Spin-off from "I am a Christian/Catholic..." thread

[stars]

Holy cow!

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, well, thank you. *blushes* Now, you really are my favorite new member.

 

[Mister Emu]

It's like an algebra problem in that it has a correct and incorrect answer.

Only if two people have the same moral philosophy.

OK, how does that respond to the quote it was under?

Logic, as applied to morality, only starts once you have a base assumption... that assumption is no more falsifiable/verifiable than any other subjective concept.

Unless you believe in a universal morality, such as one set down by a deity, there is no objective base from which to say that one morality is wrong and another correct. There is nothing more right or wrong about cannibalism than universal suffrage. Of course, you can believe one reprehensible and the other laudable, as , I assume, we all do. It just is not objective.

Logic does not produce morals... it is just as logical to believe that whatever benefits you the most is right, and screw everybody else, as it is to believe that the best thing is to help others, even at a cost to yourself.

No, it's not. It's objective. No harm comes from homosexual acts, therefore there's nothing wrong with it.

It could be objective that harm does not come from those acts. The 'therefore' after it, however, is not... it is subjective. AS there is nothing outside of your morality to connect "does no harm" with "nothing wrong".

Yes, that's subjective.

As is morality.

No, I understand that. However, we've lost sight of the fact that there's a difference between "I don't like it" and "It's wrong".

If the individual's morality is subjective, then it is not objective.

Yes, your base of morality is a book and what you've been told. Mine is logic and reason.

There is no logic which demands your morality over mine. You, and I, use logic and reason to build off of the moral base we assume.

So, if you use logic after starting from faulty premises, you will come to the wrong conclusion.

What do you believe objectively differentiates between faulty moral premises?

For example:
P1: Acts that cause no harm are not wrong
P2: Homosexual acts cause no harm
C: Homosexual acts are not wrong.

What compels anyone to accept P1?

And that's not what you were saying. You were saying it was OK to just accept that tutelage and go with the authorityon the subject. What you're supposed to do is have that teacher explain why and how it works, not just that it's true.

Yet it is. I fully expect to grow in the understanding of a wide array of issues with God. Just as I expect to grow in understanding of mathematics with a math teacher.

You were saying it was OK to just accept that tutelage and go with the authorityon the subject. What you're supposed to do is have that teacher explain why and how it works, not just that it's true.

That is what the tutelage is...

And that's not what's happening when taking someone else's authority on homosexuality. That consists of "Homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because this book says so. How do we know that book is correct? Because a bunch of people said so.".

No, no, no... it is backwards. I trust in God, and He has represented Himself to me as the God of the Christian faith. Thus, I trust in the Church that God has set up, and the Bible that it has produced.

Trusting the authority of the preacher or priest and the Bible is the last step in my line of beliefs, not the first

Well, that's not quite an accurate depiction of what's going on here. In that case it would be more like: The math PHD says the answer is this. Person A goes to write down the answer. Person B says "Why is that the answer?". The math PHD explains why and how it works in all situations, and person B sees how it works, so he uses the answer.

I agree, except it takes time, person A trusts the PhD in the interval as he works his way up through harder basic math, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and then gets to calculus. Person B says no, I reject your answer, substitute my logic, which I declare infallible. If you don't agree with me you either are not thinking enough, not intelligent, or are not using logic.

Yes, it does. If an intelligent person spend enough time using logic and reason on a problem of this nature, they will come to one particular answer.

You must first agree to what "right" and "wrong" are, and that is highly debated. Is "good" that which causes pleasure? Is "wrong" that which causes harm? Is "good" that which causes societal stability? Is "good" that which God commands?

There is no answer to those questions demanded by logic.

To use an analogy like yours: It's like being in algebra class and working on an example in class. You go through it quickly and think you've gotten the right answer. You call the teacher over and show it to her. She says "No, that's not quite right. Just work with it a little more, and you'll get it". You work on it for another 5 minutes and realize what your mistake was, and correct it and get the right answer.

If there were numerous logically valid systems of solving the problem, you could go on for years without giving the answer the teacher desired, not because the it was wrong, but because you haven't agreed on which system to use.

There is no logical demand to be a utilitarian for example. There is no logic that demands you reject the error theory, or that you be, or not, a moral realist.

 

[Magic Man]

Only if two people have the same moral philosophy.

