God was right wasn't he?

He knows people can gum up their programming so He warned people in advance about keeping themselves clean.

The cleaner you keep yourself the healthier you'll be in the long run.

And he said it ages before Semmelweis.

Science is only now catching up with germ theory and research into various addictions.

I dont think your God is real so me thinking him being right would be odd.

I think this is about as close as you're going to get.

You would have to put in a caveat of two or more conscious creatures (and maybe a few others), but yeah.

Ridiculous belief. You can be dumb and understand probability.

(Unless "understand" means to be like jason1990).

You know, there are choices besides Puritan and bathhouse.

Yes, gay men wanted monogamy before AIDS. Straight men did, right? Trying to link AIDS and day marriage like this is very odd.

We have no evidence that gay marriage will destroy society, and there's no reason to think it would. Do you realize what a horrible thing you're implying?

It's even possible??? Just a few posts back you posted a wiki article that mentions a gay sauna where a priest died of a heart attack and two other priests were on hand to help out. And then you are suggesting that you are not sure if there are any naughty Christians?

You seem to be fairly new here; the odds that Splendour has not fully read or understood articles she links to are extremely high.

They were just there looking for sinners they could redeem, I suspect.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

"It's even possible" is an affirmative not a negative statement.

Yep, looking to suck out the evil, as a public service.

But there's an implication in that phrase that that which it affirms may not be true, and that it would be somewhat surprising if it's true. You don't say "it's even possible" for something that is obviously true or something that you show to be true (as it's then obvious).

To the moral purists who believe in a God-guided absolute morality:

I have a close friend who has struggled with bipolar since he was 14. His father had it, and his grandfather had it as well. He attempted suicide 3 weeks ago, and in terms of treatment, he has tried every single drug under the sun. The only drug that has helped him cope in the slightest, has been weed, which is an illegal substance here. He has self-medicated with weed for the last 12 years, and an attempt to switch to a new - legally prescribed drug, lead to his suicide attempt. Put simply, it's either smoking weed, or suicide for him. It is the only drug without any seriously negative side-effects, which can stabilize his mood.

Now. Was it immoral for me to smuggle weed into the mental health facility for him?

No. It's what god would want.

Typical cop-out. It doesn't answer my question. This is the equivalent of saying - its what the league of unicorns want. It means nothing.

We get a totally specious recurring argument that "Jesus wouldn't mind this", "Jesus wouldn't mind that" just because he was generous and tried to redeem sinners. He opposed this kind of thing and what he had in mind is that we speak to "swingers" and their ilk and tell them that they should stop doing it. He would not support befriending and encouraging them.

Err..
In what way does this not answer your question?

I'm by no means a mental health expert, but this doesn't sound like a great idea.

From what I've heard, weed is known to induce mania and even psychosis in some people, especially those with a genetic predisposition towards it. The manic phase of bipolar is not quite psychosis, but it's close.
It's also known that while weed can be calming in the short-term, its long-term effects on mood and anxiety disorders is actually to make them worse.

A problem with antidepressants is that, just as they're starting to work, they can increase the risk of a suicide attempt. This is because the patient was previously feeling too hopeless to even attempt suicide, but as soon as this starts to lift, they find they have the energy to do it. Then again, some antidepressants just plain increase the risk of suicide as a side effect, so I can understand a sense of disillusionment with them.

I'm usually not a fan of spouting psychology research at people, because it can easily lead to the ignoring of individual differences. It's possible that your friend truly benefits from weed and that's fine imo. But I'd be somewhat concerned about the consequences. What if the treatment program he's receiving interacts negatively with the weed? If it's discovered he's been taking it (which I imagine wouldn't be too difficult at a mental health facility), would this have legal ramifications for him? For you?

It doesn't answer my question, because I did not ask 'what God would want'. I asked if my actions were immoral.

If your answer is no - they are not immoral, as you have stated, then why does - what God would want, matter? unless you're using it as a cop-out to say that "i think no, but in the end it doesn't matter what I think" - in which case, you're not answering my question, but handing over that responsibility to 'God'.

I say bring it. The evidence is actually on our side, but I don't want to derail this thread by comparing neuro-scientific studies or meta-analyses of long-term marijuana use with you.

Haha. So I did answer your question I just didn't answer another question you didn't ask. Gotcha.

You're still not very good at this.

I'd like to think it's implied that when you say yes or no to a question, you justify your reasons. This is not a poll, but a forum thread, and "It's what God would want" is not a reason, but a cop-out.

It is a reason, it just doesn't match what you think morality is.

To the target audience of your "challenge" referring to something as moral because it leads to increased long term survival prospects for the species (from memory that's what you think morality entails) is equally nonsensical and meaningless. From their perspective, there's no reason to care about long term survival of the species when we're talking about what god wants. They may even term it a cop out - abandoning your obligation to consider god's wishes in favour of some crass, deterministic rule. Shameful!

When you pose moral challenges/dilemmas you have to do it from within the other person's moral framework, not import their answers into your own.

"It's even possible" admits that there is such a possibility. It does not affirm that you believe it is so. Would you say "It's even possible God exists"?

Where did he say he doesn't support befriending them?

What has working with someone at your office got to do with encouraging their behavior outside of work?

Does befriending someone require you to accept and encourage everything this person does?

As per thread discussion, you're assumption here is that I respect their beliefs, and ought to tailor my responses to their world-view. Wouldn't it be dishonest of me to do this if I do not respect their beliefs?