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

[Mister Emu]

I'm tired of breaking the posts down like this.

Does that mean you don't want to debate any more?

 

[Mister Emu]

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?

For the record, abuse of food is considered a sin

 

[Magic Man]

As an explanation for what?

For why it's wrong.

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

As I said, this is nothing more than a rationalization. The same thing you accuse Christians of doing, but can't seem to see yourself doing.

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.

Ah, I see. So, sometimes it's good for a couple to have sex just for the enjoyment, just not when they're have gay sex. That makes sense.

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

Yes, that would be a good start, although, even if you can, it's never going to be consistent because it's only a rationalization.

I agree that same-sex unions should not prohibited.

That's fine, but they're still illegal right now, blowing a hole in your "legally we can only prohibit those things which harm other people" idea. Obviously, we can prohibit more than that, and we do.

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

Then why is something wrong if it doesn't cause harm? (Other than because God says so)

Our thinking capacity/expressing.

So, not "conscience", then. What you were getting at was " our mental capacity". Basically, you're saying we're smarter than animals.

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

No, we're not. We are animals. We're different from other animals, but then every animal is different from every other one.

Also, there is no world peace.

I'm no expert here, but I'm guessing there's some way to interpret them differently. For instance, that sounds more like the second coming to me. I mean, I don't even see any specific mention of a person, someone who sounds like a messiah there. I found and read the surrounding chapters, too. Anyway, it's obviously not as clear-cut as you'd like to think it is.

 

[Magic Man]

Does that mean you don't want to debate any more?

No, it means I laid out my argument. If you have a counter-argument, offer it. I just don't feel like answering you line by line. It takes too long, and it bogs you down in semantics and tiny irrelevant details.

So, do you want to counter my argument or not?

 

[Magic Man]

For the record, abuse of food is considered a sin

So, eating chocolate is a sin?

 

[blackout]

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.

To be honest, some days I only have a short window of time in which to participate on the forum.
Sometimes the thread topics run together,
and I don't have time to go back and read pages of posts.

I shall thus leave you to your Torah.

I really don't care what other people believe anyway
as long as they don't try to enforce it on others.

And I agree BTW the issue is not about marriage here.
It is about solid family structures.
Solid family structures come in any variety of configurations.
The "marriage" part is nothing more than an incidental.

And that was my own statement coming from me.
So no need to get huffy if it doesn't line up with what you said or meant or intended,
or whatever.

 

[TheKnight]

That's fine, but they're still illegal right now, blowing a hole in your "legally we can only prohibit those things which harm other people" idea. Obviously, we can prohibit more than that, and we do.

Oh...when I say "legally we can only prohibit those things which harm other people" I meant if we live in a just society. Obviously, our current society is not just. The ideal would be to prohibit only that which harms others (in a multiple religion setting).

Then why is something wrong if it doesn't cause harm? (Other than because God says so)

Generally, actions that don't add/apply to the purpose of existence are prohibited.

So, not "conscience", then. What you were getting at was " our mental capacity". Basically, you're saying we're smarter than animals.

If that's how you want to interpret it, sure.

I'm no expert here, but I'm guessing there's some way to interpret them differently. For instance, that sounds more like the second coming to me. I mean, I don't even see any specific mention of a person, someone who sounds like a messiah there. I found and read the surrounding chapters, too. Anyway, it's obviously not as clear-cut as you'd like to think it is.

Two problems with that. Saying he will come is not a justification for his failure the first time he came.

Also, there's

He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his teaching.

I guess that "set right" could be interpreted as dying for our sins.

Ultimately, as I tell every Christian I argue this matter with, until Jesus actually fulfills the prophesies, we can't accept him as the Messiah. For them to claim that he is would be even more ridiculous because anyone can look around and see that the Messiah has yet to come. People still die, wars still rage, etc etc etc. Second coming...well that's like saying he's going to come and do that stuff...and well, I believe that the Messiah will come and do that stuff too...that doesn't mean it's Jesus.

Often times, Christians will start with Jesus and make everything else fit.

To be honest, some days I only have a short window of time in which to participate on the forum.
Sometimes the thread topics run together,
and I don't have time to go back and read pages of posts.