Not really. To clear it up, what makes homosexuality wrong in your view?

Logic, as applied to morality, only starts once you have a base assumption... that assumption is no more falsifiable/verifiable than any other subjective concept.

Unless you believe in a universal morality, such as one set down by a deity, there is no objective base from which to say that one morality is wrong and another correct. There is nothing more right or wrong about cannibalism than universal suffrage. Of course, you can believe one reprehensible and the other laudable, as , I assume, we all do. It just is not objective.

Logic does not produce morals... it is just as logical to believe that whatever benefits you the most is right, and screw everybody else, as it is to believe that the best thing is to help others, even at a cost to yourself.

This is getting a little off-topic. It would be best for you to just answer the question "What's wrong with homosexuality?", and we can go from there.

It could be objective that harm does not come from those acts. The 'therefore' after it, however, is not... it is subjective. AS there is nothing outside of your morality to connect "does no harm" with "nothing wrong".

Then, what makes it immoral to you?

As is morality.

This is the claim. I disagree, though.

If the individual's morality is subjective, then it is not objective.

There is no logic which demands your morality over mine. You, and I, use logic and reason to build off of the moral base we assume.

This is why I'm making the distinction between dislike and being wrong. Just because you dislike something or are disgusted by it doesn't make it wrong. People need to relearn that.

What do you believe objectively differentiates between faulty moral premises?

For example:
P1: Acts that cause no harm are not wrong
P2: Homosexual acts cause no harm
C: Homosexual acts are not wrong.

What compels anyone to accept P1?

The fact that that kind of defines something being wrong. That's why we all agree on things like murder, theft, rape, the major things. We disagree on the smaller things like homosexuality because some people started thinking that disliking something meant it was wrong. That's not the case, though. I don't like baseball. There's nothing wrong with it, though. I'm disgusted by the act of sex between certain people. There's nothing wrong with it, though (obviously, assuming everyone involved is informed and consenting).

Yet it is. I fully expect to grow in the understanding of a wide array of issues with God. Just as I expect to grow in understanding of mathematics with a math teacher.

What results do you have that would lead you to believe this to be true?

That is what the tutelage is...

Yes, it is. That's why it's different than realizing that your thinking about homosexuality is flawed and then accepting someone else's thoughts on it.

No, no, no... it is backwards. I trust in God, and He has represented Himself to me as the God of the Christian faith. Thus, I trust in the Church that God has set up, and the Bible that it has produced.

Trusting the authority of the preacher or priest and the Bible is the last step in my line of beliefs, not the first

I beg to differ. Your trusting in God is directly due to your trusting of preachers and priests, therefore your trusting of those authorities is the first step.

I agree, except it takes time, person A trusts the PhD in the interval as he works his way up through harder basic math, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and then gets to calculus. Person B says no, I reject your answer, substitute my logic, which I declare infallible. If you don't agree with me you either are not thinking enough, not intelligent, or are not using logic.

Nope. See, the main problem here is that you're looking at my assertion as arrogant, when it's not. I don't think I'm better than you, I've just put more thought into this particular matter. I'm sure there are other matters you've put more thought into than I have. Person B doesn't reject the answer, substitute his logic and declare it infallible. I'll try it one more time for you:

A problem is given to a class, and some random adult says the answer. Person A writes it down without thinking. Person B thinks about it for a second, and says "Wait, that doesn't make sense". The adult tries to explain how he got the answer, but he makes some mistakes in his figuring out of the problem. Person B shows the mistakes and corrects them, getting the right answer.

If there were numerous logically valid systems of solving the problem, you could go on for years without giving the answer the teacher desired, not because the it was wrong, but because you haven't agreed on which system to use.

Um...that doesn't even make sense. It's an algebra problem. There's a right and wrong answer. The point is that you got the wrong answer the first time because you made a few mistakes in figuring it out. The teacher recognized that you made these mistakes and recognized that all you had to do was think about it a little more. You did this and found your mistakes and got the right answer.

There is no logical demand to be a utilitarian for example. There is no logic that demands you reject the error theory, or that you be, or not, a moral realist.

Again, this would be much easier if you just explain what you see as wrong about homosexuality.

 

[Mister Emu]

Firstly, I don't know how I forgot about it but...
Romans 1 ~24-28 calls homosexuality, unclean, vile, unseemly, and error(both male and female)...

