Myles Domini Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 [quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jan 20 2006, 12:46 PM']Ok, I have a bone to pick with this message. So many Christian women I hear complaining about having to wear a veil or a burka in Muslim nations, but I think the Bible (1 Cor.) is quite clear, that Christian women should be the most modest in a society, not the ones causing trouble! What reward is there, if a woman is punished for being scandalous? But if she is punished for being the most modest, how much greater the reward! [right][snapback]861693[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You're not seriously defending Saudi Arabia? The country where its illegal to bring in Bibles?
son_of_angels Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 I am not defending its policies towards the Christian religion....but women being scandalous and dressed improperly for their society is never justified, whatever that society is (unless the reason for scandal is their excessive modesty), and certainly not a part of the Catholic faith.
dandy777 Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 20 2006, 03:22 AM']Where are you from, Dandy? Portugal? [right][snapback]861481[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No I am Maltese. In our Constitution there is written that most of our population holds the Roman Catholic faith and it is considered to be the official faith even though it doesn't deny or refrain anyone from having a different faith than Catholicism. In fact, we have different minority groups non-Catholic Christians (mainly Evangelical and Baptist), Jews and Muslims. This means that state schools teach Roman Catholicsm as the national faith and most of the kids get this upbringing. It has its advantages and disadvantages like anything else in the world. The Church has a lot of power in our country and in the past, it influenced most of the political issues. In these times, it speaks more on moral issues rathert than political. A very hot issue is divorce. It is illegal in our country. Many people are troubled about this and sometimes, I am as well. I mean I don't agree with divorce but I think that people who are non-believers and want to divorce have every right to do so. Why should be stop them from doing it if they don't actually believe in marriage? It is ridiculous. As regards to Islam, I am very skeptic about it. Many Muslims come into our country because of our geographical position apart from the thousands of illegal immigrants who come to our homeland. I don't like the subtle way they convert a person (especially the Maltese women who they marry). Most of them are forced to change faith and wear veils and observe Ramadan and bring their children up as Muslims. It is a sad story!
Socrates Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 20 2006, 01:05 PM']No I am Maltese. In our Constitution there is written that most of our population holds the Roman Catholic faith and it is considered to be the official faith even though it doesn't deny or refrain anyone from having a different faith than Catholicism. In fact, we have different minority groups non-Catholic Christians (mainly Evangelical and Baptist), Jews and Muslims. This means that state schools teach Roman Catholicsm as the national faith and most of the kids get this upbringing. It has its advantages and disadvantages like anything else in the world. The Church has a lot of power in our country and in the past, it influenced most of the political issues. In these times, it speaks more on moral issues rathert than political. A very hot issue is divorce. It is illegal in our country. Many people are troubled about this and sometimes, I am as well. I mean I don't agree with divorce but I think that people who are non-believers and want to divorce have every right to do so. Why should be stop them from doing it if they don't actually believe in marriage? It is ridiculous. As regards to Islam, I am very skeptic about it. Many Muslims come into our country because of our geographical position apart from the thousands of illegal immigrants who come to our homeland. I don't like the subtle way they convert a person (especially the Maltese women who they marry). Most of them are forced to change faith and wear veils and observe Ramadan and bring their children up as Muslims. It is a sad story! [right][snapback]862118[/snapback][/right] [/quote] From what I've heard, Malta is one of the very few truly Catholic countries left in Europe.
dustthouart Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 20 2006, 03:05 PM'] I mean I don't agree with divorce but I think that people who are non-believers and want to divorce have every right to do so. Why should be stop them from doing it if they don't actually believe in marriage? It is ridiculous. [right][snapback]862118[/snapback][/right] [/quote] See how this reasoning could work another way: "I mean I don't agree with gay marriage but I think that people who are non-believers and want to marry people of their own sex have every right to do so. Why should be stop them from doing it if they don't actually believe in marriage? It is ridiculous." Etc etc. Remember the Lord's Prayer: "On earth as it is in heaven." We should be working for God's will here on earth, not merely waiting for death.
