The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by bbarr
It's not that I "dislike" the idea, Kelly. I think the idea is monstrous, and God's OT behavior is monstrous, which is why I think there is no scriptural reason to think God is anything other than capricious; alternately callous and dreadful. Which is to say that He can't be described as loving, or worthy of worship. These are just some of the contradiction ...[text shortened]... are in the driver's seat, and your rationales are riding shotgun pretending to drive.

I think there are a lot of things God set in place that are only there due to
the nature of man is so nasty, and were it not so bad you'd never see those
things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think there are a lot of things God set in place that are only there due to
the nature of man is so nasty, and were it not so bad you'd never see those
things.
Kelly

My sister is generally nicer than I am, Kelly. God could have made a world full of people like her. People with kinder and gentler natures. This wouldn't have impugned our freedom. My sister is still free, after all, despite being nicer than most people. So why didn't He make us better? He is the author of our natures, Kelly. He doesn't get off the hook because we're nasty. We got it from Him.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Lol .. Jaywill, I can bet in 5min you will edit out that statement. I will do it for in this reply.

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.

Look at the way this guy is ranting on about my education and debating skills.

He's hiding behind a fortress of not being able to understand my writing.

When this tactic is resorted to I just come back to the OP. What is the issue? It is the statement of the OP.

"The Bible accepts homosexuality!".


No. The Bible clearly catagorizes homosexuality along with other errors as deviations of man's moral being from which man needs both the forgiveness of and the power to overcome.

It only "accepts" that it is a sin from which we need to be saved in the same way as many many other sins.

Originally posted by jaywill
Look at the way this guy is ranting on about my education and debating skills.

He's hiding behind a fortress of not being able to understand my writing.

When this tactic is resorted to I just come back to the OP. What is the issue? It is the statement of the OP.

[b]"The Bible accepts homosexuality!".


No. The Bible clearly catagorizes ...[text shortened]... " that it is a sin from which we need to be saved in the same way as many many other sins.[/b]

Well this is the reason why I dont discuss anything much with atheists. There is very little in common between the two groups. So I declined to continue when Bbarr asked me for non-scriptural reasons why homosexuality is immoral.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[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]

Well, I gave it some thought. But the only arguments I can think of that purport to show that homosexuality is immoral are laughably bad. One can start with the Bible, of course, but there's no reason to think it authoritative, or even relevant to morality or ethics (this is just the upshot of the Euthyphro dilemma). One can start with considerations of suffering or autonomy or virtue, but there's just nothing there that gets the result. One can start with a conception of eudaimonia, but the only way to get the result is to import a teleological conception of 'human nature' that is either thoroughly normative and question-begging, or yields obvious counterexamples, or ends up entailing that homosexuality is permissible. You can get the result from Cultural Relativism, since that's essentially a survey of dominant cultural norms, but nobody takes Cultural Relativism seriously. Sorry.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
for all you "christians" saying homosexuality is an abomination before god, here is a little tidbit of information:


god made eve from the rib of adam
therefore eve had the same DNA as adam
therefore eve had the same sex chromosome as adam
therefore eve was a dude
a dude who had sex with adam
therefore eve and adam were gay incestous twins.


...[text shortened]... e same gender, stop to think that the first humans were adam and steve and they were in love.

Yes and two people of the same gender had kids....no wait thats not possible. Lol wow. Ive seen many strechings of the truth but dang this is a first. Thanks for the laughs lol. They did have kids remember, just think on that for a while.

Originally posted by bbarr
My sister is generally nicer than I am, Kelly. God could have made a world full of people like her. People with kinder and gentler natures. This wouldn't have impugned our freedom. My sister is still free, after all, despite being nicer than most people. So why didn't He make us better? He is the author of our natures, Kelly. He doesn't get off the hook because we're nasty. We got it from Him.

i do not agree. society makes us "better" or "worse". your sister simply must have had a moment in her childhood that you didn't have. maybe she got one extra hug, one extra chocolate. maybe she watched some movie or tv commercial that you didn't because you were busy cleaning the dishes or whatever which made her nice and you grumpy(if that is your opinion of yourself). there are a lot of little or big things that subtly (or not) influence the people we grow up to be.

what you are talking about is prozac from god. that DOES trespass on our free will. not to mention that if all people were prozac-ed by god, we might have died to predators before coming down form the trees.


i don't believe god messes with us. what would be the point of threatening eternal damnation (which i am having trouble believing in in the first place, but thats another thing) if he would make ted bundy(for example) with an overwhelming desire to kill. mother teresa with a pre-programmed sense of compassion.

i believe that we begin with a "genetical lottery" assigned starting kit and what we do afterwards is entirely our choice. sure, society(environment) might shape us into murderers or selfless crusaders, and once we go further and further down one road, choices against that path are harder and harder. but they are still choices.