I shall thus leave you to your Torah.

I really don't care what other people believe anyway
as long as they don't try to enforce it on others.

And I agree BTW the issue is not about marriage here.
It is about solid family structures.
Solid family structures come in any variety of configurations.
The "marriage" part is nothing more than an incidental.

And that was my own statement coming from me.
So no need to get huffy if it doesn't line up with what you said or meant or intended,
or whatever.

I see. If it makes you feel better, I never said that a gay relationship couldn't be a solid family structure. I simply said that the reason the pre-marital sex issue is worse is because pre-marital sex is a direct attack at the foundation of the solid family structure.

 

[Magic Man]

Generally, actions that don't add/apply to the purpose of existence are prohibited.

How do you determine what adds to or applies to the purpose of existence?

Two problems with that. Saying he will come is not a justification for his failure the first time he came.

Not at all sure what that's supposed to mean.

Also, there's

I guess that "set right" could be interpreted as dying for our sins.

That's kind of the point. Any of that could be interpretted differently than you do, and it would be just as justified as your interpretation of it (well, some interpretations would, at least).

Often times, Christians will start with Jesus and make everything else fit.

Kind of like you start with God or the the Torah and make everything else fit?

Anyway, we're now not even talking about homosexuality at all. That's still the main point of the thread, even if you want to continue these other points.

 

[blackout]

I see. If it makes you feel better, I never said that a gay relationship couldn't be a solid family structure. I simply said that the reason the pre-marital sex issue is worse is because pre-marital sex is a direct attack at the foundation of the solid family structure.

Well I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

I still disagree however that marriage is intrinsically any kind of solid family structure.

The only foundation for a solid family structure is love and healthy relationship.
These things exist apart/independent from marriage,
and are often lacking from marriages entirely.

Also, I'm wondering,
what is the distinction between pre-marital sex, and non-marital sex.
And is marriage only marriage when it is contracted by the state?
(ie... what makes a marriage a marriage... that it may be considered a
"solid family structure")

 

[Mister Emu]

It takes too long, and it bogs you down in semantics and tiny irrelevant details.

Bah, I'd like to note that is was you who brought semantics into play and irrelevant details are the best

So, do you want to counter my argument or not?

Sure.

First just a bit of follow up, I'd still like to see the evidence you have of your hypothesis on the evolution of cultural mores along the lines of "I don't like it".

Now...

Is your example of a man who acts in his opinion wrongly, but feels no remorse an actual one(e.g. some criminal infamous for truly understanding the acts were wrong and yet not care about it) or a theoretical construct?

I hope you can be a little patient as I have to be abed soon, I'll respond in depth on the main topic tomorrow, God willing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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.

But that exactly was my argument.
You see there are quite a lot of people that think they can merge their belief with the idea that homosexuality is not a sin.
And while you with your particular interpretation of judaism might think they are wrong, they claim to be followers of judaism as well and think you are wrong.

Religion even when comming from one and the same book is widely interpretable. So much, that in the end it is valid to say that its just a matter of personal taste what you want to read out of the books.

For me all the more reason to doubt a message that creates so much harm, contradicts science in many points and in the end can only be found in an age old book that is not even clear enough for everyone to understand it in the same way.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure.

First just a bit of follow up, I'd still like to see the evidence you have of your hypothesis on the evolution of cultural mores along the lines of "I don't like it".

It's very simple. Humans tend to dislike things that are different. We also tend to like to think we're special or powerful. That's why the Native Americans and Africans were seen as not human or at best crude barbarians. They were different, and, of course, not as good as white men.

So, then it becomes anything that's different is bad and wrong.

You're of a different tribe? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You believe in a different god? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You dress differently than us? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You have different sexual practices than us? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.

I mean, it's just that simple. There's not much more to be said about it.

Now...

Is your example of a man who acts in his opinion wrongly, but feels no remorse an actual one(e.g. some criminal infamous for truly understanding the acts were wrong and yet not care about it) or a theoretical construct?

I seem to remember some people like that. I'd have to do a little research to pull up actual names or anything, though. I didn't realize it was that hard for you to believe. I thought it was pretty obvious that there are people like that.

