The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
even so, one cannot equate animal behaviour with human as a justifying principle for
clearly there are animal behavioural patterns that if adopted by humans would prove to
be disastrous.

Exactly. I made that same point earlier. And that's why the whole issue of 'naturalness' in these debates is a red herring. And it is, regardless of which notion of 'natural' you mean. Here are the problems:

First, the concept 'natural' is either purely descriptive or at least partly normative. Roughly, it either refers to things that occur or typically occur in the world, or it has some evaluative component. Consider the following accounts of the concept:

Note that when I use the term 'homosexuality' below, I mean same-sex sexual activity. I could make the same points with regard to homosexual sexual orientation, but since Christians don't think it is a sin to have an orientation, we needn't belabor that point.

Here are some descriptive accounts:

1) X is natural if and only if X occurs in the world. On this view, pretty much everything is natural, including homosexuality, and of course this notion is irrelevant to issues of morality. Rape occurs; rape is wrong.

2) X is natural if and only if X regularly (typically, consistently, etc.) occurs in the world. Or, relatedly, X is natural with regard to some population S if and only if X regularly occurs within S. On this view, homosexuality is again natural, and again this notion is irrelevant to issues of morality. Rape regularly occurs among humans; Rape is wrong.

3) X is natural if and only if X commonly (often, etc.) occurs in the world. Or, relatedly, X is natural with regard to some population S if and only if X commonly occurs within S. Perhaps X is natural if and only if X occurs within the majority of S. On this view, homosexuality is not natural. Then again, on this view, neither is being stronger, smarter, or prettier than average. But none of these things are morally suspect, so why would homosexuality be morally suspect? Again, there is no relationship between this notion and morality.

Additionally, besides the obvious counter-examples descriptive notions of 'natural' generate when put to use in arguments purporting moral conclusions, there is also the deeper worry about the structure of these arguments. ConrauK pointed this out above, noting the Naturalistic Fallacy. Basically, the worry is this: No set of purely descriptive premises can entail a normative conclusion, and moral conclusions are normative conclusions. There is no deriving "ought" statements from purely "is" statements. Some supplementary normative premise will have to be employed (e.g., "If an act is unnatural, then the act is immoral or, at least, morally counts against that act" ). But these supplementary bridge-premises will stand in need of justification, and here is where counter-examples have real bite.

Anyway, here are some normative accounts:

4) X is natural for a population S if and only if X is typically (consistently, reliably, etc.) healthy for S. It should be clear that the notion of 'health' is at least partly normative/evaluative, relying, as it does, on the notion of 'good for'. There has been some debate here about whether homosexuality is physically healthy. Of course, there are other ways activities can be good or bad for a person, and physical health is not the only type of health. But, in any case, there is no clear connection between something being typically unhealthy and immoral. It is typically unhealthy to volunteer for armed service during times of war, but it is probably permissible, and may even be obligatory.

5) X is natural for a population S if and only if X typically (consistently, reliably, etc.) conduces to the flourishing of members of S. 'Flourishing', roughly, means to be living excellently or well. And this is standardly taken as a teleological notion. It's not just that one flourishes when one is happy or successful; it's a condition of flourishing that one's life is paradigmatic of one's kind, or that one's life is appropriate for the type of entity one is. There are really difficult epistemological questions here, concerning what sort of evidence could serve to justify any particular account of human flourishing. I won't belabor that here. But if you think that the evidence is biological, or statistical, or purely descriptive, then you'll end up with all the worries mentioned above. And if you think that particular accounts of human flourishing are ultimately justified by reference to moral arguments (i.e., if you think that what it means to flourish as a human is to live a morally good human life), then any argument against homosexuality that rests on such a notion of human flourishing will be viciously question-begging. A prohibition against homosexuality will be built right in to the account of flourishing.

Similar arguments apply to arguments employing notions like 'purpose' or 'design'. Either the purpose of X is some descriptive fact about it (e.g., Somebody intended that X be for this or that), or some at least partly normative fact about it (X is only appropriate for this or that). But if the purpose of X is a descriptive matter, then no moral consequences follow. Suppose it is a fact about X that God intended it to be used for this but not that. This is descriptive, and nothing normative follows. There are no moral consequences of this fact. If I build something I intend to prop open doors, and my girlfriend uses it to prop up a table, she has not thereby done something inappropriate. Suppose, however, that God is special in at least this regard: When God intends that X be used for this but not that, there is thereby an additional normative fact that X should be used for this but not that. Here you have just the supplementary premise you'd need to get from descriptive premises to normative conclusions. But, so what? This claim, that God's intentions are normative, is again viciously question-begging in the debate at hand. The theist who advances this claim has simply built in a prohibition against homosexuality, or against particular forms of activity, into notions like 'design', 'purpose', 'function', or whatever. And note, further, that here the notion 'natural' is no longer doing any real dialectical work. The theist is simply saying, in effect, that God says "don't engage in this sort of behavior". But then the theist is back to relying on purely religious arguments. These arguments are, of course, wholly question-begging and unsatisfactory.

