Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[Enoughie]

Were we suppose to agree with everything you said about the Bible, come and follow you because you say the Bible is such and such?

I never asked anyone to "follow" me. In fact, I abhor the idea of "following" in itself. Moral people don't "follow," they act in harmony/in accord with certain principles.

Without the Bible there is a high probability that there would not be a Western Civilization.

Without alchemy there would be no chemistry, without astrology there would be no astronomy, without pseudo-science there would be no science. Without religion there would be no.. morality/Western civilization.

Yes, religion contributed much to our civilization. We learned a lot from it, but there's no intrinsic value or truth in it (same for alchemy or astrology). So we can move on.

You are an agnostic and doubt everything. That position, however, does not make for a strong leadership position in philosophy and religion. The blind should not be sent to lead the blind.

You like building strawmen and demolishing them, don't you? Is that what you call "debunking"?

My agnosticism doesn't mean that I doubt everything. It means that I sensibly evaluate all the information I have. I am agnostic about the existence of a god because we have no evidence for or against its existence.

From all the knowledge we have about life and about the world, it is possible to create a theory that there is a god, and it is possible to create a theory that there isn't a god. If you can construct two theories from the same data, it is unreasonable to favor one of these theories over the other. This means that it is impossible to make a definitive answer from the evidence we have. Therefore, the only sensible view is that of agnosticism - declaring that you don't know the answer.

Claiming that there is a god, or isn't one is not a statement of knowledge, it is a statement of belief (without evidence). This is hardly a superior position - either from the standpoint of philosophy, religion, or intellectual honesty.

We must accept that our knowledge is limited in certain areas. We have no knowledge or understanding of what happened less than 10^-47 seconds (that 0.000..001 with 47 zeros of a second) after the big bang. There are countless myths and stories about creation - after all, Humans are a very imaginative species - but we have no knowledge of it.

We also don't know the cure to AIDS or to some forms of cancer. It is not a shame to acknowledge the fact that there are some things we just don't know. No sensible person would turn to religion to find a cure for these diseases, yet people turn to religion for answers on theoretical physics or evolutionary biology. That's simply absurd. Religion doesn't have the answers. It only claims it does, but presents no substantiated evidence to back up this claim.

Now, even if there is a god - a god that is behind the laws of nature, and the laws that govern the behavior of living beings - that god would have to have certain characteristics.

I have absolutely no problem with accepting that there might be such a God , and I think theists would agree on many of the characteristics I present, but probably not on the conclusions that I derive from them.

So here are some characteristics: this god would have to be perfect. This means that his laws would also have to be perfect. These are the laws of nature, and also the laws that govern the behavior of living beings.

Just like the laws of nature are discoverable, so are the laws that govern the behavior of living beings. Discovering these laws does not necessitate revelation. In fact, the idea of revelation seems entirely unnecessary and counter-productive altogether.

Could you imagine God coming to Einstein, performing all sorts of miracles to demonstrate that he is indeed God, and then telling him about the theory of relativity? The whole idea just seems ridiculous.

Now, it's true that our civilization has so far done a much better job at discovering the laws of physics, then the laws that govern our behavior. But that doesn't mean that we should substitute pseudo-knowledge (religion) for knowledge.

Religion simply makes too many unsubstantiated claims. The purpose of this thread was partly to show how religious claims are unsubstantiated (the fact that nothing supports these claims - for example, condemning homosexuality).

About discovering the laws that govern behavior. I've demonstrated that this could be done by investigating the natural world. You can read more about it in my blog: Natural Philosophy of Life. I show how the values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom can be derived from nature.

Condemning homosexuality, on the other hand, could not be derived from nature. Which means it could not have come from a perfect god with perfect laws.

Again, this is not in contradiction to the existence of god. Rather, it shows that if a perfect god exists, then these values would permeate through nature. But on the other hand, these laws don't necessitate the existence of a god, and that it why I have no reason to either believe in a god, or not believe in one. The laws of nature are not going to change either way.

Calling you an atheist was giving you a more respected position in philosophy than that of an agnostic.

Clearly, what is respected in your eyes is not what is objectively a better philosophical position. Your position is in fact inferior - you believe without evidence.

An atheist does know what he believes about God. whereas you believe there is a God but seem to have no ideas about God. How can you tell anybody how to make informed religious decisions when you doubt there is truth or concrete knowledge of any kind?

Again. You're demolishing strawmen. I never claimed to doubt there is truth or concrete knowledge of any kind.