Originally posted by realeyez
Yes and two people of the same gender had kids....no wait thats not possible. Lol wow. Ive seen many strechings of the truth but dang this is a first. Thanks for the laughs lol. They did have kids remember, just think on that for a while.

god designed steve to have an uterus and vagina. no problem. he hardcoded him to produce ova instead of spermatozoa. no problem.

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.

Your God is horrific, and your "moral" views are absurd. You have nothing to recommend them except for scripture. I have arguments that cut across differing, but sane, ethical frameworks

What is your arguments that the God revealed in the Bible is "horrific" which you consider as sane ethical frameworks.

"Horrific" according to what ?
"Horrific" according to whose standard ?

Here's your chance tout your - oh so superior - argument skills.

On what authority do you pronounce God as "horrific" ?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do not agree. society makes us "better" or "worse". your sister simply must have had a moment in her childhood that you didn't have. maybe she got one extra hug, one extra chocolate. maybe she watched some movie or tv commercial that you didn't because you were busy cleaning the dishes or whatever which made her nice and you grumpy(if that is your opinion one road, choices against that path are harder and harder. but they are still choices.

You've given me no reason to think people aren't born with natural inclinations towards some traits of character, or with differing capacities that make the inculcation of some traits of character easier than others. Look at those on the autistic spectrum. It can be harder for autistics to be empathic, which can make it harder for them to get adequately trained up to being compassionate. Too much testosterone contributes to aggressive behavior, and aggressive behavior in children could easily be conditioned in ways that made some character traits more likely than other. The "tabula rasa" is a myth. It's always been a complex interaction between our inherent properties and the social world that determine our eventual characters. I wouldn't have been less free with a different genetic and social endowment. Neither would my sister. Since God can change these endowments, on the assumption He's omnipotent, he could make us all more inclined towards niceness than we are without undermining our freedom.

Further, even you admit that "lots of little things" subtly influence the people we grow up to be. Some of this is the training of our parents and teachers. When our parents and teachers morally educate us to be nicer, they're not undermining our freedom. So, there is no reason that God couldn't arrange little lessons for us when we are very, very young, that reliably result in making everybody as nice as my sister. This wouldn't undermine our freedom either, for the same reason that lessons of our parents and teachers do not.

Further, even if the model here is of "prozac from God", that wouldn't have any bearing on the issue of our freedom. Suppose, hypothetically, God did just make my sister nicer than most other people. What does this mean. She still thinks about what to do, and what not to do. She still marshals reasons for her deliberations, and infers about what's best. She still chooses. She just takes some considerations to be more important than others (e.g., other people's suffering is more important than her personal comfort). And since she still chooses, on your view she still qualifies as free. After all, we all choose based on our reasons, and our character traits help to determine what we notice, what we value, and what we take to be important in figuring out what to do. Nicer people aren't less free, even if they're made nice by external forces prior to their birth. How could they be? Nicer people are still free, on your view, despite being explicitly trained to be that way by their parents!

Originally posted by jaywill

Your God is horrific, and your "moral" views are absurd. You have nothing to recommend them except for scripture. I have arguments that cut across differing, but sane, ethical frameworks

What is your arguments that the God revealed in the Bible is "horrific" which you consider as sane ethical frameworks.

"Horrific" according t erior - argument skills.

On what authority do you pronounce God as "horrific" ?

I await your arguments. Maybe I'll learn something.

But if YOU use the BIBLE to bolster your accusation that my God is horrific then you cannot disqualify me from using the same Bible to refute your claim.

