trackhead wrote:
but didn't I write "...human rights are upheld"?
who gets to decide what the human rights are?
trackhead wrote:
but didn't I write "...human rights are upheld"?
who gets to decide what the human rights are?
nope wrote:
In some issues, there are no "possiblities" for morality. Dismembering an unborn fetus is not a possibility, Arabian pygmies who conceived the practice be damned.
It doesn't work like that.
Just to play devil's advocate: First, a fetus by nature is unborn. If it had been born, it'd be a baby. But it's not. It's a fetus. It's like saying "male penis". Is there any other kind? Second, and more to the point, what if the fetus is discovered to be microencephalitic with no brain function and "dismembering", to use your word, is necessary to protect the life of the mother? Is that a possibility? (Yes, I know it's extreme, but you did use a declarative "not".)
In all seriousness, as far as "moral relativity" goes, trotting out the most egregious examples of human behaviour (like torching six million Jews) that pretty much any sane person regardless of culture can agree is absolute barbarism in no way proves that all decisions involve moral absolutes or negate the concept of relativism. It's not a question of "everything is relative" versus "everything is absolute".
I think there is a tendency to file everything as black or white when in fact there is a lot more gray out there (which itself does not preclude the existence of black or white). Just because one might view the world in black and white doesn't make it so.
It doesn't work like that.
I note that I have strayed considerably from the title of the thread, so, more to the topic: I don't think boxing is immoral so long as all particiapting parties are aware of what's involved at all levels (physical, financial, etc.) and are willing, uncoerced participants. I don't consider it a sport. I put it in the same category as NASCAR and the NFL: entertainment. Personally, I find it crude and boorish, but if someone likes to do it, I wouldn't stand in their way.
I would put boxing in the same category as polygomy and voluntary indentured servitude (= old testment practice of slavery). Not sinful in and of itself, and not necessarily in violation of any of the ten commandments, yet a practice that allows for much sinful behaviour, and as such, may not be good practice in today's world.
can someone provide the link to this story?
Follow Christ. Don't follow the Vatican. They are polar opposites.
blue jeans wrote:
Follow Christ. Don't follow the Vatican. They are polar opposites.
Really? Polar Opposites? Like their stance on killing the unborn and what they consider innocents? Yep chalk that one up for Homicidal Christ, definitely would have said let them burn.
And their policy on the death penalty. Yep, yet another one where Christ would have flipped the switch for the electric chair.
Ooh, I know, how about their attempts to unify their doctrine with the Anglican Church in hopes of one day possibly bringing them back into the fold (and vice-versa). Nope Jesus would have said screw those Limey bastards.
Or maybe their support of charities like Mother Theresa and Catholic Charities in America (and it's charity provided to flood victims)? Yep, Christ wouldn't have any of that.
Or maybe their stance on boxing? Jesus sure as hell wouldn't have turned the other cheek if he were in the ring.
Wow, Jesus is rather violent loser right? Yeah, that's the Christ I want to follow. Then I can be a jackass and be doing right....
I feel for pro boxers since those around the sport are sleezy mofos. But I care little what the vatican says since they have shown they are no moral authority.