Are you sure you didn't mean to use the word "subjectively" here?

 

Please tell me that you're not confused by the difference between these two words.

 

When some consider subjective to mean objective , there in lies the problem with what is the root of such grave communication differences.

 

Yes, I personally believe that it is an objectively wrong moral act, but you are correct; since not everyone believes the same things as me, I guess that would make it subjective.

Yes, I personally believe that it is an objectively wrong moral act, but you are correct; since not everyone believes the same things as me, I guess that would make it subjective.

 

Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

If you can help yourself, please try to refrain from splitting this hair any further. Flat out, if you deem something immoral, it's a subjective thought in every way imaginable. Just because you believe something doesn't make it objective.

 

You've displayed in the past the ridiculous habit to incessantly continue to justify nonsense ad nauseam, but in the case of these word's definitions, please just try to give it a rest.

 

It can be about as annoying as discussing logic with a small child.

Edited July 6, 201511 yr by B-Ball-fan

I could start a new topic but since my questions are very much related to the topic ( and most of the interested people are here ) I'll ask 2 questions . Do you think the act of homosexual sex ( not just attraction) is sin . and if your answer is yes , do you think it will forgiven at judgement day IF the person is a firm believer in Jesus Christ as their savior ?

Forgive me If i've ask that before , I'm not always great with my memory .

I could start a new topic but since my questions are very much related to the topic ( and most of the interested people are here ) I'll ask 2 questions . Do you think the act of homosexual sex ( not just attraction) is sin . and if your answer is yes , do you think it will forgiven at judgement day IF the person is a firm believer in Jesus Christ as their savior ?

 

As to the first question, I honestly don't know. I struggle with that one, and I know that the Catholic church feels it is, but I'm not sure I agree.

 

As to your second question, there is no doubt in my mind that it will be.

I could start a new topic but since my questions are very much related to the topic ( and most of the interested people are here ) I'll ask 2 questions . Do you think the act of homosexual sex ( not just attraction) is sin . and if your answer is yes , do you think it will forgiven at judgement day IF the person is a firm believer in Jesus Christ as their savior ?

 

I say yes to both. I do not think the homosexual act is any more sinful than me being jealous or judgmental.

Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

If you can help yourself, please try to refrain from splitting this hair any further. Flat out, if you deem something immoral, it's a subjective thought in every way imaginable. Just because you believe something doesn't make it objective.

 

You've displayed in the past the ridiculous habit to incessantly continue to justify nonsense ad nauseam, but in the case of these word's definitions, please just try to give it a rest.

 

It can be about as annoying as discussing logic with a small child.

 

Do you believe that objective truths exist?

Do you believe that objective truths exist?

 

Yes...

 

For example:

 

A man starts to experience extreme pain while urinating. He's certain that he's not imaging things and that something is abnormal.

 

He visits the Doctor who takes from the man a urine sample.

 

In the lab it is found that he indeed does have a urinary tract infection, and through a culture being grown from his urine, the exact bug causing his UTI is identified.

 

The objective truth here is that he was indeed in pain and that wasn't his opinion, and also test results found that he had a UTI which supports why he was in pain, which was also not an opinion.

 

If something has a solid truth free of opinions and biases, then yes, I would define them as an "objective truth".

 

If something does not have solid truth, and is deducted from opinions and biases, then that would be defined as "subjective" unless later proven true otherwise.

 

Some can assume that there is intelligent life on other planets in the Universe, and although there can be various amounts of logic that supports that idea, one's belief is merely subjective. If we came to find that there is without doubt intelligent life on other planets then that would be an objective truth.

 

There could actually be intelligent life on other planets outside of science's knowledge of it, which would mean that it is "true", but humanity still being in the dark about it cannot claim it to be true, considering that truth lives outside of our knowledge.

 

Anyone is free to believe anything they want through opinions and biases, however from where they stand without proof, their beliefs are merely subjective.