Lounge Daddy Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 peace in our time! I promote peace in our time! oh ... wait... no i don't
dandy777 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='dustthouart' date='Jan 21 2006, 06:32 AM']See how this reasoning could work another way: "I mean I don't agree with gay marriage but I think that people who are non-believers and want to marry people of their own sex have every right to do so. Why should be stop them from doing it if they don't actually believe in marriage? It is ridiculous." Etc etc. Remember the Lord's Prayer: "On earth as it is in heaven." We should be working for God's will here on earth, not merely waiting for death. [right][snapback]862505[/snapback][/right] [/quote] why should a person who doesn't believe in marriage as a blessed sacrament, a union from God, be stopped from divorcing? for that person marriage is just a legal union despite what you and I believe. likewise, why would you be stopped from doing something just because the rest of the people in your country believe otherwise? I know what you mean but we should testimony through love and actions and not by prohibition. I believe in prevention rather than cure and I think the key is to teach young couples the real meaning of marriage, first on a human level and then on a spiritual level.
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) [quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 21 2006, 12:17 PM']why should a person who doesn't believe in marriage as a blessed sacrament, a union from God, be stopped from divorcing? for that person marriage is just a legal union despite what you and I believe. likewise, why would you be stopped from doing something just because the rest of the people in your country believe otherwise? I know what you mean but we should testimony through love and actions and not by prohibition. I believe in prevention rather than cure and I think the key is to teach young couples the real meaning of marriage, first on a human level and then on a spiritual level. [right][snapback]862626[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Using that line of argument you could justify the legalisation of basically anything the non-Catholic world believes in e.g. euthanasia, abortion, infanticide etc.etc. Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles
dandy777 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 no I am not, the issues you mentioned are illegal...they go against human rights as they take away the freedom of the individual concerned. Divorce doesn't. One cannot mix divorce with abortion or the like. There is a clear distinction between the two.
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 21 2006, 12:40 PM']no I am not, the issues you mentioned are illegal...they go against human rights as they take away the freedom of the individual concerned. Divorce doesn't. One cannot mix divorce with abortion or the like. There is a clear distinction between the two. [right][snapback]862631[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What I'm saying is that the premise because I'm not Catholic I shouldnt have to can be taken from divorce and applied to any number of different circumstances including the ones outlined. You have made the distinction between divorce and abortion based upon human rights but what are human rights and how do you defend human rights philosophically?
dandy777 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Let's not forget that with every right given there is always a responsibility attached. Issues like abortion, eunthanasia and other deeds that involve killing and such stuff, don't just go against any moral but are against the individual's right to protect himself. Society has the responsibility to protect these people who cannot protect themselves (like embryos, children and the sick) despite their religious beliefs. Human worth and dignity goes beyond one's religion. When we are dealing with divorce, we are not dealing with the person's human dignity. So this divorce issue appeals only to those who really believe and not to those who don't believe. Capisce? Let me put this clear: I don't agree with divorce as a concept but that doesn't mean that I blame any non-beliver who wants divorce but cannot attain it because it is illegal, especially if the person has just been married in a civil way and not in Church.
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 21 2006, 01:40 PM']Let's not forget that with every right given there is always a responsibility attached. Issues like abortion, eunthanasia and other deeds that involve killing and such stuff, don't just go against any moral but are against the individual's right to protect himself. Society has the responsibility to protect these people who cannot protect themselves (like embryos, children and the sick) despite their religious beliefs. Human worth and dignity goes beyond one's religion. When we are dealing with divorce, we are not dealing with the person's human dignity. So this divorce issue appeals only to those who really believe and not to those who don't believe. Capisce? Let me put this clear: I don't agree with divorce as a concept but that doesn't mean that I blame any non-beliver who wants divorce but cannot attain it because it is illegal, especially if the person has just been married in a civil way and not in Church. [right][snapback]862641[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This answer is philosophically unsatisfactory. You're asserting the dignity of the human individual but not defending it. My name is Freidrich Nietzche, I say morality is a constraint upon my freedom and that the strength of my individual will to power is the only moral compass. Debate with me, show me how I'm wrong. You say everyone has human rights, why is that? I dont agree. I say the only human rights are the ones given by the extraordinary men who by right of being ubermensh have the right to dominate all others as they see fit. In a toss up its just my opinion against yours is it not? You're saying all humans have rights and I'm saying all humans do not. So who judges between us? According to your frame of mind as humans we're both of equal dignity, right? So if I say one thing and you say another who has the right to arbitrate? Other humans? They're of equal dignity too, no? So they cant decide and even if we were to put it to democratic vote would you be confident in a moral principle that exists based upon the whim of the masses? No. Ultimately the one whose moral view will win out will be the one with the strongest will to enforce it via power. Therefore, I, Mr Friedrich Nietzche win this debate. I say there's no such thing as human rights and since I have the right of arbitration by right of a my greater will to power thats morality: might makes right. There is a counter to this standpoint but you're not providing it Dandy. You're providing me with your views, which however noble they might be dont get to core of this debate. Prove Nietchze wrong, prove we have human rights.