Not really.

Yes, really.

Without an mutually agreed upon base, there is no demand of logic to agree.

This is getting a little off-topic.

Not really... the topic is "If you think with logic and reason you will agree with me(Mball)".

I disagree, though.

Then what objective base has your morality?

This is why I'm making the distinction between dislike and being wrong. Just because you dislike something or are disgusted by it doesn't make it wrong. People need to relearn that.

There are plenty of things people are disgusted by that they don't view as wrong... I've yet to meet a person for whom "I don't like it/I am disgusted by it" equals "wrong".

The fact that that kind of defines something being wrong.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion. That is the crux of the issue, and why your argument seemed arrogant. You mistake your opinions for the irrefutable.

That's why we all agree on things like murder, theft, rape, the major things.

But not all humanity agrees on all of those things... heck, not all Americans agree what constitutes murder or theft...

We disagree on the smaller things like homosexuality because some people started thinking that disliking something meant it was wrong.

I believe that to be a fairly shallow understanding of moral development through time...

That's not the case, though.

I happen to agree... however, there is no logic that demands things are not wrong even when our only basis for calling them so is because we don't like them...

What results do you have that would lead you to believe this to be true?

My previous growth in understanding...

Yes, it is. That's why it's different than realizing that your thinking about homosexuality is flawed and then accepting someone else's thoughts on it.

Are you saying I don't expect further growth in understanding?

I beg to differ.

You beg to differ about the procession of my thoughts?

Your trusting in God is directly due to your trusting of preachers and priests, therefore your trusting of those authorities is the first step.

There is a possibility that God represents Himself as the Christian God because of my cultural upbringing and previous beliefs, but considering who it is doing the representing, I find it a slim one. Other than that, you are flat out wrong

Nope. See, the main problem here is that you're looking at my assertion as arrogant, when it's not. I don't think I'm better than you, I've just put more thought into this particular matter.

You've claimed your logic is infallible. You've made sweeping generalisations about things you can't possibly know. You've argued with another about what goes on in their mind...

Person B doesn't reject the answer, substitute his logic and declare it infallible.

Yet, that is exactly what you've done. I don't fault you for rejecting the answer, you might not believe the guy even has a PhD in math... I don't fault you for substituting your logic, absent a teacher it is the best thing you have, and even with one it is invaluable... I do however take issue with your declaration of infallibility, when you said 'If you are intelligent and think with logic, you will come to the exact same conclusion as me'.

Person A writes it down without thinking.

You can't possibly know that is what is always going on. Yet, you claim it so.

but he makes some mistakes in his figuring out of the problem. Person B shows the mistakes and corrects them, getting the right answer.

Except we're still in the middle of the question, and we don't have the answer key yet The claim to correctness is still just that... an unsubstantiated claim.

Um...that doesn't even make sense.

It does in the context of morality, as there are numerous logically valid systems of morals...

what makes homosexuality wrong in your view?

It would be best for you to just answer the question "What's wrong with homosexuality?", and we can go from there.

Then, what makes it immoral to you?

Again, this would be much easier if you just explain what you see as wrong about homosexuality.

I subscribe to the divine command theory

Divine command theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheKnight]

It either means that or it means you aren't very smart. I tend to think you're at the very least moderately smart, which only leaves the other option.

I think there's no point trying to reason with you. Obviously your condescension clouds your judgment.

So, you don't have a problem with two women getting married or going at it?

Personally, I don't care.I don't even care if two guys get it on. What matters to me is the fact that it's wrong. If I'm asked about it, I will say I think it's wrong. If I am asked my opinion, I will say that I think it's wrong. If were to hear of two guys getting jiggy with it, it wouldn't personally bother me. I would think it's wrong, but it wouldn't bother me anymore than hearing about a straight friend having pre-marital sex (which I think is much worse).

That seems pretty arbitrary. That doesn't say anything about homosexuality being wrong.

From it we can infer that homosexual activity is prohibited. In some halakhic opinions, this verse also prohibits lesbianism.

Well, it doesn't even take that. However, the people who do that still aren't thinking much about it. As I said the other reason for thinking homosexuality is wrong is that you dislike it or it disgusts you. So, having the Bible tell you it's wrong, and thinking about whether it conflicts with you disgust of it or not still doesn't involve much thought.

I think it's best we agree to disagree.

