Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[wandering peacefully]

I believe that is a purely subjective view.

Yes, it is my subjective view that stoning people to death is sick. So what? Are you suggesting it is not sick/bad/immoral/disgusting/inhumane?

 

[iam1me]

It sure seemed like you were making the claim that the ancient Hebrews didn't engage in immoral practices regarding the treatment of people as property. If you are in agreement that cruel, selfish forms of slavery likely existed in ancient Hebrew communities, then there is no difference of opinion to debate here apart from whether one considers that a moral deficiency in biblical scripture

My position is that while slavery is certainly not ideal (freedom and equality are unquestionably the ideals), it is also not inherently immoral. There are ways about which we might allow people to enter a slavery/servant position which are morally permissible, and there are manners of treating slaves/servants which are morally permissible. These ideas maybe contrary to the common positions of our present society - but that doesn't make them wrong. The scriptures didn't consider slaves to be sub-human things to be used, abused, and tossed out when they can no longer work. Rather, the scriptures constantly remind the Israelites that they were once slaves in Egypt - and to this day the Jewish people celebrate Passover. This offers a unique perspective on slavery that is fundamentally different from so many other cultures. And this is why while the scriptures permit slavery, they simultaneously talk of the rights of slaves, speaking of the responsibilities a masters has to a slave (or he must let them go free of charge), etc. The scriptures even talk of spoiling a slave from a young age, such that they become a son.

What would that matter unless you mean that there was no cruelty permitted?

The cruelty and evil of American Slavery are what I am speaking of.

You might dislike the idea that the OT Law permitted slaves to be beaten - for it violates our modern sensibilities. However, physical beatings need not be considered cruel. They CAN be of course, but in modern society where the idea of even spanking a child is viewed as child abuse - we have been oversensitized to the idea that any physical discipline = abuse. The OT Law established boundaries for what was permissible. Violating these boundaries would result in those slaves being freed, or even the Master facing vengeance for his crimes if he went far enough.

You've said all of this already. It doesn't address the point that slavery was not forbidden by the scriptures, which is being called a moral failing and evidence that the ideas are of ancient human origin, not those of a divine presence.

You can blindly assert that something is a moral failing - but that is not an argument. That is merely you disagreeing. Anyone will admit that on a number of matters the scriptures conflict with the morals of society. You can't conclude, therefore, that the scriptures are immoral. One or both could be wrong - and they only way to establish it one way or the other is to put forth appropriate arguments on each side and evaluate the merits of each position accordingly.

And I have a scripture for you :

• "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." - Leviticus 25:44

Not such good news for the residents of the nations around Israel. Considering people property that can be taken from neighboring nations and bequeathed like a house or car is immoral, something the Christian Bible fails to declare.

Yes they permitted the buying and selling of slaves - but the scriptures set forth ways that were permissible for people to enter into slavery and ways which were not permissible. You can say you dislike it - but that isn't an argument that it is immoral.

The Christian Bible clearly treats slavery as the natural order of society, ordained by God Himself, and was used to justify the cruelest forms of slavery.

I'd argue that the slavery permitted by the scriptures was far from being the cruelest form of slavery, but rather a very enlightened and even loving form of slavery. You are getting caught up in the classification of chattel slavery and completely ignoring the civil rights provided by the OT Law and the view that these people are as family.

American slavers were Christians. They found their Bibles to be no barrier to that practice until the nineteenth century, when the rational ethics of secular humanism came to the rescue and eventually overturned the practice of slavery.

Many American slavers were "Christians" - but they violated everything the scriptures taught on the matter - from how they acquired slaves by kidnapping them, to how they mercilessly beat them and killed them, to how they broke up families, to how they justified all of this through hate and racism, etc. When people call themselves "Christian," but act in every manner contrary to Christianity, these people are not representative of what Christianity teaches.

No, but I'll stipulate to the point for present purposes. So what? Indentured servitude is not the problem. Calling it slavery creates ambiguity and an equivocation fallacy by using the same word in different ways in the same argument - to represent both the voluntary financial arrangement some people entered into for an agreed upon period in exchange for an agreed upon compensation, a practice considered moral, with an unrelated practice that is clearly immoral.