So, that's that. I take this post as a refutation of the claim that there is anything morally important about the notion 'natural' with regard to homosexuality.

Originally posted by jaywill

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'.

I don't think that is adaquate. We could talk about the World War II being "horrific" which we all agree was. The deeper questions are about its necessity.

We could spea ...[text shortened]... one case was so severe and another case was tempered with such mercy ?[/b]

O.K., hold your horses. You asked me for my argument, and I’m presenting it. Once the argument is done, you’ll have your opportunity to respond. I know you want to start your defense, but please just let me get my argument out. Then I’ll go back over your posts and respond to your objections and counter-arguments.

My second question is this:

In each instance where God either commanded the death or directly killed young children, would it have been possible for God to have realized His ends or goals in some other manner; some manner that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

Originally posted by sumydid
Not necessarily. In your rebuttal vs. the "natural" argument, you failed to mention the actual context of "natural."

The argument that homosexual sexual relationships and more directly, homosexual acts are "unnatural" is meant to simply say it is neither by design, nor does it serve an ultimate higher purpose. And only as an aside, Christi ...[text shortened]... ory of men achieving "accidental orgasm" on the toilet, wouldn't we?

‘Design’ is an intentional notion, not a biological one. I assume you mean that God had certain forms of sexual activity in mind with regard to our construction/constitution, or intended us to use our bodies sexually in only certain prescribed ways. But I see no reason to think that the intentions of a designer have moral implications. If I design and construct a weave of cloth for my girlfriend to use as a shawl, but she ends up using it as a scarf, she has not thereby done anything morally wrong. She may be using it contrary to me intentions. But the fact that I intend that something be used in a certain way does not entail that one acts wrongly by using that thing in some other way. That I intend X is a descriptive fact about me, not a normative fact about X. Now, if you think that things are different with respect to God’s intentions and designs, and that his intentions have normative implications, or carry moral weight, you’ll need an argument to that effect. Minimally, and formally, you’ll need an explicit premise in your arguments to the effect (e.g., If God intends X, then it ought to be that X). But, if this is your claim, then the employment of the notion ‘natural’ is just a distraction. When you say homosexual behavior is unnatural, all you’re really saying is that God did not intend us to engage in it, or that he prefer we not engage in it, or something similar. But, first, this is just question-begging in the context of this debate. And, second, there are very good reasons (e.g., the Euthyphro Dilemma) to think that such a view is incoherent, since it renders morality an arbitrary affair; just a matter of the subjective desires of some being. There’s just no reason to take a view like that seriously.

As to your aside: Christians may be consistent in taking homosexual sexual activity as just another form of sin. They may also judge as sinful casual, premarital sex. But Christians approve of committed, monogamous marital sexual relations, while they disapprove of committed, monogamous marital same-sex unions. The straight married couple in Massachusetts is OK with God. The gay married couple in Massachusetts is not. That is the bigotry.

Go and read the literature on the purported function of same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom. You know what you’ll find? You’ll find that there is no single purported function. Sometimes it’s domination. Sometimes it’s gratification of both parties. Sometimes it’s a way to promote and ensure affection and cooperation. Sometimes it’s a response to anxiety. Sometimes it happens with bonded pairs. Sometimes it does not. What you’re doing here is not arguing from any scientific perspective, because you’re ignorant about animal behavior and cognitive ethology. You’re simply importing assumptions about instinctual behavior and then rendering judgment on what must be motivating animals. And you’re doing so in a way that indicates that you really have no idea what evolutionary psychology is about. You can’t read off the motivations of creatures from a story about species survival. You may be able to causally explain why creatures have particular motivations, but you can’t derive the content of those motivations; what they aim at, or are about, or refer to, from the perspective of an animal, just from such a causal story. Suppose that there is an evolutionary story that causally explains why a species displays affection or altruism. It doesn’t follow that such affection or altruism thereby aims at species survival. It could very well be the case that members of the species actually feel affection; that they care about their kin. From the point of view of members of a species, the point of affection or altruism may very well be the well-being of other members of the species, even if the cause of these motivational states relates to the history of their selection in a population and the reproductive success of individual animals that had them.

