then, so in simple terms your answers were:

1, Yes

2, No

3, No

4, No

5, No

6, Sort of

Meaning that you are iffy on, or totally disagree with, four to five of the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church. So I don't want to be mean, but if you look at the evidence that means you're pretty much a Protestant Christian.

For a more in-depth review of your responses:

1, No problems there

2, Catholics believe that the wine and bread does transubstantiate into the body and blood of Jesus, the belief that this is merely symbolic is a Protestant one

3, The belief in the assumption of Mary is nothing to do with interpreting the Bible, it is a fact because Pope Pious XII said it was, and if you're a Catholic you would have to believe he was infallible on such a theological issue

4, Catholic doctrine opposes abortion no matter what the circumstances are, your view (that abortion can never be right but can be considered in extreme circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother's life) is one most closely alligned to Protestant Churches

5, Catholic doctrine teaches that sex is for procreation, any attempt to interfere with this is going against God's will. Many Protestant Churches accept that contraception is now acceptable in our modern world, but not the Catholic Church

6, Agreed, but issues such as those in questions 2-5 are theological

[Plastikman]

Alright then, so in simple terms your answers were:

1, Yes

2, No

3, No

4, No

5, No

6, Sort of

Meaning that you are iffy on, or totally disagree with, four to five of the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church. So I don't want to be mean, but if you look at the evidence that means you're pretty much a Protestant Christian.

For a more in-depth review of your responses:

1, No problems there

2, Catholics believe that the wine and bread does transubstantiate into the body and blood of Jesus, the belief that this is merely symbolic is a Protestant one

3, The belief in the assumption of Mary is nothing to do with interpreting teh Bible, it is a fact because Pope Pious XII said it was, and if you're a Catholic you would have to believe he was infallible on such as theological issue

4, Catholic doctrine opposes abortion no matter what teh circumstances are, your view (that abortion can never be right but can be considered in extreme circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother's life) is one most closely alligned to Protestant Churches

5, Catholic doctrine teaches that sex is for procreation, any attempt to interfere with this is going against God's will. Many Protestant Churches accept that contraception is now acceptable in our modern world, but not teh Catholic Church

6, Agreed, but issues such as those in questions 2-5 are theological

Its late and I have work early, so ill just give you what you are looking for rather then drag this on any further....

"Holy shit, Emmet J you've opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you!! My beliefs are a sham and a lie, i am now in a state of moral turmoil and i a going to have to look long and hard at how I live my life. Screw jesus YOU are my new messiah":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Confidence Man]

Haha god will protect me.:rolleyes:

Well as king of the internet God has spoken to me and told me he's not happy with your sinful ways. He's particularly upset about you commiting the sins of buggery and necrophilia. I've also asked him, on your behalf, to review his policy on homosexuals however he wont budge on the matter. Sorry mate.

[Confidence Man]

Its late and I have work early, so ill just give you what you are looking for rather then drag this on any further....

"Holy shit, Emmet J you've opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you!! My beliefs are a sham and a lie, i am now in a state of moral turmoil and i a going to have to look long and hard at how I live my life. Screw jesus YOU are my new messiah":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

PWNED!!!!!!

[Emmet J]

Its late and I have work early, so ill just give you what you are looking for rather then drag this on any further....

"Holy shit, Emmet J you've opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you!! My beliefs are a sham and a lie, i am now in a state of moral turmoil and i a going to have to look long and hard at how I live my life. Screw jesus YOU are my new messiah":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lol.

Cool, I should have gone to bed ages ago myself but i genuinely enjoyed our conversation, so thank you.

In all honesty you believe what you want (of course) but as someone who was raised in Catholic education until he was 18, I have to say that if I were to become a Christian tomorrow, I would not be a Catholic.

I would probably just say that I like the teachings of Jesus and wanted to follow them in my own way, which, in technical terms, would make me a Protestant, but why would I care what the label was?

Anyway, I've got to be up in the morning to teach RE all day. Very nice talking to you.

[Confidence Man]

I would probably just say that I like the teachings of Jesus and wanted to follow them in my own way,
.

That's probably what Osama Bin Laden said about Islam. Can't you see that this way of thinking is dangerous Emmet J???

