Burden of proof

[Sheldon]

What will your morality mean when you are dead and buried? Resurrect!

Mean to whom? You're not making much sense.

 

[Sheldon]

You want me to explain how two men or two women having sex in a public place affects children?!

You said practising, which was misleading, so this has nothing specifically to do with being gay then, as it would have to be equally true of heterosexual sex in public? So why bring being gay up specifically? It just sounds like homophobic bigotry.

 

[Sheldon]

Homosexuals who were practicing in public in the Exodus (God visible constantly as a pillar of fire and smoke) were to be killed--the obvious context being hurting children and culture.

It's hard to talk to you when you conflate "execution under the law" with murder--

That's just semantics, there is no context in which it is moral to kill or murder anyone just for being gay.

Again there is no context in which rape is acceptable or moral, and having falsely accused me of believing it was contextual, you are now claiming to believe it is contextual yourself.

Non consensual sex is never acceptable, and anyone who thinks it is has no moral compassed, as far as I am concerned.

and support people having sex in public where children can see them.

I have never made any such a claim, what on earth are you blathering about? Again the words you used were "practising being gay" not having sexual intercourse, and why on earth are you singling out gay men and women here, since one assumes this would apply equally to heterosexual men and women? Your posts are becoming ever more disjointed and bizarre, no mean feat.

Again regarding "raping female prisoners" you do not know the law for what female captives were to do and Israel was to do. Look it up.

Again, I don't care, I don't believe there is any context in which non-consensual sex can ever be morally acceptable. Yet it is condoned in the bible, as is slavery.

 

[KWED]

Okay, you give because you are "good, moral"? When did atheists accept that these things EXIST (new atheists/Dawkins/Hitchens).

When have I, or any of those people, ever claimed that morality is an invalid concept or the "right and wrong" don't exist? We only claim that it is subjective and derived from the individual & society (which it obviously is), not objective and divinely revealed (which it clearly isn't).

Give it all away from the goodness (whatever that is) of your heart (whatever that is). We will rot and corrupt under the ground and 10 years from then, much less 1,000, we will be forgotten. Jesus rising from the dead is the counter to THIS reality for atheists.

No idea what you are trying to say there.
Presumably you now accept that an atheist giving £5 to charity is more selfless and worthy than a religionist giving £5000 because he is told to, or because he thinks he'll get something more valuable in return?

 

[KWED]

What will your morality mean when you are dead and buried? Resurrect!

Ah, I see you have run out of arguments and are now reduced to flailing about with threats of imaginary peril.
Good for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So an atheist who gives $50 here and there is more noble than someone who gives a compulsory 10% then a willing additional 20% of income? No.

The Bible defines giving as free will, cheerful.

Personally, I don't consider most Christian tithes to be "giving" any more than I consider a country club member paying their dues to be "giving."

If you enjoy going to church and pay for your share of its upkeep, staffing, etc., that's fine (or would be fine generally - you've made it clear that your church does some downright evil things), but it isn't charity.

... despite the fact that churches have had enough political clout to get tithes treated as charitable donations for tax purposes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's what you meant by "practicing in public?" You think "practicing" being gay means having sex in public? And you support killing such people? Good grief. This is getting silly and a bit scary.
Weird how you mention that but not people who "practice" being straight in public. Whoever these people are. Does the Bible say we should kill them too? Do you live somewhere where there is a lot of public sex going on?

Huh?

The Bible supports consent and privacy in many areas including homosexuality. The context of the execution for homosexuals in the Mosaic Law was people caught in public. You don't know the history or tradition of we Jewish people or you would know there was never, not once, a recorded instance of homosexuals being killed in ancient Israel until now.

Take it as a warning regarding sinners and Hell--is the Bible's stance in my opinion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If there are still other people around it will mean the same to them as it did to me.

What does the fact that I'm going to die have to do with anything? Is the only reason you do any good things is because you think you're getting rewarded with some afterlife?

You keep assigning existential meaning ("it has meaning for me, why do you accept afterlife meaning for you?") as if morals exist in existential, intangible ways.

I challenged you why you have morals--you leapt to the "trying to prove God" conclusion. If being "good" (whatever that means in the context of Darwinism and non-God meaninglessness in life) makes you feel good, enjoy. But of course, you have to challenge why doing something for the afterlife is "right" (whatever that means).

If we're dead in the ground with no afterlife, why do you care if I do something for the next world? You should be applauding my charity--unfortunately, according to Romans 1, you and I are sinners who applaud EVIL.

You speak as if you don't want me to do good! You want me to say "there is no afterlife" so I can do "REAL" good unselfishly? Then stop attacking me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You said practising, which was misleading, so this has nothing specifically to do with being gay then, as it would have to be equally true of heterosexual sex in public? So why bring being gay up specifically? It just sounds like homophobic bigotry.

Rather, I find a bunch of heterosexual yet repressed (?) atheists at RF arguing homosexuality again and again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When have I, or any of those people, ever claimed that morality is an invalid concept or the "right and wrong" don't exist? We only claim that it is subjective and derived from the individual & society (which it obviously is), not objective and divinely revealed (which it clearly isn't).

No idea what you are trying to say there.
Presumably you now accept that an atheist giving £5 to charity is more selfless and worthy than a religionist giving £5000 because he is told to, or because he thinks he'll get something more valuable in return?

Why are you judging the weight of relative goodness and morals? These are subjective intangibles? Either you believe in metaphysics (good exists!) or no. BE CONSISTENT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Personally, I don't consider most Christian tithes to be "giving" any more than I consider a country club member paying their dues to be "giving."

If you enjoy going to church and pay for your share of its upkeep, staffing, etc., that's fine (or would be fine generally - you've made it clear that your church does some downright evil things), but it isn't charity.

