The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 ...[text shortened]... me to even understand what could be more arbitrary and subjective than that take on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 me to even understand what could be more arbitrary and subjective than that take on it.

Voluntarist ?

Voluntarism also refers to theological commitments—that is, specific interpretations of doctrines of Christianity—arguably held by such figures as Pierre Gassendi, Walter Charleton, Robert Boyle, Isaac Barrow, and Isaac Newton. It resulted in an empirical approach associated with early modern science. Voluntarism therefore allows that faith or belief in God can be achieved by will as opposed to requiring a prior divine gift of faith to the individual. This notion holds at least in so far as it has found favor among some historians and philosophers (e.g., the historian Francis Oakley and the philosopher Michael B. Foster). [3] A twentieth century theologian of voluntarism was James Luther Adams.

I am not sure what you are trying to saddle me with there LemonJello.

Try asking the question again. Maybe you could not assume I am a Voluntarist or that what sumyid's thought is is exactly my own also about the kids' eyes.

Can you simplify your question ? And I'll try to respond.

Originally posted by jaywill
Voluntarist ?

[quote] Voluntarism also refers to theological commitments—that is, specific interpretations of doctrines of Christianity—arguably held by such figures as Pierre Gassendi, Walter Charleton, Robert Boyle, Isaac Barrow, and Isaac Newton. It resulted in an empirical approach associated with early modern science. Voluntarism therefore allows th ...[text shortened]... n also about the kids' eyes.

Can you simplify your question ? And I'll try to respond.

I meant theological voluntarism as is, for example, generally outlined here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voluntarism-theological/

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]

Like I said above, I'll respond to your objections in due time, but not until I have the chance to get my argument out. You wanted my argument. I am presenting it. Once I'm done, we'll get to your concerns.

So, please answer my second question.

Originally posted by bbarr
Like I said above, I'll respond to your objections in due time, but not until I have the chance to get my argument out. You wanted my argument. I am presenting it. Once I'm done, we'll get to your concerns.

So, please answer my second question.

As you take the time you need to get your argument together, I also will respond with the necessary words.

A binary Yes or No may be too simplistic - when I write my response shortly.

Originally posted by jaywill
As you take the time you need to get your argument together, I also will respond with the necessary words.

A binary Yes or No may be too simplistic - when I write my response shortly.

I'm actually keeping track of the arguments you're presenting. Some of them are totally relevant and will have to be addressed, but some aren't. That's why it will be best to just wait for a bit until my argument is presented in full. I promise I'll give your objections the attention they deserve.

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).

If homosexuality is ok because it does not hurt anyone then that would void the Bible totally. Why? Here are a list of sins which dont hurt anyone ..

1 Safe fornication - no pregnancies and no disease
2 Hidden adultery - nobody finds out
3 Covetousness - lusting after your neighbours big car and big house
4 Drunkeness - stay at home and drink - without abusing anyone
5 Revilry - constant partygoing and merrymaking
6.Blasphemy - cursing God etc etc.
7 Gluttony
8 Sex with animals
9 Taking mindaltering drugs without killing yourself


Im sure there are more. A sin in the eyes of God has very little to do with who is hurt. Its about offending God.

Please, I know you dont believe in God, but that is only relevant to you, so dont use that as a reason why I should change my views.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If homosexuality is ok because it does not hurt anyone then that would void the Bible totally. Why? Here are a list of sins which dont hurt anyone ..

1 Safe fornication - no pregnancies and no disease
2 Hidden adultery - nobody finds out
3 Covetousness - lusting after your neighbours big car and big house
4 Drunkeness - stay at home and drink - wi ...[text shortened]... od, but that is only relevant to you, so dont use that as a reason why I should change my views.

Homosexuality IS ok because it doesn't hurt anyone.... does that mean I just broke the bible?


I wouldn't say all the 'sins' on your list are harmless, but 1 and 6 I can support with no caveat what-so-ever
3, 4, and 5, I can support with caveats, in that it really depends on how you define things like 'constant' in
'constant party going' or how much you covet your neighbours car.
2 I would say is wrong regardless of whether anyone finds out about it, as it has an effect on the people who
do the adulterating, even if their partners don't find out.

And why should anyone give a damn about offending something that doesn't exist?


You can't possibly know what god thinks because you can't prove that god exists, let alone that he inspired your
holy books, or that his views were recorded accurately and clearly and have not been distorted over time.

Thus it is not reasonable to use the bible as a basis for what is right or wrong or even if you were so inclined as
a basis of what god thinks is right or wrong.

If you want to continue to believe that it is wrong, then ok, but with no basis for that belief you shouldn't try to
impose (either through law or indoctrination or social pressure) that view on anyone else.