I hope you can be a little patient as I have to be abed soon, I'll respond in depth on the main topic tomorrow, God willing.

That's fine. Take all the time you want. We all have lives outside of here (well, I hope we all do...).

 

[dragynfly0515]

For the record, abuse of food is considered a sin

First I can't be bi anymore, and now you're taking my M&M's away? What's next?
You don't see too many threads about gluttony, though.

:candle:
Crys

 

[TheKnight]

But that exactly was my argument.
You see there are quite a lot of people that think they can merge their belief with the idea that homosexuality is not a sin.
And while you with your particular interpretation of judaism might think they are wrong, they claim to be followers of judaism as well and think you are wrong.

Religion even when comming from one and the same book is widely interpretable. So much, that in the end it is valid to say that its just a matter of personal taste what you want to read out of the books.

For me all the more reason to doubt a message that creates so much harm, contradicts science in many points and in the end can only be found in an age old book that is not even clear enough for everyone to understand it in the same way.

From what I understand...the Reform/Conservative movements aren't interpreting anything differently, they're simply saying that the Torah is outdated and that mankind needs to move on. As far as I know, they don't even really believe in the Torah.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

From what I understand...the Reform/Conservative movements aren't interpreting anything differently, they're simply saying that the Torah is outdated and that mankind needs to move on. As far as I know, they don't even really believe in the Torah.

Well as far as i know they do believe in it to be holy. They do not think it was literally dictated/revealed by God in this form but included mankind.
Apart of that its simply still a fact that they call thesemves Jews.

So again my point .... religion is what you make of it more than what actually is written in a text.
You obviously cann say more or less all you want and read it from your scripture. It all depends on what you interpret in what way.

 

[TheKnight]

Well as far as i know they do believe in it to be holy. They do not think it was literally dictated/revealed by God in this form but included mankind.
Apart of that its simply still a fact that they call thesemves Jews.

So again my point .... religion is what you make of it more than what actually is written in a text.
You obviously cann say more or less all you want and read it from your scripture. It all depends on what you interpret in what way.

Even if they do believe it is holy, they will tell you that as far as the Torah is concerned, homosexual sex is still prohibited. They just don't care. They figure that the Torah's rules are outdated...

I'm not so sure you can say that that counts as belief.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I'm not so sure you can say that that counts as belief.

I guess they will say or think the same about you, don't you think?

 

[TheKnight]

I guess they will say or think the same about you, don't you think?

No. They won't. Reform/Conservative/Orthodox is not like the denominations in other religions. For instance, in Christianity, each denomination believes that it has the "true" or "original" way.

In Judaism it's different. Everyone recognizes that the Orthodox group adheres to the tradition. Reform and Conservative groups simply believe that the tradition needs to change. If you ask them whether or not they believe in the Torah, they will most likely tell you that it's a valuable cultural book and what not, but that a lot of what it says isn't applicable.

It would be like if a Christian denomination rose up and told other Christians "Yep, that's what Jesus said, but we disagree so we're gonna do it this way."

Can you really claim to believe in something if you openly deny it?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Can you really claim to believe in something if you openly deny it?

I think you see it from the wrong perspective.
They do not deny the religion. They only deny that certain doctrines or texts are either still valid or have been interpreted correctly.

The "art" of telling some followers of a religion they are not true followers is a millenia old art.

You might think they are not true believers.
They however might consider you not to be one, but rather one sticking to doctrines that you never understood in the "way that God meant them to be understood" or such stuff.
And i might almost bet that it is possible to find someone more orthodox than you who denies you your religion.

There is no limit to the power to justify ones belief and tell others they wouldnt believe.

A similar thing can be seen in the question whether we have 6 literal days of creation or not. Also there people dismiss the other side as nonchristian for example.

 

[dragynfly0515]

So, then it becomes anything that's different is bad and wrong.

You're of a different tribe? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You believe in a different god? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You dress differently than us? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.
You have different sexual practices than us? Oh, then you're bad and wrong.

I mean, it's just that simple. There's not much more to be said about it.

Very well put. It's mindboggling to think how many people have died over that particular mindset.

:candle:
Crys