[Plastikman]

Well as king of the internet God has spoken to me and told me he's not happy with your sinful ways. He's particularly upset about you commiting the sins of buggery and necrophilia that you commit regularly. I've asked him, on your behalf, to review his policy on homosexuals however he wont budge on the matter.

2/10

1 point for using the god part.

1 point for refering back to me taking the piss out of you for your living via the internet.

The other 8 points were lost because you just regurgitated the same tired (but still homosexually orientated, you dirty little closet case you) rubbish you use on everyone

Teachers report - confidence man has potential, but is easily distracted. Can be talkative and disruptive in class. Must try harder!

[Emmet J]

That's probably what Osama Bin Laden said about Islam. Can't you see that this way of thinking is dangerous Emmet J???

I can ideed sir, which highlights the dangers of situationalist rules such as 'love thy neighbour' versus more absolutist moral values such as those laid down in the ten commandments (which of course are problematic in themselves), but that's a whole 'nother debate.

Lets just all become atheists; the sooner we do that the sooner we can throw all morals out the window and exterminate each other, as Dostoevsky aid "without God everything is permitted."

[Plastikman]

Lol.

Cool, I should have gone to bed ages ago myself but i genuinely enjoyed our conversation, so thank you.


I would have said the same, until it started to seem you were on a mission to talk me out of what I choose to believe. I was raised Catholic so thats the label i choose to apply to myself even though as i mentioned in the beginning of this thread i dont stick rigidly to the beliefs.

[Plastikman]

I can ideed sir, which highlights the dangers of situationalist rules such as 'love thy neighbour'

Ok you've twigged my interest again (swine lol).

Where could problems arise if everyone treated everyone else with love
(no c_m not the gay love, dont get excited) and respect?

[Emmet J]

I would have said the same, until it started to seem you were on a mission to talk me out of what I choose to believe. I was raised Catholic so thats the label i choose to apply to myself even though as i mentioned in the beginning of this thread i dont stick rigidly to the beliefs.

Ok, very last post tonight.

Firstly, you can chose to believe whatever you want, it was never my intention to talk you out of anything, but you can't call it whatever you want unless you prescribe to the rules that are acknowledged to be part of the label. If you don't follow the rules of the Catholic Church then you are wrong to call yourself Catholic; you can't just do boxing and say you train MMA.

Secondly, one thing that does genuinely annoy me is people claiming membership to a faith group simply because that's what their parents were, even though they don't really follow the belief properly themselves. It's like voting Labour but going round saying you're a Conservative because that's what your parents vote.

[Emmet J]

Ok you've twigged my interest again (swine lol).

Where could problems arise if everyone treated everyone else with love
(no c_m not the gay love, dont get excited) and respect?

Damn, now you've twigged mine.

Here's an obvious problem: define 'love.'

[Alex Gold]

You two are like two teenage lovers!

"You hang up"
"No, you hang up!"

:D

[Plastikman]

Ok, very last post tonight.

Firstly, you can chose to believe whatever you want, it was never my intention to talk you out of anything, but you can't call it whatever you want unless you prescribe to the rules that are acknowledged to be part of the label. If you don't follow the rules of the Catholic Church then you are wrong to call yourself Catholic; you can't just do boxing and say you train MMA.

Secondly, one thing that does genuinely annoy me is people claiming membership to a faith group simply because that's what their parents were, even though they don't really follow the belief properly themselves. It's like voting Labour but going round saying you're a Conservative because that's what your parents vote.

So unless you are a zealot you arent really a member of a religion?

Im pretty sure that if you have been baptised, made your communion and been confirmed you ARE catholic, whether you are practicing or not

[Confidence Man]

I can ideed sir, which highlights the dangers of situationalist rules such as 'love thy neighbour' versus more absolutist moral values such as those laid down in the ten commandments (which of course are problematic in themselves), but that's a whole 'nother debate.

Lets just all become atheists; the sooner we do that the sooner we can throw all morals out the window and exterminate each other, as Dostoevsky aid "without God everything is permitted."

Then what would we base our morals on?

[Plastikman]

Then what would we base our morals on?