They are both forms of slavery. There are many variations of slavery - some of which are permissible and others which are not. The fact that you think indentured servitude is OK is evidence of that fact. Realizing that such acceptable practices are also slavery forces you to open your eyes on the matter. You need to look past the term and look at what makes one form OK and another form NOT. Put forth arguments accordingly. Simply stating that you regard something as immoral doens't make it so.

Except where they don't :

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

• "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

• "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians

None of these people are equals to those they are commanded to submit to.

As noted previously, the scriptures are simultaneously idealistic and realistic - a point of contention for people who don't seek to understand what is being said. Obeying earthly authorities is realistic - we all have authorities over us that we must obey in this world. In so far as what is commanded of us by these authorities is morally permissible, we should follow what they say. However, spiritually, in Christ, we are equals:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[RESOLUTION]

It is in America and Mexico. Nobody else is teaching people that homosexuals are immoral, and seen as abominations fit for eternal punishment by a good and just god. Leviticus 20:13 orders the death of gays:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death"

So Christianity is clearly one source of homophobia. Are there other sources. Not the Rotary Club. Not the National Football League. Not Domino's Pizza. Not the American Contract Bridge League. Not the American Kennel Club. Not Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Not the FBI.

Same with atheophobia in America. It's Christian in origin. Christians have branded and marginalized atheists just as they have homosexuals. It's in the scriptures.

What scriptures? You know the scriptures yet you are not homophobic?
Do you know those scriptures were for Gods people the Jews a nation who at that time would consider it nothing to sacrifice a child to a pagan god.
Your post is incorrect that in American and Mexico there are atheists too who believe homosexuality is wrong. But that is the same throughout the world by atheist and believer.
Are you saying we should ignore the fact that atheists are probably the worst homophobics in that they attack and hurt those who are homosexual. It is one thing to say and believe something
is wrong and another to harm someone for that belief. Most attacks on homosexuals are not by people of faith but atheists.

I have made my opinion very clear. NO individual person should be hurt or attacked for their sexuality, race or beliefs.

As far as we know, nature didn't mean for anything to happen. Only sentient creatures can intend. If you're going to use nature as a guide to what is intended, you're going to have to have to accept homosexuality given its extensive presence in nature.

My post was clear that nature for procreation purposes do not allow two men or two women to procreate naturally. Man and woman is the way of nature., Using that terminology you use then you
would open the door for beastality and peadophilia being normal by nature. Your reasoning is not logical. You cannot make something 'normal' by nature because humans do it.
The biggest test of proof is that you yourself are not homosexual but if an act of nature you can become homosexual. The truth is you do not choose to be homosexual and nature cannot force
you to be homosexual. So by nature it is not right for you or 'normal' for you.

If the Christian god or any other god or gods exist, they are indifferent to us at best. The Christian god is one of the cruelest given its creation of a burning torture pit stocked with demons also of its own making, there to gratuitously torture people forever to no benefit of anybody but a sadist.

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins[/QUOTE[

This is not about Homophobia at all. This is your shield to use the misfortunes of those who truly suffer from horrific attacks for being homosexual so you can use it to try and edify your horrific
attacks due to your religiousphobia on God. God is not responsible for the ACTIONS and mindsets of men. There are homosexual believers so if God is so bad why do homosexuals believe
and trust in him? Homophobia has nothing to do with your attack it is merely a shield to insult God and believers. Believers which include homosexuals.
You see homophobia is clearly not caused by God but comes from man himself as does religiousphobia, I hope you find a way to work through your anger.. Homosexuals are not all atheists
so it makes your arguments dead. There are vicars who are homosexual and believe in God and they know God is love. Right and wrong is just that, It does not change but mans behaviour is the really problem. They cannot just love people for who they are. I hope you work through.

How does one insult an idea? One criticizes an idea, which another might take offense at. If the criticism is carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, then any offense taken is on the offended, especially if he has voluntarily entered a religious discussions forum that exists in part to critique such ideas..



I think it can. Mixed marriages are becoming or have become normalized just because some people wanted them to be.

