Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Slippery Slope
Alright, I did not see that coming.
Number 1: I was not discussing homosexuality; it was not mentioned in either of my posts. So, I am not certain where that topic came from because it wasn't from me. I think it arose because people assumed that I was stating the slippery slope went from: following "the times," through homosexuality, and then to sex with children and animals. Again, I am assuming that's what others assumed about my post.
Number 2: I am sorry if I offended anyone. These topics aren't easy to discuss and people do hold close to their viewpoints. I can assure you that I don't hate anyone and that I am not looking to pick any fights. I don't begrudge anybody love or a lasting relationship.
Number 3: Following "the times" is a slippery slope as there is no firm root in any moral definitive right and wrong and therefore a set standard has been removed by which to gauge all human behavior.
Number 4: I realize I am the minority in thought here. That's fine. But no amount of name calling or insults changes this fact that a slippery slope exists. This is uncomfortable, but it isn't going away. You cannot say something is right or wrong if no standard is allowed to be available by which to measure right and wrong. And then ask, "If we refuse a religious standard by which to base our measurement of right and wrong, what will we use in its place?"
Number 5: Change course for a moment. There is a current Princeton doctor/professor of bioethics named Peter Singer who does assert that infants (already born) should be killed if the parents deem them unwanted and unneeded.
This is an example of the slippery slop in action. If Mr. Singer had his way, people would be allowed to kill infants up to a month after birth because, as he claims, they are not people because they are not aware of time and are not aware of their personhood at that point.
If killing already born infants became "the way of the times," would it be right? How could we say it was right or wrong without a standard for morality by which to measure it? You couldn't measure it. So, it would be "keeping up with the times."
Is there anyone here who advocates killing born babies like this man does? I'm guessing not, but why not? What standard are you using to say his ideals are off track and that killing a born baby is wrong? And, if kiling babies became "the way of the times," would you subscribe to permitting it even if it were the unpopular view? You'd have to. You cannot remove a right and wrong measurement at a convience and then replace it in the future...one needs to exist all along.
Re: Slippery Slope
And, for the record, my "true colors" aren't hatred and snarky words. But, they are to look into the uncomfortable topics that may put me on the side of the minority viewpoint. I don't do it intentionally - it's kind of lonely here. But, I have done enough thinking and researching, from places other than Fox News (LOL), to be confident in my postion on that we cannot rely on "the times" to guide us morally.
I get where you're coming from, I do. And honestly, I've enjoyed reading your viewpoint lately. I just wholeheartedly disagree that the bible should be a guide for how this nation moves forward. I don't see us on a slippery slope right now, I see many people fighting for equality. And as far as how America was in the 1950's, good lord, I wouldn't ever want to go back to how things were then. Hell no.
As for the "sex with animals" thing, that's generally the argument for why gay marriage should be illegal, so that's likely why people (and me) assumed that.
Eta: fix autocorrect.
One crackpot's opinion about one issue does not equal a shift in anything or changing times. You can probably find semi-intelligent sounding literature about anything because our thankfully free speech allows people to express those views without legal censure. It also allows the rest of us to condemn it. Nice anecdote though.
You know who wasn't too keen on free speech, something we hold so very dear? The church. Ask Galileo. He was a radical. A revolutionary of "the times."
Go back and read the Old Testament and tell me how many ideas you can find that have changed with "the times" and followed a shift in general acceptance, the evolution of rational and free thought, and a heightened exposure to the world and other cultures. Yet you want to base morality on a book- or a document, in the Constitution- that condones slavery. I continue to use this example because it is surely the one moral absolute that we can all agree on.
Where do we get our morals from? What a stupid flvking question. I certainly don't get mine from such a book. We get them from an understanding of people and our world, and a discourse with others- and with the past, present, and future. We don't claim that we need an old bigoted book and then choose to selectively ignore the parts of it that no longer match up with our ideal of what "the times" should be.
But thank you for reminding me just one of the many reasons why I am a fervent atheist.
I agree with justaphase.
Also, a slippery slope is when accepting one seemingly minor part of an argument leads incrementally to a larger conclusion. Accepting morality based on "the times" is not a slippery slope it's a proposed moral standard. They're two really different things.
If you don't accept "the times," that's ok (I agree it's an inadequate and sometimes inaccurate mark). But you have to provide an argument of why we should accept what's in the bible, an argument other than "the bible says so."
There are moral standards that don't have anything to do with Peter Singer. And the good thing about non-biblical ethics is that we can make arguments for WHY Peter Singer is wrong and suggest alternatives for what IS right. Think of it as applying the scientific method to ideas.
Might I also add that it's virtually a moot point when it comes to laws because what is right and what is legally right are not the same.
And yeah, I pretty much agree with every single thing Lexi said here.
I didn't really get into this, but it kinda pisses me off when people say that morality and "goodness" come from religion. I believe I am a good person who is caring and kind (ok, maybe snarky on occasion
), as are all the atheists I know in my life. And for better reason than just wanting to get into heaven.
Eta: before anybody gets offended, I know many religious folk don't act a certain way just to get into heaven.
Unrelated to this thread, but the bolded reminded me of something and got me thinking-
When I was in 12th grade (and already firmly entrenched in my heathen ways), I was at a friend's house studying for a European history test and there was a section on Blaise Pascal and Pascal's Wager. We talked about it and then the friend's mom jumped in and very matter-of-factly said that she agreed it made plenty of sense.
I just about died. Belief- religious or otherwise- should be about what you honestly and truly feel deep down within; not about what will get you the best outcome in the end.