Yes, it is, actually. And no, it doesn't take much thought to say "Hey, I think homosexuality's icky, and this book says it's wrong, so it must be wrong".

I would agree if that's what we argued. But that's not what we argue.

I think a lot of people forget (religious people included) that homosexuality is not the only thing prohibited. All sex that is not between a married man and woman when the woman is not on her period is prohibited.
It's not like homosexuality is singled out. So it's not "I don't like homosexuality, book says homosexuality is wrong, it must be." It's more like "God created sex for purpose X, homosexuality does not fit into purpose X, therefore homosexuality is wrong."

So, basically, Christians have no business using that part of Leviticus to say homosexuality is wrong?

I can't speak for Christians. There is no logic in any Christian theology.

 

[Mister Emu]

There is no logic in any Christian theology.

Them's fight'n' wordsKnockout

 

[TheKnight]

Them's fight'n' wordsKnockout

It's a religion that is intrinsically inconsistent at it's core.

 

[Mister Emu]

Perhaps you'd like to explain in another thread?

 

[TheKnight]

Perhaps you'd like to explain in another thread?

Sure...I'll PM you.

 

[Magic Man]

Firstly, I don't know how I forgot about it but...
Romans 1 ~24-28 calls homosexuality, unclean, vile, unseemly, and error(both male and female)...

Thank you. That's what I was wondering. All I've ever seen is the Leviticus quote.

Yes, really.

Or you could respond to the more important part of that where I ask why you think homosexuality is wrong.

There are plenty of things people are disgusted by that they don't view as wrong... I've yet to meet a person for whom "I don't like it/I am disgusted by it" equals "wrong".

Then you haven't been paying attention.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

But not all humanity agrees on all of those things... heck, not all Americans agree what constitutes murder or theft...

Um...yes, we all do.

I believe that to be a fairly shallow understanding of moral development through time...

Well, believe what you want. I'll stick with the truth.

My previous growth in understanding...

I'll take that as a "no real results that I can show".

You beg to differ about the procession of my thoughts?

If that's the way you want to put it, yes. Just from the way you listed it, you can tell. You trust in God. Well, why do you trust in God? Because you trust in those authorities who have told you to trust in God.

Other than that, you are flat out wrong

Did God actually come to you and tell you that he is the God of the Jews and the one who sent Jesus to save us all and that he inspired the Bible and that homosexuality is wrong? Or did you have some experience that you perceive as God, and then you trust in the authorities to determine the details about what this god is like?

You've claimed your logic is infallible. You've made sweeping generalisations about things you can't possibly know. You've argued with another about what goes on in their mind...

Yeah, and? When you get better grades in school than someone else, it's not necessarily arrogant to say that you're a better student than them. It can be in certain contexts, but it doesn't have to be.

Yet, that is exactly what you've done.

No, it's not, and I fear that if you can't even see that, this is going to be rather pointless.

You can't possibly know that is what is always going on. Yet, you claim it so.

No, I can. Just like that algebra teacher knows that since I have the wrong answer, if I think about it some more (since I'm smart enough), I'll eventually come up with the right one. It's the same here. I know that a smart person, like you, who gives the problem the attention it deserves will eventually come up with the correct answer.

It does in the context of morality, as there are numerous logically valid systems of morals...

It doesn't in the context of a question with a right and wrong answer, which is what we're talking about.

I subscribe to the divine command theory

Divine command theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, this is the most important part here. Basically, you think homosexuality is wrong because a book says that God says it's wrong. It doesn't take much thought to let a book do your thinking for you. That's my point.

 

[Magic Man]

I think there's no point trying to reason with you. Obviously your condescension clouds your judgment.

But it's OK for you to say things like "There is no logic in any Christian theology.". I'm curious what difference you see between the two.

Personally, I don't care.I don't even care if two guys get it on. What matters to me is the fact that it's wrong. If I'm asked about it, I will say I think it's wrong. If I am asked my opinion, I will say that I think it's wrong. If were to hear of two guys getting jiggy with it, it wouldn't personally bother me. I would think it's wrong, but it wouldn't bother me anymore than hearing about a straight friend having pre-marital sex (which I think is much worse).

First, why is pre-marital straight sex worse than gay sex?

Second, why do you think any of it is wrong?

