Love and Common Sense vs. Rule and Religious Tradition

[TheKnight]

If we didnt let our feelings get in the way then we wouldn't be making a decision, we would be following a rule. We were given free will to make decisions for ourselves, what better way to make a decision for ourselves then to grasp it from our feelings and emotions. But then again, i'm not one for following rules just because I was told that they're supposed to be right.

I am not saying that you should follow rules because you were told they're right. If you believe that something is a legitimate rule, and yet you feel strongly that the rule should be violated, then you shouldn't violate it.

Suppose I get mad at someone, and at that moment I feel very strongly that I should kill that person. Sure, there are laws and what not that may say that killing people is wrong, but I feel so very strongly about it. Surely I should break the law and kill the person?

I guess the answer really depends on the situation. But generally speaking, if you feel very strongly about something it's probably worth going aganist social norms or law to do what you believe is right. I know I would.

Suppose I get mad at someone, and at that moment I feel very strongly that I should kill that person. Sure, there are laws and what not that may say that killing people is wrong, but I feel so very strongly about it. Surely I should break the law and kill the person?

 

[tumbleweed41]

One should always use common sense in determining what is right to do. Many "rules" written thousands of years ago have to bearing on todays situations.
Every situation is different, and thus each response to a situation must be unique.

Even as a Christian you have to look at the Bible and see how the "rules" changed according to the situations. Paul changed the "rules" for his followers, the history of the church itself shows how the "rules" changed according to the times.

When Jesus picked some grains to snack on during the sabbath, he was in effect changing the rules and using common sense. When he said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone", that was using common sense, not a strict adherence to the rules.

 

[MSizer]

I doubt there is such a situation, but in that case it would make more sense to follow the rules. Love, believe it or not, is just an emotion. It should have no bearing on making logical decisions. That being said, if it comes down to an emotional argument or a rational one, the rational one wins.

You doubt that there would be a situation where religious tradition conflicts with alternative moral options?

Let me think, um, how about the pope telling sub-saharan africa, a region plagued by HIV, that condom use is a sin. Let's see, the result is probably that he caused more human suffering than those found guilty of genocide in Rowanda, but you think the "rules" trump tens of thousands of people who will now suffer a shortened and painful life. OK, well, if that's your opinion, then with respect to morals, I live in antarctica and you live with santa claus.

 

[TheKnight]

You doubt that there would be a situation where religious tradition conflicts with alternative moral options?

Let me think, um, how about the pope telling sub-saharan africa, a region plagued by HIV, that condom use is a sin. Let's see, the result is probably that he caused more human suffering than those found guilty of genocide in Rowanda, but you think the "rules" trump tens of thousands of people who will now suffer a shortened and painful life. OK, well, if that's your opinion, then with respect to morals, I live in antarctica and you live with santa claus.

If one has bad rules, then there is a problem with the person, however that does not justify breaking them.

And the fact that they are telling them not to use condoms is irrelevant. For one, there are other things they could do to stop AIDS from spreading, and for two they could use condoms anyways and just ignore the church.

I can come to you and tell you that using a band-aid to stop your bleeding is a waste of time, but if you listen to me then it is your responsibility.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I can come to you and tell you that using a band-aid to stop your bleeding is a waste of time, but if you listen to me then it is your responsibility.

However, if you in in a position of power and influence, you bear responsibility for your words.
Passing the responsibility to those who trust and revere your words is a cop-out.

 

[MSizer]

However, if you in in a position of power and influence, you bear responsibility for your words.
Passing the responsibility to those who trust and revere your words is a cop-out.

Thank you tumbleweed, to catholics, the pope is a rulemaker. He wields influence over a billion people directly.

 

[MSizer]

Furthermore, rules are essentially for people whom are too dumb to recognize categorical maxims. If everybody recognized that stealing defeats the purpose of owning anything, therefore stealing is not a sustainable practice, we wouldn't need rulse against stealing. So rules are essentially control mechanisms for people who don't have enough insight on how to live well with others.

 

[TheKnight]

However, if you in in a position of power and influence, you bear responsibility for your words.
Passing the responsibility to those who trust and revere your words is a cop-out.

It is ultimately their decision to make.

And let's not forget, it's not like the Catholic church is saying "Don't use condoms" and nothing else. There are other ways of stopping the spread of AIDS, like not having sex in the first place, which is something else the Catholic church does teach.

If you want to blame me for your not using a condom because I told you, but then don't want to take responsibility for having sex when I told you not to, then you are being hypocritical. If the pope's words were that powerful, they just wouldn't have sex.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is ultimately their decision to make.