The Church teaches love your neighbour and love God. Homosexuals are doing just that they believe in Jesus and go to church.. What comes to mind is this...

1 Corinthians 5:1 &

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I personally cannot speak for all people in all situations. Do not want to judge anyone for any sin, the bible tells believers to avoid fornication because it affects the body where Gods Spirit dwells
if baptised with the spirit. God tells us to love our neighbour we know that 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Men are responsible for their own evil doings not God. If you can feel that way towards God over something which does not affect you then why be surprised about what others can do.

Two wrongs won't make a right. And as far as the world treat everyone with love and stop looking for fault because you will find it. My heart is saddened for the burden you carry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The cruelty and evil of American Slavery are what I am speaking of.

I was speaking about slavery in ancient Israel.

You might dislike the idea that the OT Law permitted slaves to be beaten - for it violates our modern sensibilities.

That was my point. It's an ancient ethic inferior to modern ethics by the standard of reciprocity and the Golden Rule, and that is evidence that either these ideas come from primitive men or a god whose ethics doesn't keep up with modern man's

However, physical beatings need not be considered cruel.

I don't have a choice but to consider beatings cruel. I cringe at the thought of somebody doing that to somebody else. Apparently, not everybody does.

You can blindly assert that something is a moral failing - but that is not an argument.

No, it's not. It's a subjective judgment. If you find the ethics of slavery acceptable, then you have made a different subjective judgment.

My argument was that there is no reason to believe that ancient Hebrew slavery couldn't be as vicious and cruel as it was anywhere else. Your counter-argument was that scriptures prevented it. I told you that I didn't find that credible. Scripture could no more prevent people from owning slaves then as it did in the American South, same Old Testament, Christianity tempered by a New Testament featuring a gentle deity (or deity's agent on earth).

Since you don't seem to have a problem with beatings per se, how do you feel about torture and inquisitions to ensure orthodoxy? Immoral, or moral under certain circumstances? Is there a little wiggle room there as you imply there is with slavery? Are some forms of inquisitions less sadistic, and therefore not immoral to you?

Your post is incorrect that in American and Mexico there are atheists too who believe homosexuality is wrong

I didn't say otherwise. I said the original source of their homophobia is the dominant religion. One may choose to be an atheist after having grown up in a Christian home that was homophobic, and retain his parents' bigotry if not their religion.

Are you saying we should ignore the fact that atheists are probably the worst homophobics in that they attack and hurt those who are homosexual.

That's not my experience. Most atheists I know are secular humanists, and are not homophobic. Homophobia is coming from the pulpits. God will destroy homosexuals for being immoral and worthy of eternal torture. That is the root source of all similar feelings in America and Mexico.

My post was clear that nature for procreation purposes do not allow two men or two women to procreate naturally.

But what interest is that of the individuals engaging in sex? Most of the time, it's sex without procreation, not procreation that is on their minds. I had a vasectomy as a younger man to ensure that sex didn't lead to procreation. The only purpose or value of sex to me was for bonding and pleasure.

I am not interested in what others are implying are nature's values, purpose, or intent, since I don't acknowledge that such things exist. As far as we can tell, nature is unconscious, and therefore can make no plans and has no intentions.

The truth is you do not choose to be homosexual and nature cannot force you to be homosexual.

Nature can and does bequeath some individuals with homosexual proclivities. Christianity creates a kind ordeal for the lives of such people. It throws down this gauntlet : Express yourself like heterosexuals are free to do and risk the wrath of god's people, or hide who you are, perhaps loathing oneself or one's life.

As I indicated to the gentleman above, the ethics of secular humanism is based on the principle of reciprocity - what some call the Golden Rule. I imagine being born into a world where my sexual preference was declared to be an abomination in the eyes of a good god. Would I like that? If not, I know to reject treating others that way. It's that simple.

 

[iam1me]

That was my point. It's an ancient ethic inferior to modern ethics by the standard of reciprocity and the Golden Rule, and that is evidence that either these ideas come from primitive men or a god whose ethics doesn't keep up with modern man's

Asserting that "modern ethics" are superior does not make them so and is not an argument.