From it we can infer that homosexual activity is prohibited. In some halakhic opinions, this verse also prohibits lesbianism.

Ah, so you infer it. That makes sense. So, why is it more justified for you to infer that than for others to infer that that whole passage is not to be taken seriously?

I think it's best we agree to disagree.

That's fine. I understand you'd rather do that than actually have to think about the hard things like this.

I would agree if that's what we argued. But that's not what we argue.

What do you argue then? Is there some other reasoning to your assertion that homosexuality is wrong? If so, I'd love to hear it.

I can't speak for Christians. There is no logic in any Christian theology.

Well, I tend to agree, but I fail to see how I'm being condescending but this isn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure...I'll PM you.

Aw, no way, I gotta hear this. You can do it here, if you want. I think it has implications for this thread, anyway.

 

[Kathryn]

You know what - I was going to enter into this debate but after reading this thread, I realized that the the tone is so condescending and sarcastic that I'm just, well, disinclined.

 

[Magic Man]

You know what - I was going to enter into this debate but after reading this thread, I realized that the the tone is so condescending and sarcastic that I'm just, well, disinclined.

Well, thanks for that.

 

[stars]

Condescending and sarcastic - no
Passionate and articulate - yes

Kathryn, come back.

 

[TheKnight]

But it's OK for you to say things like "There is no logic in any Christian theology.". I'm curious what difference you see between the two.

There is a difference between "there is no logic in any Christian theology" (which may not be entirely true. Using the term any could be the downfall of that statement) which I can actually prove with evidence, and "if you disagree, you haven't thought about it". If you and I were to go through my thought process concerning homosexuality in this thread, I'd still end up concluding that homosexuality is wrong. Not because I can see the future, but because I have thought about it before.

First, why is pre-marital straight sex worse than gay sex?

The damage done is far worse. Gay sex only really affects the two people involved. It has larger social implications, but it's not necessarily a threat to the foundation of society.

Pre-marital sex/Adultery (that leads to babies without fathers and broken families) is a direct threat to the foundation of our society (the family structure).

Perhaps I'm biased because in the work that I do, all the crap that I see is caused mostly by the fact that the people involved didn't have a solid family structure.

Second, why do you think any of it is wrong?

Because I base my morality off of God's commandments which I believe are revealed in the Torah.

Ah, so you infer it. That makes sense. So, why is it more justified for you to infer that than for others to infer that that whole passage is not to be taken seriously?

Because there is a specific method of "inference" in the study of the Torah that cannot be deviated from. All of the Noahide laws are somewhat "inferred" from the verses of the Torah.

The way it goes is somewhat like this:

P-Peshat>>The simple meaning of the verse. Meaning we look at the verse, and read it, and that's the meaning that we live with.

R-Remez>>The hinted or alluded meaning. Meaning that beyond the simple meaning, something is inferred because of the fact that it's obvious that something is missing. For instance in the Torah Moses says, "And you shall slaughter the animal as I have shown you." Nowhere in the Torah does it say how to slaughter an animal so it is inferred that there is some extra information that is necessary.

D-Derush>>Derived from metaphor or analogy. Beyond the simple meaning, there is the metaphorical meaning that a verse may have. An example of this would be the commandment to eliminate the Amalakites. The Amalakites represent evil in our world and therefore the commandment to eliminate them is seen as a commandment to stand against evil and injustice.

S-Sod>>The secret mystical level.

In general, I'm only able to study at the level of Remez. Some can study at deeper levels. However, it is said that each verse of the Torah can have these four methods of interpretation applied to them.

The prohibition against homosexual sex in the Torah for Noahides could be found in a number of places, even though the meaning is not direct. For instance, Genesis 2:24 which I already quoted. The fact that it says "cleave to his wife" could be seen as meaning "and not with a man."

Also, Genesis 9:1 which says to be fruitful and multiply. In essence, the purpose of sex is procreation.

Often times people respond to that "So if a couple is sterile they can't have sex?"

As long as the potential is there for a baby to be made (IE a baby could be made by their union were conditions normal) then it would be OK for them to have sex.

Additionally, there is the fact that HaAdam refers to a completed human being and that in order for a man and woman to be "Adam" (a complete human being) they must unite in one flesh. That cannot be accomplished if a person is engaged in a homosexual relationship.

Then there's also the prohibitions in the Oral Torah which we also believe was given to Moses by God at Sinai.

