08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyO.K., so more of a general inquiry into the moral status of homosexual activity. I'm going to head to the gym, and give it some thought. Back in a couple hours.
[b]"Am I taking as a premise that homosexuality is contrary to divine law?"
Not necessarily. Sort of think it through again for the first time. You know, examine it as you would a chess position. Treat it as evidentiary discovery, if you please. Whatever merits you unearth, in a position you clearly never held, will work for me.
Bob[/b]
08 Nov 11
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. You claim the wisdom embodied in the Bible is sufficient. But sufficient for whom? For those who begin from a position of doubt with regard to the Bible, you'll need something extra-biblical to serve as a foundation of reason and argument. If your arguments are solely Biblical, then your arguments will be question-beg ens, then believe whatever fantasy novel suits you. Tolkien isn't bad, actually.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. You claim the wisdom embodied in the Bible is sufficient. But sufficient for whom? For those who begin from a position of doubt with regard to the Bible, you'll need something extra-biblical to serve as a foundation of reason and argument. If your arguments are solely Biblical, then your arguments will be question-begging.
I doubt that you can name me any world view of any type which does not contain circular reasoning.
In the case of the Bible since God is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, it seems circular reasoning is to be expected. Perhaps Christian theism is the only valid circular reasoning.
And, no, as a conceptual matter I cannot underestimate the wisdom of God. That's because I make no estimation as to the wisdom of God. That's because there is no such entity.
You have a right to be deluded and chase after a lie.
You ask me to estimate the beauty of unicorns. I respond that there are no unicorns.
I didn't ask anything about unicorns.
Atheists have no clue as to why they exist? I've talked to my parents, I know exactly why I exist. And I know exactly why my existence is important and why my life has meaning. And this doesn't derive from some silly fictional gaseous vertebrate in the sky.
Nope, it derives from a silly fable of a one celled animal who evolved into a vertebre.
By accident of course. Is that what you are calling your meaning ?
It derives from the choices I make, the values I have, and the nourishing relationships I've cultivated.
But why should I be tolerant? Your God is horrific, and your "moral" views are absurd.
Problem is that you are like the child who has to sit on its parent's lap in order to slap the parent on the face.
You stand very much in Judeo / Christian moral ethics in order to have supposed leverage to pronounce God as horrific.
I think you're deluded. I heard an example of a father rushing a child to a hospital emergency room or the child would die. Starting the long trip the man was told by the doctor that by no means should the child be permitted to fall asleep. If the child feel asleep it would die.
So the dad kept shaking and hitting the child to prevent the child from falling asleep.
At first glance some may judge that this was horrific behavior to cruelly not allow the little child to sleep. Actually, such a prevention throughout the journey saved its life.
There are a lot instances of God dealing with the world in the Bible. By far, not all of them are shocking. By far some reveal great mercy, great long suffering. The spectrum of God's dealings in not onesided but varied and wide.
At one end though, you do have a few extreme cases. These cases, I believe, are like the parent "horrifically" shaking and hitting the child to keep it awake.
God's love may be hard to detect in a few cases with the Canaanite societies. It is possible that the cancerous moral and spiritual effect on the world was more dangerous than we know.
Those cattle, children, and everything in those societies may have been dedicated and consecrated to extremely evil occult forces which threatened the human race as a whole.
For sure, that degree of harshness was not always displayed. So there must be a good reason why it was displayed when it was. The entire book of Jonah is dedicated to the subject of God's reluctance to judge a nation.
Same God. Not another one there. So I believe that God must have had reasons in one case for what He did and reasons in another case for acting differently.
Besides, their temporal judgment in this life is not necessarily their eternal judgment. While I do not pretend that the slaying of a baby is at all easy to explain, I would never wish to remove those few instances from the record of all of God's dealings with man.
It is His responsibility to inform man of the full scope of His dealings. And the two ends of the spectrum have their extreme instances of mercy and their extreme instances of judgment with the full sweep of variation in between.
My Bible also does not conclude with the book of Joshua.