I grew up relatively non-religious but with some exposure to friends' churches. I went to a little bible study-esque social night for a couple years with a friend and learned the basics. But as I reached my teenage years, I just could not reconcile those beliefs with my experience, my understanding of the world, my education. By 15, I firmly rejected the idea of religion.
My husband is Catholic. We came to an agreement/understanding about religion & kids long before we got married and it is what works for us. My lack of belief does not cost me the respect of my husband, nor does his Catholicism cost him mine. It would though if I thought he was only into it for the afterlife rewards.
I don't know where to begin here. I was very upset last night.
I do apologize for the bi*ch, I really don't like to go there.
But I am not convinced that you didn't mean the slippery
slope would go from same sex marriage to legal beastiality,
and legal pedophilia.
I also have felt you are very inteligent, but the idea that
we would ever have laws allowing the killing of infants makes
me doubt those feelings.
Where is the thread that spawned this?
Was it DD'd?
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/69757888.aspx
I think it's the separation of church and state thread.
Seperation of church & state.
So you say it's in the "He's a bullshiiter" thread?
Mommy Liberty, I admire your courage in standing up and speaking out about what you believe in.
I agree with you following "the times" is a slippery slope. I believe one must have some sort of moral compass to guide them in what is right and wrong. Yes, for Christians that is the bible.
My FIL in a minister and while I am not some holy roller, the bible is where I seek guidance and solace. I have witnessed the power of God. I know to some that might sound crazy...but for me it makes perfect sense.
But in order to live in a secular society, you have to accept that there are people who do not turn to the bible as a moral compass. And you cannot force your beliefs upon them.
If you don't have a moral argument other than "it's in the bible" then how can you possibly justify making others adhere?
Exactly. And if your only argument is that it's in the bible, then you probably shouldn't have any right to make decisions for the rest of us. It's infuriating that people don't understand this.
Please tell me where I said that all people should follow the bible as their moral compass? I merely stated that people should have some sort of moral compass....and that Christians often look to the bible for guidance. And yes, I do look to the bible for guidance but common sense also plays a big role in my moral compass.
The bible can be twisted, for example look at the Amish who take such a narrow view of the bible that they shun those among them they believe are not following the bible. Or look at the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at soldier's funerals because they don't believe in homosexuality. That isn't what God intended (IMO), common sense has to come into play as well.
It is also infuriating that those who don't believe in the bible want to impose their secular beliefs upon those who do. I am against aborition, wholeheardtedly against abortion, and believe it or not it has nothing to do with the bible. It has everything to do with the fact that I am adopted and disturbs me that I might not be here today because my birth mother made a choice to not be bothered with a child. If my birth mother had chosen to have an abortion, my adoptive parents would not have had the opportunity to have a child, I would not have had the opportunity to have a wonderful childhood, the chance to be a mother myself, the chance to be a wife, the chance to go to college and the chance to have life.
So, I can very definitely tell you why I believe abortion is immoral and I don't have to quote the bible to do so.
I apologize if this comes off harshly but sometimes I feel like those who do not embody Christian beliefs feel they are the only ones with the right philiopshy and those of us who do are just bat shiit crazy.
But you forget that we don't make all immoral things illegal.
ETA: Sorry for completely skirting the issue of abortion, but I didn't want this to turn into the Great Abortion Debate of 2012. I think the issue of religion/morality/legality is much more interesting and underdeveloped.
Honestly, abortion is not the issue that bothers me because I do know that you don't have to be Christian to be against it. That's fine. I mean, I still think it is forcing your beliefs on someone else, but at least it's not because of something in a book that not everybody believes in. When people use their religion as a way to prove that abortion should be illegal, obviously that's a different story.
And FTR, making abortion illegal would do SO much more harm than good. If a woman wants to have an abortion badly enough, she's going to have one, one way or another, might as well make it safe.
But, do you think that gay marriage should be legal? That's the biggest issue that really makes me angry because the ONLY reason people are against it is for religious reasons. Or they are just homophobic assholes.
Oops, I couldn't not comment on abortion. But I agree with your last statement.
This. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't go back to the Bible.
I am not talking about anything other than a personal, moral compass. Legality has nothing to do with one's own personal beliefs.
And to call someone who doesn't believe in same sex marriage a homophobic *** is just ignorant. The bible teaches to love all people and just because one doesn't believe in same sex marriage does not make them a "gay hater" or homophobe.
You live your life as you see fit, and please allow me to live mine as I see fit.
As I said above:
You live your life as you see fit, and please allow me to live mine as I see fit.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying abortion should be illegal because of the reasons you said. Sorry for putting words in your mouth.
And the bolded is the exact argument for legal abortion and homosexual marriage. I totally agree with you! Live your life as you see fit and allow others to live their own as they see fit. People should not support legislation that takes away rights from others just because they don't want those rights themselves.
I'm really glad to see we agree on this.
I don't believe in abortion, except in instances of rape, incest and life of the mother. I would suppose in order to maintain the available in those situation it would have to remain legal.
However, I believe if one choose to engage in sexual activity they must be willing to accept the consequences of that activity. I do not believe abortion as a form of birth control. If you do not want a child, be responsible and use birth control (I am not opposed to that). If, God forbid, one is a victim of sexual assult the morning after pill is offered should that person go to the hospital.
Bottom line, there are other options that are available to women who do not want to get pregnant. And likewise, other options available to abortion. I am very pro-adoption, I believe that is a loving choice.