Not a sin anymore???

[Ella S.]

So that would be a no I’m having a point. Your dislike of the Bible is clear, but this is not a Bible bashing thread.

"Dislike" isn't really accurate here.

You're asking whether something is a sin or not, and this isn't the same-faith debates forum. It's the scriptural debates forum, and so users are going to debate the scripture, its context, its meaning, etc. even outside of a Christian lens.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Paul was a follower. And many conservatives Christians follow the follower, not the leader. It;s almost as if Jesus was so much a genius that the average Christian isn't capable of understanding him, so follow Paul's dumbed down ideas.

They aren't dumbed down.. and most Christians barely grasp them. Paul didn't contradict anything Jesus said, he just explained how Jesus fulfilled the Torah.

 

[InChrist]

Because i follow facts as a means to understanding. Facts is the basis of knowledge. Witout facts you have no knowledge. You make claims that are not based on facts, so there is no rational basis to accept what you say is true.


If? We do ive in a physical realm. That is a fact you experience every moment. But you're unsure?


That is what people claim, but no gods are known to exist outside of human imagination.


Stop making claims you can't back up.


That sounds a little suspicious. Any religious person can claim the same thing about their god. What we critical thinkers require is unambiguous evidence that is available to ordinary senses, and without special feelings or assumptions. Can you provide that? pretend we are in court, could you provide evidence of your god on a witness stand?

So you follow facts as a means of understanding. Tell me how would a fish who lives it’s entire life underwater, follow facts to understand how humans live on land? The God presented in the biblical scriptures is an infinite, eternal, spiritual Being so different and so far advanced compared to you or I, as finite beings. The gulf between us and God are vastly greater than between fish and humans. What makes you believe that you have the capability to understand an infinite Being?
Nevertheless, the scriptures indicate that God has created us in His image and given us the ability to think and reason enough to know of His existence, while also providing revelation of Himself so we can have understanding.

There is plenty of evidence for anyone who is actually and seriously seeking it...



“Never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence.”

“These are the words of Simon Greenleaf, the famous Harvard Law Professor considered by many to be the foremost legal expert on evidence the world has known. Applying the principles contained in his 3 volume discourse A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, Dr. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.
Evidences of the Bible



“Combining what we know of experience, logic, history, science, and other disciplines, there is more than enough evidence that God exists. Thankfully, we aren’t expected to find all that evidence in order to have a right relationship with Him. Rather, we are obligated to absorb what we can see and understand and follow the process of “ask . . . seek . . . knock” (Matthew 7:7–8).”


Is there evidence for the existence of God? | GotQuestions.org


I would like to highlight that the re-establishment and existence of the nation of Israel is a major proof of God and His prophetic promises.

 

[leroy]

My reasons for rejecting the Bible as an authoritative source ARE based in evidence.

Ok. Perhaps you know something that i don't know.... but my poit is that I as a Christian can't (or shouldn't) reject the bible just because there are verses that I dont like. Agree?

Conscience, not consciousness. I trust it because it has served as a more reliable guide for making decisions about right and wrong than any other source. Also, its urges are compelling. Disobeying them leads to a kind of suffering - shame, guilt, regret, etc.

You dont seem to understand the issue.

Under your view consciousness was caused by a mechanism that was not even trying to produce a reliable moral guide. Evolution (random variation and natural selection) aims at survival of the species it doest aim at "Good morality"

As an analogy its like trusting star wars, as a reliable guide to understand the cosmos and other planets....... (the author is not even trying to make a reliable description of other planets so why trusting it?)

I used to trust the Bible, but it's moral advice just didn't resonate with me. Its versions of love, mercy, and justice aren't mine. It is inadequate for dealing with modern ethical issues. It's advice on slavery is inadequate. Its sexual mores reflect another time and way of living that are no longer relevant today. It's view of women is ancient and obsolete, presently manifesting in the States as a Handmaid's Tale dystopia. My conscience advises me better than the book.

I think you making the issue bigger that what it really is..... but in general I agree , sometimes the Bible seems to be wrong on moral issues.

s.

Conscience is an emergent phenomenon not found in its components the way life is an emergent phenomenon not found in any of its chemicals. Consider the wetness of liquid water. No water molecule is wet. Wetness emerges at a larger scale.

Natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations leads to forms and behaviors of increasing complexity over geological time that facilitate propagation of the population. Whatever arises through genetic variation that does this will be selected for. It is not a random process. Only the genetic variation is random. The natural selection is directed naturalistically toward greater fecundity, which is facilitated by certain types of social interactions that promote communal well-being. This is the origin of the Golden Rule, which has arisen independently in multiole human cultures

No disagreement, but irrelevant. Usung your words, natural selection aims towards grater fecundity not towards "better morality" .... so why trusting consciousness as a moral guide if the mechanism that cause it was not even trying to produce a moral guide. ?

It's not my argument. I agree that not all natural inclinations are desirable. Homosexuality and pedophilia are both natural inclinations, but one harms people and needs to be suppressed

.


I agree, given that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it seems that it shouldn't be suppressed

This would be a good example of where I leave biblical ethics behind. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia specifically, but it forbids homosexuality. Why?

I dont know, it's a hard question that Christians have to deal with..... but so what? All world views have difficult questions.

That was a world that promoted fecundity. Its children often died before maturity, its women died in childbirth, its men died in war, and everybody died from untreatable infectious diseases. So, any womb ready to carry a child was ready for sex whatever the age, but non-procreative activities like homosexuality (and refusing sex to a husband, and the rhythm method, and masturbation) were forbidden.

That is news to me. But sure morality os context dependent...... is that your point ?


.

That's what I mean about much of biblical morality being about another kind of life, and not only no longer relevant today,

Nobody to my knowledge disputes that.... Christians in general understand that the Bible has to be interpreted within its context.

I hope you'll make a deliberate effort to address all of the elements of this post. I will assume that any point made that you don't indicate disagreement with is one you accept, and discussion on that point has reached its natural end and resolution

.
Did i missed anything?

I've done that with your post. I have quoted and responded to every point that I didn't agree with and explained why. And regarding the point that I did agree with that you asked about, the one immediately above, I answered it. Will you return that courtesy and explain why you disagree with every comment in this post with which you disagree?

1 We agree on the fact that the Bible has morality that seems to be wrong

2 we agree on that this is a serious problem for Bible believing Christians

3 we agree (hopefully) that other world views also have problems and diffult questions

4 I think your world view has much bigger problems (this is our point of disagreement)

For example the fact that you trust consciousness as a moral guide despite the fact that you also belive that consciousness was caused by a mechanism that was not even trying to produce a reliable moral guide seems a to be a much bigger problem than all those hard verses in the Bible.

5 we also agree that homosexuality seems to be ok because it doesn't harm anyone (not because its natural)

Would you add something else? I think this sumerices our agreements and disagreements.

 

[F1fan]

;m

So you follow facts as a means of understanding. Tell me how would a fish who lives it’s entire life underwater, follow facts to understand how humans live on land?

Irrelevant, I'm human, not a fish.

The God presented in the biblical scriptures is an infinite, eternal, spiritual Being so different and so far advanced compared to you or I, as finite beings. The gulf between us and God are vastly greater than between fish and humans. What makes you believe that you have the capability to understand an infinite Being?

The Bible isn't a book of facts. There is no Infinite Being known to exist, nor described by factual sources.

Nevertheless, the scriptures indicate that God has created us in His image and given us the ability to think and reason enough to know of His existence, while also providing revelation of Himself so we can have understanding.

And there is no reason to assume the Bible is true at face value.

There is plenty of evidence for anyone who is actually and seriously seeking it...

If this was true we would see this "plenty of evidence" on religious forums. We don't.

“Never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence.”

“These are the words of Simon Greenleaf, the famous Harvard Law Professor considered by many to be the foremost legal expert on evidence the world has known. Applying the principles contained in his 3 volume discourse A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, Dr. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.
Evidences of the Bible

I'll take his legal advice, but not his opinion about the Bible. I've looked myself and know it's a weak case. No way he would be able to argue for the resurrection in court and win. It's absurd, and there is no direct evidence. It would be thrown out.

This is how some people use their expertise in one field and try to use it illogically as an appeal to authority as if his opinion about Jesus is true because he says so. Not valid.

