• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
You can't allow absolute religious freedom in legislation because such freedom would violate the freedoms of others. It's as simple as that.

Practising religion in private where it won't significantly affect others (at least directly) is still irrational but there's no point in outlawing it.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
A quick question, if I may. Do you see homosexuality as wrong simply because of the Bible, or are there other reason you are against it? Its just, I have been debating issues like this on another forum recently, and several Christian members there have stated that if it was up to them, they would not class homosexuality as a sin. However, because the Bible and supposedly God states it is, they go along with it anyway (Mostly under the guise of 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' which personally I find a little patronizing). Now perhaps this easier for me, being an atheist in the LGBT community, but I really cannot see how someone can state 'This is wrong!' and only quote the Bible as the reason why. You don't have to have a faith to know that killing or stealing is wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence as to why the act of homosexuality is evil and something to be warned against.

You know, that's a good question.

Democrats are criticized - and even mocked - for being blindly loyal "sheep" to the Democrat Party and believing everything the President says (which isn't true), and I've heard the "Kool-Aid analogy" so many times I'm sick of it. (Despite the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the Jonestown Massacre was a mass murder, not a mass suicide; most of the victims were forced to drink the cyanide-spiked fruit punch at gunpoint and shot if they did not. Oh, and the brand was actually Flavor Aid.)

But if the Bible is the only reason someone opposes gay marriage, is he not being blindly loyal himself to written word of authors he can't even identify? Tell me THAT, why don't you.

The reasoning I hear from LDS is that humans are too naïve to understand why God would ban one thing or another, but that we should trust God because the rest of his commandments have been morally correct. This, of course, is special pleading, but logic has never stopped this type of thinking before.

Well, It was already mentioned, but I will expand a bit. Yes, the my reason to objecting to homosexuality is due to the Bible. And yes I do think that like all other commands given by god, it is to our benefit. Homosexuality aside, no one has been able to prove to me that gods laws have harmed us. And then we have Homosexuality, which at best, would be considered neutral, you cannot say that with certainty that homosexuality is a benefit or a hindrance, simply because it has only just recently become viewed differently than in the past. One of my favorite quotes says that you should examine data before making a decision, I simply do not think that we have enough data on the topic to make an absolute decision.

For a reference, this is the list of what Gods law forbids:
[SPOIL]Manslaughter.—Exodus 20:13; 21:22, 23.
Sexual immorality.—Leviticus 20:10, 13, 15, 16; Romans 1:24, 26, 27, 32; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.
Spiritism.—Deuteronomy 18:9-13; 1 Corinthians 10:21, 22; Galatians 5:20, 21.
Idolatry.—1 Corinthians 10:14.
Drunkenness.—1 Corinthians 5:11.
Stealing.—Leviticus 6:2, 4; Ephesians 4:28.
Lying.—Proverbs 6:16, 19; Colossians 3:9; Revelation 22:15.
Greed.—1 Corinthians 5:11.
Violence.—Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 22:24, 25; Malachi 2:16; Galatians 5:20.
Improper speech.—Leviticus 19:16; Ephesians 5:4; Colossians 3:8.
Misuse of blood.—Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20, 28, 29.
Refusal to provide for one’s family.—1 Timothy 5:8.
Participation in wars or political controversies of this world.—Isaiah 2:4; John 6:15; 17:16.
Use of tobacco or so-called recreational drugs.—Mark 15:23; 2 Corinthians 7:1.[/SPOIL]

Also, I would definitely say that if God would punish someone for doing something, then wouldn't doing said something be considered dangerous? You do it <=> God punishes you. Now, you may say "Then why do you believe in such a god?" Well, would you not believe in a tornado warning, just because you didn't want to get hit hit by a tornado? When the evidence suggests that his god exists, would it not be better to listen than to risk it?

And there is another thing to consider. The Bible clearly lays out gods intention to return the earth back to its Eden-like state. And when this happens, a lot of the things that are issues now, wouldn't even be a problem then. Take for instance, homosexuality. God has layed out over and over that he wants us to be happy. Could this be true if we had desires that he disapproved of? No. So it stands to reason that we simply wouldn't even have these desires.
 