The truth is that no one knows whether god exists or not. I already explained this point before. Claiming to know god exists is dishonest. You only believe god exists. We all have the same evidence, and the evidence neither support the existence of god nor reject it. I merely state that this is my position - which is consistent with the evidence we have. It is the most sensible thing to do.

You don't "know" god. You merely believe you know god. But if your beliefs about god are not supported by reality, then they are meaningless.

I don't claim I know whether god exists or not. But I know that if a god exists it could not be an imperfect god or an incompetent god. That is an impossibility. Based on this knowledge, I explained how I derive my conclusions about the natural values.

You have not pointed us in any informed direction but have only informed us from a very unformed concept of God about why we are wrong. Until one knows the correct way, one should not be allowed to be the chief guide.

Agreeing with you is not the same as being informed - merely misinformed. You have neither authority nor monopoly over the "correct way" of looking at life and the world. It is incredibly dishonest of you to present the situation as if you do have this authority.

As for your understanding of natural philosophy, my statements were not made with the intent to insult you. In philosophy we know the definitions of such things as "natural philosophy" are operationally defined terms. To an atheist, agnostics, theist, materialist, idealist, determinism, pragmatist, etc. all have their own definition of natural philosophy. The definition you give at the end of all your post is well suited for atheist. Atheist want to say values do not come from God but from a natural philosophy that does not include God whereas a theist wants to say that natural philosophy points to a God that gives us such values as unalienable rights, self evident truths, etc. Without actually knowing I would say you definition came from an atheistic author. What you might overlook is that others disagree with how you define natural philosophy and with very good reason to do so.

That is not at all what I said. I said that values come from the laws that govern nature and the behavior of living beings. These laws exist whether god exists or not. That's why my position is of an apathetic agnostic. It makes little difference to me whether god exists or not (especially since I recognize the fact that the existence of god is beyond what we currently know). But the laws of nature, and natural values certainly exist, and are demonstrable. That is far from the position of an atheist.

That is what I meant to say when I said you obviously did not know about philosophy. I am sorry that your feelings were hurt, It, however, was not a personal attack on you. I will, however attempt to mellow out my rhetoric with you.It has been rather forward and direct. From now on, I will try to handle you and others with kid gloves. Do have a nice day.

You assume things that are far from the truth, and your entire debate style is based on demolishing strawmen. This is far from being "forward and direct." I hope I can expect from you responses that are more serious in style and content. So far I've been quite disappointed.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Debunker]

If you want to view the bible as a purely historic (ie. mythological) text, you're welcome to do so. But then you must ignore all the parts where the biblical god actually dictates his rules - in the ten commandments, Deuteronomy, and so on. My post refers exactly to those parts where the biblical god dictates his rules, but doesn't not provide any reason to follow many of these rules. In other words, there is no justification outside of the bible to follow many of these rules. If you reject or denounce that god, then more power to you.

I do not interpret the Bible as purely a historic text. I do not know of any theist or theologian that does. Maybe you know a theologian of note that does.Just name him if you do.

The Bible records that God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger.
The rest of the law of Moses was written by Moses. So this is the reason I try to follow the Ten Commandments. You do lose this point because there is reason to follow the commandments of God. You just do not want to or choose to. But you do lose this point in debate.

For someone who prides himself on "debunking" weak arguments, you surely can give lessons on presenting really crappy arguments.

So let's demolish your argument point by point.

Before I actually demolish this point, let's see what rakhel has to say about this issue:

So, you are going to get ranrakel before me. That should be interesting. I will allow ranankel to defend his position himself. He has had no problem disposing of your foolish statements thus far and I do not expect him to be over worked in providing an answer here.

Really?! Sex offenders - people who rape or force themselves onto someone against his/her will - use the same argument to justify their crime as homosexuals?! (individuals who have consensual sex with other individuals of their own gender)

Homosexuals do represent a major group of people with AIDS. There other population groups that have also a high incidence of AIDS too. This is the view of science and the scholars of demography.What problem do you have with this fact? It could save your life.

If that is your view, then we can all appreciate now how religion can pervert a person's outlook. The only one perverted here is you and your outlook!

It is not my view only but look at the demographic data. Also, until recently, the DSM considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way. The Bibles point of view is that both behaviors is a chose and therefore a sin. My outlook does nothing to prove your point.

What exactly is the "behavior of homosexuals"? Having sex for pleasure? How is that behavior any different from the behavior of heterosexuals? Do heterosexuals not have sex for pleasure?