“Combining what we know of experience, logic, history, science, and other disciplines, there is more than enough evidence that God exists. Thankfully, we aren’t expected to find all that evidence in order to have a right relationship with Him. Rather, we are obligated to absorb what we can see and understand and follow the process of “ask . . . seek . . . knock” (Matthew 7:7–8).”


Is there evidence for the existence of God? | GotQuestions.org

This is an apologetic that isn't rational nor true. Logic and science do not support belief in any gods. Why? Lack of evidence. And what we do know of nature isn't consistent with a supernatural.

I would like to highlight that the re-establishment and existence of the nation of Israel is a major proof of God and His prophetic promises.

No it isn't. I know the claim, but it proves nothing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I see people claiming to be Christian who want homosexual behavior to not be a sin
My Bible says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind … it is abomination, Lev. 18:22 (20:13).
There shall be no … sodomite of the sons of Israel, Deut. 23:17.
declare their sin as Sodom, Isa. 3:9
men … burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27.
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Cor. 6:9.
them that defile themselves with mankind, 1 Tim. 1:10.
as Sodom and Gomorrha … going after strange flesh, Jude 1:7.

Now I’m not calling for violence or mistreatment of anyone, but I am challenging those preaching this “other gospel” When did God change His mind on this being a sin?

If I may ask you… in view of the answers you’ve received here, how accurate is 1 John5:19, do you think?
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

So many are saying ‘the Bible isn’t relevant.’
But the advice the Bible gives on the commitment between marriage mates and it’s laws against fornication (which ultimately protect the children born), is revealing God’s wisdom again & again…on just that one subject…
Society is suffering from disregarding it.
There’s more unhappiness in the world, than ever before.

No doubt, many of the behaviors foretold in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, about these Last Days, can be traced to broken families!

Take care, my cousin.

 

[InChrist]

;m

Irrelevant, I'm human, not a fish.


The Bible isn't a book of facts. There is no Infinite Being known to exist, nor described by factual sources.


And there is no reason to assume the Bible is true at face value.


If this was true we would see this "plenty of evidence" on religious forums. We don't.



I'll take his legal advice, but not his opinion about the Bible. I've looked myself and know it's a weak case. No way he would be able to argue for the resurrection in court and win. It's absurd, and there is no direct evidence. It would be thrown out.

This is how some people use their expertise in one field and try to use it illogically as an appeal to authority as if his opinion about Jesus is true because he says so. Not valid.


This is an apologetic that isn't rational nor true. Logic and science do not support belief in any gods. Why? Lack of evidence. And what we do know of nature isn't consistent with a supernatural.


No it isn't. I know the claim, but it proves nothing.

The evidence proves nothing to you because you refuse to consider it or take the time to give any reasonable thought to the matter.

“Evidence will never overcome obstinance. Perhaps the weakest response to evidence of God’s existence is ignoring it: claiming “there is no evidence.” Closely related is the suggestion that a skeptic finds the evidence uncompelling. This kind of claim often comes with an ever-shifting threshold for proof. As happened with the Big Bang Theory, even when a position is effectively “proved,” the committed skeptic can always pivot to claim that this proof actually supports his fundamental views. Just as one person’s belief is not hard evidence regarding God’s existence, one person’s disbelief is not hard evidence of the opposite. This is especially true given that God’s existence touches on issues like personal morality and autonomy. Both in Scripture and in daily life, it’s common to see examples of those presented with more than enough evidence, yet who choose to stubbornly ignore it (Romans 1:18–20; Psalm 19:1; John 5:39–40; Luke 16:19–31; James 2:19).”

Is there evidence for the existence of God? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Bree]

Your question is laden with the assumption that God ever thought this was a sin as opposed to the fallible mortals that assumed for themselves the right to speak on God's behalf.

In my opinion

God did destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual misconduct. Just saying, no one spoke for God when he did that...he spoke for himself.

Those cities are still there btw.