Post count and FAQ's

[Confidence Man]

Here's an obvious problem: define 'love.'

Plastikman's definition of love is a 9 inch black cock up his ass.

[Freestyler]

Sounds more like a mormon test then a catholic one.


Since when has this been a mormon test?

[Emmet J]

So unless you are a zealot you arent really a member of a religion?

Im pretty sure that if you have been baptised, made your communion and been confirmed you ARE catholic, whether you are practicing or not

You don't have to be a zealot, but you at least have to agree with the basic tennets of the club you want to join, and in the case of the 'Catholic club' you disagree with most of them.

I've been baptised, made communion and been confirmed, but I'm not Catholic.

I really have to go to bed, but I'm more than willing to continue this tomorrow night. I'll leave you to ponder this on the subject of treating people with love:

To hope that everyone could simply treat each other in a ‘loving way’ is to presume that everyone knows and understands what love is, moreover it is to hope that their definition of love is exactly the same as yours (or at least very close), otherwise you won’t perceive that they are acting in a loving way at all.

Also, here is some interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_ethics

[Confidence Man]

So unless you are a zealot you arent really a member of a religion?

Im pretty sure that if you have been baptised, made your communion and been confirmed you ARE catholic, whether you are practicing or not

That's a load of bollocks right there. So just because you were born and raised a catholic you will remain a catholic no matter how you act?

By your logic I can get baptised, confirmed and then act like a total nobber all my life, break all the commandments and still be let into heaven.

[Plastikman]

That's a load of bollocks right there. So just because you were born and raised a catholic you will remain a catholic no matter how you act?

By your logic I can get baptised, confirmed and then act like a total nobber all my life, break all the commandments and still be let into heaven.

isnt that exactly what confession and the last rites are for?

[Confidence Man]

Well it can't be that easy can it? Lets be honest, what would be the point if you could break all the rules, say sorry and all is cool again?

[Plastikman]

Plastikman's definition of love is a 9 inch black cock up his ass.

hahaha You have a terrifyingly one track mind...C_M = all cocks, all the time!

[Confidence Man]

hahaha You have a terrifyingly one track mind...C_M = all cocks, all the time!

I'm sure I make atleast 10 non-cock post for every 1 cock post. You just WANT to see cock posts.

[Plastikman]

I'm sure I make atleast 10 non-cock post for every 1 cock post. You just WANT to see cock posts.

Sounds like a conservative estimate to me, but even so a 1:10 ratio puts you head and shoulders above everyone else who posts here when it comes to the time you spend writing about(and in turn thinking about) cocks and or queers...that reeks of closet case to me:)

From now on, you will be called Aslan.

[OLDBOY]

think of a those poor cavemen, having sex and procreating before they even knew what marraige was, damned to hell they all are.............. Oh, wait, cavemen didn't exist did they?

[ginandtonic]

Sounds like a conservative estimate to me, but even so a 1:10 ratio puts you head and shoulders above everyone else who posts here when it comes to the time you spend writing about(and in turn thinking about) cocks and or queers...that reeks of closet case to me:)

From now on, you will be called Aslan.


plaki i can guarantee he's not gay, quite the opposite;)

[ginandtonic]

C_M you appear unduly obesessed with sex atm? is there anything you'd like to share? it seems out of character for you:confused:

[Emmet J]

Right, I'm on till 11ish if anyone wants to discuss the problems of using ideas such as 'do unto others' or 'do the most loving thing.'

[Confidence Man]

There isn't a problem with that. It's a good philosophy.

[Emmet J]

There isn't a problem with that. It's a good philosophy.

Are you being serious?

[Confidence Man]

It's only problematic when you start being pedantic about it and pick it apart by saying things like "define love". The way I see it is that if everyone followed the ten commandments the world would be a better place.

Your theory on "it would be better if we were all atheists" doesn't seem right to me. People need something to follow otherwise we'd all do what we wanted and act like total nobbers.

[ginandtonic]

where in the 10 Commandments does it say that drugs are cool C_M?

[Confidence Man]

where in the 10 Commandments does it say that drugs are cool C_M?

It doesn't. Nor does it say "thou shalt not do drugs".

Therefore drugs are ok it seems and not a sin.

