Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou are probably saying that the Bible is not reliable because you did not receive a proper explanation of how it is to be treated.
The Bible would be the ultimate measure... Let me put on my Mitch Pacwa voice for you...
Here's the thing: the Bible clearly indicates that having sex before marriage is a sin. The Bible clearly indicates that murder, theft, etc., are sins. The Bible clearly advocates charity and hard work. Those things are obvious, and that is the moral [i]root[ ...[text shortened]... actually would affirm some LGB or 'sex positive' perspective.
Do you know what I am saying?
Actually I've repeatedly explained why the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is and is not "moral":
The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has been and continues to be wide disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral".
The point is that, as such, the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'.
How is that not clear? Read the sentence in BOLD in the above quote box. That is why the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not "moral".
You can keep trying to dance around this fact, but it is what it is.
If you want to refute what I've been saying, you're going to have to reasonably demonstrate that it is untrue.
But, ultimately, it is impossible to favor any interpretation of Christian thoguht or morality that actually would affirm some LGB or 'sex positive' perspective.
It may be "impossible" for you to favor an interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin, but the fact is that many Christians and many Christian denominations have made that interpretation. This is an example of a disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral". Perhaps it is your personal prejudices and biases that make it "impossible" for you to "favor" it. You see what your prejudices and biases tell you to see.
Once again, "The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has been and continues to be wide disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not 'moral'"
Either reasonably refute this statement or concede. You need to do one or the other before our discussion can move forward.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29258
Originally posted by @fmfMany years ago I worked in a day centre for people with dementia and recall the husband of one of the centre users living with his wife AND his girlfriend.
Of course cheating on my wife would be morally unsound; what on earth is the matter with you ~ we talked about this in great detail before. Why are you asking me about it again?
On the face of it this would seem like an example of morally unsound behaviour, until one realised he had been caring for his wife for 20 years and whose dementia was so advanced she didn't even recognise him as her husband. I don't consider him having a relationship with another woman as 'cheating' nor consider his behaviour as morally unsound. Indeed, I found it quite moving the way he continued to love and care for his wife and don't begrudge him finding the human comfort he clearly needed to make life bearable.
Originally posted by @thinkofone"The point is that, as such, the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'."
[b]You are probably saying that the Bible is not reliable because you did not receive a proper explanation of how it is to be treated.
Actually I've repeatedly explained why the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is and is not "moral":
[quote]The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has b ...[text shortened]... is statement or concede. You need to do one or the other before our discussion can move forward.
Yeah, OK, I get it. You do not accept the Bible as a text that is accurate and so getting your morality from it is wrong, right? Or have I mischaracterized the position?
Obviously, that is a much bigger debate. We could start that here but IDK. I am sure these points can just present themselves naturally elsewhere and for the time being you can just acknowledge that I am someone who fully believes in the validity of the Bible.
This would seem to be the core of the discussion:
"It may be "impossible" for you to favor an interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin, but the fact is that many Christians and many Christian denominations have made that interpretation. This is an example of a disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral". Perhaps it is your personal prejudices and biases that make it "impossible" for you to "favor" it. You see what your prejudices and biases tell you to see.
Once again, "The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has been and continues to be wide disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not 'moral'" "
I am not a Protestant at all, so perhaps it will lend more credit to my position of a universal concept of Christian morality when I suggest to you to just check out the James White - Graeme Codrington debate.James White is a Greek & Hebrew language scholar and just generally a pretty good Calvinist. I am not a Calvinist... at all. But the guy clearly delineates why the original Hebrew & Greek conclusively demonstrate that Homosexuality cannot be affirmed in the Bible.
James White did many debates on the topic in the late 2000s and early 2010s but literally the gay Christian ministries stopped agreeing to debate him because the position was so utterly untenable.
Of course, homosexuals are sinners just like the rest of us and can be forgiven, but they are called to stop their sins. I am no better than they are. But to say that it is not a sin is pretty ridiculous.
To say that the lifestyle is approved of would be like saying that it is fine to proceed in your life with Christ as an alcoholic or someone who is actively fornicating. It's just not a persuasive position at all.
Why do you think it holds some water? You are just appealing to increasingly secularized churches?
If this position was so obvious, how come it has not even come into existence until 2000 years after the birth of Christ?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThat's quite interesting.
Many years ago I worked in a day centre for people with dementia and recall the husband of one of the centre users living with his wife AND his girlfriend.
On the face of it this would seem like an example of morally unsound behaviour, until one realised he had been caring for his wife for 20 years and whose dementia was so advanced she didn't ev ...[text shortened]... s wife and don't begrudge him finding the human comfort he clearly needed to make life bearable.
In Orthodoxy, we allow for divorces in cases of extreme mental debilitation where the person can no longer remotely function as a partner to their spouse, and I imagine that the above scenario would be covered.
Originally posted by @pudgenikOr once christians realize they are not sure about the creator god stuff, and atheists realize they are not sure of the complete lack thereof.
Just as Atheists generalize Christians, so do Christians generalize atheists. And why not. Because each lives in thier own world. What can be forgotten on both sides is that we are all humans, and individuals. Once the christians can come out of thier cucoon and see that everyone is a creation of God, And once the athiests can step beyond their limits to how people can think. There will never be a chance to work together with open philosiphy.
This is a weird place. I think reality outweighs myth.