 

[Truth in love]

If I may ask you… in view of the answers you’ve received here, how accurate is 1 John5:19, do you think?
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

So many are saying ‘the Bible isn’t relevant.’
But the advice the Bible gives on the commitment between marriage mates and it’s laws against fornication (which ultimately protect the children born), is revealing God’s wisdom again & again…on just that one subject…
Society is suffering from disregarding it.
There’s more unhappiness in the world, than ever before.

No doubt, many of the behaviors foretold in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, about these Last Days, can be traced to broken families!

Take care, my cousin.

In short I’ve been totally blown away by how impactful stable families are. Nearly every major social Ill can be largely traced to broken families.

Gods commandments are simple yet effective.

I’m not surprised that many don’t believe the Bible. It does concern me that many claim to believe it yet dismiss many of its teachings.

 

[leroy]

Sure we can. And decent society does. Homosexuality is acceptable by most all civilized people, but it is shallow minded believers of Abrahamic religions that want to hold on to their prejudices. You are justifying your prejudice just as slave owners justified slavery because it was allowed in the Bible. It is humanism that guides Western societies towards more moral attitudes and tolerance. It isn't Christianity, nor Islam. We are seeing protests in Iran because theose religious leaders impose literalist moral beliefs onto all society, and the people have had enough.

What I find absurd about Christian extremists is that they seldom argue for helping the poor, aiding the sick, expanding healthcare in the USA, opposing poverty and suggesting more equal pay, helping sustain education, etc. It's as if Christian extremists are more concerned about sex their neighbors are having instead of what Jesus taught. And these extremists are dumbfounded by criticsms and just don't get it. They don't get that their beliefs are contrary to what Jesus taught, and don't follow Jesus.

Sure we can. And decent society does. Homosexuality is acceptable by most all civilized people

Sure, but civilized people do not accept homosexuality on the basis of “being it´s nature” they accept homosexuality on the basis of other arguments…. That’s all I am saying

 

[leroy]

In what way non-theists are cornered?
Consciousness depends upon, bringing up (in Sanskrit known as Samskaras), education and experience of life. We act according to that. These form our morals.

I am not familiar with the concept of Samskaras

But What I mean is that it seems to me than non theists (say a naturalist and evolutionist who doesn’t believe in metaphysical stuff) has to deny that that intuitions and consciousness is a reliable guide for morality

They also have to deny that we have free will and that objective moral values exist, and ultimately they have to consider seriously the possibility that they are a Boltzmann Brain

These are far greater ethical challenges than the few “inconvenient” verses that bible believing Christians have to deal with.

And yes I am using non-theist as synonymous to naturalist (which I am aware that it is not 100% accurate)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I doubt we know anymore about the phyche... ancient wisdom is in many cases a lot deeper than what passes for wisdom now.
And knowing the location of planets etc isn't really helpful in life.

We know a ton more about the psyche, the brain, etc. than people living thousands of years ago. Yes, we do.

Knowing the location of planets tells us a lot about those planets, plus the planet we live on. I consider that to be valuable information.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence proves nothing to you because you refuse to consider it or take the time to give any reasonable thought to the matter.

False. I see this accusation against critical thinkers by "true believers" quite often. It comes after belivers fail to present credible and valid evidence as required to support a claim. Believers aen't just making any old claim, they are claiming a supernatural phenomenon exists, and what we understand of reality is not consistent with these claims.

“Evidence will never overcome obstinance. Perhaps the weakest response to evidence of God’s existence is ignoring it: claiming “there is no evidence.” Closely related is the suggestion that a skeptic finds the evidence uncompelling. This kind of claim often comes with an ever-shifting threshold for proof. As happened with the Big Bang Theory, even when a position is effectively “proved,” the committed skeptic can always pivot to claim that this proof actually supports his fundamental views. Just as one person’s belief is not hard evidence regarding God’s existence, one person’s disbelief is not hard evidence of the opposite. This is especially true given that God’s existence touches on issues like personal morality and autonomy. Both in Scripture and in daily life, it’s common to see examples of those presented with more than enough evidence, yet who choose to stubbornly ignore it (Romans 1:18–20; Psalm 19:1; John 5:39–40; Luke 16:19–31; James 2:19).”