How is it YOU can refer to Scripture to prove God as horrific but you complain I have no non Scriptural defense ?

I'll debate your claims on a philodophical level for a while. But if you appeal to Scripture to make an accusation you cannot disqualify me from appealing to Scripture to defend.

Originally posted by jaywill
I await your arguments. Maybe I'll learn something.

But if YOU use the BIBLE to bolster your accusation that my God is horrific then you cannot disqualify me from using the same Bible to refute your claim.

How is it YOU can refer to Scripture to prove God as horrific but you complain I have no non Scriptural defense ?

I'll debate your claims on ...[text shortened]... cripture to make an accusation you cannot disqualify me from appealing to Scripture to defend.

The only authority I need to pronounce that the Biblical character, God, is horrific, is that which attends having grasped the meaning of the term 'horrific'. The argument is just the correct application of this term to those acts attributed the Biblical character, God. Words don't suddenly start meaning different things when applied to this character.

We'll do this dialectically, for the sake of clarity.

My first question: At any point in the Bible does God either order the killing of young children, or kill young children Himself? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

Originally posted by bbarr
You've given me no reason to think people aren't born with natural inclinations towards some traits of character, or with differing capacities that make the inculcation of some traits of character easier than others. Look at those on the autistic spectrum. It can be harder for autistics to be empathic, which can make it harder for them to get adequately train ...[text shortened]... your view, despite being explicitly trained to be that way by their parents!

i allowed for severe mental disorders or chemical imbalances. it is worth another thread maybe to discuss what is the responsibility of a severe psychopath. i have accepted that ted bundy might not have had much choice in killing those people. those might be the exception


however, too much testosterone is a weak excuse. that won't force you to kill 10 people, it will make it harder to control yourself in a bar argument. and what you do is entirely up to you. i have no sympathy whatsoever for the dude that hits his wife because he has too much manly testosterone in him.

you get dealt a hand, some get intelligence and lots of it some don't. some get angry more easily some don't. but not all that get angry kill people. the kill people because they weren't strong enough to overcome whatever obstacle was in their path. do you think that normally calm people don't get angry? they snap as well and again, it is up to them to choose what path to take.

which leads us to your next point. of course god making us "nice" would undermine our freedom. do you believe cows have free will, and that they can choose at any point to play with each other like cats and dogs do? that they simply choose not to because god made them nice?


maybe the animal example is an exaggeration (i hope you get the point). freedom of will doesn't mean restricting the range of options available to someone and then when that someone chooses the only thing left to him, we pat him on his back congratulating on expressing his free will. if i never want to choose to murder someone because god basically took that option away, what merit do i have for not killing someone? why stop here? let's take away greed as well. surely a benevolent god wouldn't want people stealing from each other. and then we should move on to jaywalking and loitering. because that is bad as well.

what we are left with is a bunch of sheep, doing only a list of few pre - approved actions. but it is ok, because they can CHOOSE to either sing hymns to god, or have a picnic. until they get eaten by wolves or tigers (or you think god should make carnivores nice too?)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i allowed for severe mental disorders or chemical imbalances. it is worth another thread maybe to discuss what is the responsibility of a severe psychopath. i have accepted that ted bundy might not have had much choice in killing those people. those might be the exception


however, too much testosterone is a weak excuse. that won't force you to kill 10 ...[text shortened]... they get eaten by wolves or tigers (or you think god should make carnivores nice too?)

Ugh. Read what I wrote.

I didn't claim that too much testosterone would make you kill people. I claimed that too much testosterone contributes to aggressive behavior, and that this, in children, can lead to being treated or conditioned in ways that make certain character traits more or less likely. The claim, just as with the autism claim, aims to show that innate features of us at birth can interact with the social world in ways that make certain character traits more or less likely. This is why you are just wrong if you think that society is doing all the work. Seriously, read a developmental psychology textbook. You even admit that some people are endowed with greater intelligence than others! Don't you think that influences what types of character traits, which virtues and vices, they're capable of learning? And that influences, among other things, their capacity for niceness. So, again, on your own view it can't be society doing all the work.