Maedar

Banned
Spock, I'm sick of this. Here's something I will not put in spoiler tags, because I want everyone to see it.

Leviticus 25:44-46 says (New International Version), and I quote:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Unquote.

I can guarantee that a human trafficker who runs a slave ring dealing young girls in this day and age who presents this as a defense will just get laughs from a judge, right before he's called a monster and sentenced to life without parole.

This should end the discussion, because Leviticus is the same book of the Bible that has the damn quote that the anti-gay people keep hitting us over the head with. They never seem to mention that you can read THIS one simply by turning a few pages.

By the way, this article tries to defend the Bible:

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/10/bible-doesnt-condone-slavery.html

...unfortunately, the author of the article completely loses his credibility and becomes a stupid wingnut when he says that Mr. Obama is a "possible candidate for being the Antichrist."

Furthermore, Spock, several of those things you mentioned (the eighth one, especially) pretty much define the worst parts of the Republican Party. If approving of gay marriage is the biggest vice the Democrats have, then we're the favored ones on this world.

And please stop with the whole "divine wrath" stuff. I defy you to name an incident that was officially recognized as divine retribution where an actual date is given, recorded by witnesses on legal documents. In fact, I challenge you to name one that the Vatican recognized in recent history. (They record lots of miracles, but I've never seen them recognize something as God's wrath.)
 
Last edited:
And yes I do think that like all other commands given by god, it is to our benefit.
Ok, want to offer any proof that essentially outlawing someone's sexuality is beneficial to anyone? In fact, the case could be made that homosexuality is just as beneficial as heterosexuality.

Homosexuality aside, no one has been able to prove to me that gods laws have harmed us.
That's because you have cherry-picked the good and blatantly ignored the bad in your bible. Convincing yourself of an interpretation that conveniently ignores the disgustingly immoral portions of the bible does quite a lot for making the bible seem moral.

One of my favorite quotes says that you should examine data before making a decision, I simply do not think that we have enough data on the topic to make an absolute decision.
Actually, we do... all we really need to know is how someone's sexuality affects others. It doesn't harm anyone- it's even inherent to certain individuals, making it immoral to deny them something integral to their being.

Also, I would definitely say that if God would punish someone for doing something, then wouldn't doing said something be considered dangerous?
This literally means that you believe God's moral commands are reasonable because it's dangerous to disobey. A large part of the reason it's dangerous, at least in your mind, is because God directly punishes others for perceived sins. Circular logic at its finest.

When the evidence suggests that his god exists, would it not be better to listen than to risk it?
The evidence for the existence of a God is not even in the same plane of existence as the evidence for tornados. We can make scientific models, map wind speeds, and determine intensity based on centrifugal force and precipitation; compare that to a 6,000 year old Earth where dinosaurs walked with humans and the rational individual would immediately identify the discrepancy.

Take for instance, homosexuality. God has layed out over and over that he wants us to be happy. Could this be true if we had desires that he disapproved of? No. So it stands to reason that we simply wouldn't even have these desires.
Not only does this neglect to inform your reasoning concluding homosexuality to be negative, but it is also completely irrelevant. This hasn't happened won't happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't make any difference because it wouldn't affect how people perceived one type of sexuality in the here and now. It is causing no harm, so why make it an issue? Because one day, maybe, your God might make it undesirable (assuming it's a desire, which is flawed because sexuality is much more than that)?

Unquote. This should end the discussion, because Leviticus is the same book of the Bible that has the damn quote that the anti-gay people keep hitting us over the head with. They never seem to mention that you can read THIS one simply by turning a few pages.
Flip on over to Exodus if you want to read all about how you should treat your slaves. Unfortunately enough, female slaves aren't allowed off as easily as males, being unable to leave after 7 years. And if the slave owner wants her to "give him a son", what can you do, you know? But clearly God's morality is unquestionable and totally logical to the core. At least she can be relieved of servitude if her owner doesn't provide her clothing, food, and marital rights, and as we know, any man so morally pure as to own slaves would immediately follow this decree.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21:1-11
 
Last edited:

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Topic of Slavery:
Exodus 21:2
If you buy a Hebrew servant

God didn't command them to take a slave, but he did set out guidelines for when they did. God has ALLOWED a great many things to happen, but allowing something and condoning it are two totally different things.

