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

[dragynfly0515]

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.

I am in total agreement with this. I see the foundation of society as the family. As long as there are monogamous heterosexual couples raising children in a stable setting, who cares what the homosexual people who opt out of that structure are doing? I feel that it is the people who are reproducing without providing a stable setting for the children who are damaging society.
However, I would go even further. As someone who does not recognize the authority of the Bible, I would say there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality.

:candle:
Crys

 

[Magic Man]

No... no we do not.

Yes, we do.

Some people call President Bush a murderer.

That's quite a bit different. He is certainly partly responsible for many people's deaths, but claims of him being a murderer are all little exaggerated, and the people making them know that.

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.

So, anyway, we all agree that murder is wrong and theft is wrong, and some other basics.

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

Yup, lots of it.

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.

No, it's not. You say things and that gives me an idea of what goes on in your mind.

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

And? What makes you think it's the Christian God? The authorities. I'm assuming none of those experiences were God telling you that the Bible is true and all of the details like about homosexuality.

As I said. God represents Himself to me as the Christian God,

How? Does he talk to you? Do you actually see him? Do you ask him questions?

and answers prayer made to the Christian God.

Wow. Amazingly enough I'd guarantee we could find some Muslims who claim God represents himself as Allah and answers prayer made to Allah.

Also, God doesn't answer prayers.

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.

So, what you're saying is that God comes to you and tells you he's the Christian god, so you should listen to the authorities about him? Or is it that you've just had an experience or two that you could only explain as God, and then you look to your authorities to fill in the details for you? I'm guessing the latter.

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

Oh, yes, I see a problem with that. That's why I don't do that kind of thing.

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?

I think the use of "supposed" is key here. Yes, there is another answer out there by a supposed authority. Sadly, they are not actually an authority. As far as the rest of your questions, they have nothing to do with what we were talking about here.

Here's what's happened. There is a problem. Some people have given a faulty answer to it. I've shown how that answer is faulty. It's not a question of being infallible. That's just your way of trying to demean what I'm saying.

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).

Huh? I never agreed that my logic is infallible. As I just said, it's not a question of being infallible. It's a question of being correct or incorrect. Your use of "infallible" is pointless, and is only an attempt to degrade my argument.

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?

As I said, any smart person looking at an issue like this with logic and reason would come to the same conclusion about it.

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.

So, you're just going to ignore what I was talking about and pretend this is what we were talking about? Have fun with that, then. I'll not get distracted, thanks.

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

Sure, you just don't do it enough when you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. It's not different than coming to the conclusion that the creation story and flood story are just myths, and don't really contain a lot of facts. When you look at those stories with logic and reason in the context of what you know about the world, you realize they're rather silly if taken literally. You see the same thing about the view on homosexuality, if you do the same thing with it.

 

[blackout]

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.

And marriage is a guarantee of what exactly?

The divorce rate is awfuly high.

Procreation within the marital setting is no more a guarantee
of an unbroken family than is a comitted relationship
outside the marital setting.

Marriage guarantees absolutely nothing,
and deters nothing.

Divorce is a daily occurance.

Families of split marriages are everywhere.

None of this supports anything.

A solid family structure has nothing necessarily to do with marriage at all.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's quite a bit different. He is certainly partly responsible for many people's deaths, but claims of him being a murderer are all little exaggerated, and the people making them know that.

You willing to go out on a limb and say all of them know it?

So, anyway, we all agree that murder is wrong and theft is wrong, and some other basics.

So, anyways, no we do not. Or there wouldn't be guilt free theives in the world. Or people who murder wantonly.

At the very least, we(humanity) do not all view the words murder and theft in the same light.

Yup, lots of it.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed anthropological journal wherein lies, effectively, "Cultural morals started as 'I don't like it, so it is wrong'"?

No, it's not. You say things and that gives me an idea of what goes on in your mind.

Of course, but then you completely contradict what I say... implying you have a source of knowledge of my individual mind beyond my words. Otherwise you might ask questions to clarify as opposed to making statements.

And? What makes you think it's the Christian God?

What is the point of asking a question that of someone else, that you then answer?

God makes me believe it is the Christian God. That He responds to my prayers to the Trinity(either individually or as a conglomeration). The fact that I have felt Him keenly within the Mass. That He inspired me, beyond my considerable doubts that nearly made me forgo the matter, to join the Catholic Church.

How? Does he talk to you?

Yes, He has.

I haven't seen Him, I described other experiences in the above quote-reply sequence.

Do you ask him questions?

Yes, I have, and in the past He has answered me.

Wow. Amazingly enough I'd guarantee we could find some Muslims who claim God represents himself as Allah and answers prayer made to Allah.

Amazingly enough, I'd guarantee that does not matter at all to me. I can not go by what others have felt, only what I have, nor do I ever say that my experiences should compel others to my beliefs. Only me

Also, God doesn't answer prayers.

He has some of mine

So, what you're saying is that God comes to you and tells you he's the Christian god, so you should listen to the authorities about him? Or is it that you've just had an experience or two that you could only explain as God, and then you look to your authorities to fill in the details for you? I'm guessing the latter.

You chose... poorly.

I have had experiences that I can only explain as the Christian God, and that God has led me to the Church

Oh, yes, I see a problem with that. That's why I don't do that kind of thing.

Not only have you, you have applied that generalisation to individuals.

I think the use of "supposed" is key here.

Indeed, that is why I made mention of it.

As far as the rest of your questions, they have nothing to do with what we were talking about here.