I don't have a choice but to consider beatings cruel. I cringe at the thought of somebody doing that to somebody else. Apparently, not everybody does.

Physical discipline is as old as time, and at times necessary. Some people take it too far - or administer physical punishment for no good reason, in which case it crosses over into abuse. Maybe you were never spanked as a child. I was - and even got some funny stories out of it.

Case and point: when I was still a young child (1st grade or so), I was told to do some chore that I'd been procrastinating on or I'd be spanked. So unafraid was I of being spanked - because it was never abuse - that I tried to barter. I asked if I just took the spanking would I still be required to do the chore? My parents broke out laughing.

I recognized that abuse is a real problem that must be addressed, but it is simply fallacious to equate any physical discipline with abuse.

No, it's not. It's a subjective judgment. If you find the ethics of slavery acceptable, then you have made a different subjective judgment.

If ethics are nothing more to you than subjective judgements, if you subscribe to the idea that all morals are simply relative, then you have no basis for deriding other's morals. You can merely disagree without any objective justification for your disagreement.

My argument was that there is no reason to believe that ancient Hebrew slavery couldn't be as vicious and cruel as it was anywhere else. Your counter-argument was that scriptures prevented it. I told you that I didn't find that credible. Scripture could no more prevent people from owning slaves then as it did in the American South, same Old Testament, Christianity tempered by a New Testament featuring a gentle deity (or deity's agent on earth).

I was never arguing that individuals couldn't go above and beyond what the scriptures allowed - that's what is known as sin. If people sin contrary to what is commanded in the scriptures - that is on them - and there are consequences given in the scriptures for such cases.

Since you don't seem to have a problem with beatings per se, how do you feel about torture and inquisitions to ensure orthodoxy? Immoral, or moral under certain circumstances? Is there a little wiggle room there as you imply there is with slavery? Are some forms of inquisitions less sadistic, and therefore not immoral to you?

The inquisitions were contrary to the teachings of Christ at a fundamental level. Christ explicitly forbade such things - it isn't our job to go about finding and punishing those who don't truly believe or who hold unorthodox views.

Torture is undesirable as a rule, but there maybe extreme circumstances where it is permissible. I'm sure we could dream up some scenarios if you are really interested. For instance: a man is known to have kidnapped your daughter. You caught the man but all efforts to locate the daughter have turned up dead ends, and there is a very real fear that she will die if not found soon. The man refuses to tell you where he has hidden her, and taunts you: "tick-tock!" Is it ok to beat this person, torture him even, to attempt to acquire information on her whereabouts before time is up? I think so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First, the bible as far as i know do not say it is a sin to be homosexual in it self, it is the act of two people of same gender getting together to have sexual relationship that is seen as the sin.

Which is rather ridiculous, since homosexuality is literally about males who only want to have sex with other males.

So that seems like a completely arbitrary and irrelevant statement to make.

The nature intended it was needed a person of each gender Male and Female to make a baby

Homosexuality occurs at an 11% frequency throught the mammal kingdom.
Sounds pretty natural to me.

, from the beginning (Adam and Eve) they was not supposed to enjoy the sexual part except for when giving new life

They were not supposed to enjoy sex?
Then why were they given sexual organs capable of orgasm?
Makes zero sense again.

they was supposed to bring them self to a higher spiritual realm, using their life to cultiveate

And it's impossible to do that, if you enjoy having sex?

But when Adam started to get attachments to the things around them (physical world and pleasure) already here the problem started with sin.

Being happy, enjoying yourself and enjoying physical contact with your other half, is a "sin"?
What kind of bizar beliefs do you people have....

Sin can be seen in two ways, as something unwholesome or something evil. And doing wrong deeds does lead to suffering for one self or others.

I enjoy sex with my other half. We use contraceptives as well, so it's really just about the sex and the intimacy. I'm not suffering. Apparantly, I'm an evil sinner because I enjoy physical contact with the person that I love and spend / share my life with?

Loving someone and expressing that love in intimate love-making, is evil?

As spiritual beings humans was intended to do morally good deeds so they could enlighten to it. But since the temptations of the physical world has taken over the mind of humans they do not see their wrong doings anymore.