The evidence for the existence of a God is not even in the same plane of existence as the evidence for tornados. We can make scientific models, map wind speeds, and determine intensity based on centrifugal force and precipitation; compare that to a 6,000 year old Earth where dinosaurs walked with humans and the rational individual would immediately identify the discrepancy.
You know what irks me the most about people who got it in for JW's? They assume. No I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth and no I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. Neither of those has a solid foundation in the bible anyways.


Furthermore, Spock, several of those things you mentioned (the eighth one, especially) pretty much define the worst parts of the Republican Party. If approving of gay marriage is the biggest vice the Democrats have, then we're the favored ones on this world.
It defines 90% of the world today, Republican and otherwise. And as I said before, I'm not a republican, so I don't know why you keep making accusations that target me and republicans at the same time.

That's because you have cherry-picked the good and blatantly ignored the bad in your bible.
You tried several times to prove this, but it was often just taking verses out of context.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Well, It was already mentioned, but I will expand a bit. Yes, the my reason to objecting to homosexuality is due to the Bible. And yes I do think that like all other commands given by god, it is to our benefit. Homosexuality aside, no one has been able to prove to me that gods laws have harmed us.
Because you are categorically ignoring the piles of evidence and reasoning presented to you in this very thread by inventing, shall we say, "creative interpretations." God can quite literally perform slaughter and political oppression on a scale unmatched by any real-world tyrant, and you excuse these acts simply because it happens to be God doing them. In other words, you dogmatically believe in God's moral perfection.

Usually your logic seems to be this:

God is perfectly good. → God's moral evaluations are perfectly accurate, and his intent is good.
God's moral evaluations are perfectly accurate, and his intent is good. → God is perfectly good.

That's circular reasoning, and it isn't even the first time. Remember this?
Aegiscalibur said:
Your logic seems to be this:

God says that the things on the list are evil. → The things on the list are evil.
The things on the list are evil. → God says that the things on the list are evil.

God says that his society is perfect. → God's society is perfect.
God's society is perfect. → God says that his society is perfect.

That's circular reasoning. If you want to show that the things on the list are evil and God's society is perfect, you need to provide a rational argument that isn't based on appealing to God's authority. After all, we were debating whether God produces accurate moral judgments, but you just keep relying on the assumption that God's moral judgments are accurate, which is what you set out to prove in the first place.
Again, is circular reasoning really the only argument you have for God's moral perfection? Could you provide arguments that don't rely on assuming what you set out to prove?

And then we have Homosexuality, which at best, would be considered neutral,
Being neutral would mean it doesn't have to be banned.

you cannot say that with certainty that homosexuality is a benefit or a hindrance, simply because it has only just recently become viewed differently than in the past.
Morality is universal. People's views in the past or today are irrelevant to the moral evaluation.

One of my favorite quotes says that you should examine data before making a decision, I simply do not think that we have enough data on the topic to make an absolute decision.
Yet you have made the decision: you have decided that homosexuality is evil.

And there is enough data to make a decision. To put it simply, no third party is harmed by consenting adults engaging in sexual activity regardless of their genders. Therefore, it is not evil.

Also, I would definitely say that if God would punish someone for doing something, then wouldn't doing said something be considered dangerous? You do it <=> God punishes you. Now, you may say "Then why do you believe in such a god?" Well, would you not believe in a tornado warning, just because you didn't want to get hit hit by a tornado?
There's a difference between God being powerful and God being morally virtuous.