Or maybe you mean that homosexuals are good interior designers, and we should not educate our children to have a good taste for things

.
No! You ask a stupid question. Sadomasochist have pleasure in sex also. But do you want your daughter to date a sadomasochist? Pleasure is not the only reason for sex and if you think it is, then I suggest you have a perverted view of sex.

"Different" how? The fact that their not the biological parents? That seems to me like an argument against adoption, not against homosexuals.

On and on? You haven't even provided one good reason.

Theists don't like to address this issue because it reveals the moral bankruptcy of religion. You could not provide even one good reason for why homosexuality is bad. But you did reveal quite a lot about the perverted worldview that one must adopt to accept religious dogma. Religion makes you equate love (homosexuality) with violence and torture (pedophilia, rape), and that is truly perverted.

Everything seems like a different argument. You want us to look like we are against adoption and we are for sexual perversions because we have values that do not match your values. You obviously have different sexual ideas than the normal population since your argument is very related to homosexuality. If you need justification for any of your behavior, you should see a doctor. Stop parading sexual orientation on a forum about religion. That is off topic.

The hypothesis of this thread is that the biblical god does not want us to make informed decisions about life. The biblical god doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about eternal life, about heaven, about hell, about homosexuality, and many other issues.

You lash out at God but you do not address the God of the Bible. I told you who the God of the Bible is and you ignore this fact.

Christianity makes these claims, but doesn't allow us to make an informed decision on them. That's a legitimate and sensible argument.

I think rankle dealt with this question.

Yet, even though you evidently failed to demonstrate that this is not the case (even for the "simpler" issue of homosexuality), you still tried other, less than honest, methods to discredit it.

Do you expect Christianity to accept your views on sex before you accept Christ? It just is not going to happen. That is the weakest reasoning of all time.

You did not disprove the claim that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about life. (Yet you tried to discredit this statement in other, less than honest, ways).

But you have proven that you are not the informed one. I went to great length to explain how philosophers used operationally defined terns in natural philosophy but you have not improved your understandings at all. All you can think about is sex. Take a cold shower and start thinking with your head.

All you did was to attack my exposition, and claim that the "foundation" to my view of the bible is inconsistent with how you view it. This is hardly the same as disproving the main claim of the OP ((the claim that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about life).

This is redundant but we have proven you in error in your reasoning so often, that we tire of the times we have done it. What kind of blind, narcissistic behavior do you not understand? How can you stand the beating we have given you on this thread? Intellectually, you demonstrate no views of interest to anybody seeking truth.

 

[Rakhel]

I don't know what he was trying to do by using my statement against you. In fact, it makes little sense. My statement was directed at his attempt to belittle every theist who he thinks hates homosexual people and will automatically jump to the conclusion that AIDS is a homosexual disease.

AIDS is a blood disease.Yes, it can be transmitted via sex, but also via blood contact. Many contracted it through blood transfusion, And yes there are some disgusting stories out of the African nations of AIDS transfusion, mostly, if not all, by heterosexual men having sex with children.

As I have stated, and have been ignored, you can make an informed decision about your own life. No one is stopping from doing so. Not the bible. not G-d. Not the local priest. The only one stopping you is yourself. You are using the bible as an excuse not to think.

If you can decide whether or not to have sex with a dog, you can decide whether or not who you have sex with.

 

[waitasec]

well what is the informed decision god or the bible would want you to make?

lets just say for the sake of argument, god is real. what then? how would we be able to tell which faith was the faith to follow?
from what i understand hinduism had a 1,000 yr head start before judaism came into play...they both have very wise teachings, so which way do i go?
how do i decide? is it based on where i'm born? or the religion of my parents?

 

[Enoughie]

I don't know what he was trying to do by using my statement against you. In fact, it makes little sense. My statement was directed at his attempt to belittle every theist who he thinks hates homosexual people and will automatically jump to the conclusion that AIDS is a homosexual disease.

AIDS is a blood disease.Yes, it can be transmitted via sex, but also via blood contact. Many contracted it through blood transfusion, And yes there are some disgusting stories out of the African nations of AIDS transfusion, mostly, if not all, by heterosexual men having sex with children.

You claimed that I have such a low opinion of theists that I would think the first argument a theist would bring up against homosexuality would be AIDS.

But as it turns out, I actually predicted quite accurately what a theist's first argument would be:

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. You say there is "no evidence" against homosexuality. How about AIDS.