Actually, they are exactly what we are talking about. Your statements that other's logic must agree with yours to be valid.

I've shown how that answer is faulty.

No, though I have asked you to. You've only said it is.

Huh? I never agreed that my logic is infallible.

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?

My apologies, I believe 'yeah' is an affirmative.

That's just your way of trying to demean what I'm saying.

It is an inference. "I used logic to come to an answer" + "If you use logic you will come to the same answer" = My logic can not be faulty.

Are you saying the logic you used could be faulty?

As I said, any smart person looking at an issue like this with logic and reason would come to the same conclusion about it.

Show how.

So, you're just going to ignore what I was talking about and pretend this is what we were talking about?

The whole point of this thread is that you are denying that other systems of morality are logically valid.

It's not different than coming to the conclusion that the creation story and flood story are just myths, and don't really contain a lot of facts. When you look at those stories with logic and reason in the context of what you know about the world, you realize they're rather silly if taken literally. You see the same thing about the view on homosexuality, if you do the same thing with it.

Except there is an objective reality to base those ideas on. There is an earth to check the story against. There is no objective measure to check morality against.

Here is what I am asking. For math, which you compare this to, we have a method to solve the problem. This method when used correctly will produce the same result every time. This method is objective.

For example:
2x + 32 - 1 = 41

First we simplify:
2x + 32 - 1 = 41 becomes 2x + 31 = 41
Then we isolate x:
2x + 31 = 41 becomes 2x + 31 - 31 = 41 - 31 becomes 2x = 10
Then we solve:
2x = 10 becomes 2x/2 = 10/2 becomes x = 5

What is the objective logical method to solve a moral problem? Also, why is it compelling?

 

[Magic Man]

You willing to go out on a limb and say all of them know it?

All of those who are intelligent.

So, anyways, no we do not. Or there wouldn't be guilt free theives in the world. Or people who murder wantonly.

Why wouldn't there? Are you saying people can't view murder as wrong, but still do it, or see it theft as wrong but still do it without caring? That seems a little odd to me.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed anthropological journal wherein lies, effectively, "Cultural morals started as 'I don't like it, so it is wrong'"?

Nope. I can, however, point you to the cultural morals that are examples of "I don't like it, so it's wrong".

Of course, but then you completely contradict what I say...

Yes, of course I do, because what you say is wrong.

God makes me believe it is the Christian God. That He responds to my prayers to the Trinity(either individually or as a conglomeration). The fact that I have felt Him keenly within the Mass. That He inspired me, beyond my considerable doubts that nearly made me forgo the matter, to join the Catholic Church.

So, nothing really?

Yes, He has.

Wow. What has he said to you?

Yes, I have, and in the past He has answered me.

Can you give me an example?

He has some of mine

OK, then you need to explain this to me. There is a god. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He has a plan for everyone and everything. BUT for some reason you ask him for something, and he decides to change his plan? Because a being that is far from omnipotent and omniscient asked? Why would he change his plan?

Now, the next thing you have to explain is why he answers some of your prayers, but not others, and not other people's prayers. Why is it that we could do a test and find the same results for people who don't pray for something and people who do pray for it?

I have had experiences that I can only explain as the Christian God, and that God has led me to the Church

What experience, as in a specific example, can you only explain as the Christian God?

Not only have you, you have applied that generalisation to individuals.

Nope.

No, though I have asked you to. You've only said it is.

I'm sorry, as they say, "No one is blinder than him who will not see".

My apologies, I believe 'yeah' is an affirmative.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. No, my logic is not infallible. I'm not using my logic. I'm using logic.

It is an inference. "I used logic to come to an answer" + "If you use logic you will come to the same answer" = My logic can not be faulty.

Ah, I think we've found part of the problem. That conclusion doesn't follow from those premises. I said nothing about "my logic". I mentioned logic.

Are you saying the logic you used could be faulty?

There's only one logic. There's not "my logic" and "your logic". There is logic. That's why I say, if someone uses it along with reason, they will come to the right answer.

Show how.

This book says homosexuality is bad. Do I see anything wrong with homosexuality? No. It doesn't hurt anyone. So, why would this book say it's wrong? Because it's unnatural? No. It's perfectly natural. Because the guys who wrote the book don't like it and think it's gross? Hmmm...that seems to make sense. Yeah, thinking about it, there's no other reason to consider it wrong, so I guess that must be their reasoning. I realize there are things I don't like and am grossed out by that aren't wrong. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

For example:
2x + 32 - 1 = 41

First we simplify:
2x + 32 - 1 = 41 becomes 2x + 31 = 41
Then we isolate x:
2x + 31 = 41 becomes 2x + 31 - 31 = 41 - 31 becomes 2x = 10
Then we solve:
2x = 10 becomes 2x/2 = 10/2 becomes x = 5

What is the objective logical method to solve a moral problem? Also, why is it compelling?

The method is logic and reason. It's compelling because it works so well.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why wouldn't there?

If you believe something is wrong, you avoid it, or feel guilt about it...

Are you saying people can't view murder as wrong, but still do it

Either they will feel guilt about it, or they don't view it as murder, or they don't view murder as wrong.

Nope. I can, however, point you to the cultural morals that are examples of "I don't like it, so it's wrong".

So, contrary to your claim, you don't really have any evidence that these morals were based on people "not liking" the actions.

Yes, of course I do, because what you say is wrong.

As I said, you are speaking on things you cannot possibly know of. I provided information into my thought process(after your faulty conclusions about it), and you then say I am wrong about how I think.