So please tell me how it is apparantly "immoral" for me to engage in intimate love-making with the person I'm spending my life with?

And so too to the part where you qouted the bible. In my understanding the Christian teaching give example of how we should not live when it comes to attachments to the sexual. and not have sex with same gender as out self.

Yes, you've said that already. We already know what the bible says.
Please explain it now. What is so immoral about intimate love-making for the sake of intimate love-making instead of procreation?

That is often the teaching in other religions too. because of the moral code religions do holds.

You have yet to explain what exactly is so "immoral" about intimate love-making.
All you've done is just assert it "cause the bible says it, so that settles it".

 

[sooda]

None of the abominations are explained, but there is a hint that it would cause Jews in the bronze age to become like the nations around them. An 'Abomination' means its something the Jewish men aren't supposed to do for reasons which are not explained to us. The word appears and is used to describe things they aren't allowed to do, but it doesn't describe everything illegal. Eating the wrong food is an abomination. Murder is just illegal and evil.

The punishment for abomination is also unclear. All abominations carry grave sentences (always death) for them that might contradict one of the great ten commandments which is do not murder, and the covenant of Noah says that no man shall be killed unless he has killed someone. The result is a legal system it seems in which someone who does these abominations is excluded but not killed physically. They probably are legally considered dead. Whether they can be brought back to life I do not know. We are all guessing, because it is from so long ago. My guess is (everything I have said is a guess) they were kicked out of the community unless they agreed to reform, but I don't know. If they hadn't murdered it would be illegal to kill them.


Speaking from experience as a moderator it is sometimes a good idea to report a post that accuses you directly of lying. Its complicated, but we try to discourage that since there is no defense. Its declaration that civil conversation with you is not possible. If somebody really thinks you're lying we'd prefer that they simply add you to their ignore list instead of trying to cause a vicious I'm-right-You're-wrong match. They're just creating work for us and scaring other people away from conversation. Accusations of lying are sometimes considered considered trolling, preaching or insulting. Technically you are allowed to lie and to disagree as long as you don't troll, because we just can't police truth very easily. Yes if somebody is really being a super liar its possible we'd let somebody call them that, but usually its not allowed.

Defiling the Temple was definitely an abomination of desolation.. so consider Antiochus IV, Titus and Vespasian and Nero.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Defiling the Temple was definitely an abomination of desolation.. so consider Antiochus IV, Titus and Vespasian and Nero.

My guess is that the temple is a place of peacemaking and sharing. All who enter are equals, but if that practice is replaced showing partiality and asserting dominance then it undoes the entire concept. Temple becomes like pagan temples, hence it is called abomination.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Asserting that "modern ethics" are superior does not make them so and is not an argument.

Yes, you said that already. I am not making a moral argument. I am making a moral judgment, my morals. I place the Golden Rule at the apex of my hierarchy of values. I cannot and do not argue that you should do the same. If such ideas don't drive your moral compass, then they don't, and nobody will change that.

What I have argued is that the Bible condones slavery, and that even if it had forbid it, your claim that slavery wasn't the same in the past is unsupported, and not credible. You simply assert that, and I have no reason to believe it.

I would also now claim that taking one's ethics from the Bible has a deleterious effect on moral thought. For example, it might make one think that slavery, beatings, and torture aren't necessarily immoral. But that claim is also rooted in the assumption that the highest good is that arrangement which most promotes the pursuit of happiness by the greatest number, utilitarian ethics. If that's not your highest value, then you will come to different conclusion, ones which don't respect the Golden Rule.

Physical discipline is as old as time, and at times necessary. Some people take it too far - or administer physical punishment for no good reason, in which case it crosses over into abuse. Maybe you were never spanked as a child.

You're doing it again. First, you tried to transform slavery into a helpful, voluntary financial arrangement (indentured servitude), and now beatings that can kill a man as long as he dies over three or more days with spankings.

But I understand why you feel the need to do this. Your job as you see it is to defend the Bible, which claims that its gods ethical commands represent ethical perfection, from critics who say otherwise by any means necessary..