... despite the fact that churches have had enough political clout to get tithes treated as charitable donations for tax purposes.

Be consistent--you are judging relative "weights" for intangible metaphysics here, "good, better, best". There is no God, we will rot and die--in the animal kingdom, you sometimes have social structure, you sometimes eat your own young.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Be consistent--you are judging relative "weights" for intangible metaphysics here, "good, better, best". There is no God, we will rot and die--in the animal kingdom, you sometimes have social structure, you sometimes eat your own young.

What are you on about?

You can judge your church to be as wonderful as you want, but if you expect non-adherents to help pay for it, then you're giving them license to tell you exactly what they think of it.

As the old line goes, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Well, if you want atheists to pay for your church, then atheists will have a say in the affairs of your church. If you don't like atheists having a say in the affairs of your church, then figure out a way to make your church self-sufficient, with no tax breaks for your church or donations to it.

 

[KWED]

Why are you judging the weight of relative goodness and morals? These are subjective intangibles? Either you believe in metaphysics (good exists!) or no. BE CONSISTENT.

Of course we can judge relative morality. What makes you think we can't?
And where have I ever claimed that good or bad do not exist. I merely claim that they are subjective and derived from the individual and society, not objective and derived from a god.
I literally just explained this in the post you replied to. I'm starting to suspect that you don't understand this subject at all.

 

[KWED]

Rather, I find a bunch of heterosexual yet repressed (?) atheists at RF arguing homosexuality again and again.

No repressing here. I'd love to be bisexual - so many more opportunities! Unfortunately I'm just not sexually attracted to men. (Which kinda blows the whole "but it's a choice" argument out of the water).

 

[ppp]

Huh?

The Bible supports consent and privacy in many areas including homosexuality. The context of the execution for homosexuals in the Mosaic Law was people caught in public. You don't know the history or tradition of we Jewish people or you would know there was never, not once, a recorded instance of homosexuals being killed in ancient Israel until now.

Take it as a warning regarding sinners and Hell--is the Bible's stance in my opinion.

Do you think those four sentences mitigate the immorality of that law? They do not.

 

[Sheldon]

You said practising, which was misleading, so this has nothing specifically to do with being gay then, as it would have to be equally true of heterosexual sex in public? So why bring being gay up specifically? It just sounds like homophobic bigotry.

Rather, I find a bunch of heterosexual yet repressed (?) atheists at RF arguing homosexuality again and again.

It's pretty edifying that you have to immediately resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Huh?

Indeed.

The Bible supports consent and privacy in many areas including homosexuality. The context of the execution for homosexuals in the Mosaic Law was people caught in public. You don't know the history or tradition of we Jewish people or you would know there was never, not once, a recorded instance of homosexuals being killed in ancient Israel until now.

I don't know how on earth you could back up that claim, but it's irrelevant anyway. The Bible, as commanded from God, tells us what to do with gay people - kill them. That's what God says about it. Whether or not anyone actually did it is irrelevant.

So, as I was asking, you say that "caught in public" means "having sex in public?" What if they were caught, say, just holding hands or something?

Take it as a warning regarding sinners and Hell--is the Bible's stance in my opinion.

I'll take it as a warning from bronze age people who believe in such terrible things as killing people for being gay.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You keep assigning existential meaning ("it has meaning for me, why do you accept afterlife meaning for you?") as if morals exist in existential, intangible ways.

I do? How's that?

I challenged you why you have morals--

Which I think is something of a ridiculous question ...

you leapt to the "trying to prove God" conclusion. If being "good" (whatever that means in the context of Darwinism and non-God meaninglessness in life) makes you feel good, enjoy. But of course, you have to challenge why doing something for the afterlife is "right" (whatever that means).

I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding what "good" is when I've explained it several times now. And yet you're still referencing "Darwinism" here, for some reason. What is it that you aren't understanding? I'd love to clarify.

My being dead has nothing at all to do with morality, because I can't practice morality if I'm not alive. Hence the reason I thought it was a strange question.

If we're dead in the ground with no afterlife, why do you care if I do something for the next world? You should be applauding my charity--unfortunately, according to Romans 1, you and I are sinners who applaud EVIL.

I don't care about anything "for the next world." I care about this world, the only one we know there is, and the only life we know we get for sure.

Romans I is full of crap. I don't applaud evil.

You speak as if you don't want me to do good! You want me to say "there is no afterlife" so I can do "REAL" good unselfishly? Then stop attacking me.

Huh? I want everyone to do good in the one life we know we get for sure.

Never have I asked you to say "there is no afterlife" or told you there is no god or anything of the sort. I'd just like to point out that this is how almost every conversation I have with you turns out - you say I'm attacking you and telling you there is no God and blah blah when I've done nothing but challenge your assertions on a debate forum. If you feel like someone challenging your claims is an attack then I would suggest a debate forum isn't for you. Otherwise, let's drop the hooey here and get back to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rather, I find a bunch of heterosexual yet repressed (?) atheists at RF arguing homosexuality again and again.

What?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Indeed.


I don't know how on earth you could back up that claim, but it's irrelevant anyway. The Bible, as commanded from God, tells us what to do with gay people - kill them. That's what God says about it. Whether or not anyone actually did it is irrelevant.

So, as I was asking, you say that "caught in public" means "having sex in public?" What if they were caught, say, just holding hands or something?


I'll take it as a warning from bronze age people who believe in such terrible things as killing people for being gay.

What is right, even per God's Law, must be put aside at times for what is good. I don't advocate killing gays and Jewish history records this law as an admonition that wasn't observed.

The Law of God is meant for our greater and individual good. Why? Because per the Bible, God loves us greatly.