What follows from your [rakhel] statement is that I am entirely justified to have a low opinion of Debunker, because AIDS is the first argument he brought up.

As I have stated, and have been ignored, you can make an informed decision about your own life. No one is stopping from doing so. Not the bible. not G-d. Not the local priest. The only one stopping you is yourself. You are using the bible as an excuse not to think.

I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my simple argument. This is an argument that even a 7-year-old should be able to understand.

I'll try to make it even simpler for you, so even a 4-year-old can understand this:

Here is the argument: the biblical god does not want people to make an informed decision about life.

Now. What does that mean?

Suppose you get a special box of "Red Pills" from the biblical god. The biblical god tells you that these pills are really good for you.

Now, you look at the pills, but you're not sure whether they are actually good for you or not. So you decide to run some tests on the pills to see if they are good for you.

In other words, you want to make an informed decision about the pills.

Since these pills came from the biblical god (who's obviously a being with an immense authority) you understand that your tests should unambiguously demonstrate that these pills are indeed really good for you.

If the results of your tests confirm god's claim (that the Red Pills are really good for you) then you know that god allows you to make an informed decision about his claim.

However, if the results don't show that the pills are good for you, or if there is no way for you to determine whether the pills are really good for you, then you must conclude that either god doesn't want you to make an informed decision, or that god was lying about the pills being good for you.

In other words "making an informed decision" about the pills doesn't just mean that you have the ability to test the pills. It means that the tests actually confirm what the biblical god said.If the tests don't confirm what the biblical god said, that means that either god doesn't want you to make an informed decision, or that god was lying about the pills being good for you.

Now. After testing the pills, you see that in some cases the pills are actually very harmful, in some cases they are mildly harmful, and in some cases they are good for you.

This means that the results contradict what the biblical god said. Which means god doesn't want you to make an informed decision.

This is my argument.

If you can decide whether or not to have sex with a dog, you can decide whether or not who you have sex with.

Yes. I can certainly decide that. But the problem is that the conclusion I reach for the latter decision contradicts what the bible claims. In other words, the more you research and test god's claim on this matter you have to conclude that either god is wrong, or god doesn't want you to make an informed decision. And that is the point I am making in this thread.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[McBell]

But as it turns out, I actually predicted quite accurately what a theist's first argument would be:

Thus you chose their the AIDS argument by being the first to toss it out there.
I mean, they were only replying to what YOU posted.....

 

[Debunker]

well what is the informed decision god or the bible would want you to make?

lets just say for the sake of argument, god is real. what then? how would we be able to tell which faith was the faith to follow?
from what i understand hinduism had a 1,000 yr head start before judaism came into play...they both have very wise teachings, so which way do i go?
how do i decide? is it based on where i'm born? or the religion of my parents?

You can use reasoning to decide how to follow God. Thusly, this is how to reason that there is one, good, and loving God. An ontological reality is necessary since "something" does not come from "nothing". The theory is that from the beginning God created the universe (cosmology). Here cosmology did not create ontology but existence itself created cosmology by willing or thinking cosmology into physical existence. Before God created, there was only chaos which was the nature of the universe.

God is "good" because he did not leave the universe in chaos. He created rules, self evident truths, logic, science, mathematics, etc., to give order and quality to creation of matter and cosmology. Man does best when he follows the rules and dictates of God, who is good because he took into account what man needed to know to discover how to correctly use his creation.

The atheist/agnostic (AA) does not have this ontological knowledge. He must ask such questions as, "How do we not know that the universe was here eternally ?" but this is to claim that you do get something from nothing. The AA does avoid the question of creation by use of a meaningless question and therefore says we do not know there is a God. The AA is in conflict because he often has to argue that the rules of logic and science were always here just like he would argue that the universe was always here. But the recognition of eternal truths only is evidence that God was here before creation.

By avoiding ontological argument for the creation of the universe, by this giant slip in logic, the AA is forced to make man the creator of values. If he says values come from an ontological reality, he admits there is evidence that there is a God. So all the values must come from a pure cosmological existence and not an ontological reality. The default morel code of AA is clearly humanism, which rest on man to develop in a long social process. You are, of course, able to speculate the ethical and moral codes that originate from humanism. That would make a good thread for discussion but I will leave it for the time.It is important to note that humanistic codes are based on some type of "pain and pleasure" principles of the pig philosophy. God being left out, that is what you are left with.