[ginandtonic]

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, NOR DRUNKARDS, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


i think also Pete in revelations you will find that drugs are directly identified as mind sorcery, so you are wrong my friend. as always Pete you interpret things to be the way you want them to be not the way they are

[Confidence Man]

Wrong wrong wrong. YOU are interpretting it wrongly. How the fuck does eating a load of pills have anything to do with "mind sorcery".

As for drunkards ... lol well you probably drink more than me I bet. I'm not an alcoholic.

[Emmet J]

It's only problematic when you start being pedantic about it and pick it apart by saying things like "define love".

If you think it's pedantic to try and define the very concept that you believe we should live our lives by then you're missing a rational mind.

If everyone tomorrow adopted the law of "do unto others" or "do the most loving thing" it would lead to turmoil, or at least total disagreement and unrest.

I could be pedantic and say: "what if I like getting punched in the face? Then it would be ok for me to go around punching everyone else in the face becuase I would be 'doing unto others as I like done unto myself,'" but you would probably spot that this is a mostly unnacpetable argument becuase of the generally unlikely event of it happening. Here, however, is a more likely event which highlights the problem:

What would happen if my wife was pregnant and the doctor told us that the child was going to have Down's Syndrome? We mention it to a friend and he (being an insensitive sort) says: "you could always get an abortion." My wife and I both consider the possibility, and both make our decision by thinking 'what would be the most loving thing to do?' She thinks back to her childhood, where she knew a girl with Down's Syndrome who was loved by her family and treated no differently to anyone else, and so she responds: "we would never do that." At the same time I think back to my childhood and remember the boy at my school with Down's Syndrome who was constantly harrassed and bullied and seemed misserable, and whose life I thought would not be worth living, and so I respond: "I think that's the best thing we could possibly do."

Do you see the problem?

We have both applied the rule that you believe to be best, 'act in the most loving way,' but we have come to entirley different conclusions due to the subjective nature of love.

Hence, 'define love.'

[Plastikman]

If you think it's pedantic to try and define the very concept that you believe we should live our lives by then you're missing a rational mind.

If everyone tomorrow adopted the law of "do unto others" or "do the most loving thing" it would lead to turmoil, or at least total disagreement and unrest.

I could be pedantic and say: "what if I like getting punched in the face? Then it would be ok for me to go around punching everyone else in the face becuase I would be 'doing unto others as I like done unto myself,'" but you would probably spot that this is a mostly unnacpetable argument becuase of the generally unlikely event of it happening. Here, however, is a more likely event which highlights the problem:

What would happen if my wife was pregnant and the doctor told us that the child was going to have Down's Syndrome? We mention it to a friend and he (being an insensitive sort) says: "you could always get an abortion." My wife and I both consider the possibility, and both make our decision by thinking 'what would be the most loving thing to do?' She thinks back to her childhood, where she knew a girl with Down's Syndrome who was loved by her family and treated no differently to anyone else, and so she responds: "we would never do that." At the same time I think back to my childhood and remember the boy at my school with Down's Syndrome who was constantly harrassed and bullied and seemed misserable, and whose life I thought would not be worth living, and so I respond: "I think that's the best thing we could possibly do."

Do you see the problem?

We have both applied the rule that you believe to be best, 'act in the most loving way,' but we have come to entirley different conclusions due to the subjective nature of love.

Hence, 'define love.'

Isnt this mostly an argument based around semantics?

My perception of "Do unto others as you would like done to you" is simply treat others with dignity and respect.

You make the argument that the ways some may like to be treated, isn't necessarily how everyone else would like to be treated, which is undoubtedly a valid remark, however who (aside from sadists) doesnt want to be treated with respect and dignity?

[Confidence Man]

Ok how about "act in what YOU believe to be the most loving way". People have different opinions on what would be "the most loving way" obviously as there is never going to be clear cut answers for every situation. And there would still be disagreement and turmoil. But what's the alternative? It's better than "act in whatever way is best for yourself and fuck everyone else".

All I'm saying is you can think about things too much. That leads to second guessing yourself andf being confused and miserable.

[Confidence Man]

Isnt this mostly an argument based around semantics?