Now, you want to claim that the function of the anus is to expel toxins. That it was designed for this purpose. Let’s just grant that. But why should I think that that is its only purpose? If I look around at the natural world, I’ll find that all sorts of creatures use their anuses for different purposes. They use them to communicate with other members of their species. They use them to mark territory. They are used to express arousal. And they are used in sexual relations. You can’t just read off one singular purpose from a survey of the natural world. You can attempt to identify why a phenotypic trait evolved. But that type of function carries no moral weight, and you’ll find throughout the animal kingdom phenotypic traits that were selected because of one benefit but ended up being utilized for another. Biologists claim that some insect wings originally developed for the regulation of body temperature. But now they confer the benefit of flight. Of course, you may think that this notion of ‘function’ isn’t the same as your notion of ‘purpose’. You may think that ‘purpose’, like ‘design’, is an intentional notion. If so, then please refer to my comments above.

As to your speculations on the orgasmic potential of anal sex, my girlfriend and I will remain silent. But you may want to do some more research.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sorry it took so long to answer (not that long really but i see the others have been prolific)


depends what you mean by "nicer". if you mean one is not capable of being evil, that tampers with free will. if you mean one is not capable of thinking evil things, that tampers with free will and reason(how one makes decisions). if none of the above, it is p ...[text shortened]... o progress, not to hellish either. We can shape it (through work) mostly anyway we like it.

I'm sorry, which of the numbered premises I wrote out in the argument above do you disagree with? I have no patience to rebut arguments aimed at positions I do not hold, nor to deal with those who can't be bothered to read carefully.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i wonder what it is that makes people on this forum (and in debates forums in general) resort to abuse. is it a need to be right in spite of a person you never know? to climb in the social ladder of the RHP spirituality forum? to what end?


also, why the need to be right in a subjective matter that would not make the other change his stance anyway (not ...[text shortened]... ind it hard to be polite to sumydid for example, thought this exchange would be more pleasant.

If you come at me with arguments, I expect you to have read what I wrote with sufficient care. If you persist in attributing to me views I do not hold, ignore what I explicitly write, and generally debate sloppily, then, after awhile, I'll get short with you. That's how I roll.

Originally posted by sumydid
That's rich coming from someone who has lashed out with insults and namecalling multiple times, in just this thread alone.

i have much less patience with hateful fundamentalist little pricks in general (disclaimer: i promise do not mean you are one of them)

Originally posted by bbarr
If you come at me with arguments, I expect you to have read what I wrote with sufficient care. If you persist in attributing to me views I do not hold, ignore what I explicitly write, and generally debate sloppily, then, after awhile, I'll get short with you. That's how I roll.

you haven't made your stance clear. you claim god can make us nicer without infringing on our free will. but you need to explain what you mean by it. i took the liberty to proposing some variants, you didn't choose one of them(neither did you present your own) but instead got "short with me".


good debaters don't get mad and "short" even when discussing with hateful little pricks (like some people here, but sumydid is NOT one of them). i admit i am not one of those debaters. however in this case, i didn't claim anything hateful. i didn't claim anything obviously wrong. we debated a subject that has many interpretation and is quite subjective. no opinion is clearly the right or wrong one. in this case there is absolutely no reason to get mad.


me not "getting" your post comes from a few unclear aspects of it. specifically you need to describe how far can god go to make people nicer before infringing on our free will. because in some of the more extreme variants i proposed. free will is clearly being violated

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.

Well choice has a lot to do with that some people care about what they want
and that is it, while others are as you say are nicer. Those that seem to have
their heads screwed on straight our nicer people, are flawed no different than
those we say are worse than the nice people! When we judge our selves by
ourselves of course we see things graded on a curve which would automatically
place some in the passing or okay type of people, and others in the failing and
not so okay type of people.

What God did is create a world that is currently now filled with flawed people
who all need saved and he did it in a way that allows anyone to come to him
as is. It started out very good and will at some point not to far from get back
on that track as well. Selfishness screwed it up with sin, but it is being made
right and God is the author of that yes.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry, it's been a very busy day here. I'll respond to all this in little bit, after I cook dinner. And of course I don't mind you using scripture to defend your views. My contention is that God, the character described in the Bible, is morally monstrous; that he is horrific. If there is exculpatory evidence in the Bible, then of course it's reasonable to s a unjustified departure from the clear meaning of the term 'horrific'. More later...

Sorry, it's been a very busy day here. I'll respond to all this in little bit, after I cook dinner. And of course I don't mind you using scripture to defend your views. My contention is that God, the character described in the Bible, is morally monstrous; that he is horrific.

You're an atheist.

According to your world view why should I not regard "good" and "bad" simply as something of chemicals, molecules, and atoms ? Is there a "horrific" atom ? How much does a "horrific" molecule weigh ?

You have to borrow from a Theistic world view of an ultimate Moral Law in order to give any real meaning to your charge of God being morally "horrific".

Why should I regard your atheistic concept of morality as nothing more than an arbitrary "rightness" with no absolute standard ? That is just a matter of preference or opinion. You better first define what your ultimate Moral Law is if other than preference, chance, or the aribitrary result of combinations of atoms.