There is no basis for your confident stance into my how I think.

So, nothing really?

If you consider a host of experential evidence nothing...

Wow. What has he said to you?

In one case I was asking guidance on an issue, one of the possible outcomes was violent, and He told to bring love and peace.

Can you give me an example?

See above.

There is a god. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He has a plan for everyone and everything. BUT for some reason you ask him for something, and he decides to change his plan? Because a being that is far from omnipotent and omniscient asked? Why would he change his plan?

I did not say I asked to change His plan... another assumption

Now, the next thing you have to explain is why he answers some of your prayers, but not others, and not other people's prayers.

Don't know

Why is it that we could do a test and find the same results for people who don't pray for something and people who do pray for it?

Who says they pray in a vaccum?

What experience, as in a specific example, can you only explain as the Christian God?

The totality as a whole. Those experiences you previously called "nothing"...

Nope.

But you have. You assume that because I disagree with you, I haven't thought about the issue at length in depth. You assume because we have different base assumptions that we build our logic on, that I do not use logic.

I'm not using my logic. I'm using logic.

If we must get into semantics... What is your line of logic?

Ah, I think we've found part of the problem. That conclusion doesn't follow from those premises. I said nothing about "my logic". I mentioned logic.

Indeed, my apologies if I incorrectly conveyed what I was asking... How did you use logic to come to your conclusion. Why is it compelling?

There's only one logic. There's not "my logic" and "your logic". There is logic. That's why I say, if someone uses it along with reason, they will come to the right answer.

How do you use logic to come to your conclusion... I call the logic behind my thoughts my logic. My apologies...

A thought process might also go so:

This book says homosexuality is bad. Do I see anything wrong with homosexuality? No.

Is all I see, all there is? No. Therefore, a contradiction between what is said, and all I see is not necessarily a valid reason to reject what is said.

So, why would this book say it's wrong?

Here it diverges: Could a deity have revealed this to the writer(s)?

No:

So, why would this book say it's wrong? Because it's unnatural?

How do we define natural? Does it mean anything that occurs in nature? Would that not mean that a human woman biting the head off of her mate is natural? Of course that is not natural.

Because the guys who wrote the book don't like it and think it's gross?

No, that does not make sense, societies generally do not codify morality based on their likes. Perhaps they did so because homosexuality does not produce children, and therefore does not add to the likelihood of the tribes survival. That makes some sense, and it vibes with how other sexual mores came about. Does that make it applicable to today? Not, really.

Yes:
Does God exist? Yes, my experiences make me believe He is real beyond doubt. Should I listen to what He has to say? Again, yes, those experiences lead me to believe He is more knowledgeable about what is right and wrong, and wants what is right for us.

The method is logic and reason.

For example in Deductive reasoning, you can show your logic through:

P1: Premise 1
P2: Premise 2
C: Conclusion

 

[Magic Man]

If you believe something is wrong, you avoid it, or feel guilt about it...

Not necessarily. Most people do, but that doesn't mean everybody does.

Either they will feel guilt about it, or they don't view it as murder, or they don't view murder as wrong.

Or they view murder as wrong, view what they do as murder and don't feel guilty about it.

So, contrary to your claim, you don't really have any evidence that these morals were based on people "not liking" the actions.

As I just told you, I have plenty of evidence. I don't have the evidence you asked for specifically, but I still have evidence.

As I said, you are speaking on things you cannot possibly know of.

I provided information into my thought process(after your faulty conclusions about it), and you then say I am wrong about how I think.

That's true...well, all except the part about my "faulty" conclusions.

There is no basis for your confident stance into my how I think.

Yes, there is.

If you consider a host of experential evidence nothing...

Nope, that's subjective.

In one case I was asking guidance on an issue, one of the possible outcomes was violent, and He told to bring love and peace.

See above.

So, what you're saying is that he has responded to you when you prayed to him, not so much that he's answered your prayers. Those are two different things.

I did not say I asked to change His plan... another assumption

Sorry, I was thrown off by a poor choice of words, as explained above.

Don't know

Of course, you don't. You understand just well enough to know that he answers yours, but not well enough to understand why he wouldn't answer others'. That makes sense. :areyoucra

Who says they pray in a vaccum?

Um...nobody. Kind of irrelevant, though. Nice try anyway.

The totality as a whole. Those experiences you previously called "nothing"...

In other words "I can't give you a specific example. I have to leave it at vague claims because I've never actually had a specific experience that should qualify as the Christian God.".

But you have. You assume that because I disagree with you, I haven't thought about the issue at length in depth. You assume because we have different base assumptions that we build our logic on, that I do not use logic.

Nope. As I said, I only realize that you don't use logic and reason. That's why I throw in the reason part, because you can get any conclusion you want by applying logic to the wrong premises. So, I have to reiterate my "Nope".

If we must get into semantics... What is your line of logic?

I'm not the one trying to use semantics to make an argument.

A thought process might also go so:

Is all I see, all there is? No. Therefore, a contradiction between what is said, and all I see is not necessarily a valid reason to reject what is said.

It might, but then it would be faulty. Then you're just basing your ideas on what could be rather than what is. That's not really a good way to go about living life.

Here it diverges: Could a deity have revealed this to the writer(s)?

No:

Not really sure where the break here is. Was the "No" supposed to go with that question or with the next part? Anyway, that would be my answer to this question. However, if you answer "Yes" to it, you then have to explain why that deity would have revealed that to the writer. It's still the same, you just change the question. Then it's "Why did this deity decree this?".