If an act, any act, is harmless, in that it doesn't hurt or effect anyone (excepting those who agree to participate in
full knowledge and sound mind ect ect, and including those external that would be upset and effected if something
bad happened ect) then there is no reason for it not to be allowed.

If an act does cause harm as well as good then you have a balancing act and it's more complex but you were talking
about acts that cause no harm.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Homosexuality IS ok because it doesn't hurt anyone.... does that mean I just broke the bible?


I wouldn't say all the 'sins' on your list are harmless, but 1 and 6 I can support with no caveat what-so-ever
3, 4, and 5, I can support with caveats, in that it really depends on how you define things like 'constant' in
'constant party going' or how mu ...[text shortened]... g act and it's more complex but you were talking
about acts that cause no harm.

This is the reason why I dont discuss the existance of God. Its not something you can discuss. Its either you believe or you dont.

Originally posted by Rajk999
This is the reason why I dont discuss the existance of God. Its not something you can discuss. Its either you believe or you dont.

Hmmm, but here we are discussing a real world consequence of that belief.

Would you at least agree that not being able to prove god's existence or the validity of what are claimed
to be his teachings that it is not reasonable to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

In other words would you agree that banning/persecuting homosexuals or gay marriage on the basis of
religion is wrong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hmmm, but here we are discussing a real world consequence of that belief.

Would you at least agree that not being able to prove god's existence or the validity of what are claimed
to be his teachings that it is not reasonable to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

In other words would you agree that banning/persecuting homosexuals or gay marriage on the basis of
religion is wrong?

If Yes and Yes, then what if later on people who like sex with animals want "Sex-with-Animal" Rights as well. Would that be acceptable to society?

Is there some line that society will draw which has nothing to do with religion, about what constitutes acceptable sexual behaviour. Plus regardless of where you draw that line there well always be deviant behaviour that would like to go beyond.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If Yes and Yes, then what if later on people who like sex with animals want "Sex-with-Animal" Rights as well. Would that be acceptable to society?

Is there some line that society will draw which has nothing to do with religion, about what constitutes acceptable sexual behaviour. Plus regardless of where you draw that line there well always be deviant behaviour that would like to go beyond.

Well I would say that you can't argue that something should be on one side of 'the line' or the other because something else is definitely on the other side of the line.

Sex with animals can be argued against quite easily from an animal rights standpoint if nothing else.

If you are interested in secular morality and how it works there are good places to go and find out, and I have a couple of links in particular that are good starting points.

Suffice it to say that it is possible to draw 'lines in the sand' without reference to any deity or other external authority.

these are well worth watching if you are interested, they are not short, but describe the issues in more detail and with more skill than I can here
I have posted them before, and If you have seen them then I apologise, but then you should already know the answer to this question if you had.


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

YouTube&feature=channel_video_title

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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 discussin in some of the more extreme variants i proposed. free will is clearly being violated

Again, which of the numbered premises in the argument I posted above do you reject? This is a simple question, and the third time I've asked. If you don't have an answer to this question, then you should probably go back and read carefully what I've written, since you're not keeping up.

Actually, I'll just post this again:

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 Rajk999
If homosexuality is ok because it does not hurt anyone then that would void the Bible totally. Why? Here are a list of sins which dont hurt anyone ..

1 Safe fornication - no pregnancies and no disease
2 Hidden adultery - nobody finds out
3 Covetousness - lusting after your neighbours big car and big house
4 Drunkeness - stay at home and drink - wi ...[text shortened]... od, but that is only relevant to you, so dont use that as a reason why I should change my views.

This is a good example of your childish reasoning in action. You have some account handed down that you unquestioningly take as inviolable on assumption of authority. If implications flow from some other account that conflict with the implications of the inviolable account, then this other account is rejected wholesale.

At any rate, yes I already know that considerations of hurt unto persons (or lack thereof) will not influence you on this; like I already said, you are not responsive to reason.

Please, I know you dont believe in God, but that is only relevant to you, so dont use that as a reason why I should change my views.

And what in the world are you talking about now? I never implied that my not believing in God is a reason why you should change your views. That does not even make sense. I meant to imply that you should rethink your position because you have no good reasons available to you that actually support it. You already seem to acknowledge the lack of reasons, but you do not infer to the need for you to revise or retract. So, whatever....

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is a good example of your childish reasoning in action. You have some account handed down that you unquestioningly take as inviolable on assumption of authority. If implications flow from some other account that conflict with the implications of the inviolable account, then this other account is rejected wholesale.

At any rate, yes I already k ...[text shortened]... ack of reasons, but you do not infer to the need for you to revise or retract. So, whatever....

So believing in God is childish? Well , Christ said :

Mark 10:14-15 ... Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Good luck to you and your amazing ability to reason.
Unfortuantely your ability to reason is limited by your human intellect.
There are things beyond this world to which your eyes are closed.
I pity your type.