The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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 llow me to choose? doesn't free will mean do whatever the hell you want?

What are you talking about? I haven't made any of the claims you're attributing to me. Perhaps you should read what I actually write, rather than skimming, then misunderstanding, and then failing to paraphrase me even roughly accurately.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand:

1) If humans have free will, my sister has free will.
2) My sister is nicer than the current average.
3) So it is possible for a human to be both nicer than the current average, and have free will.
4) It is logically possible that everybody could have been nicer than the current average, and had free will.
5) So, God could have constructed a world where everybody was nicer than the current average, and had free will.
6) There would be overall less bad if everybody was nicer than the current average and had free will.
7) If God were benevolent, he would prefer worlds that are overall less bad.
8) So God would prefer a world where everybody is nicer than the current average and had free will. Specifically, he would prefer such a world to the actual world.

Do you see the point? It doesn't matter what notion of free will you employ, the argument still works. Now which of the numbered steps in the chain of reasoning above do you want to take issue with?

Originally posted by bbarr
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 ...[text shortened]... survey of dominant cultural norms, but nobody takes Cultural Relativism seriously. Sorry.

Thank you.

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.

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.


no we don't. you simply eliminate many possibilities unconsciously. you will probably never consider making a conjuration spell to summon a dragon to eat me. this time. you will fantasize about it when you have time to spare though. even if it is not nice. and for a brief moment you would be happy imagining me being eaten by a dragon (i prefer green dragons for the record, have a green one eating me).

though you don't consider buying a plane ticket now to romania and punching me in the nads, maybe tomorrow i will say something that will make you think of that possibility. or in a year.

you reason, certain paths get scratched out, certain paths get the moral treatment or not, certain paths get the "i know this is evil, but will i get caught" treatment if you are "bad". the fact that you don't always consider ALL the possibilities isn't the same with always having the same set to consider.

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.

also consider this: we currently have the insanity defense. it is considered that a person proven insane is not guilty of his/her actions and therefore shouldn't be held accountable because he had no say in the matter. so if an insane person is considered without free will for only being able to choose from the set of "kill now " or "kill later" or "kill gruesomely", why would your "nice" person have any more free will because he/she has to choose only from the nice set of actions?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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.


no w ...[text shortened]... er ALL the possibilities isn't the same with always having the same set to consider.

But nobody is talking about always having the same set to consider. Do you not understand that one person can be generally nicer than another, yet both can have free will? If you do understand this, then what are you arguing against (because you're sure not arguing against anything I've actually said!)?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
also consider this: we currently have the insanity defense. it is considered that a person proven insane is not guilty of his/her actions and therefore shouldn't be held accountable because he had no say in the matter. so if an insane person is considered without free will for only being able to choose from the set of "kill now " or "kill later" or "kill gr ...[text shortened]... have any more free will because he/she has to choose only from the nice set of actions?

Sorry, I'm talking about niceness as a personality trait. I'm not talking about whatever silly, made-up notion you're employing. In the actual world, Zahlanzi, some people are generally nicer than others. And this manifests in their deliberations and actions. And the nicer people are still free. Now stop. Breathe. Read this post again until you get it. Because once you understand this very obvious and simple point, you'll realize how frickin' stupid your comparison is.

Originally posted by Rajk999
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.

You don't think it is necessary to find non-scriptural reasons why homosexuality is wrong? In this respect, you are quite aloof from Christian moral theology throughout history. No one should be satisfied that moral biblical precepts are just the arbitrary whim of God. There should be some reason for God to enjoin this or prohibit that.

First of all, there are many precepts in the bible and few of these are ear-marked as mere ephemeral custom (the only exceptions I can think of is when Jesus discusses Moses' divorce laws or Paul instructs Christians that no food is any longer evil.) Yet Christian women do cut their hair short and speak in church and Christian men do grow their hair long (contrary to what Paul describes as unnatural.) How do you know what is culturally relative and what is a fundamental moral precept? That distinction presupposes some extra-biblical reasoning.

Second, as I said earlier, no one should be happy to believe that God's laws are just capricious. Such a God does not seem loving but only cruel and sadistic. You would tell a homosexual that his relationship is sinful simply because it is strictly forbidden in Scripture. He might ask why God would take such a prohibitive stance on what is, in his eyes, a loving intimate partnership. You do not serve your God well if you do not provide some explanation for His moral strictures.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You don't think it is necessary to find non-scriptural reasons why homosexuality is wrong? In this respect, you are quite aloof from Christian moral theology throughout history. No one should be satisfied that moral biblical precepts are just the arbitrary whim of God. There should be some reason for God to enjoin this or prohibit that.

First of all, th ...[text shortened]... u do not serve your God well if you do not provide some explanation for His moral strictures.

I think it is very easy to tell what are strict laws, what are guidelines, and what are just appropriate for the time and age and custom.