And let's not forget, it's not like the Catholic church is saying "Don't use condoms" and nothing else. There are other ways of stopping the spread of AIDS, like not having sex in the first place, which is something else the Catholic church does teach.

If you want to blame me for your not using a condom because I told you, but then don't want to take responsibility for having sex when I told you not to, then you are being hypocritical. If the pope's words were that powerful, they just wouldn't have sex.

No one is saying those who the person listening to the person in power is blameless, but the initial instigator of the action is equally to blame.

 

[TheKnight]

No one is saying those who the person listening to the person in power is blameless, but the initial instigator of the action is equally to blame.

I would say that that's a matter of opinion. Technically, the instigator is simply one who wanted a particular thing...

 

[MSizer]

I would say that that's a matter of opinion. Technically, the instigator is simply one who wanted a particular thing...

Dood - you're completely sidestepping the matter. Whether the people have the wherewithal to act prudently is not of concern for the sake of this argument. The fact is that Rat told a lot of people who are plagued with disease that they shouldn't use condoms, and the result is huge amounts of suffering. That's flat out evil or exceedingly stupid. In actual fact, I think it's a combination of both. And, it is a perfect example of how a religious tradition is directly in conflict with alleviating human suffering.

 

[jennadp1216]

I am not saying that you should follow rules because you were told they're right. If you believe that something is a legitimate rule, and yet you feel strongly that the rule should be violated, then you shouldn't violate it.

Suppose I get mad at someone, and at that moment I feel very strongly that I should kill that person. Sure, there are laws and what not that may say that killing people is wrong, but I feel so very strongly about it. Surely I should break the law and kill the person?



Suppose I get mad at someone, and at that moment I feel very strongly that I should kill that person. Sure, there are laws and what not that may say that killing people is wrong, but I feel so very strongly about it. Surely I should break the law and kill the person?

i wouldn't go as far as KILLING a person. but in a less drastic sense I still stand by what I said.

 

[blackout]

Love and Sense.

 

[TheKnight]

Dood - you're completely sidestepping the matter. Whether the people have the wherewithal to act prudently is not of concern for the sake of this argument. The fact is that Rat told a lot of people who are plagued with disease that they shouldn't use condoms, and the result is huge amounts of suffering. That's flat out evil or exceedingly stupid. In actual fact, I think it's a combination of both. And, it is a perfect example of how a religious tradition is directly in conflict with alleviating human suffering.

I'm not sidestepping anything. If you're going to look at the actions of the Catholic church, then look at the whole issue. They tell them not to use condoms (which isn't evil in and of itself), but they do tell them another means of stopping the spread of that disease.

It's call not having sex, and the Catholic church teaches that.

So:

A. The Catholich Church teaches people not to use condoms.

1. The people listen the Church 2. The people don't listen to the Church

B. The Catholic Church teaches that people should not have sex(outside of marriage).
1. The people listen 2. The people don't listen.


Now, would it make any sense for a person to go from position 1 in situation A to position B in situation 2? No. It makes sense to either go one route or the either. Not to mix it.


That being said, it makes no sense to blame the entirety of the spread of AIDS in Africa on the Catholic Church. I know, a bad-man makes it SO much easier for people to vent religious hatred. However, hating the church for that is ridiculous stupid and it's not well-thought out.

 

[TheKnight]

i wouldn't go as far as KILLING a person. but in a less drastic sense I still stand by what I said.

May I ask why?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

When Jesus picked some grains to snack on during the sabbath, he was in effect changing the rules and using common sense. When he said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone", that was using common sense, not a strict adherence to the rules.

Jesus was highlighting not the 'letter' of the law but the 'spirit' of the law after all Jesus was also Lord of the Sabbath. Matt 12:1-12

 

[Light On]

The Catholich Church teaches people not to use condoms.

Where in the Bible does it say that though?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Jesus was highlighting not the 'letter' of the law but the 'spirit' of the law after all Jesus was also Lord of the Sabbath. Matt 12:1-12

Spirit of the law over the letter of the law....
Sounds like common sense to me...

 

[jennadp1216]

May I ask why?

because people have common sense, and it should be used. No i wouldn't act on the fact that i feel like i'm so angry with someone I just want to kill them, but just because the speed limit is 45, doesn't mean that i'm not going to go 50 or 55. Just because the some people believe the rule with religion is repent or parish, doesn't mean that i believe if i dont go get saved, i'm going to hell. :no: I'm not saying that every law/rule should be broken, but i'm also not saying that every law/rule should be followed and it should be up to the individual to follow their common sense based on their emotion.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

People also have a conscience. A Bible-trained conscience should guide one's common sense. After all, who would want to let their conscience be their guide if they had the conscience of a serial killer?