You have nothing to recommend them except for scripture. I have arguments that cut across differing, but sane, ethical frameworks (you know, the one's that don't take magic and zombie saviors seriously).
No I don't know.
Seems like you have appealed to some pretty stringent "magic" around here passing for science.
And "zombie saviors" is just argument by outrage. The tactic is to be so offensive so as to kind of drive your Christian discusser away in revulsion.
I know that the resurrected Christ was less of a zombie than you yourself are right now. "He who commits sin is a slave to sin"
You're just a sophisticated and philisophical sounding slave.
Christ is not the zombie. A big old slavish sinner like you is more of the zombie.
But, again, all this is fine with me, as long as you don't seek to impose your nonsense on other people in the political domain.
I vote sometimes. If I win, someone will account that as me "imposing". If they win, I might count them as "imposing".
That's democracy. At least in the US there is some protection to the minority with which I agree.
But like Abraham I am seeking a better country. Your hopes live and die with this political thing. The kingdom of God is unshakable and eternal.
You have all your eggs in this basket. I don't.
If you want to canvass the world giving people food and medicine in order to convert them, since your reasons and arguments are obviously insufficient, more power to you!
You're really ignorant bbarr.
The missionary John Carey did the Indian peoples a service by translating their own sanskrit scriptures to the local language to prove one thing - they did not have to burn their living wives on the funeral mound of their deceased husbands.
Hundreds of women were burned alive because of this tradition. This Christian missionary got to work on translating their own religious texts into the common language of the people. He did so to prove that what the priests were asking in the burning alive of wives was not commanded in their OWN religious text.
I wonder what a some "drift along with society downhill," cowardly "tolerant" atheist would have done.
Nope bbarr. You don't hold a candle to many missionaries that I have known about.
I prefer to just render aid, but that's because I don't want to add epistemic insult to bodily injury. But as long as you keep yourself out of the bedrooms and doctor's offices of citizens, then believe whatever fantasy novel suits you. Tolkien isn't bad, actually.
We will go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature as our Lord commanded. The Gospel marches gloriously on to victory.
I'm no political activist.
Governent is better than no government.
Good government is better than bad government.
God's government is best of all.
The only political system I have personal experience with in life is US democracy. I am happy with the rule of the majority. I am happy with reasonable protections instituted for the minority. And I think that that should include all minorities.
And I don't mistake sloppiness, cowardice, or apathy for tolerance and good morals.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillI'm sorry, are there any arguments in that mess of a post? You know Jesus weeps every time you fail to use paragraphs.
[quote] Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. You claim the wisdom embodied in the Bible is sufficient. But sufficient for whom? For those who begin from a position of doubt with regard to the Bible, you'll need something extra-biblical to serve as a foundation of reason and argument. If your arguments are solely Biblical, then your arguments will be questi ...[text shortened]... ardice, or apathy for tolerance and good morals.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobAny avenue? Your quote just clearly said quite the opposite.
This is from earlier in the thread -
PK - So it's only homosexuals who have sex (anal sex) who are sinners? Those who are gay who don't partake are not sinners?
Raj - That is correct.
Looks like we got our wires crossed. So your Biblical God creates gay people and then denies them any avenue of sexual expression?
Or, is anal sex an absolute must.. it's all or nothing?
You're contradicting yourself.
08 Nov 11
1 edit
bbarr
On the earlier statement which included, "then the premise is false, since homosexual activity is found throughout the animal kingdom..."
I don't believe that the activity being bona fide homosexual is even scientifically provable. I may be wrong but I'd have to see some very convincing evidence.
Just because an animal finds the nearest oriface because it's horny, doesn't brand the animal a homosexual if that oriface belongs to a male.
And on that note, I assume you have some links handy that demonstrate bona fide lesbian relationships in the animal kingdom?
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI know you, perhaps above all of us, can give an objective opinion on this.
Maybe fanciful musing on my part, bbar, but simply thought it might prove instructive, at least for yours truly, for you to take on the role of arguing the merits of a position you clearly never held. My ears will remain open.