Is there evidence for the existence of God? | GotQuestions.org

This isn't accurate. This is an ironic accusation against people who are actually using reason and objectivity. If there was such good evidence as implied in this paragraph then science would acknowledge it. Science doesn't. And as we know some extremist Christian websites, like this one, has contempt for science. Does this site accept evolution? Does it accept the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or does it misinform it's users about it?

Well I looked. And your source offers many answers that it cannot back up with evidence or reason, even though it claims it does. Nothing on your site will be adequate for a skilled critical thinker, but it will help reinforce believers who need to justify what they already believe. Your site even admits it's an apologetic. How embarrassing. That means it's propaganda.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose.
It would be great if more Christians would concentrate on loving their neighbour instead of judging their neighbour.
However it is getting to the point where even saying what Christianity teaches about homosexuality is considered hateful and homophobic by other emboldened people.

Because it is.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, but civilized people do not accept homosexuality on the basis of “being it´s nature” they accept homosexuality on the basis of other arguments…. That’s all I am saying

What other arguments? Human rights? Freedom? Tolerance?

What makes a people civilized is a sort of social maturity that doesn't need to bias against marginalized groups. Arab Spain of the 13th century was very tolerant of diversity, and this civilization grew in knowledge and peace. Of course it was wiped out by Christians as led by El Cid, and that region fell into more primitive living.

The major reason gays are marginalized these days is due to Christian extremists insisting homosexuality is a sin. And I asked the question: isn't bigotry a sin? No answer. Believers are often morally trapped between their archaic and obsolete beliefs (as derived from their leadership and their interpretation of the Bible) and the maturing of Western society as it evolves.

When I see Christians or Muslims condemn gays for being sinners my impression is the theists are being immoral. They certainly assume some moral superiority, and fail to represent love as they claim their God is equal to.

 

[F1fan]

In short I’ve been totally blown away by how impactful stable families are. Nearly every major social Ill can be largely traced to broken families.

Gods commandments are simple yet effective.

Because they are so vague that it leaves a lot of immorality to be justified. Look at how Baptists in the Confederate South fought for slavery. Look at the racism that is still inherent in conservative Christianity. And you want to sell your beliefs and religion as if it works to guide society?

No. Good people are good, whether Christian or Hindu or atheist. Bad people are bad, and being Christian doesn't make them good. They just use their religion to harm otehrs, and then claim it is in the Bible. The prejudice against gays is an example. Do you acknowledge this? If Christians didn't cherry pick a few verses in the Bible would be actually show tolerance and love towards gay people instead of condemning them? Even Jesus warning followers of judging others is ignored.

I’m not surprised that many don’t believe the Bible.

The content is inaccurate at face value. And we have the examples of many bad Christians as evidence that it doesn't work to make bad people good. Do you think you are a good person, and follows what Jesus taught?

It does concern me that many claim to believe it yet dismiss many of its teachings.

A lot of that going around. Do you know what irony means?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not familiar with the concept of Samskaras.
But What I mean is that it seems to me than non theists (say a naturalist and evolutionist who doesn’t believe in metaphysical stuff) has to deny that that intuitions and consciousness is a reliable guide for morality.

They also have to deny that we have free will and that objective moral values exist, and ultimately they have to consider seriously the possibility that they are a Boltzmann Brain

These are far greater ethical challenges than the few “inconvenient” verses that bible believing Christians have to deal with.

And yes I am using non-theist as synonymous to naturalist (which I am aware that it is not 100% accurate)

"In Yoga, Vedanta and Nyaya schools of Hinduism, samskara constitute an affective and motivational field that contributes to the value structure within the person. They subconsciously or consciously endorse the basic inner drives that propel a human being in future action, future premises, future thoughts or future judgments." Samskara (Indian philosophy) - Wikipedia

You are right science and non-theists do not overdo belief in intuitions and consciousness. In what I follow (Advaita, non-duality), there are two kinds of realities. The reality of the observed world and the reality of the atomic/quantum world. A check with the what is observed is the least that we must do. Morality depends on the particular society. My concept o morality may be different from yours.

Yeah, IMHO we are guided by samskaras and situations, there is really no free-will, it is only a mirage. Does eating a mango or an apple really has any significance?
The religious construct their own challenges. There are no such challenges before me.
Yeah, non-theist as synonymous to naturalist is OK, unless someone is nit-picking.