I recognized that abuse is a real problem that must be addressed, but it is simply fallacious to equate any physical discipline with abuse.

I was referring to beatings. You seem to have no problem with that.

If ethics are nothing more to you than subjective judgements, if you subscribe to the idea that all morals are simply relative, then you have no basis for deriding other's morals. You can merely disagree without any objective justification for your disagreement.

I am free to criticize and condemn anybody's morals. The basis for so doing is rational ethics applied to the Golden Rule. If that's not your process for determining right and wrong, I wouldn't be interested in what you decided upon. If it's not your method of deciding the moral status of a given act, your ideas won't speak to me at all except to reinforce in me why I don't respect biblical ethics, and why I consider it detrimental to people.

Christians are continually chanting "love one another," as if that is their credo, even while defending beatings, slavery and torture. Secular humanists understand why that is unkind and unloving, and therefore immoral.

Torture is undesirable as a rule, but there maybe extreme circumstances where it is permissible.

Except that I wasn't referring to extreme circumstances. I was discussing slavery in ancient Israel, which was undoubtedly an everyday practice. Slavery is a form of torture. And theft.

I notice that you don't mind giving your moral judgment in the form of declarative statements of fact. Nor does your Bible.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I didn't say otherwise. I said the original source of their homophobia is the dominant religion. One may choose to be an atheist after having grown up in a Christian home that was homophobic, and retain his parents' bigotry if not their religion.

You cannot make that statement as an atheist. If you believe no God exists then it has to be a human response based on the fact that most men do not find other men sexually attractive or want to sleep with them as a woman. You cannot have it both ways. If you are an atheist then the only answer there is, is that both homophobia and religion are mans own doing.

That's not my experience. Most atheists I know are secular humanists, and are not homophobic. Homophobia is coming from the pulpits. God will destroy homosexuals for being immoral and worthy of eternal torture. That is the root source of all similar feelings in America and Mexico.

Being realistic there are more attacks on homosexual men by atheists than a religious sector when it comes to harming others. Homophobia cannot come from a pulpit if man created both it comes
from mankind itself and if you got rid of religion there would be a devastating affect on the behaviour of homophobic people toward homosexuals. I would say religious people are not homophobic they do not harm but the atheist actually physically attack. Take the faith away then most people would not be against the homosexual act but would they like the atheist then attack?
Homophobia for an atheist cannot come from the faith in religion. It has to come from man themselves.

But what interest is that of the individuals engaging in sex? Most of the time, it's sex without procreation, not procreation that is on their minds. I had a vasectomy as a younger man to ensure that sex didn't lead to procreation. The only purpose or value of sex to me was for bonding and pleasure.

What point is sex for procreation a wrong act or selfish? But do you believe your selfish act of a vasectomy was really about bonding or caring for another? You see women as pleasure and self gratification tool, only? Do you tell your partners you have had a vasectomy because you don't want kids? What happens if you ever fall in love and the woman you really love says she cannot remain with you because she wants kids? It is sadly ALL ABOUT YOU. Relationships have to be mutually about the two people involved.

I am not interested in what others are implying are nature's values, purpose, or intent, since I don't acknowledge that such things exist. As far as we can tell, nature is unconscious, and therefore can make no plans and has no intentions.

You yourself are part of Nature so can make plans and do things intentionally like having a vasectomy. The truth is you want it your way and only your way and if an atheist your thoughts need readdressing and your posts should be stating that only man is responsible for homophobia as he would by your reasoning have invented religion.

Nature can and does bequeath some individuals with homosexual proclivities. Christianity creates a kind ordeal for the lives of such people. It throws down this gauntlet : Express yourself like heterosexuals are free to do and risk the wrath of god's people, or hide who you are, perhaps loathing oneself or one's life.

Why would nature not bestow on all the ability to procreate be it two men or two women? If it is nature then why would you loath yourself or hide it, if you believe it to be the normal way?
You see the actions do not support what they claim to be the Normal. But in the end on your side of the fence only Mankind is responsible for Homophobia as you do not believe in God.
Making man the maker of his own dilemmas.