Apathist, here's a thought:
Attempting to reach some publicly verifiable objective reality invariably leaves us in a stripped down version of reality. That is to say, the experiences and the composite, thick universe that we perceive suddenly is just reduced to what is provable. The provable doesn't even include our emotions or thoughts, as these are not things that we can reliably convey...
The stripped down reality is useful to cut through that which may be highly subjective, and it is especially useful to have a public forum of discussions.But does it really correspond to the reality that we face?
The debate could go into 'phenomenology.'
Perhaps it is also worth observing that science depends solely on that which is observable and measurable, and the tenets of faith about the nature of a created universe are based on incidents that occurred beyond the universe... I do not think it is fair to disqualify them or write them off because, by definition, they are not going to fit into the empirical reality that people are setting up.
... I think the word 'myth' can be equally applied to the stripped down empiricism.
Imagine stripping the diary of Anne Frank of everything that cannot be publicly verified. There'd be almost nothing left. But do we deny the reality and the experiences that she faced during that terrible period? OF course not. We accept her testimony and her experiences as a rich contribution to our human historical narrative precisely because public verificationism and empiricsm do not comprise the totality of our human reality.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleAnne Frank wasn't making assertions about supernatural phenomena, divine beings, an afterlife and a 'lake of Fire', though. She was describing Nazi occupation. Does this Anne Frank analogy actually work on anybody? It seems so facile. Does it work on you?
Imagine stripping the diary of Anne Frank of everything that cannot be publicly verified. There'd be almost nothing left. But do we deny the reality and the experiences that she faced during that terrible period?
Originally posted by @fmfThe point is that which is publicly verifiable scarcely can tell a story, and that our rich emotional and mental life is never included in this. We cannot cut out our mental and emotional life when we look at historical events, and divorce this from the relevance of what occurred. If that were the case, then that would imply we can make all manner of decisions purely based off of material concerns.
Anne Frank wasn't making assertions about supernatural phenomena, divine beings, an afterlife and a 'lake of Fire', though. She was describing Nazi occupation. Does this Anne Frank analogy actually work on anybody? It seems so facile. Does it work on you?
The point is that the 'empirical' method of understanding things is incomplete.
If we are unwilling to view the human experience solely through publicly verifiable claims, then why are we willing to view reality solely through publicly verifiable claims?
We shouldn't construct our reality solely around the empirically proven.
That was the point.
And perhaps it is worth noting that another element is the experience and lives of Saints and normal people that attest to miracles and profound mental shifts that come from realizations pertinent to God.This point is also implied in my line of reaosning.
... And yes, even realizations and mental shifts that come from other things, too. I'd never completely dismiss the claims of people of differing religious backgrounds. I'd listen to them and confront them for what they were and try to make conclusions based off of as best of an understanding as I could attain.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI'll ask again in a slightly different way: Does "the point" of this rather fatuous Anne Frank analogy actually work on you and your intellect?
The point is that which is publicly verifiable scarcely can tell a story, and that our rich emotional and mental life is never included in this. We cannot cut out our mental and emotional life when we look at historical events, and divorce this from the relevance of what occurred. If that were the case, then that would imply we can make all manner o ...[text shortened]... We shouldn't construct our reality solely around the empirically proven.
That was the point.
Or is it a little rhetorical sleight of hand you've picked up from your reading somewhere that you throw in there for people you perceive as being simpler than you?
As an 'argument', drawing a parallel between Anne Frank's account of the Nazi occupation - about which there are countless millions of pieces of evidence and eyewitness testimony - and a single source of ancient mythology and superstition making assertions about supernatural beings and humans being granted some form of immortality, is utterly ludicrous.
Surely you know - even if you think it worthy of tossing it into a blog or message board screed - that drawing the parallel and claiming it sheds light on "the 'empirical' method" is borderline sophistry, right?
Reality is not solely composed of the empirical is what the point is.
The Holocaust happened, of course, and if we are to simply look at it as the collection of physical events without thinking about the human suffering (e.g., Anne Frank and her thoughts recorded in her diary), the holocaust itself loses all context and meaning.
Thus, if we are to look at the reality of humans being solely deduced to the physical & material reality within it... it likewise is an extremely incomplete picture of the reality.
So, publicly verified evidence and material hardly compose the whole of reality.
So arguments that solely look for publicly verifiable evidence of the supernatural are entirely missing the point as it is not the material that solely constitutes reality.
Do you see my point?
I think it is a good point. It works on me.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo does "the point" of your Anne Frank analogy work on you and your intellect? Yes, it does, or no it doesn't? Your faith is actually reinforced by such rhetorical tricks?
Do you see my point?
Yeah, that's how I perceive reality.
There is a physical, material reality, but this is a purely mundane reality, just as how Wittgenstein would describe it...
And then there is the richer, fuller mental and emotional reality.
The physical reality does not comprise the totality of reality so I do not believe that something is disproven if there is not physical proof of it. Of course, it isn't necessarily proven either, but... the whole point is that public verification is not the standard for what the totality of the real is.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @divegeesterRather than answer the question you resort to insults as seems to be the norm with you now.
This is another example of you being intellectually dishonest. It is also an example of why you get called a jerk and prick.
You already know the answer to your question.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhen divegeester said "You already know the answer to your question", do you think he's lying and therefore trolling you? The reason I ask is because you do already know the answer to your question to divegeester, don't you?
Rather than answer the question you resort to insults as seems to be the norm with you now.