 

[leroy]

What other arguments? Human rights? Freedom? Tolerance?

What makes a people civilized is a sort of social maturity that doesn't need to bias against marginalized groups. Arab Spain of the 13th century was very tolerant of diversity, and this civilization grew in knowledge and peace. Of course it was wiped out by Christians as led by El Cid, and that region fell into more primitive living.

The major reason gays are marginalized these days is due to Christian extremists insisting homosexuality is a sin. And I asked the question: isn't bigotry a sin? No answer. Believers are often morally trapped between their archaic and obsolete beliefs (as derived from their leadership and their interpretation of the Bible) and the maturing of Western society as it evolves.

When I see Christians or Muslims condemn gays for being sinners my impression is the theists are being immoral. They certainly assume some moral superiority, and fail to represent love as they claim their God is equal to.

Well the bible seems to suggest that homosexual behavior is sinful, in your opinion what are Christians supposed to do? // it is not intellectually honest to simply reject those verses just because one doesn’t like them

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

my point is that I as a Christian can't (or shouldn't) reject the bible just because there are verses that I don't like. Agree?

That what other believers might say, but not my position. I don't think anything should be believed by faith, nor do I think it's healthy to force oneself to accept something that his conscience has rejected. There's an active thread in progress now between several Baha'i and several skeptics showing their inconsistency. These are people most of whom I believe harbor no ill will or malice for homosexuals, yet have to contend with their religion's homophobic doctrine. One should never be defending doctrine that his conscience tells him is wrong. To their credit, they refuse to overtly hate homosexuals, but they also refuse to repudiate that doctrine, and they can't see that it negatively colors their view of homosexuals.

Under your view consciousness was caused by a mechanism that was not even trying to produce a reliable moral guide. Evolution (random variation and natural selection) aims at survival of the species it doesn't aim at "Good morality"

Good morality in a humanist's hands is that which promotes individual and communal well-being, just like evolution. This is what evolution has produced because it facilitated fecundity. One can see it in the beasts, as when they parent. Evolution didn't have that in mind, either, or anything else. It's an undirected process pushed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology rather than pulled toward a desired goal. It gave us many other gifts that facilitate communal well-being, like speech. That was nobody's idea, either.

Gravity doesn't aim at spherical moons and planets, either, but that's what nature creates as the inevitable response of blind forces at play. All natural processes fit that description, and until the evolution of consciousness with will and intent entered the universe, that's all there were. Incidentally, natural has at least two definitions, and the one I mean is the one that's the opposite of artificial, not the one that's the opposite of supernatural. By that second definition, but not the first, even artifacts fashioned by man are natural.

As an analogy it's like trusting Star Wars, as a reliable guide to understand the cosmos and other planets....... (the author is not even trying to make a reliable description of other planets so why trusting it?)

I disagree that that is an apt analogy. Man generating fiction (words) isn't like the laws of nature generating more complex biological forms. The former isn't constrained except by the limits of man's imagination. The latter is constrained by natural selection and its partiality for forms that reproduce more. You can imagine any path for evolution to take in a sci-fi novel, but only those changes that can arise spontaneously through mutation (and a few other things like the founder effect and gene shuffling that modify the gene pool without mutation) will be subject to natural selection, and only those that promote survival and reproduction will be selected for.

Using your words, natural selection aims towards greater fecundity not towards "better morality" .... so why trusting consciousness as a moral guide if the mechanism that cause it was not even trying to produce a moral guide. ?

I think I explained this already. What humanists (and others, but not Abrahamics) say is that better morality and greater fecundity have mapped onto one another. I also mentioned that the word is conscience, not consciousness (even sociopaths, who have no conscience, are conscious when awake, just like goldfish), and that I have empirical (experiential) evidence that my moral code is better at promoting personal and communal well-being than faith-based variants.

I agree, given that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it seems that it shouldn't be suppressed

That's to your credit. And hopefully, you harbor no thoughts of homosexuals being morally defective. Most Abrahamics apparently do, although many who do seem unaware of it. They simply don't consider that attitude homophobic. Others judging their religions disagree.

it's a hard question that Christians have to deal with..... but so what? All world views have difficult questions.