How do we define natural? Does it mean anything that occurs in nature? Would that not mean that a human woman biting the head off of her mate is natural? Of course that is not natural.

Almost. It's perfectly natural for homosexuals to be attracted to and like having sex with people of the same gender. It's also something that's found in other species, so it's not like humans are the only ones.

No, that does not make sense, societies generally do not codify morality based on their likes.

Says you.

Perhaps they did so because homosexuality does not produce children, and therefore does not add to the likelihood of the tribes survival. That makes some sense, and it vibes with how other sexual mores came about. Does that make it applicable to today? Not, really.

Well, there you go. Did they call it wrong because it doesn't produce children? Maybe. Is that something that's important today when considering whether or not it's wrong? No. So, even if that was their reasoning, it still wouldn't make it valid today.

Besides, they also said extra-marital sex is wrong, but that can produce children.

Yes:
Does God exist? Yes, my experiences make me believe He is real beyond doubt. Should I listen to what He has to say? Again, yes, those experiences lead me to believe He is more knowledgeable about what is right and wrong, and wants what is right for us.

So, God himself has told you he thinks homosexuality is wrong? That's fine, but again, there's not much thought involved there.

For example in Deductive reasoning, you can show your logic through:

P1: Premise 1
P2: Premise 2
C: Conclusion

Yup, that's why I did.

 

[TheKnight]

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

I'm glad for those Christiann scholars. However, Jewish halakha maintains that the Torah is clear that homosexuality is prohibited.

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.

You can prove that nothing is wrong with homosexuality so far as you interpret right and wrong. However, my view on right and wrong (which is determined by God) is clear that homosexual sex acts are prohibited.

I should note that when I say "homosexuality is prohibited" I mean actually acting on the desires. Having those desires is not prohibited and in many ways one could say there is a benefit to it.

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

I'm sure they do. But they're not growing up in the absolute best familial situation. It's not that a single parent situation can't properly bring up a child, it's just that a two-parent familial situation brings them up better.

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.

I don't just assume that the Torah is true. I have good reason to believe it.

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

I suppose that's true.

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

Not really.

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

Yes. The Torah saying so is enough.

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.

Well, it's not a legitimate part of an argument if you can prove the statement. You cannot prove that I haven't thought about it...mostly because I have thought about it.

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

Please do so. Prove to me that I haven't thought enough about the homosexuality issue.

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.

Umm....your thought process failed to include other possible reasons for it saying that it's "wrong". Part of that being, sex is for a specific purpose and homosexuality cannot fit that purpose and therefore is wrong. Just like life is for a certain purpose, and the destruction of life (murder) cannot fit that purpose and therefore is wrong.

Besides, right and wrong are not based on "natural/unnatural" or on whether or not someone is harmed. That, so I believe, is a dangerous view of morality.

Also, I find it absolutely insulting when a religious person says "Homosexuality is unnatural" and then the non-religious replies "Sure it is, animals do it."

To be honest, that's a lot like saying that homosexuals are just like animals. And hey, if they want to be, that's fine with me. However, I prefer to live on a supra-animal standard and behave as a human and I tend to view people the same way. The fact that an animal does something is not an excuse for conscious human beings to do so.

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.

The main reason that Christianity is false is because the Messianic prophesies have not been fulfilled.

Your hypocrisy cracks me up.

Well, they do. Christianity is internally inconsistent. They claim that the Bible is true, they claim that they believe it, and yet when it says something they don't like, they find some sort of esoteric explanation to get out of the pickle.

I am in total agreement with this. I see the foundation of society as the family. As long as there are monogamous heterosexual couples raising children in a stable setting, who cares what the homosexual people who opt out of that structure are doing? I feel that it is the people who are reproducing without providing a stable setting for the children who are damaging society.
However, I would go even further. As someone who does not recognize the authority of the Bible, I would say there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality.

I would agree with you that it does not matter what homosexuals do. I have no problem with any homosexual engaging in a homosexual relationship of their own volition. That's their decision to make and it is not my responsibility to stop them from it.

And marriage is a guarantee of what exactly?

The divorce rate is awfuly high.

Procreation within the marital setting is no more a guarantee
of an unbroken family than is a comitted relationship
outside the marital setting.

Marriage guarantees absolutely nothing,
and deters nothing.

Divorce is a daily occurance.

Families of split marriages are everywhere.

None of this supports anything.

A solid family structure has nothing necessarily to do with marriage at all.

Yep, that's exactly the attitude we should have about right and wrong. "When right doesn't work anymore, we shouldn't even try to do the right thing anymore." Thank you so very much for your input. [/sarcasm]

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I'm glad for those Christiann scholars. However, Jewish halakha maintains that the Torah is clear that homosexuality is prohibited.

Well, religion is widely interpretable

 

[Mister Emu]

Or they view murder as wrong, view what they do as murder and don't feel guilty about it.

If I phrased it as remorse, instead of guilt... would your view change?

As I just told you, I have plenty of evidence. I don't have the evidence you asked for specifically, but I still have evidence.

Show it.

:rollseyes:

Fine then, what gives you concrete knowledge of my mind's inner workings?

Yes, there is.

What is it then?

Nope, that's subjective.

Indeed, that is why, and why I specifically noted, it is not compelling to anyone else.

So, what you're saying is that he has responded to you when you prayed to him, not so much that he's answered your prayers. Those are two different things.

When I ask for guidance and God gives me guidance, that is answering my prayer...