There are lots of scriptural and spiritual factors that go into it.

What do you argue then? Is there some other reasoning to your assertion that homosexuality is wrong? If so, I'd love to hear it.

We don't ever say "Homosexuality is icky, and the Bible says it's wrong, therefore homosexuality is wrong."

It's more along the lines of "Sex is for a certain purpose. Homosexuality doesn't fit that purpose, therefore homosexuality is wrong."

Well, I tend to agree, but I fail to see how I'm being condescending but this isn't.

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't condescending. But I can prove it.

You cannot prove that the reason I believe homosexuality is wrong is because I haven't thought about homosexuality enough. In fact, if we were to go through the entire thought process that you wanted to go through in this thread, I'm sure I'd end up concluding that homosexual sex acts are wrong still. If you don't believe me, then please, lead me through that thought process of yours and we'll see were we end up.

Aw, no way, I gotta hear this. You can do it here, if you want. I think it has implications for this thread, anyway.

It would derail the thread and I don't think Mister Emu is up to it. I never get a Christian who's willing to go the distance and argue it through to it's conclusion. It usually ends with "We're gonna have to agree to disagree."

I mean, there's a point where they just stop accepting what the Bible says and hold onto their precious god-man.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The Bible makes it very clear that participation in homosexual sex acts is wrong.

Well not sooooo clear it seems. One might also say .. the ways of interpretation are unknowable

 

[Magic Man]

There is a difference between "there is no logic in any Christian theology" (which may not be entirely true. Using the term any could be the downfall of that statement) which I can actually prove with evidence, and "if you disagree, you haven't thought about it". If you and I were to go through my thought process concerning homosexuality in this thread, I'd still end up concluding that homosexuality is wrong. Not because I can see the future, but because I have thought about it before.

Well, I can prove that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. You may refuse to see it, but I can still prove it the same way you can prove your statement.

The damage done is far worse. Gay sex only really affects the two people involved. It has larger social implications, but it's not necessarily a threat to the foundation of society.

Pre-marital sex/Adultery (that leads to babies without fathers and broken families) is a direct threat to the foundation of our society (the family structure).

Perhaps I'm biased because in the work that I do, all the crap that I see is caused mostly by the fact that the people involved didn't have a solid family structure.

Plenty of kids grow up just fine with a single parent.

Because I base my morality off of God's commandments which I believe are revealed in the Torah.

Well, there you go. You take a book's word for it. That doesn't involve much thinking. I could just assume the Koran is true, if I wanted.

Because there is a specific method of "inference" in the study of the Torah that cannot be deviated from. All of the Noahide laws are somewhat "inferred" from the verses of the Torah.

Hm....that sounds suspiciously like "Because we're right, and there's now other reasonable way to make inferences".

The prohibition against homosexual sex in the Torah for Noahides could be found in a number of places, even though the meaning is not direct. For instance, Genesis 2:24 which I already quoted. The fact that it says "cleave to his wife" could be seen as meaning "and not with a man."

It could be. Of course, it could just as easily not be.

Also, Genesis 9:1 which says to be fruitful and multiply. In essence, the purpose of sex is procreation.

Often times people respond to that "So if a couple is sterile they can't have sex?"

As long as the potential is there for a baby to be made (IE a baby could be made by their union were conditions normal) then it would be OK for them to have sex.

And you really don't see that as anything more than a rationalization?

We don't ever say "Homosexuality is icky, and the Bible says it's wrong, therefore homosexuality is wrong."

It's more along the lines of "Sex is for a certain purpose. Homosexuality doesn't fit that purpose, therefore homosexuality is wrong."

Well, then you only use the one part of the reasoning, namely the "the Bible says so" reasoning.

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't condescending. But I can prove it.

OK, well, I can prove my statement, too. Either way, though, you just admitted that bringing up whether or not something is condescending is not a legitimate part of an argument.

You cannot prove that the reason I believe homosexuality is wrong is because I haven't thought about homosexuality enough.

Yes, I can, the same way you can prove Christianity is illogical.

In fact, if we were to go through the entire thought process that you wanted to go through in this thread, I'm sure I'd end up concluding that homosexual sex acts are wrong still.

I'm sure you will. However, that's only a comment on the fact that you refuse to think about it enough.