I wrote, "This would be a good example of where I leave biblical ethics behind. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia specifically, but it forbids homosexuality. Why?"

Why didn't you answer my question? I'll answer instead. Because the Bible doesn't recognize pedophilia as inappropriate, but condemns homosexuality for no good or fair reason.

That is news to me. But sure morality os context dependent...... is that your point ?

That was news to you? Communal well-being in times of underpopulation are different from those in times of overpopulation. This is why these ancient biblical values that aim to increase the birth rate are presently counterproductive, and a good example of how morality varies with context. Firing a shot at somebody unprovoked does not have the same moral status as returning fire in self-defense.

Christians in general understand that the Bible has to be interpreted within its context.

I had written, "That's what I mean about much of biblical morality being about another kind of life, and not only no longer relevant today." The problem is that they don't always do that. There are six Supreme Court justices in the States trying to force women to deliver unwanted babies, and people still persecuting homosexuals and fighting science.

Did I miss anything?

You did great. Thank you. And I hope I returned the courtesy. Please pay more attention to the question marks, and answer those seeking information (non-rhetorical questions), but this effort is so much better than previous ones that I want to commend and encourage you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is plenty of evidence for anyone who is actually and seriously seeking it...

The evidence believers offer for asserting that a god created the world doesn't support that conclusion. Believers request that skeptic keep reconsidering that same evidence until they come to a different conclusion, but that doesn't happen in critical analysis unless there is additional data to consider. One could ask the believer to reconsider the evidence, but that would be pointless, since he didn't come to his beliefs using it. He never considered the evidence at all before accepting theism. Unlike critical thought, with faith, evaluation of evidence FOLLOWS belief. It does not precede or inform it.

The evidence proves nothing to you because you refuse to consider it or take the time to give any reasonable thought to the matter.

You have no evidence that is the case. The evidence you have is that many reject your argument that there is evidence indicating the existence of a deity. And this then would be a good example of you misinterpreting the evidence and coming to unsound conclusions upon examining it. You can only conceive of one reason why people don't agree with you - that they haven't given reasonable thought to the matter. Look at who you are saying that to. My profession, (internal) medicine, was analyzing evidence, and I was very good at it. That's what an internist does - collects a history, does a physical, orders lab and radiology, develops hypotheses (differential diagnosis - "the process of differentiating between two or more conditions which share similar signs or symptoms"), and does therapeutic testing (response to specific therapy) to confirm his diagnosis).

It's also the main thing we do in my passion, contract bridge. We listen to the opponent's bidding for clues about their strength and suit distribution. We notice their opening leads and discards. And from this and a working knowledge of probabilities, one formulates a plan and then tests that.

So, I'm going to defer to my own understanding of what theists call evidence for a deity, and also why they say it. It doesn't hurt that so many other competent thinkers here see it the same way, and that the people disagreeing believe things by faith, which impeaches their credentials as critical thinkers who use evidence properly (or even at all).

Paul didn't contradict anything Jesus said

Yes, he did, with the status of OT law. Jesus was preaching to Jews. Paul expanded the target audience to those with little interest in OT law. It's a lot like how the anti-choice Republican candidates market themselves in primaries, where the target audience is registered Republicans, and how they market themselves when their target audience is all voters.

he just explained how Jesus fulfilled the Torah.

Next, explain how to paint the Star Spanged Banner. Both of these comments, yours and mine, are category errors. Songs can be written, arranged, sung, etc., but not sued or arrested (or painted). Cars and houses can be painted, but not songs. Jesus didn't fulfill any laws (nor paint them). Paul simply declared many of them no longer valid. But we can't have that, can we? Paul can't do that. He can say that God commanded it to him secretly, but it has to be God's or Jesus' idea. So, believers say that Jesus did it.

Your category error is to say that laws can be fulfilled. They can't. That's a meaningless sentence. Nor can laws be sued, nor arrested, nor painted just like songs. Laws can be written, revised, obeyed, flouted, expire, be overturned, etc., but not fulfilled. Promises, dreams, and potential can be fulfilled, but not laws. One cannot fulfill the law against running a red light, just obey it or flout it, and the law remains the law until it is changed.