About the only argument I could make with any degree of conviction to set aside customary garden variety christian views rega ...[text shortened]... way; moving on. I'd challenge any christian to argue objectively against any of these
gb
Do you believe that my displeasure in having a thread rife with visually descriptive homosexual "insertions" constitutes me being a hateful, prejudiced, anti-gay Christian zealot worthy of visceral disgust?
I went at length to communicate my live and let live stance. Do what you want behind closed doors and I do not support anyone standing in your way. However, I merely raised an objection to a thread centered on anal penetration soaking up all the attention (partly my fault, I acknowledge) in the SPIRITUAL forum of all places.
I mean, is anal penetration a spiritual matter? That's all I was asking.
Just a few days ago, I welcomed a gay couple into my home, one of which is suffering with the near-final stages of AIDS (kidney dialysis 3 times a week), served them dinner, hugged and embraced them multiple times, cut up with them, expressed love for them, and had a really good time all around.
I hesitate to write that because it might sound like I'm boasting, which I'm not. I'm only saying I just ain't the kinda person I've been accused of being.
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidOh, silly me. I thought that homosexual sexual activity was defined as same-sex sexual activity. Please feel free to gerrymander the definition to suit your rhetorical purposes. Just let me know what definition you end up with. If you want to know about homosexual sexual activity in the animal kingdom, you might want to Google it, and then look for scientific journals. Here's a hint: Start with the bonobos. Or just look up the wikipedia entry 'homosexual behavior in animals' and then read the cited sources.
bbarr
On the earlier statement which included, "then the premise is false, since homosexual activity is found throughout the animal kingdom..."
I don't believe that the activity being bona fide homosexual is even scientifically provable. I may be wrong but I'd have to see some very convincing evidence.
Just because an animal finds the neares e some links handy that demonstrate bona fide lesbian relationships in the animal kingdom?
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
I'm sorry, are there any arguments in that mess of a post? You know Jesus weeps every time you fail to use paragraphs.
I'm sorry, are there any arguments in that mess of a post? You know Jesus weeps every time you fail to use paragraphs.
So. Putting on your old English Teacher hat and bowing out ?
Nice evasion Teach.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillWhat am I evading? There are no arguments in your post that I haven't already responded to either immediately above it or previously in this thread! Jesus Christ, Jaywill, are you developmentally delayed? You do know that when you assume the point that is at contention, you're not presenting an argument, don't you?I'm sorry, are there any arguments in that mess of a post? You know Jesus weeps every time you fail to use paragraphs.
So. Putting on your old English Teacher hat and bowing out ?
Nice evasion Teach.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrMore argument by revulsion.
What am I evading? There are no arguments in your post that I haven't already responded to either immediately above it or previously in this thread! Jesus Christ, Jaywill, are you developmentally delayed? You do know that when you assume the point that is at contention, you're not presenting an argument, don't you?
Curse with the name of Jesus Christ to send the believer away outraged.
You are truly a great fool bbarr, whoever you are.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillLol .. Jaywill, I can bet in 5min you will edit out that statement. I will do it for in this reply.
More argument by revulsion.
Curse with the name of [b] Jesus Christ to send the believer away outraged.
You are truly a great **** bbarr, whoever you are.[/b]
Christ said to speak your truth and if it is not accepted, just move along.
Some seed fall on stony ground. Not everything bears fruit.
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou seriously don't know what an argument is, do you? You don't know what it means to take a set of propositions and use them as premises in an inference. You just sort of vomit up claims that strike you as relevant to some issue, present them with neither rhyme nor reason nor structure, take no care to determine whether you're assuming what is at issue, and then never attempt to show why and how these claims actually inferentially support a conclusion that, moreover, you rarely if ever state! Didn't you go to school? Did nobody ever bother to teach you how to think and write clearly? I actually curious here. Did you learn all this stuff once, but now your advancing age has sort of ravaged your faculties? Is it Alzheimer's?
More argument by revulsion.
Curse with the name of [b] Jesus Christ to send the believer away outraged.
You are truly a great fool bbarr, whoever you are.[/b]
Edit: And yes, I must be a fool. Only a fool would try to reason people out of positions they never reasoned themselves into.