As I indicated to the gentleman above, the ethics of secular humanism is based on the principle of reciprocity - what some call the Golden Rule. I imagine being born into a world where my sexual preference was declared to be an abomination in the eyes of a good god. Would I like that? If not, I know to reject treating others that way. It's that simple.

The there is the reality choice. Secular humanism or any other rubbish you chose to hide behind does not make God or believers responsible for abomination. It is for you the atheist just a matter of what you believe that makes only YOU and others like you responsible for all that is wrong... CHOICE and freedom to choose. But the Atheist will always be the aggressor when it comes to actions which harm others when they are homophobic. :-(

 

[Dan Mellis]

As a cultivator of Buddhism i can not say i follow the Christian God, but in my understanding of the biblical scripture there is the morality issue of having sex with same gender as one self.
According to the Christian God it is immoral to have that form of sex, and in my understanding it is only meant to keep the generations going. example two males can not get kids so they can nor reproduce.
Example a priest who is gay can be gay and still be a priest as long the person do not have sex with same sex as them self. if they do want to be a priest they can not continue the homosexual relationship (according to the bible that is)

As a buddhist i do not judge those who choose to live together, so it is not up to me to say what is right or wrong for them. i can only try my best to live a morally good life.

I'd accept that as a valid point, back in the day when life was unstable and it was necessary to proliferate the human race by any means possible. But if a christian were to make it, I'd simply say "then why didn't god inspire them to specify 'its bad to be gay unless you also make sure you produce kids' or 'its not evil to be gay, it's just not ideal at the minute. Can you wait a millenium or so?"

I know you're not defending that position so its not an argument against you per se

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I watched shapiro make an explanation of it that at least gives some clarity and name some caveats which may be appreciated to some degree. (though I'm not a fan of his) Namely, that such verses in the covenant aren't externalized, therefore outside of it we are the free architects of whatever law or moral system we choose. As to people who are naturally homosexual within his religious community, shapiro drew the distinction between acting out those feelings and just having them, the former he says is the sin and the latter is not. How such a person should deal with that I have no comment on, I don't know.

One might ask how such verses are read in christianity. I think that probably, a lot of times they seem to read such verses in a favorable view as it relates to sin. Though I may wrong, I can't recall one instance where any of the gospels or epistles deal with topic. Contrariwise, and I mean this without an iota of sardonic inflection, but with whatever objective focus of the intellect I can muster, I think that christian history seems much tilted toward gender exclusive amiability. The concept of brotherhood so often seems described as having the widest berth of affection, tied into even mortality, that I am unsure if such feelings are to be perceived as registering as within assigned bound.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I watched shapiro make an explanation of it that at least gives some clarity and name some caveats which may be appreciated to some degree. (though I'm not a fan of his) Namely, that such verses in the covenant aren't externalized, therefore outside of it we are the free architects of whatever law or moral system we choose. As to people who are naturally homosexual within his religious community, shapiro drew the distinction between acting out those feelings and just having them, the former he says is the sin and the latter is not. How such a person should deal with that I have no comment on, I don't know.

One might ask how such verses are read in christianity. I think that probably, a lot of times they seem to read such verses in a favorable view as it relates to sin. Though I may wrong, I can't recall one instance where any of the gospels or epistles deal with topic. Contrariwise, and I mean this without an iota of sardonic inflection, but with whatever objective focus of the intellect I can muster, I think that christian history seems much tilted toward gender exclusive amiability. The concept of brotherhood so often seems described as having the widest berth of affection, tied into even mortality, that I am unsure if such feelings are to be perceived as registering as within assigned bound.

Thanks for the reply

The first point is essentially "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. If I was to say "I don't hate that you're a baseball player, I just hate that you play baseball" you might be able to see the problem with this argument. Is someone gay if they aren't "gay"? Secuality is inexorable from a person's identity, so theres a reasonable argument to me made that hating homosexual acts is to hate the expression of that persons identity. Therefore, it's homophobia.