Yes. Indeed it is.

[Emmet J]

You make the argument that the ways some may like to be treated, isn't necessarily how everyone else would like to be treated, which is undoubtedly a valid remark, however who (aside from sadists) doesnt want to be treated with respect and dignity?

Yes, it is about semantics, which is why this obviously would not work as a legitimate way for society to act.

Definitions of respect and dignity are as subjective and individualistic as definitions of love or happiness, and therefore they are unnacpetable ways to judge any serious situation.

Here are some scenarios, how should each be dealt with?

1, One man kills another man's wife. How should he be punished/treated?

2, A man is arrested for the rape of five children. How should he be punsihed/treated?

3, A woman is pregnant and finds out that her baby will have Down's Syndrome. Abortion is an option. What should she do?

4, A neo-nazi stirs up racial hatred which leads to rioting and murder. How shoud he be treated?

[Emmet J]

Ok how about "act in what YOU believe to be the most loving way". People have different opinions on what would be "the most loving way" obviously as there is never going to be clear cut answers for every situation. And there would still be disagreement and turmoil. But what's the alternative? It's better than "act in whatever way is best for yourself and fuck everyone else".

All I'm saying is you can think about things too much. That leads to second guessing yourself andf being confused and miserable.

But here you are totally contradicting what you said earlier.

A few posts back you stated: "The way I see it is that if everyone followed the ten commandments the world would be a better place."

But now you're saying: "obviously... there is never going to be clear cut answers for every situation."

Well which is it?

[Confidence Man]

But here you are totally contradicting what you said earlier.

A few posts back you stated: "The way I see it is that if everyone followed the ten commandments the world would be a better place."

But now you're saying: "obviously... there is never going to be clear cut answers for every situation."

Well which is it?

The Ten Commandments are a guideline on how to act. They don't cover every possible situation. There's no commandment that says "if your wife gives birth to a downs kid u should keep it". But you know that. You're just being intentionally arguementative.

Oh and as for your 4 scenarios I reckon "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the best form of justice in most cases. How can you get fairer than that?

[Plastikman]

Yes, it is about semantics, which is why this obviously would not work as a legitimate way for society to act.

Definitions of respect and dignity are as subjective and individualistic as definitions of love or happiness, and therefore they are unnacpetable ways to judge any serious situation.

Here are some scenarios, how should each be dealt with?

1, One man kills another man's wife. How should he be punished/treated?

2, A man is arrested for the rape of five children. How should he be punsihed/treated?

3, A woman is pregnant and finds out that her baby will have Down's Syndrome. Abortion is an option. What should she do?

4, A neo-nazi stirs up racial hatred which leads to rioting and murder. How shoud he be treated?

IMO all but question 3 are pointless, we have a legal system to make those decisions for us.

As for question 3, no one answer can cover every instance where this occurs. The circumstances of the parents making the decision at the time can have such a huge effect of the validity of the choice (how severely handicapped the child might be, can you provide an acceptable quality of life for the child, would adoption be a viable option etc)

All that aside I do still think you are being a little pedantic - Surely you don't believe "do unto others..." is a rigid rule by which to make every single decision regarding person to person interaction that you are faced with?

No, its just a guideline.

Yes some things are subjective regarding what people like, or what they consider the "right" way to behave, but then some things aren't...No one wants to be treated like a piece of shit, or get screwed around by people, be stolen from, or murdered/assaulted.

[Emmet J]

The Ten Commandments are a guideline on how to act. They don't cover every possible situation. There's no commandment that says "if your wife gives birth to a downs kid u should keep it". But you know that. You're just being intentionally arguementative.

Lol at "the Ten Commandments are a guideline." Not according to most Christians throughout history they're not. They are absolute moral rules handed down from God to be followed in all circumstances without question, which anyone of a rational mind can see is ridiculous. That's why Jesus' teachings were considered to be so different, because he was saying "let's just call the Ten Commandments 'guidelines for how to live our lives;' as long as we treat each other with love and respect then we're doing the right thing." This kind of blasphemy was one of the reasons he was killed, but as nice as such a crazy new situational approach seems it all basically boils down to: "you do whatever you think is right, and I just hope you're a nice person..."