Sorry, I was thrown off by a poor choice of words, as explained above.

It was precise word choice that properly described what happened.

Of course, you don't. You understand just well enough to know that he answers yours, but not well enough to understand why he wouldn't answer others'. That makes sense

How does it not? I know what I have experiences, it does not involve understanding anything other than what has happened. I do not understand the why... It is better, in my opinion, to acknowledge a lack rather than bold confidence in an assertion beyond the mental purview.

Um...nobody. Kind of irrelevant, though. Nice try anyway.

It is relevant, as to why scientific study of prayer has been flawed. You cannot point out a person or issue and say that (person) is not being prayed for.

In other words "I can't give you a specific example. I have to leave it at vague claims because I've never actually had a specific experience that should qualify as the Christian God.".

"No one experience points incontrovertibly to the Christian God. As a totality of separate events however, I cannot but believe that that is what He is."

I fail to see how "Responds to Christian prayer" is vague, or "God is keenly present at the Catholic Mass"? Perhaps you can elucidate?

Nope. As I said, I only realize that you don't use logic and reason. That's why I throw in the reason part, because you can get any conclusion you want by applying logic to the wrong premises.

Now we are getting somewhere... we can throw out amount of time, and logical validity(not soundness however). And get to the real issue(s). Can there be a reasonable belief the Biblical God? Also, whether or not God exists, what objective grounds do we have for declaring moral premises faulty? For example, if someone were to say "That which I do not like I declare wrong" on what grounds would we call him incorrect? Or if someone says "That which causes the least suffering is right. If I have to kill an innocent to save 10 innocents, that is right" and someone else says "Killing an innocent is always wrong, the ends never justify the means", what would we use to declare one or the other incorrect?

I'm not the one trying to use semantics to make an argument.

No, you just got into semantics over the question I asked

It might, but then it would be faulty. Then you're just basing your ideas on what could be rather than what is. That's not really a good way to go about living life.

No it wouldn't be. It isn't basing on idea on what could be, but what is. If what I see is not all there is, that is reality, it should not be denied.

Not really sure where the break here is. Was the "No" supposed to go with that question or with the next part?

The question above If you say no: go to page 82, if yes: page 120

Well, there you go. Did they call it wrong because it doesn't produce children? Maybe. Is that something that's important today when considering whether or not it's wrong? No. So, even if that was their reasoning, it still wouldn't make it valid today.

I never said that line of reasoning would agree with me

Besides, they also said extra-marital sex is wrong, but that can produce children.

Indeed, and there could be secular reasons for that as well...

So, God himself has told you he thinks homosexuality is wrong? That's fine, but again, there's not much thought involved there.

There is quite a bit of thought involved in questions of whether God exists, whether we should trust God, whether we should trust the Bible to accurately convey God's messages, and then why God might convey the messages He does.

Some, perhaps a lot, of people might stop at "God said, so it is"... but a lot of people do not as well.

 

[blackout]

Yep, that's exactly the attitude we should have about right and wrong. "When right doesn't work anymore, we shouldn't even try to do the right thing anymore." Thank you so very much for your input. [/sarcasm]

The problem is,
Your little box of right and wrong (notions) NEGATES other possible kinds of solid family structures.
You act as if there's only one. But there ISN'T.
And besides that, as I said before, heterosexual marriage is a guarantee of NOTHING at all.

When something isn't working perhaps it's best to approach the problem creatively,
and from many different angles.

How can you possibly attack other types of family stuctures of being unsolid
as a defense of heterosexual marriage,
when heterosexual marriage proves itself day in and day out to be as unsolid as anything else?

It's a faulty argument built on a faulty foundation.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm sure they do. But they're not growing up in the absolute best familial situation. It's not that a single parent situation can't properly bring up a child, it's just that a two-parent familial situation brings them up better.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. You said this, "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." I'm guessing the real reason is that those people didn't have good parenting. You can have good parenting with or without two parents. Having a parent from each gender isn't what makes a family good. Having good, loving parenting is what makes a family good.

I don't just assume that the Torah is true. I have good reason to believe it.

Yes, I've heard your reasoning. Suffice to say, the word "good" should be left out of this statement.

Not really.

Yeah, I guess that's part of the problem.

Yes. The Torah saying so is enough.

Exactly. Therefore, you don't actually have to do any thinking on the subject. So, we're back to you not thinking about it.

Well, it's not a legitimate part of an argument if you can prove the statement. You cannot prove that I haven't thought about it...mostly because I have thought about it.

I just did. "A book says so" doesn't constitute thinking about it.

Umm....your thought process failed to include other possible reasons for it saying that it's "wrong". Part of that being, sex is for a specific purpose and homosexuality cannot fit that purpose and therefore is wrong.

So, you should only have sex with the intention of having children? Married people can't have sex unless they're trying to conceive?

Even if you go by that reasoning, you still have the question "Are sterile people not allowed to ever have sex at all?". That would seem unfair and ridiculous.

Just like life is for a certain purpose, and the destruction of life (murder) cannot fit that purpose and therefore is wrong.

That's not why murder is wrong, though. Murder is wrong because you're infringing on the rights of others.

Besides, right and wrong are not based on "natural/unnatural"

I agree, but it's an argument used by many people to support the view that homosexuality is wrong.

or on whether or not someone is harmed. That, so I believe, is a dangerous view of morality.

I'm not sure what reality you're living in, but pretty much all morality is based on harm.