The point being is that Western Civilization is founded on the principles of a strong theistic and ontological foundation. Ontology is theistic because "one" source of rules (logic, reasoning, science, moral truths,etc.) suits all of creation and is good for man.

Well, I am sure you can disagree with this reasonable process by which one can discover and know God but this explanation does answer your question as you ask: "]well what is the informed decision god or the bible would want you to make?"

 

[waitasec]

You can use reasoning to decide how to follow God. Thusly, this is how to reason that there is one, good, and loving God. An ontological reality is necessary since "something" does not come from "nothing". The theory is that from the beginning God created the universe (cosmology). Here cosmology did not create ontology but existence itself created cosmology by willing or thinking cosmology into physical existence. Before God created, there was only chaos which was the nature of the universe.

God is "good" because he did not leave the universe in chaos. He created rules, self evident truths, logic, science, mathematics, etc., to give order and quality to creation of matter and cosmology. Man does best when he follows the rules and dictates of God, who is good because he took into account what man needed to know to discover how to correctly use his creation.

The atheist/agnostic (AA) does not have this ontological knowledge. He must ask such questions as, "How do we not know that the universe was here eternally ?" but this is to claim that you do get something from nothing. The AA does avoid the question of creation by use of a meaningless question and therefore says we do not know there is a God. The AA is in conflict because he often has to argue that the rules of logic and science were always here just like he would argue that the universe was always here. But the recognition of eternal truths only is evidence that God was here before creation.

By avoiding ontological argument for the creation of the universe, by this giant slip in logic, the AA is forced to make man the creator of values. If he says values come from an ontological reality, he admits there is evidence that there is a God. So all the values must come from a pure cosmological existence and not an ontological reality. The default morel code of AA is clearly humanism, which rest on man to develop in a long social process. You are, of course, able to speculate the ethical and moral codes that originate from humanism. That would make a good thread for discussion but I will leave it for the time.It is important to note that humanistic codes are based on some type of "pain and pleasure" principles of the pig philosophy. God being left out, that is what you are left with.

The point being is that Western Civilization is founded on the principles of a strong theistic and ontological foundation. Ontology is theistic because "one" source of rules (logic, reasoning, science, moral truths,etc.) suits all of creation and is good for man.

Well, I am sure you can disagree with this reasonable process by which one can discover and know God but this explanation does answer your question as you ask: "]well what is the informed decision god or the bible would want you to make?"

i already said, for the sake of argument, lets say god is real...
how do you decide what laws to follow, in other words which religion to follow? is it based on where i am born or what my parents believe?
how can i make an informed decision?
are you suggesting that the western civilization got it right, what about the middle east? where in fact this ideology came from.
and if you are saying that, what makes you think we got it right here in the western world?

 

[Enoughie]

Thus you chose their the AIDS argument by being the first to toss it out there.
I mean, they were only replying to what YOU posted.....

Except of course for the fact that Debunker probably hasn't seen the post where I mentioned AIDS.

This is what I wrote in that post:

How can a person make an informed decision on whether to have homosexual relations or not. Based on what physical evidence (and I'm not talking about stories from the Bible here, but rather evidence from reality) can we make an informed decision on the issue of homosexuality?
(and don't tell me that homosexuality causes AIDS, because that is nonsense)

It doesn't make sense for Debunker to raise the issue of AIDS if I clearly stated that it's a nonsense argument in a different post.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

enoughie,

You owe me 8 tickets for this here ride here

 

[Enoughie]

enoughie,

You owe me 8 tickets for this here ride here

I don't know what you're talking about.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

Jewish law(in part and modernized)
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Forbidden Sexual Relations

1. Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest (Lev. 18:6) (CCN110).
2. Not to commit incest with one's mother (Lev. 18:7) (CCN112). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
3. Not to commit sodomy with one's father (Lev. 18:7) (CCN111).
4. Not to commit incest with one's father's wife (Lev. 18:8) (CCN113). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
5. Not to commit incest with one's sister (Lev. 18:9) (CCN127). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
6. Not to commit incest with one's father's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:11) (CCN128). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
7. Not to commit incest with one's son's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the next as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
8. Not to commit incest with one's daughter's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the previous as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
9. Not to commit incest with one's daughter (this is not explicitly in the Torah but is inferred from other explicit commands that would include it) (CCN120). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
10. Not to commit incest with one's fathers sister (Lev. 18:12) (CCN129). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
11. Not to commit incest with one's mother's sister (Lev. 18:13) (CCN130). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
12. Not to commit incest with one's father's brothers wife (Lev. 18:14) (CCN125). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
13. Not to commit sodomy with one's father's brother (Lev. 18:14) (CCN114).
14. Not to commit incest with one's son's wife (Lev. 18:15) (CCN115). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
15. Not to commit incest with one's brother's wife (Lev. 18:16) (CCN126). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
16. Not to commit incest with one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN121). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
17. Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's son (Lev. 18:17) (CCN122). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
18. Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN123). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
19. Not to commit incest with one's wife's sister (Lev. 18:18) (CCN131). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
20. Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period (Lev. 18:19) (CCN132).
21. Not to have intercourse with another man's wife (Lev. 18:20) (CCN124).
22. Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116).
23. Not to have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN117).
24. That a woman shall not have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN118).
25. Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24) (CCN143).

Now if you are a Jew, these laws pertain to you. You have the option whether or not to follow them. If you are not a Jew, then these laws do not pertain to you. You have a different set of laws

1. Prohibition of Idolatry
2. Prohibition of Murder
3. Prohibition of Theft
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy
6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
7. Establishment of law courts

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now how you determine whether or not these 7 laws pertain to you is that you must make an informed decision. You must decide for yourself. Learn, study, become knowledgeably. No one can do this for you.

Informed decision:
2. based on accurate knowledge: based on an accurate knowledge and understanding of the situation or subject in question

 

[Debunker]

i already said, for the sake of argument, lets say god is real...
how do you decide what laws to follow, in other words which religion to follow? is it based on where i am born or what my parents believe?
how can i make an informed decision?
are you suggesting that the western civilization got it right, what about the middle east? where in fact this ideology came from.
and if you are saying that, what makes you think we got it right here in the western world?

Your assertions have as much merit as my assertion about the Western World as your question about the Eastern civilization. In this you are correct to question but I ask you what country representing the East would you rather live in over the USA? I am b=not saying, love it or leave it but there is a reason that people all over the world want to come to the West and especially the USA. People certainly are not taring down the Wall of China to enter that Eastern country. At some point in this argument one must turn to common sense for answers. Philosophy can give us basic knowledge but the use of that knowledge must be wisdom.

 

[Debunker]

Except of course for the fact that Debunker probably hasn't seen the post where I mentioned AIDS.

This is what I wrote in that post:

It doesn't make sense for Debunker to raise the issue of AIDS if I clearly stated that it's a nonsense argument in a different post.
/QUOTE]

But I did not raise the issue of AIDS but only pointed out that the homosexual group has a higher incidence of AIDS than does other groups in the USA. I never said that homosexual behavior caused AIDS. You said there was no evidence against homosexuality being bad. You may not like it but there is some evidence that it is bad. Another criticism against homosexuality is the logic used to justify homosexual behavior. I also pointed out that your ethical behavior is bases on hedonism, also known as the pig philosophy. Your ethics is not based on principles no matter how you twist things.

 

[Dan4reason]

But I did not raise the issue of AIDS but only pointed out that the homosexual group has a higher incidence of AIDS than does other groups in the USA. I never said that homosexual behavior caused AIDS. You said there was no evidence against homosexuality being bad. You may not like it but there is some evidence that it is bad. Another criticism against homosexuality is the logic used to justify homosexual behavior. I also pointed out that your ethical behavior is bases on hedonism, also known as the pig philosophy. Your ethics is not based on principles no matter how you twist things.

I hope you don't mind if I barge into your interesting discussion. I agree that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality as a process in many respects and I rather like being heterosexual. This is not implying that homosexuality is evil or wrong in any way. If I were a homosexual, then I could either have no sex, have sex with a gender I was not attracted to, or have sex with the same sex which is the one I am attracted to. Naturally I am not considering bisexuals.

Looking at this issue from this perspective, I can understand why many homosexuals choose to act the way they do because it gives them more pleasure than the other options and does not have serious enough drawbacks to negate the advantages.

 

[Debunker]

I hope you don't mind if I barge into your interesting discussion. I agree that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality as a process in many respects and I rather like being heterosexual. This is not implying that homosexuality is evil or wrong in any way. If I were a homosexual, then I could either have no sex, have sex with a gender I was not attracted to, or have sex with the same sex which is the one I am attracted to. Naturally I am not considering bisexuals.

Looking at this issue from this perspective, I can understand why many homosexuals choose to act the way they do because it gives them more pleasure than the other options and does not have serious enough drawbacks to negate the advantages.