Oh and as for your 4 scenarios I reckon "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the best form of justice in most cases. How can you get fairer than that?

So the man who had his wife killed should be allowed to murder the killer's wife?

Or the fathers of the girls that the paedophile raped should get to rape his daughters?

Think it through.

[Emmet J]

IMO all but question 3 are pointless, we have a legal system to make those decisions for us.

Yes we do, but is the legal system thinking "what is the most loving thing here?"

If the answer is no (which I'm pretty sure it is)then however you choose to act is pointless, because your view of the world and how people should act in it can be overuled at any time by those in a position of power.


Yes some things are subjective regarding what people like, or what they consider the "right" way to behave, but then some things aren't...No one wants to be treated like a piece of shit, or get screwed around by people, be stolen from, or murdered/assaulted.

So what you're saying here is that the guidelines "do unto others" and "act in the most loving way are in fact inadequate, because there are some rules that should apply and be enforced in every circumstance?

[Confidence Man]

Lol at "the Ten Commandments are a guideline." Not according to most Christians throughout history they're not. They are absolute moral rules handed down from God to be followed in all circumstances without question, which anyone of a rational mind can see is ridiculous. That's why Jesus' teachings were considered to be so different, because he was saying "let's just call the Ten Commandments 'guidelines for how to live our lives;' as long as we treat each other with love and respect then we're doing the right thing." This kind of blasphemy was one of the reasons he was killed, but as nice as such a crazy new situational approach seems it all basically boils down to: "you do whatever you think is right, and I just hope you're a nice person..."



So the man who had his wife killed should be allowed to murder the killer's wife?

Or the fathers of the girls that the paedophile raped should get to rape his daughters?

Think it through.

Well the Crusaders didn't follow "thou shalt not kill" when they retook the holy land.

A man who kills should be killed. The paedophile should be either castrated or bummed by a baboon.

[Emmet J]

Well the Crusaders didn't follow "thou shalt not kill" when they retook the holy land.

A man who kills should be killed. The paedophile should be either castrated or bummed by a baboon.

What did the baboon ever do wrong?

[Plastikman]

Yes we do, but is the legal system thinking "what is the most loving thing here?"

Conversely would the crimes have been committed in the 1st place?



If the answer is no (which I'm pretty sure it is)then however you choose to act is pointless, because your view of the world and how people should act in it can be overuled at any time by those in a position of power.

If we are dealing in the absolutes which you seem to be referring to, and if everyone faultlessly stuck to treating each other with dignity and respect we wouldnt need a legal system.

However more realistically - Just because higher authorities can potentially overrule our decisions about how we choose to treat others, it is only in extreme or unusual circumstances. Does that mean we shouldnt continue to at least TRY to treat others respectfully?



So what you're saying here is that the guidelines "do unto others" and "act in the most loving way are in fact inadequate, because there are some rules that should apply and be enforced in every circumstance?

Sorry this just strikes me as you being argumentative for the sake of arguing!

[Emmet J]

Ok, now I feel we have lost track of the point of the whole argument (and I do love a good argument :) ).

The current one was started because I took exception to the fact that you stated: "Where could problems arise if everyone treated everyone else with love?" And I have been seeking to show that the answer is: "all over the fucking place."

I think you (and Con Man) have acknowledged (whether you realise it or not) that this is correct, it would be impossible for everyone in the world to apply this rule fairly and consistently because 'love' is such a subjective thing, and therefore it is not possible to have a society based on this rule.

That said (and as you have pointed out) this does not mean that you as an individual could not seek to live in the way that you thought was most loving, regardless of how others felt or of how dificult they made your life. If you ever did it I would be well impressed with the sheer level of commitment it would take. I would congratulate you to your face, however I would laugh and call you a fool behind your back.

To summarise and actually get anywhere in this whole debate we need to be clear on how you, me and Con Man think people shoule be living their lives (because both of you seem to have 'flip-flopped' on what you think is best, and I haven't said what I think yet at all).

So, here is the important question:

How do you think people should live their lives? (i.e. should we all follow a set of absolute rule such as the Ten Commandments, or a situational approach such as 'do unto others' and 'do the most loving thing,' or perhaps a hedonistic approach such as 'everyone should do what makes them happy, or even a Utilitarian approach such 'do the greatest good for the greatest number.')