Also, I find it absolutely insulting when a religious person says "Homosexuality is unnatural" and then the non-religious replies "Sure it is, animals do it."

OK, well, good for you.

To be honest, that's a lot like saying that homosexuals are just like animals. And hey, if they want to be, that's fine with me.

We're all like animals because...we are animals.

However, I prefer to live on a supra-animal standard and behave as a human and I tend to view people the same way. The fact that an animal does something is not an excuse for conscious human beings to do so.

No, it's not an excuse. It's just a way of saying it's not unnatural. It's not in and of itself saying it's morally right or anything, it's just countering the argument that it's unnatural. Again, though, you do realize that humans are animals, right?

The main reason that Christianity is false is because the Messianic prophesies have not been fulfilled.

Says you.

Well, they do. Christianity is internally inconsistent. They claim that the Bible is true, they claim that they believe it, and yet when it says something they don't like, they find some sort of esoteric explanation to get out of the pickle.

Wow, when I mentioned your hypocrisy I didn't expect you to give me such a shining example of it, but thanks.

 

[Magic Man]

If I phrased it as remorse, instead of guilt... would your view change?

No.

Show it.

I already did.

Fine then, what gives you concrete knowledge of my mind's inner workings?

What you say.

What is it then?

What you say.

When I ask for guidance and God gives me guidance, that is answering my prayer...

It was precise word choice that properly described what happened.

Whatever you say...

How does it not? I know what I have experiences, it does not involve understanding anything other than what has happened. I do not understand the why... It is better, in my opinion, to acknowledge a lack rather than bold confidence in an assertion beyond the mental purview.

Me, too. That's why I would say it would be better to not say you understand the experiences at all.

It is relevant, as to why scientific study of prayer has been flawed. You cannot point out a person or issue and say that (person) is not being prayed for.

Why not?

"No one experience points incontrovertibly to the Christian God. As a totality of separate events however, I cannot but believe that that is what He is."

Or "I can't name one in particular that even points in the right direction".

I fail to see how "Responds to Christian prayer" is vague, or "God is keenly present at the Catholic Mass"? Perhaps you can elucidate?

The "responds to Christian prayer" is debatable, and the other one I'm failing to understand why it should count as any kind of evidence.

No it wouldn't be. It isn't basing on idea on what could be, but what is. If what I see is not all there is, that is reality, it should not be denied.

So, instead, you're basing your idea on what could be, as I said.

I never said that line of reasoning would agree with me

I know. I was just showing another part of the reasoning.

There is quite a bit of thought involved in questions of whether God exists, whether we should trust God, whether we should trust the Bible to accurately convey God's messages, and then why God might convey the messages He does.

And when you come up with the fact that there's no good reason for God to say it's wrong, you should decide that that's one thing that you shouldn't take seriously in the Bible. Hence the fact that there is not enough thinking involved.

Some, perhaps a lot, of people might stop at "God said, so it is"... but a lot of people do not as well.

Then, why do you believe it, if not because God says so?

 

[TheKnight]

Well, religion is widely interpretable

If you read that link, I'm more along the lines of Haredi/Modern Orthodox. Reform (as a movement which generally denies the divinity of Torah) is not Judaism.

The problem is,
Your little box of right and wrong (notions) NEGATES other possible kinds of solid family structures.
You act as if there's only one. But there ISN'T.
And besides that, as I said before, heterosexual marriage is a guarantee of NOTHING at all.

When something isn't working perhaps it's best to approach the problem creatively,
and from many different angles.

How can you possibly attack other types of family stuctures of being unsolid
as a defense of heterosexual marriage,
when heterosexual marriage proves itself day in and day out to be as unsolid as anything else?

It's a faulty argument built on a faulty foundation.

In case you didn't notice, this is a thread about homosexuality itself and the wrongness of the act. It's not necessarily a discussion of gay marriage.

That being said, my mention of homosexuality and the family structure is meant as a part of the wrongness of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.

That being said, I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read my posts in context, because I'm getting sick of having to explain to you why I said what I said. If you believe that you understood my post in context, then I'll have to conclude that you are unable to read OR that you are bad at formulating coherent arguments specifically tailored to argue against that which you are discussing.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. You said this, "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." I'm guessing the real reason is that those people didn't have good parenting. You can have good parenting with or without two parents. Having a parent from each gender isn't what makes a family good. Having good, loving parenting is what makes a family good.

I would agree. Although I do also believe that having an opposite-gender family home has a lot to do with the subconscious make-up of the child and who it will become.

Yes, I've heard your reasoning. Suffice to say, the word "good" should be left out of this statement.

Good is in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly. Therefore, you don't actually have to do any thinking on the subject. So, we're back to you not thinking about it.

You're assuming that I accept what the Torah says without first considering that the Torah is true. If I believe that the Torah is true, and have reached that conclusion after the result of much thought (which I did) then you cannot say I haven't thought about it.

Besides, even if you could argue that that alone is not enough, I have thought about homosexuality extensive. One of my best friends is a homosexual. And for a large part of our friendship, he was struggling with it while being in the closet. To say that I haven't thought about it simply because I still believe that engaging in such acts is wrong is to consider me callous towards other human beings.

I just did. "A book says so" doesn't constitute thinking about it.

The basis for my considering it wrong is in the fact that I believe that the Torah is true (something I've thought quite a bit about). In addition to that, I have thought quite about the homosexuality issue and the fact that it is wrong. All of my logical faculties lead me to believe that homosexual sex acts are wrong.

So, you should only have sex with the intention of having children? Married people can't have sex unless they're trying to conceive?