As a fitting comparison, let's see how your logic would work for North Korea:
Also, I would definitely say that if Kim Jong-un would punish someone for doing something, then wouldn't doing said something be considered dangerous? You do it <=> Kim Jong-un punishes you. Now, you may say "Then why do you believe in such a national leader?" Well, would you not believe in a tornado warning, just because you didn't want to get hit hit by a tornado?
So by your logic: Kim Jong-un is powerful. → Kim Jong-un is morally virtuous.

Sounds totally legit.

When the evidence suggests that his god exists, would it not be better to listen than to risk it?
What evidence?

Is it those "the earth will shake in an unspecified location at an unspecified time" prophecies again? Even I could make better guesses.

Or that "it can't have been chance" argument, even though a simple understanding of statistics shows otherwise?

And there is another thing to consider. The Bible clearly lays out gods intention to return the earth back to its Eden-like state. And when this happens, a lot of the things that are issues now, wouldn't even be a problem then. Take for instance, homosexuality. God has layed out over and over that he wants us to be happy. Could this be true if we had desires that he disapproved of? No. So it stands to reason that we simply wouldn't even have these desires.
Morality is universal, so whatever Eden is like is irrelevant to the moral evaluation.

And why wouldn't it be a problem there anyway? What does God intend to do with people who disagree? Brainwash them, punish them eternally, or remove them from existence?
 

Maedar

Banned
Spock, slavery is an evil practice. I defy you to deny it.

Seeing as the Bible gave guidelines for its practice rather than condemning it outright, you cannot defend it.

Just like you cannot defend a Republican who gives guidelines for defining rape, instead of condemning it outright.

Rape is rape, slavery is slavery, both are crimes against humanity. Just ask any victim of either.

And you will note that Exodus is downright misogynistic about it.

By the way, Kim Jong-un is a living joke who will be hanged by South Korean-aided insurrectionists the day after they lose their last holdouts in China , and Beijing, who is already losing patience with them, says they're on their own.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
By the way, Kim Jong-un is a living joke who will be hanged by South Korean-aided insurrectionists the day after they lose their last holdouts in China , and Beijing, who is already losing patience with them, says they're on their own.
Maybe, but in the meantime he can still execute people, send them to prison camps, and so on for arbitrary reasons much like God in the Bible. You could argue that the rest of the military leadership is really running the show, but that's beside the point as far as my argument is concerned. You could replace him in my analogy with any tyrannical regime of your choosing.
 

Maedar

Banned
Maybe, but in the meantime he can still execute people, send them to prison camps, and so on for arbitrary reasons much like God in the Bible. You could argue that the rest of the military leadership is really running the show, but that's beside the point as far as my argument is concerned. You could replace him in my analogy with any tyrannical regime of your choosing.

And like Caligula, Idi Amin, and Pal Pot (to name just three) before him, he will come to a bad end, as dictators usually do. It's only a matter of time.
 
God didn't command them to take a slave, but he did set out guidelines for when they did. God has ALLOWED a great many things to happen, but allowing something and condoning it are two totally different things.
So God was up there thinking, "Man, I don't really want them to enslave their fellow human, but if they do I want them to understand a rather elaborate set of guidelines that may or may not seem to condone the practice".

You know what irks me the most about people who got it in for JW's? They assume. No I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth and no I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. Neither of those has a solid foundation in the bible anyways.
Oh good, because the JWs who post up on my campus really do believe those things, by and large. Glad to hear you aren't totally beyond help.

You tried several times to prove this, but it was often just taking verses out of context.
It's hard to prove it when you also get to decide what context is appropriate. I am not going to argue what is justified, I'm simply going to point out that the bible says some horrible things that only a certain kind of person would attempt to defend. When you get to not only choose the verses you want to follow but also what they mean and how they are justified, no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise. When you fabricate the meaning, the framework, and the justification, it's quite easy to believe everyone else is simply reading it wrong.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
Federation has a point, Spock. You are, in a sense, saying that God is willing to compromise on slavery (implying it's evil, but if you must do it, here are the guidelines) but not homosexuality) where he says it's evil and an abomination, and it won't be tolerated.

Forgive me if I say that's complete BS. You're making excuses.