[Plastikman]

Ok, now I feel we have lost track of the point of the whole argument (and I do love a good argument :) ).

The current one was started because I took exception to the fact that you stated: "Where could problems arise if everyone treated everyone else with love?" And I have been seeking to show that the answer is: "all over the fucking place."

I think you (and Con Man) have acknowledged (whether you realise it or not) that this is correct, it would be impossible for everyone in the world to apply this rule fairly and consistently because 'love' is such a subjective thing, and therefore it is not possible to have a society based on this rule.

That said (and as you have pointed out) this does not mean that you as an individual could not seek to live in the way that you thought was most loving, regardless of how others felt or of how dificult they made your life. If you ever did it I would be well impressed with the sheer level of commitment it would take. I would congratulate you to your face, however I would laugh and call you a fool behind your back.

To summarise and actually get anywhere in this whole debate we need to be clear on how you, me and Con Man think people shoule be living their lives (because both of you seem to have 'flip-flopped' on what you think is best, and I haven't said what I think yet at all).

So, here is the important question:

How do you think people should live their lives? (i.e. should we all follow a set of absolute rule such as the Ten Commandments, or a situational approach such as 'do unto others' and 'do the most loving thing,' or perhaps a hedonistic approach such as 'everyone should do what makes them happy, or even a Utilitarian approach such 'do the greatest good for the greatest number.')

hhhmm Emmett I think maybe you are a little too much of a stickler for literal meanings lol.

You seem to look past the implied and moderate meaning behind whats being said, Im not talking about people going around inflicting every fancy that pops into their mind on the people around them.

Im talking about in instances where a person is making a decision that might negatively impact someone else, or thinking of doing something to someone else, they stop and consider "would i like if that was done to me?" instead of just continuing regardless, or worse knowingly doing harm.

My initial mention of treating those around us with love, was a genuine question, and I agree with what you said about situational ethics etc, which is why ive revised what I said to "respect and dignity" for the rest of my replies because love can be easily misconstrued in its meaning.

Surely you dont disgree with that?

As for your last paragraph. Its not my place to say how people should live their lives. I can only say what I feel is what i think is the right way for me to live.

[Santiago]

Good read. Although this has gone waaaay too deep for me. :confused:

[Luke]

Good read. Although this has gone waaaay too deep for me. :confused:

Totally... where's the boobies at!

[Emmet J]

hhhmm Emmet I think maybe you are a little too much of a stickler for literal meanings lol.

You seem to look past the implied and moderate meaning behind whats being said, Im not talking about people going around inflicting every fancy that pops into their mind on the people around them.

Im talking about in instances where a person is making a decision that might negatively impact someone else, or thinking of doing something to someone else, they stop and consider "would i like if that was done to me?" instead of just continuing regardless, or worse knowingly doing harm.

My initial mention of treating those around us with love, was a genuine question, and I agree with what you said about situational ethics etc, which is why ive revised what I said to "respect and dignity" for the rest of my replies because love can be easily misconstrued in its meaning.

Surely you dont disgree with that?

As for your last paragraph. Its not my place to say how people should live their lives. I can only say what I feel is what i think is the right way for me to live.

Sounds good enough to me.

In all honesty no matter which way you go (situational, absolutist, hedontistic, etc, etc) there are problems. The best and worse thing about philosophy is that there are no right answers, only our opinions, and since our opinons can't be wrong (or can they? There's another debate in the making there... :) ) I'm happy to say this: I believe what I believe and you can believe what you want (that is until I rule the world, and then I can tell people how to live their lives...).

[Confidence Man]

Sounds good enough to me.

In all honesty no matter which way you go (situational, absolutist, hedontistic, etc, etc) there are problems. The best and worse thing about philosophy is that there are no right answers, only our opinions, and since our opinons can't be wrong (or can they? There's another debate in the making there... :) ) I'm happy to say this: I believe what I believe and you can believe what you want (that is until I rule the world, and then I can tell people how to live their lives...).

Educate men without religion and you make clever devils!