And I am not asking whether an Atheist can do good things. That is not the point. The point is:

What is your final standard as a moral law by which you measure all behavior if an ultimate Moral Law Giver does not exist ? Clear up that little bit of Atheistic self contradiction first.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., hold your horses. You asked me for my argument, and I’m presenting it. Once the argument is done, you’ll have your opportunity to respond. I know you want to start your defense, but please just let me get my argument out. Then I’ll go back over your posts and respond to your objections and counter-arguments.

My second question is this:

In each ...[text shortened]... er that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

Okay, And I ask you to please not use the name of my Lord Jesus Christ as a two part curse word just to annoy lovers of Christ.

That is "poisoning the well" of discussion.

Let me know when it is good for me to respond. Don't wait too long.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., hold your horses. You asked me for my argument, and I’m presenting it. Once the argument is done, you’ll have your opportunity to respond. I know you want to start your defense, but please just let me get my argument out. Then I’ll go back over your posts and respond to your objections and counter-arguments.

My second question is this:

In each ...[text shortened]... er that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

My second question is this:

In each instance where God either commanded the death or directly killed young children, would it have been possible for God to have realized His ends or goals in some other manner; some manner that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

While I muse on that I will await your defense of an Atheistic Ultimate Moral Law by which you deem to judge moral horrificness when no Ultimate Moral Law Giver exists - Atheism.

What is your objective basis for an ultimate right and wrong ?

Originally posted by jaywill

My second question is this:

In each instance where God either commanded the death or directly killed young children, would it have been possible for God to have realized His ends or goals in some other manner; some manner that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

While I muse on th ...[text shortened]... ver exists - [b]Atheism.

What is your objective basis for an ultimate right and wrong ?[/b]

Watch and learn.

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html

YouTube&feature=channel_video_title

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, one basic point I wanted to be shown directly is this: (although it has been inferred by many posts already) , There isa HUGE difference between sins like murder,theft,etc. (sins that hurt other people )and so called sins that only affect the individual making those decisions.
How Rajk or anyone else for that matter can lump homosexual activity r.
This is ridiculous thinking in my book, not to mention that prohibition has never worked.

I see what you are saying. To be honest, I do not know how to reason with the likes of Rajk999 on such issues as this. Normally, if a person has some stance I disagree with, I would try to present reasons that recommend some alternative stance; or I would try to present considerations that show that those reasons the person has undergirding his stance are insufficient; etc. But, in this case, Rajk999 already acknowledges that he has no reasons for his stance beyond blind allegiance to a book, and yet he does not see this as problematic. His stance is incredibly childish, and he is not responsive to the give and take of reasons. So, I do not really know how to proceed here. And I have other evidence to suggest that more effort would be a waste of time (here I submit the considered and patient arguments of ConrauK, which were to no avail).

Originally posted by LemonJello
I see what you are saying. To be honest, I do not know how to reason with the likes of Rajk999 on such issues as this. Normally, if a person has some stance I disagree with, I would try to present reasons that recommend some alternative stance; or I would try to present considerations that show that those reasons the person has undergirding his stance a ...[text shortened]... of time (here I submit the considered and patient arguments of ConrauK, which were to no avail).

You have just pinned down perfectly the problem with religions and religious morality.

You can't argue with it (you can argue with the people because some will come to see
that this is so and that it is wrong) because it starts with the premise that it is inerrantly true.

In the video I linked above (repeated here http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html )
The differences and problems with theistic morality are described and demonstrated better than I
can do so here, but it boils down to the fact that theistic morals are simplistic and set in stone so
wherever they are wrong or over-simplistic they can't be argued against or changed,
whereas secular morals can be discussed and if not working as intended altered to make them better.

We do, in the west, including America, have secular morality already. All those things that religion instructs,
such as punishment of adultery by stoning, or persecuting people of other faiths, witch burning, slavery,
ect ect, that are no longer permissible or even advocated by those religions (except for a few extremists)
that used to promote them is due to the progress made by secular morality.

Originally posted by jaywill

My second question is this:

In each instance where God either commanded the death or directly killed young children, would it have been possible for God to have realized His ends or goals in some other manner; some manner that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

While I muse on th ...[text shortened]... ver exists - [b]Atheism.

What is your objective basis for an ultimate right and wrong ?[/b]

According to you voluntarists, right and wrong end up conforming to whatever it may happen to be that constitutes God's will (or some such). Just ask sumydid: according to him, if God of the bible were to come down and perform basically any task (like gouging out the eyes of all living babies), the good must simply follow in tow. How exactly does yours qualify as an "objective basis for an ultimate right and wrong"? How exactly does yours not qualify as 'arbitrary' and 'subjective'? Suggesting that some particular agent somehow determines by fiat what is right or wrong; it's actually hard for me to even understand what could be more arbitrary and subjective than that take on it.