If you don't believe me, then please, lead me through that thought process of yours and we'll see were we end up.

It's simple. You've already admitted that you only believe it's wrong because the Torah says so.

A book told you it is wrong, and so you think it's wrong. I'm still not seeing the thought there.

The real thought process should be:

A book says this is wrong. Is there any indication that that's true? For instance, it also says murder is wrong. I can see why that's wrong. It makes sense. Why would it consider homosexuality wrong? Because it's not natural? No, that's not true. It's perfectly natural. Because it hurts someone? No, it doesn't hurt anyone any more than heterosexuality does. That can't be it. So, why would it say it's wrong? I guess there is no good reason. I guess it probably says it's wrong because the people who wrote the book didn't like homosexuality and/or found it disgusting and different. That's not really a good enough reason to call something wrong, though. There are a lot of things I find gross and don't like. I don't think there's anything wrong with them, though.

It would derail the thread and I don't think Mister Emu is up to it. I never get a Christian who's willing to go the distance and argue it through to it's conclusion. It usually ends with "We're gonna have to agree to disagree."

Amazing. Sounds eerily like what's going on here, doesn't it?

Also, I'm not concerned with derailing the thread. It's my thread, and it was meant to discuss more than one topic.

I mean, there's a point where they just stop accepting what the Bible says and hold onto their precious god-man.

Your hypocrisy cracks me up.

 

[Mister Emu]

Thank you. That's what I was wondering. All I've ever seen is the Leviticus quote.

Welcome

Or you could respond to the more important part of that where I ask why you think homosexuality is wrong.

No need to get so antsy

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Perhaps not, I still haven't seen it...

No, it's a fact.

What is "wrong" is not a fact. There is no objective evidence of a fundamental definition of right or wrong.

You can show that an act does not cause harm. However, there is nothing that compels us to accept that as a definition of wrong. If there were I hazard to guess you would have already provided it.

Um...yes, we all do.

No... no we do not. Some people call President Bush a murderer. Some cultures consider(ed) killing outsiders and eating them acceptable. Some considered raiding, pillaging, and raping great entertainment. Some people think the strong should provide for the weak. Others think the weak should exist at the sufferance of the mighty. That if you can take it, and they can't defend it, there is nothing wrong.

Well, believe what you want. I'll stick with the truth.

You got any anthropological evidence to back that "truth" up?

I'll take that as a "no real results that I can show".

You asked, why I expected to grow in understanding in the future... how is past growth in understanding not a valid answer?

If that's the way you want to put it, yes

You cannot possibly know what goes on in my mind. Can you not see that? You don't know. You can't know. Unless you are claiming some psychic power(and we would need proof of that too ) it is impossible for you to know.

Just from the way you listed it, you can tell. You trust in God. Well, why do you trust in God? Because you trust in those authorities who have told you to trust in God.

No, you cannot. Why do I trust in God? Because I have had divine experiences.

Or did you have some experience that you perceive as God, and then you trust in the authorities to determine the details about what this god is like?

As I said. God represents Himself to me as the Christian God, and answers prayer made to the Christian God. Thus, I can only believe He is the Christian God. Then, and only then, after do I trust those authorities which I believe He set in place.

Yeah, and?

You see no problems with sweeping generalisations involving things about which you have no actual knowledge?

No, it's not, and I fear that if you can't even see that, this is going to be rather pointless.

Is there another answer out there, provided by a supposed authority?
Have you rejected it?
Have you substituted your own logic?
Have you delcared your logic infallible?

Based on our conversation, I fail to see you answering any of those with a no. (In just this post I am responding to you already said "Yeah, and?" when I noted you have declared your logic infallible).

It's the same here. I know that a smart person, like you, who gives the problem the attention it deserves will eventually come up with the correct answer.

Let us, for the sake of the argument, agree to moral realism(what you are arguing, that there is an objective correct morality). How do you propose we go about discerning it?

It doesn't in the context of a question with a right and wrong answer, which is what we're talking about.

We are talking about morality. There are numerous logically valid systems of morality. They can all be logically applied to a situation and end up with very different answers. None of them are objectively incorrect.

OK, this is the most important part here. Basically, you think homosexuality is wrong because a book says that God says it's wrong. It doesn't take much thought to let a book do your thinking for you. That's my point.

It does not demand you think. But you can, and many do, think when applying God's teachings to our lives.