You are welcome to any discussion as we all are. The point that has not been raised here is whether or not is homosexual behavior is a choice. I think it is and I think it is a bad choice. Why don't you start a thread based on this assertion. I am not that interested in voicing and defending my position on the subject but I will post on a thread somebody else will start.

 

[Enoughie]

I do not interpret the Bible as purely a historic text. I do not know of any theist or theologian that does. Maybe you know a theologian of note that does.Just name him if you do.

The Bible records that God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger.
The rest of the law of Moses was written by Moses. So this is the reason I try to follow the Ten Commandments. You do lose this point because there is reason to follow the commandments of God. You just do not want to or choose to. But you do lose this point in debate.

No. Actually the Ten Commandments is another point where you have to demonstrate how the biblical god allows us to make an informed decision.

For example, the commandment: "Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you."

What evidence is there to support the claim that the world was created in seven days? Or even seven periods? None whatsoever. There is absolutely no other reason to follow this commandments except for the fact that the biblical god dictates it. But again, he doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about this rule. So this is another point you lose.

If you say that you only follow the parts of the bible that were supposedly written by god, and none of the parts that were written by men, then you're just adulterating the message of the bible. There's also no evidence that the 10 commandments were actually written by God, so then there's really nothing left of the bible to follow.

Homosexuals do represent a major group of people with AIDS. There other population groups that have also a high incidence of AIDS too. This is the view of science and the scholars of demography.What problem do you have with this fact? It could save your life. It is not my view only but look at the demographic data.

The problem is that you haven't yet provided even one logically valid argument against homosexuality. Your arguments are entirely based on logical fallacies and sophistry.

Since you accept the fact that homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS the fact that some homosexuals are infected with AIDS is utterly meaningless for the purpose of what you have to prove in this debate.

The question is how can we make an informed decision about the biblical claim that homosexuality should be condemned?

If you says: homosexuals are overrepresented among people infected with AIDS, therefore homosexuality should be condemned. Then by analogy you have to also conclude that: Africans are overrepresented among people infected with AIDS, therefore being African should be condemned.

Unless you accept both conclusions, your argument is meaningless.

Also, until recently, the DSM considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way. The Bibles point of view is that both behaviors is a chose and therefore a sin. My outlook does nothing to prove your point.

You say: although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way

This is yet another logical fallacy.

Homosexuality is not considered an illness. It was removed from the DSM almost 40 years ago. The reason it was removed has nothing to do with whether people are born with it or not. It was based on empirical evidence that showed homosexuality has no effect on a person's psychological maladjustment.

Empirical evidence shows that: "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality." (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980)

This means that your statement: "although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way" is utterly meaningless, and is another logical fallacy.

You are equating homosexuality and pedophilia solely on the grounds that both are inborn. You can similarly equate heterosexuality to pedophilia because they are both inborn. It's a meaningless analogy.

No! You ask a stupid question. Sadomasochist have pleasure in sex also. But do you want your daughter to date a sadomasochist?

This is yet another logical fallacy. What is the relation between sadomasochism and homosexuality? None whatsoever. You can similarly ask: "heterosexuals have pleasure in sex also. But do you want your daughter to date a heterosexuals?

Another meaningless argument.

Pleasure is not the only reason for sex and if you think it is, then I suggest you have a perverted view of sex.

Pleasure is also not the only reason homosexuals have sex. So what's your point?

Everything seems like a different argument. You want us to look like we are against adoption and we are for sexual perversions because we have values that do not match your values. You obviously have different sexual ideas than the normal population since your argument is very related to homosexuality. If you need justification for any of your behavior, you should see a doctor. Stop parading sexual orientation on a forum about religion. That is off topic.

You are condemning a harmless lifestyle for the only reason that bronze age, Middle Eastern peasants condemned it. As you've demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot even present a logically valid argument (that is not based on logical fallacies, or meaningless analogies) to support your disgusting views.

But instead of either changing your view on the subject, or at least defending your bigotry, all you're doing is projecting unjustified hostility.

Now, while I am heterosexual, I recognize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle is essentially harmless, and I have no problem with it. I respect different lifestyles from my own.

What I don't respect is people who condemn a lifestyle that is different from their own, for the only reason that their religion tells them to do so. This is not normal behavior. This is religiously inspired bigotry. And I think this issue should be discussed and analyzed on this forum. Yet, I understand why a bigot like you would not want to discuss this issue here. It reveals the moral bankruptcy of your religion.