 

A man can say while he was going through puberty that every time he looked at, or thought of certain types of men that his penis became erect uncontrollably, and he could also say that this physical reaction never ever happened when looking at or thinking about women. It is an "objective truth" when this man says that he is a homosexual. His biological reactions fully supports this.

 

On the other hand if this same man were to say that he was born a homosexual, this actually would be a subjective statement because he would really have no concrete proof to back up that claim. He may not be factoring in other hard to define stimulus and conditions in his early development that might have played a factor on his sexual identity.

 

Someone could say that they believe in God, but without proof of a God, their comment is a subjective one.

 

God indeed could exist outside of humanity's knowledge, which would make that a truth, yet with humanity still being unknowledgeable about that, we cannot claim it to be true unless done so subjectively.

I say yes to both. I do not think the homosexual act is any more sinful than me being jealous or judgmental.

 

And you know what, I bet that even the angriest extreme Christians would agree that grace can cover homosexuality.

I suspect that the reason Christian groups are more vocal against homosexuality is that there is a large vocal group that demands the societal acceptance of homosexuality.

 

You don't see groups out there arguing we need more divorce or more gambling or more (insert your chosen sin here).

 

When those topics come up (like city/county looking to build a casino) you will see Christian groups vocally opposing it. These other topics just don't come up as often and are not headline news on a regular basis like the homosexual movement is.

 

But isn't divorce acceptable now? Isn't heterosexual pre-marital sex commonplace now? Unless I am misunderstanding you. If what you mean is that those things are now ingrained and accepted in society and there is no reason to denounce them...well, that would make sense. If it is something else, help me understand it better.

When you are little, all boys think girls have cooties and all girls think boys are ickey.

 

Then one day, at least for most people the cooties die and the ickey goes away. I guess for some boys, girls will always have cooties and for some girls, boys will always be ickey.

My church consistently preaches equally against pre martial sex , divorce , homosexual sex and other sins . IMO the motor driving the public discussion isn't churches but the media and gay activists . Not that there is anything wrong with that .

When you are little, all boys think girls have cooties and all girls think boys are ickey.

 

Then one day, at least for most people the cooties die and the ickey goes away. I guess for some boys, girls will always have cooties and for some girls, boys will always be ickey.

 

That's an interesting point.

 

In my pre-pubescent experience, no matter the gender, boys and girls for me were viable options as playmates. I didn't ever view little girls as having cooties like lots of boys did, and throughout my life I've had a good share of both male and females as friends.

 

I cannot speak for all gay guys, but personally my sexual attractions were never for boys, and while an adolescent teen, never for guys my age, and has always been for men.

 

As a teen it would be someone like Sean Connery as James Bond that would drive me out of my mind, but never ever did any of the teen heart throb characters back in the day stir me one bit.

 

Some of the teen girls in my class were going nuts for Lief Garrett and Sean Cassidy, but they did absolutely nothing for me. Some of the boys in my class were crazy about Charlie's Angels, and they too did nothing for me.

 

My interest in guys my own age was exactly the same as it was for girls.... A big Zero.

 

When I finally did come out to my male friends my age, I had to make this perfectly clear so that they didn't think that I was interested in them, and chance making them feel uncomfortable.

 

Pick any of the typical Hollywood guys such as Brad Pitt, or Tom Cruise etc...that have always gotten attention from females, and those guys do zilch for me.

 

While growing up it would be someone like Cary Grant, Gene Kelly, Rock Hudson or Frank Sinatra that would make me stop in my tracks to pay them attention.

 

Never had any attraction towards men of a feminine nature either.

 

Also, as a kid I recall some professional athletes or coaches catching my eye. I do recall as a teen being really attracted to Steve Garvey of the L.A. Dodgers.

 

Probably more information than you'd care to know about me, but hell, none of the straight guys here hesitate to say what girls they like, and for the most part my cat is out of the bag anyhow.

Some of the teen girls in my class were going nuts for Lief Garrett

 

Geez. Leif Garrett stopped being famous before I was born. :lol2:

Geez. Leif Garrett stopped being famous before I was born. :lol2:

 

That puts bball firmly in my age group.