tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8910061675729298683..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: CelebutantsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89183227476122627632015-05-29T15:45:16.819-04:002015-05-29T15:45:16.819-04:00It doesn't look like he's very thoughtful ...It doesn't look like he's very thoughtful anyway, though he wants to be seen as such. The way he worded it was odd, as though you chose your moral arguments based on people's vocal prominence: those individuals speak for you like Dan Savage apparently doesn't speak for him. So he's claiming that you can't think for yourself. His ultimate goal is still to come off as the one who is thoughtful about the moral question, thus lending legitimacy to it. Nevertheless, he doesn't know you very well. I don't know you very well, Steve, but if I know one thing, it's that you don't let others do your thinking for you.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54198692627997995322015-05-29T15:02:19.016-04:002015-05-29T15:02:19.016-04:00The exchange took place a Denny Burk's blog. H...The exchange took place a Denny Burk's blog. Here's what the disputant said:<br /><br />"I’ve been monogamously partnered for over four years. That’s not 50 years, but we’ll see. I like Dan Savage a little, but as I said, he doesn’t speak for me. Should I assume you share the moral character of men like Ruben Israel or Fred Phelps (or Josh Duggar) merely because they’re more prominent and vocal than you?"<br /><br />Of course, the comparison is disanalogous inasmuch as Josh Duggar isn't part of a movement that lobbies for incest or abolishing the age of consent. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11292190261857991952015-05-29T13:54:29.897-04:002015-05-29T13:54:29.897-04:00I've known who the Duggars are, and I've a...I've known who the Duggars are, and I've actually caught their show a couple of times. I noticed a blurb about Josh Duggar recently and investigated to find out about whatever tabloid issue people were discussing. My only comment regarding it was a two-liner:<br /><br />"Christians recognize repentance as an occasion to glorify God. Others seek to destroy someone in order to glorify themselves."<br /><br />Actually, that's the reason most people crave the tabloid news. They glory in the destruction of people. The only reason people bring up cases of moral hypocrisy is to try to justify their own sin. So, your debate opponent pointed out Josh Duggar to you because a) He wants to justify sin of some sort; and b) He actually thinks Josh Duggar sinned. That makes your debate opponent a hypocrite, whether he:<br /><br />i) wants to justify dismissing sexual sin by pointing out sexual sin, or<br />ii) he wants to point out that you aren't allowed to judge sin based on your standard of morality while he judges sin based on his own standard of morality.<br /><br />(i) is a more objective hypocrisy. (ii) is a more subjective hypocrisy. Now, it could be that he wanted to demonstrate an inconsistency in your thinking by judging the Duggars to be hypocrites. However, regarding (i), no one points out sins as sins that they don't think are actually sins. For example. a self-professed Christian arguing for the moral legitimacy of homosexuality doesn't use a homosexual Christian as an example of his opponent's hypocrisy. Rather, he picks someone who he and his opponent would both consider to have sinned. The argument isn't persuasive otherwise.<br /><br />So, I don't know what your opponent was arguing, but I'd say the following is likely:<br /><br />1) he was arguing for the legitimacy of some sexual sin<br />2) still thinks that Josh Duggar sinned<br />3) thinks that forgiveness of sin is hypocritical, and that you would agree - in other words, if a sin can be forgive, it's not really a sin; and if a sin is heinous enough, it can't be forgiven. If it can be forgiven, then a repentant sinner who has been forgiven is not a hypocrite. This is a flaw in relativistic thinking that demonstrates that relativistic morality really results in just another system of objective morality.<br />Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.com