Where did I claim that God could have made us nice like cows? I'm claiming that God could have made us all as nice as my sister. She is a really nice girl. She is kind and considerate and polite. She seemed like that since she was very young, and my parents nurtured those traits. She is also free! If human beings have free will, then she does too! And since it's possible for there to be nice people with free will, an omnipotent being like God could have made everybody such that they were both nice and had free will. This is a really easy point. You need to read it over carefully.

You seem to think that when I suggest God could have made us nicer, I'm suggesting that God could have made us such that we never think or do anything not nice. But, first, I'm not saying that. That's the whole point of talking about my sister! Sometimes she says an unkind word. Sometimes she cheats at cards. She is not like a niceness-robot. She is just a nice human being. And she is free! Again, God could have made us all like that, or all closer to being like that, and we'd be just as free as my sister is. Alright? Second, and more interestingly, there are a whole host of options that never come to your mind when you're deliberating about what to do. The last time a friend of yours was in the hospital, did it cross your mind that you could blow up the hospital? No. Does that mean that because you are a generally good person, and such a thing typically doesn't occur to you, that you are not free? No. So I'm not really sure what you're on about here. None of your points seem both true and relevant to my argument simultaneously.

And it was you who identified freedom with choice. That's fine. Now you want freedom to be identified as choice between a wide range of options. That's fine too, my sister often considers many different options when she's deliberating. But if you want to identify freedom as choice between all possible options, you're out of luck. First, nobody actually does that, or can. We can't think of all the available options, we couldn't efficiently deliberate if we did, and our character traits tend to constrain what we take to be live options in deliberation. That's just how we work. If you think that means we're not free, then this whole discussion is irrelevant. If you think this doesn't mean that we're not free, then nothing you've said weighs against my original argument.

Originally posted by bbarr
Ugh. Read what I wrote.

I didn't claim that too much testosterone would make you kill people. I claimed that too much testosterone contributes to aggressive behavior, and that this, in children, can lead to being treated or conditioned in ways that make certain character traits more or less likely. The claim, just as with the autism claim, aims to show ...[text shortened]... not free, then nothing you've said weighs against my original argument.

like i said certain factors, and yes, this includes the genetic traits i gathered in the term "genetic lottery starting kit", influence certain choices. influences, makes it harder to make a choice and not another. but doesn't determine them. free will and strength of character still have the final say.

"You even admit that some people are endowed with greater intelligence than others! Don't you think that influences what types of character traits, which virtues and vices, they're capable of learning?"
intelligence( to use the example you chose) does influence. but it influences both ways. so it can't be reasoned that "intelligence makes us better, give all people more of it" or "intelligence makes us worse, give less of it". (though it might be possible that making everyone with an iq of 40 might mean less wars. less destructive anyway. you decide if you want that). your stance is that some of the traits in the starting kit must be altered by god, that it is HIS responsibility, and that would solve all the evil in the world. i find that stance flawed.


"She is not like a niceness-robot. She is just a nice human being. And she is free! "
that is what i am saying. she chooses to be nice, or not nice. your flaw is that you think you can never be like her. that she or god somehow doomed you to a life of grumpiness. what did she do to deserve all those niceness while you got stuck with the bad ones and must struggle not to go on a killing spree because of your grumpiness.



"The last time a friend of yours was in the hospital, did it cross your mind that you could blow up the hospital? No. Does that mean that because you are a generally good person, and such a thing typically doesn't occur to you, that you are not free?"
in the case you described, no. if the doctors there would have refused treatment to my friend because he is a poor gay black jewish person, i might have considered it. and then, depending on other factors i might have gone through or not. it would have been my decision though.

your view that god should make us nice: what do you think it implies? that i never would have considered blowing up the hospital? or that have i considered it i would never have done it? either way it restricts my free will.
in the first case: maybe someday i DO need to blow up a hospital. how can i do it if i can't consider it? how can i assign a moral value to an action if i can't think of it? if i can't conceive a course of action, does that mean my brain has blocks that forbid me to go on certain paths? many courses of action are without definitive form in the beginning, it takes some reasoning to define something. how do i decide which action is "good" ? by magic?

most likely you meant the second: that i would never choose to blow a hospital because of my niceness? doesn't this infringe on my free will? what is your definition of free will? that i get to choose what actions you allow me to choose? doesn't free will mean do whatever the hell you want?