Homosexuality is in the 'strict law' category as far as I can tell. I wont therefore tell any gay person that it is OK to act on his gay feelings if he wants to be a Christian.

I cannot figure out waht this thread about. All the gay supportors dont believe in God or dont care about being a Christian.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I think it is very easy to tell what are strict laws, what are guidelines, and what are just appropriate for the time and age and custom.
.

It's not a question of difficulty. Perhaps there is a very straightforward way to distinguish fundamental moral precepts from culturally relative ones. The point is that such an explanation will not be found in the Scriptures. For example, Paul describes short hair on women as unnatural, suggesting that this not a matter merely of cultural difference. You have to invoke some extra-biblical reason. You have to reflect on why Paul may have said this, what the historical context for it was, why it would no longer apply, why the length of hair has no current relevance in moral theology. These are precisely extra-biblical questions.

And still, even if you establish that homosexuality is a serious moral offense, the onus is still on you to explain why, unless you believe that a loving God arbitrarily sets moral precepts for humanity to follow. How would you explain to a suicidal gay teenager that if he wants to be Christian, he must be chaste yet God needlessly imposes this burden on him?

Originally posted by Conrau K
How would you explain to a suicidal gay teenager that if he wants to be Christian, he must be chaste ?

I would say to him that everyone has burdens of some sort and crosses to bear but the important thing is not in this life but in the next. Consider the following passage :

Heb 12:5-8 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

The same thing applies to all Christians with desires which are condemned as sinful. Dont think its all about gays. The fact of the matter is that if a Christian is serious about his Christianity he will know which path to take.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I would say to him that everyone has burdens of some sort and crosses to bear but the important thing is not in this life but in the next. Consider the following passage :

Heb 12:5-8 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of hi ...[text shortened]... er is that if a Christian is serious about his Christianity he will know which path to take.

Again, you're not really following. The point is not about bearing crosses and withstanding temptation. The point is this: this young man feels same-sex attraction, possibly something congenital which he had no choice over and which God, must, therefore, have ordained, and yet he is expected to deny these urges because it is God's whim. How can he view God as anything other than cruel and sadistic if God allows him to have these desires and yet arbitrarily prohibits him from acting on them?

At least in the case of, say, adultery, there are obvious justifications for God's prohibition. Adultery is a betrayal of the other spouse and can have severe emotional repercussions; adultery distracts one spouse from the family; etc. But if you cannot adduce any reason for God to prohibit homosexual relationship, then how is God anything but cruelly whimsical?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, you're not really following. The point is not about bearing crosses and withstanding temptation. The point is this: this young man feels same-sex attraction, possibly something congenital which he had no choice over and which God, must, therefore, have ordained, and yet he is expected to deny these urges because it is God's whim. How can he view God ...[text shortened]... for God to prohibit homosexual relationship, then how is God anything but cruelly whimsical?

If after my advice he still wants to get into a gay relationship then I will advise him to live his life as he sees fit. There is nothing anyone can do or say if a Christian does not want to follow Gods laws. God will decide what to do with sinners.

What I certainly cannot tell him is that it is ok to life a gay lifestyle.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If after my advice he still wants to get into a gay relationship then I will advise him to live his life as he sees fit. There is nothing anyone can do or say if a Christian does not want to follow Gods laws. God will decide what to do with sinners.

What I certainly cannot tell him is that it is ok to life a gay lifestyle.

You really aren't following and I don't have the patience. As far as I can see, you worship a cruel God who whimsically decides moral precepts without any reason and then expects all of humanity to observe these precepts unquestioningly because it is written in Scripture. No gay person could see themselves other than victims of God's brutal caprice. How they could possibly feel loved by God is beyond me.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You really aren't following and I don't have the patience. As far as I can see, you worship a cruel God who whimsically decides moral precepts without any reason and then expects all of humanity to observe these precepts unquestioningly because it is written in Scripture. No gay person could see themselves other than victims of God's brutal caprice. How they could possibly feel loved by God is beyond me.

I am following and I am answering you. Its just that I cannot give you the answer you want to hear.

If someone does not want to love God and be a good Christian simply because they think its more important to satisfy their fleshly desires then thats their choice. They are beyond help. Let them move on with their life.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I am following and I am answering you. Its just that I cannot give you the answer you want to hear.

If someone does not want to love God and be a good Christian simply because they think its more important to satisfy their fleshly desires then thats their choice. They are beyond help. Let them move on with their life.

You're not following. I am not asking you to say that homosexuality is morally permissible. I am not asking you to approve of any 'fleshly desires'. I am simply asking you whether you believe God decides moral precepts arbitrarily. In short, do you think that there is any reason for any moral precept other than 'Scripture says'? If not, then how can God be seen as anything other than cruel, even by the most chaste Christian?