Secondly, I'm afraid that I don't put much stock into christian historians. The main reason is that they set out with something to prove, and this automatically makes their work subject to their bias. However, in this case, I think a layperson in biblical studies can see through the conclusion that the bible is tilted towards gender exlusive amiability. For example, how much is a slave worth? How about a woman slave? Should women obey their husbands? In the story (which even some christian historians have concluded is likely false) about jesus asking the person without sin to start stoning the adultress caught in the act, where was the adulterer? The woman is the only recipient of the any sort of reported punishment.

 

[tayla]

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

Clearly the Bible is fiction, so objecting to its descriptions about the nature of God is a waste of time. It is better to demonstrate that Christian claims are false.

I never hear atheists discuss other conceptions of God besides the Christian view, for example, philosophically based views.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Clearly the Bible is fiction, so objecting to its descriptions about the nature of God is a waste of time. It is better to demonstrate that Christian claims are false.

I never hear atheists discuss other conceptions of God besides the Christian view, for example, philosophically based views.

I agree it's probably fiction (I don't like to make claims I can't 100% prove to be true), but arguing about its morality and the morality of montheistic religion is never a waste of time; these groups can, and do, attempt to legislate their religious values which are based upon the heinous teachings of rambling, violent, intolerant misogynists. I don't try to prove that their claims are false, as that's not my job. Its on them to claim why their claims are truth; I'll just point out why their arguments are fallacious, immoral an/or nonsensical.

I'd love to talk about a philisophical position on god! Do you mean a Deistic veiw as in "there is probably a god but it doesnt care or even necessarily know about us" sort of thing? That way, we can get away from the monstrosity that is christianity/islam/judaism.

Personally, although this view is ostensibly less hostile than monotheistic views, I still remain unconvinced. Let me explain why.

The origin of the universe is something we will probably never understand, certainly not in our lifetimes. There are a plethora of possible explainations - and none have much more evidence that any other. I don't necessarily see that any "creator" or other supernatural, conscious being had to have kicked it all off. In fact, although its one possible cause, I think its probably more true to say that as humans, it's impossible for us to truly comprehend the concept of "what came before". I'm happy to accept that whatever came before defies my capability to understand it (if 'it' even happened).

That being said, I think theres a solid philisophical argument for something always existing. I'd be willing to concede that point. Then it just boils down to our own definitions of "god" and our reasoning for that position.

I'd argue that whatever came before was natural as far as the bounds of that reality allowed, and that if something exists that can consciously create something in this universe then it must adhere to the laws of this universe; rendering it natural as opposed to supernatural.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

There are 507 OT laws which (if kept) made a safe, strong, cohesed, healthy, very successful nation of people.

You have focused upon one, so let's look at your one.
The best way to build a large strong people quickly as possible was for men and women to bond together and have children......... and more children.

These relationships needed to be closed, or sickness could be transmitted through the people very quickly, leading to weakness and mass illnesses.

Men needed to bond with women for this to work, in closed couples. So Men sleeping with men didn't make the people stronger, and had a high risk of transmission of sickness.


Let me give you one more of the 507. All roofs had to be fitted with parapets. Try and figure how that saved lives and helped security and safety.

You see? Every law counted back then, not just your choice.

Do we need to keep your choice of law today?
No! We got too many children!
No! We have better medicine.

None of the 507 were about morals, that's a junk idea, they were about success as a nation.

 

[oldbadger]

Clearly the Bible is fiction, so objecting to its descriptions about the nature of God is a waste of time. It is better to demonstrate that Christian claims are false.

I never hear atheists discuss other conceptions of God besides the Christian view, for example, philosophically based views.

Do you think the bible is all fiction?

 

[tosca1]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

How we know an interpretation is correct:
the message has to be consistent with other message. Like your quoted verse about homosexual acts - a similar message is given in the New Testament (that sexual act is a sin).

What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?


A correct interpretation does not get into conflict with other verses in the Bible.

A Bible-study is a must, since it usually explains more than just what we read as a verse.

 

[tayla]

Do you think the bible is all fiction?

There are sentences that are true or partially true. The OT from David on has some historical truth. The book of Acts has some truth. And here and there.

 

[tayla]

these groups can, and do, attempt to legislate their religious values which are based upon the heinous teachings of rambling, violent, intolerant misogynists.

Yes, this should be opposed vigorously.