dandy777 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:52 PM']This answer is philosophically unsatisfactory. You're asserting the dignity of the human individual but not defending it. My name is Freidrich Nietzche, I say morality is a constraint upon my freedom and that the strength of my individual will to power is the only moral compass. Debate with me, show me how I'm wrong. You say everyone has human rights, why is that? I dont agree. I say the only human rights are the ones given by the extraordinary men who by right of being ubermensh have the right to dominate all others as they see fit. In a toss up its just my opinion against yours is it not? You're saying all humans have rights and I'm saying all humans do not. So who judges between us? According to your frame of mind as humans we're both of equal dignity, right? So if I say one thing and you say another who has the right to arbitrate? Other humans? They're of equal dignity too, no? So they cant decide and even if we were to put it to democratic vote would you be confident in a moral principle that exists based upon the whim of the masses? No. Ultimately the one whose moral view will win out will be the one with the strongest will to enforce it via power. Therefore, I, Mr Friedrich Nietzche win this debate. I say there's no such thing as human rights and since I have the right of arbitration by right of a my greater will to power thats morality: might makes right. There is a counter to this standpoint but you're not providing it Dandy. You're providing me with your views, which however noble they might be dont get to core of this debate. Prove Nietchze wrong, prove we have human rights. [right][snapback]862644[/snapback][/right] [/quote] lol.... oh God!!! When I read My name is Friedrich Nietzche, I thought I was taken back into a different century then I realised it was about his philosophy which have taken me back to a worse place .... university benches Anyway, I don't care what the wacko stated. The truth is that there is no supreme race, no elitist society that has the right to have power over or advantage from any other society regardless of size, origin or beliefs. This racial superiority or the moronic idea of being supermen or a super-race is the fruit of people who are greedy for power. Nothing more, nothing less. No one can declare himself superior and this can be tested biologically or scientifically. So on a natural element this Nietzche was no more better than you and I unless he was a sort of a cyborg, which I seriously doubt. So this idea of his is just an opinion with no scientific foundation. Secondly, we can take a look at his opinion and find out that the adoption of such opinion have only led to bloodshed and hatred around the world. Just take a look at Germany in mid 30s and 40s, in Kosovo and Montenegro just some decades ago as well as Chechnya and Russia. There you get the result of his ideology which unfortunately still survives and rumbles. So no, his ideas and mine are not equal as his lead to destruction whereas mine lead to preservasion. And this is what every creature on earth tries to do at the end of the day. That is why many countries felt the urge and need to sit down around a table, discuss such issues and draft a declaration about human rights that states: [i]Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. [/i]
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Basically then your answer is that we have human rights because the UN say we do and if they say we didnt then we wouldnt? Unwittingly you're admitting exactly what Nietchze stated: those with the power decide what morality is. Your argument appears to be that either a) because the UN have enough power to decide what human rights should be they can or b) because enough people in the world vote for it we have human rights. In both cases that makes human rights depend on the whim of the people with the power.
Deeds Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. It's not against Church teachings in certain cases and in that respect, it's different to other moral issues.
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Deeds' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:42 PM']Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. It's not against Church teachings in certain cases and in that respect, it's different to other moral issues. [right][snapback]862695[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This isnt strictly true. Seperation and annulment might be considered in these circumstances but divorce, not so. Further to my earlier statements I believe I've illustrated the difficulty of making our rights depend entirely on the power of some body of politicians to enforce them. Some of the UN security council members knowingly violate those rights all the time without consequences because for the powerful there often arent any in human terms. I do not believe in the sanctity of life because other people do nor do I believe it cos the UN tells me to I believe it because I have an obligation to because there is a Creator who has ordered the world towards certain discernable ends: The natural law. Without a Creator whose ontology gives Him the right to make moral demands of us His creatures Nietchze's philosophy will always be the only consistent moral philosophy. You always need an arbiter to decide whats right and wrong and that person regardless of how well intentioned they are (or not) will only ever get to justify their vision by securing the power e.g. by votes, by force or whatever to make other people obey them because as humans we find it impossible to obey those we deem as being of equal dignity to ourselves (and there is no logical inconsistency in this). Because there is a natural law there are human rights but without natural law there are no rights whether to life or anything else. Now according to the natural law divorce is wrong, as likewise euthanasia and abortion are. Thus to be consistent I will not condone the legalisation of anything that goes against the natural law. Now if you're going to support divorce and not the other things that contravene natural law as I said before give me philosophical justification for it. Show me how a) we can know we have human rights b) who has the power to decide what these are and c) how we can determine that divorce is a human right. I guarantee you'll not be able to. Ultimately any ethical theory you propose is still going to fall down before Nietchze's emotivism. If God is dead as Nietchze said then I, as a human, have no duty to obey you, another human, and the only way you can force me to do so if I disagree with your ethical theory is to force me through exhibiting a greater will to power. However, if God is a really Creator who has ordered the world to certain ends then natural law stands and the unlawfulness of divorce with it and the rest of the natural law. Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Not necessarily true Myles. God may be dead, but there still might be alien scientists out there so we need to figure out the best moral system which will enable us to bring about a race of genetically engineered clone geniuses who will bring us to the point where we can be alien geniuses too. :
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 05:03 PM']Not necessarily true Myles. God may be dead, but there still might be alien scientists out there so we need to figure out the best moral system which will enable us to bring about a race of genetically engineered clone geniuses who will bring us to the point where we can be alien geniuses too. : [right][snapback]862737[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Come now leave the new agers alone L_D... Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles
Deeds Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:57 PM']This isnt strictly true. Seperation and annulment might be considered in these circumstances but divorce, not so. [right][snapback]862735[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You're saying that divorce can never be acceptable? That's completely wrong. Furthermore, divorce is a legal process, annulment is a Church one (I presume you're talking about it in the Catholic sense.) It's sometimes necessary to sever legal ties with a spouse.
dandy777 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:45 PM']Basically then your answer is that we have human rights because the UN say we do and if they say we didnt then we wouldnt? Unwittingly you're admitting exactly what Nietchze stated: those with the power decide what morality is. Your argument appears to be that either a) because the UN have enough power to decide what human rights should be they can or b) because enough people in the world vote for it we have human rights. In both cases that makes human rights depend on the whim of the people with the power. [right][snapback]862663[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm sorry Myles that is what [b]you[/b] are saying and not what I am saying Myles. You are interpreting wrongly what I am saying. As I said earlier on and I am going to insist on this, I don't agree with divorce because I believe that marriage is a sacred union. However, I cannot apply or impose what I believe onto other people who don't believe unless they want to. I am trying to separate state affairs from religious once. One must be very careful how to deal with laws as it is going to effect every citizen and not just a section of the population. [b]So laws have to be balanced and just.[/b] Now, if we take divorce as an example, one has to be aware that there are two types of marriages, the civil one and the religious one. Everyone gets married civilly but not everyone marries in a church/synagogue/mosque whatever. Now according to Catholicism, divorce can never be acceptable since no man can break what God has united. But that applies to Catholics. What right do I have to tell an atheist who doesn't care about religion and who has only got married by civil rite that he cannot divorce his wife, just because for me and most other Catholics marriage is sacred? Do you get my point? It is ridiculous that divorce is illegal. The state has to be just with everyone. You know, this is exactly what we grumble about Islam, that most of the state religions try to force down the people's throats their beliefs and traditions whether they like it or not, and then that is exactly what you are talking about. [b]Our God is a God who respects freewill[/b] whether it leads to good or evil. And He is that God who uses every evil situation for the individual's good. Now you [b]wrongfully[/b] thought that I associated human rights with the people in power and even worse thought that I agreed with Nietzche's thought. I really think you should read my answer again. What I said is that every human being is intelligent enough (and if he isn't there is scientific/biological/phsychological proof) that the human race is superior to any other form of life on earth. Apart from that, there is an internal awareness within every human being (which I call conscience and believe that it is the voice of God in each of us; while others think it is something else) that tells us what is right and what is wrong. We are able to see the difference between the two and choose. Now, as I said before, one can look at the outcomes of the ideology of Nietzche and logically understand that it is wrong. Whether Hitler, Pinochet or Milosevic used it, I don't care. What is important is the outcome and our natural reaction against such horrors (whether taken by the UN, the Pope or whoever). This reaction is exactly what I called preservation of the species (as many non-believers say) and/or a declaraion about our human dignity (what believers say). Whatever the motives, if they are right and evoke peace and unity, they are God sent. Remember that in many occassions God used even non-believers to reveal His glory and act on His plan in human history. What produces destruction and hatred certainly is not God-sent. So that is exactly the answer. Nietzche = hatred + destruction = evil =not God-sent Human rights = peace + preservation of culture/identity + inclusion = good = God-sent A non-believer would stop at the good/evil part, a believer would go a step further yet there is no discussing about the logic in the argument.
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