Even if you go by that reasoning, you still have the question "Are sterile people not allowed to ever have sex at all?". That would seem unfair and ridiculous.

If the potential for procreation under normal conditions is there, then sex can be had. Homosexual sex, regardless of the condition, cannot result in procreation (which is the purpose of sex). Engaging in homosexual sex, then, is nothing more than base indulgence (and waste of) desires intended for a holy purpose.

That's not why murder is wrong, though. Murder is wrong because you're infringing on the rights of others.

Obviously we have different standards for why murder is wrong. In your opinion, it's based on rights. In my opinion, it's based on obligation.

I agree, but it's an argument used by many people to support the view that homosexuality is wrong.

I know, and I think that argument doesn't support homosexuality being wrong

I'm not sure what reality you're living in, but pretty much all morality is based on harm.

No. Law is based on harm. Legally (in a society with many religions) we can only prohibit those things which directly harm other people. However, morality has a divine source and the morality of an issue has nothing to do with harm.

We're all like animals because...we are animals.

Physically speaking I would agree. However, I believe it's obvious that as far as conscience is concerned, we are far greater than any other living thing on this planet.

Again, though, you do realize that humans are animals, right?

Yes, humans are (physically) animals. However, consciously speaking, we are far above animals.

Says you.

Says me? Says the fact that people still die.

 

[Mister Emu]

No.

Then we're going to have to disagree... you cannot act in manner which you find inherently "wrong" and feel no remorse/guilt about it... e.g. Someone who steals because he has no money to feed his family would feel sorry for the people he is stealing from.

I already did.

No you haven't, I asked you if you did... you said yes... I asked for a scientific journal on it... you said you did not have any of those, but you did have evidence... I asked for that non-scientific evidence then... you say you've already shown it.

"Mball can think of no other reason" is not evidence of there not being another reason.

What you say.

How is what I say evidence that what I say is false?

So:
Petitioner: Will you please grant me this?
Petitionee: Indeed, here is what you have asked for.

is not a scenario in where the petitioner's request was answered?

I cannot help your confusion about the contents of my petitionary prayer.

Whatever you say...

What other word choice would be better used in a situation where a boon was asked of a deity and a positive response was obtained? I asked for guidance, God answered with guidance. The fact that you conflated(hopefully will not continue to conflate) a prayer of petition with an attempt to change God's plan does not reflect on what occurred.

Me, too.

Now it is my turn to

Why not?

Even without assuming that a given belief system is true, you'd have know what everyone on earth is praying for, if they are. If you do presume that the belief system is true, you can't control, or know, what spiritual beings are praying for.

Or "I can't name one in particular that even points in the right direction".

Except I did, so that is not it.

The "responds to Christian prayer" is debatable

In the sense that my sanity or veracity are.

I could be insane... but I'm not lying about what I experienced, and I hope you would accept that I am telling the truth...

As I do not believe I am insane, and I know that I experienced and audible response to my Christian prayer, and more general responses fairly every day... It is not debatable to me Given its subjective nature, as I have said all along too, it is, however, not compelling for anyone else.

the other one I'm failing to understand why it should count as any kind of evidence.

Divinity being present in a particular religion's venue of worship is not evidence of the reality of that religion's beliefs?

So, instead, you're basing your idea on what could be, as I said.

No, I'm basing it on what is. As what is is that I don't know everything. There are anthropological journals out there, so I could learn... and from the little I do know, I can reasonably assume that the answer is not "I don't like it" when the question is: Why did x society formulate y morality.

And when you come up with the fact that there's no good reason for God to say it's wrong, you should decide that that's one thing that you shouldn't take seriously in the Bible. Hence the fact that there is not enough thinking involved.

What is, or is not, good, as far as reasons for morality go... is up for debate, and will never be objectively settled.

Then, why do you believe it, if not because God says so?

It is because God says so, and I never suggested otherwise. I did, however, say that I do not stop there. I will go into this in further detail in a subsequent post

 

[Magic Man]

Then we're going to have to disagree... you cannot act in manner which you find inherently "wrong" and feel no remorse/guilt about it... e.g. Someone who steals because he has no money to feed his family would feel sorry for the people he is stealing from.

That's true, but that's not an example I'd use for this. I'd use an example like someone who just doesn't have the same kind of conscience as you or me. There are people who think things are wrong, still do them, but don't feel remorse/guilt about it.

I'm tired of breaking the posts down like this. Here's the deal. There's no reason for any god or book to call homosexuality wrong, other than bigotry/dislike/the fact that it doesn't aid reproduction (in a time when a certain tribe or people needs to reproduce to survive). None of those reasons are good reason to consider homosexuality wrong or bad these days.

I'm going to assume there are other things in the Bible you assume aren't meant to be taken literally or seriously. Therefore, for some reason you've decided that this one thing should be taken seriously/literally, while some others shouldn't. You reason that those other things obviously don't make sense for today's world, but this thing does. And yet, as we see, homosexuality being wrong has no support other than "God said it". "God said it" isn't good enough for everything because you believe some things in spite of "God saying it".

Basically, there is a lack of consistency, unless you believe everything in the Bible as it's written. I assume you don't do that, but if you do, then this argument would take a different path.

 

[Magic Man]

You're assuming that I accept what the Torah says without first considering that the Torah is true. If I believe that the Torah is true, and have reached that conclusion after the result of much thought (which I did) then you cannot say I haven't thought about it.