You lash out at God but you do not address the God of the Bible. I told you who the God of the Bible is and you ignore this fact.
I think rankle dealt with this question.
Do you expect Christianity to accept your views on sex before you accept Christ? It just is not going to happen. That is the weakest reasoning of all time.

So before you accept reason, I need to accept religious superstition? I can't think of anything more absurd than that.

But you have proven that you are not the informed one. I went to great length to explain how philosophers used operationally defined terns in natural philosophy but you have not improved your understandings at all. All you can think about is sex. Take a cold shower and start thinking with your head.

The only one who's obsessed with sex is your religion. Your religion has the impudence to tell people how to have sex, how not to have sex, and with whom.

This is redundant but we have proven you in error in your reasoning so often, that we tire of the times we have done it. What kind of blind, narcissistic behavior do you not understand? How can you stand the beating we have given you on this thread? Intellectually, you demonstrate no views of interest to anybody seeking truth.

Repeating the same empty rhetoric and employing logically fallacies is not the same as proving me wrong. You couldn't disprove the subject of this thread - and that is that the biblical god doesn't want people to make an informed decision about life.

All you've done is demonstrate that you do not have the capacity to present logically valid arguments, or the intellectual honesty necessary to debate this issue.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Now how you determine whether or not these 7 laws pertain to you is that you must make an informed decision. You must decide for yourself. Learn, study, become knowledgeably. No one can do this for you.

Informed decision:
2. based on accurate knowledge: based on an accurate knowledge and understanding of the situation or subject in question

If you're unwilling or unable to understand the idea of "informed decision" in the context that I provided in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2317007-post105.html then I can't help you. The definition you are using is meaningless in the context of this thread.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

He already did. Have you read Genesis? Adam is allowed to make an informed decision and he fell.

As a result, what actually will work out is to allow you to rely on your faith to know God in order to survive the eternity.

No. That is simply not the case. Adam was never allowed to make an informed decision. He had to accept God's demand not to eat from the tree solely on authority. God said it would kill him, the snake said it wouldn't. How is that the same as making an informed decision?

An informed decision means that we can see a cause and effect dynamic for a choice we're making. Could Adam see this cause and effect dynamic when he made the choice? No. He could not. He had to either accept what god said on authority, or reject it. But that is not the same as making an informed decision.

I explain what I mean by informed decision in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2317007-post105.html

When I say that if the biblical god were to reveal himself to us then we could make an informed decision, it is not the same as when god revealed himself to Adam.

What is the difference?

The difference is that we know what the bible says historically (ie. mythologically) happens to those who don't follow god's rules - we just don't have any evidence for the existence of the biblical god. So if the biblical god were to reveal himself to us, this would allow us to see a cause and effect dynamic. In other words, we would know that: this is what the bible says that happens, and here we have the biblical god to support what the bible says. So in that case we can make an informed decision.

In the case of Adam, the situation was the reverse from our situation. Adam had evidence that the biblical god exists - but he didn't know what happens to those who don't follow god's rules (on authority). He could not see a cause and effect dynamic. So he also couldn't make an informed decision.

The biblical god didn't give Adam the option to make an informed decision, and he doesn't give this option to us either.

If there are no evidence in nature to support the claims of the bible, then in order for us to make an informed decision about what the bible says, the biblical god has to either reveal himself to us, or show us evidence that support his claims. Yet, he doesn't do that. So we can't make informed decisions about what the biblical god says.

Yet you're suggesting is that we shouldn't try to make informed decisions at all, and we should just blindly follow what the bible says without any evidence. That suggests a very poor use of the mental capacities you have.

I do not, and will not accept the idea that a god who doesn't allow us to make informed decisions about life is a benevolent and loving god. That is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, such god could not possibly be the True God of this world.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

If you're unwilling or unable to understand the idea of "informed decision" in the context that I provided in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2317007-post105.html then I can't help you. The definition you are using is meaningless in the context of this thread.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

The question has been asked and answered 5 different ways now. It is your inability to understand that is inhibiting your comprehension of what I am saying.
Again
You refuse to see the type in front of you.
Again.
An answer is given to your question. you don't like said answer so you change the question, hoping you will get an answer you will like, knowing full well you will never be satisfied.
One more time.
When you decide to make an informed decision to understand what I have said in this post, I will welcome the intelligent conversation I know you are capable of making.