Yes, but if you think about homosexuality in and of itself, you realize that "because a book says so" doesn't suffice as an explanation.

Besides, even if you could argue that that alone is not enough, I have thought about homosexuality extensive. One of my best friends is a homosexual. And for a large part of our friendship, he was struggling with it while being in the closet. To say that I haven't thought about it simply because I still believe that engaging in such acts is wrong is to consider me callous towards other human beings.

I wouldn't say callous, but it's not far off, I guess.

The basis for my considering it wrong is in the fact that I believe that the Torah is true (something I've thought quite a bit about). In addition to that, I have thought quite about the homosexuality issue and the fact that it is wrong. All of my logical faculties lead me to believe that homosexual sex acts are wrong.

And by "all of my logical faculties" I assume you mean "the Torah".

If the potential for procreation under normal conditions is there, then sex can be had. Homosexual sex, regardless of the condition, cannot result in procreation (which is the purpose of sex). Engaging in homosexual sex, then, is nothing more than base indulgence (and waste of) desires intended for a holy purpose.

And sex knowing you can't have children is also nothing more than base indulgence (and waste of) desires intended for a holy purpose. Yet you make exception for that. This is what I mean. You accuse Christianity of rationalizing away logical inconsistencies, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. This is nothing more than a rationalization. If the problem with homosexuality is that it cannot procreate, then you should have the same problem with any sexual act that cannot procreate. You should think oral sex and sex involving a sterile person are wrong.

I know, and I think that argument doesn't support homosexuality being wrong

I understand. I was just throwing out examples of what could possibly come up as reasoning for it being wrong.

No. Law is based on harm. Legally (in a society with many religions) we can only prohibit those things which directly harm other people.

Not true in the slightest. Same-sex marriage is illegal, and it doesn't harm other people, for instance. Law and morality are based on harm.

However, morality has a divine source and the morality of an issue has nothing to do with harm.

For you, morality has a divine source, but either way, it's based on harm.

Physically speaking I would agree. However, I believe it's obvious that as far as conscience is concerned, we are far greater than any other living thing on this planet.

Conscience? What does that mean?

Yes, humans are (physically) animals. However, consciously speaking, we are far above animals.

What are you trying to say here?

Says me? Says the fact that people still die.

Then show me where it says specifically and unequivocally that when the Messiah comes, people will stop dying.

 

[dragynfly0515]

And sex knowing you can't have children is also nothing more than base indulgence (and waste of) desires intended for a holy purpose. Yet you make exception for that. This is what I mean. You accuse Christianity of rationalizing away logical inconsistencies, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. This is nothing more than a rationalization. If the problem with homosexuality is that it cannot procreate, then you should have the same problem with any sexual act that cannot procreate. You should think oral sex and sex involving a sterile person are wrong.

I've heard this argument before as well. Catholics use it to explain why they forbid birth control. The premise is that we shouldn't take a biological function that God associated pleasure with and short circuit it just for the pleasure aspect. The problem is if you apply the argument to any other biological function it begins to look silly. For example, God associated pleasure with eating food. The holy purpose of eating food is to provide our bodies with nutrtition. When we eat chocolate aren't we short circuiting that holy purpose by eating just for pleasure and not nutrition? That puts homosexuality on the same moral plane as eating candy.

:candle:
Crys

 

[Magic Man]

I've heard this argument before as well. Catholics use it to explain why they forbid birth control. The premise is that we shouldn't take a biological function that God associated pleasure with and short circuit it just for the pleasure aspect. The problem is if you apply the argument to any other biological function it begins to look silly. For example, God associated pleasure with eating food. The holy purpose of eating food is to provide our bodies with nutrtition. When we eat chocolate aren't we short circuiting that holy purpose by eating just for pleasure and not nutrition? That puts homosexuality on the same moral plane as eating candy.

:candle:
Crys

Indeed.

I guess that's the main point here, is the inconsistency when determining whether things are wrong. Any argument someone could use for saying homosexuality is wrong can be applied to other things that that person doesn't think are wrong.

 

[TheKnight]

Yes, but if you think about homosexuality in and of itself, you realize that "because a book says so" doesn't suffice as an explanation.

As an explanation for what?

And by "all of my logical faculties" I assume you mean "the Torah".

I can't find any logical justification for it.

And sex knowing you can't have children is also nothing more than base indulgence (and waste of) desires intended for a holy purpose. Yet you make exception for that. This is what I mean. You accuse Christianity of rationalizing away logical inconsistencies, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. This is nothing more than a rationalization. If the problem with homosexuality is that it cannot procreate, then you should have the same problem with any sexual act that cannot procreate. You should think oral sex and sex involving a sterile person are wrong.

As I said, if it is possible under normal conditions for procreation to be achieved, then it is permissible.

Also, sex is for the enjoyment of the couple. So if a man and woman who are married but sterile would gain enjoyment from sex, then it's good for them to do it.

I guess I could have presented this whole thing more coherently.

Not true in the slightest. Same-sex marriage is illegal, and it doesn't harm other people, for instance. Law and morality are based on harm.

I agree that same-sex unions should not prohibited.

For you, morality has a divine source, but either way, it's based on harm.

No it isn't. But that's a matter of disagreement.

Conscience? What does that mean?

Our thinking capacity/expressing.

What are you trying to say here?

We are more than just animals and our behaviors should reflect that.

Then show me where it says specifically and unequivocally that when the Messiah comes, people will stop dying.

He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the earth; for the LORD hath spoken it.

Also, there is no world peace.

And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more