I should note that neither Leviticus or Exodus even suggests that slavery is evil. However, that ONE passage fom Leviticus about homosexuality...
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Yet you have made the decision: you have decided that homosexuality is evil.

Not really. Let me kind of expand on that. Lets say that, for whatever reason, you are unsure if theft is good or bad. Until that conclusion is reached, you shouldn't steal, because once the decision is made, it is irreversible.


As a fitting comparison, let's see how your logic would work for North Korea:
That specific example, was more of an argument for existence, not morality. People would like to say god doesn't even exist just so they can get out of things. You could deny that Kim Jong-un even existed, but that wouldn't stop him would it? That was the point I was trying to make there.


What evidence?

Is it those "the earth will shake in an unspecified location at an unspecified time" prophecies again? Even I could make better guesses.

Or that "it can't have been chance" argument, even though a simple understanding of statistics shows otherwise?

Combination of those and several others.

I could list them specifically, if you want, but I won't waste my breath if you wont read it anyways.


And why wouldn't it be a problem there anyway? What does God intend to do with people who disagree? Brainwash them, punish them eternally, or remove them from existence?

The entire point of allowing humans to rule was to show that humans ruling themselves will eventually lead to the downfall of the human race. So once the race does destroy itself, it will be a fact that the only was life can go on in this planet is with a non-human ruler. So if a person disagrees with that, then there will be the fact that human rulership busted up the earth in the past. Let me provide a legal example from one of my books. Once a specific type of court case is fought, then when other similar cases pop up, they use the original case as a prerequisite, to make the judgement much more swift. It would be the same way, those people who disagree would be proven wrong before they even started.


Finally, I apologize for not responding to our earlier debate, The posts just got very long and I just didn't have the time to write such a long post. But if its all the same, there are one or two things I would like to either clarify, or ask you to clarify, if that's alright with you.

There's a difference between rationally stating that he exists and dogmatically worshiping him as an authority figure. There is also the option of not worshiping any god, you know.
You seem to have an idea of what worship is in you mind already,, do you mind if I ask what that is?

Secondly, we seemed to have focused mostly on the fact that god would be the ruler of this "Kingdom". But he would not be the only ruler. The Bible actually states that god will give the right to rule to his son Jesus, and that he will rule with a group of humans from earth. So actually, calling the kingdom a dictatorship, would be inaccurate.

Spock, slavery is an evil practice. I defy you to deny it.
Yes, slavery is bad, I won't deny it, but there are a few things that should be considered here. One of them being, the fact that slavery can be undone at any time, things like murder, cannot. You can always free a slave. Secondly, many people associate slavery with abuse, that was not part of the culture at that time, slaves were more associated with a butler than a dog. And third, after a certain amount of time, they had to release the slave, or the slave could chose to stay with his master, and many did chose to stay, would they have stayed if they were abused?

In summary, yes slavery is bad, but, I'd say not abusing the slave decreases the amount of evil.

Oh good, because the JWs who post up on my campus really do believe those things, by and large. Glad to hear you aren't totally beyond help.
Eh, you sure they're JW's? Because I don't know a single one who believes those things. But that's just me.

It's hard to prove it when you also get to decide what context is appropriate. I am not going to argue what is justified, I'm simply going to point out that the bible says some horrible things that only a certain kind of person would attempt to defend. When you get to not only choose the verses you want to follow but also what they mean and how they are justified, no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise. When you fabricate the meaning, the framework, and the justification, it's quite easy to believe everyone else is simply reading it wrong.
Perhaps. When using the context, really the Bible should be taken as a whole AND individual details examined.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. When using the context, really the Bible should be taken as a whole AND individual details examined.
Ok, and? Ok, say I was to write a book on how to live fruitfully, and, to give you the benefit of the doubt, it was more or less a good set of guidelines to live life by. In the text, however, I condone slavery, murder, genocide, and condemn harmless things like homosexuality and belief in other Gods. Why is it then that anyone should ignore the ludicrously repulsive portions for the few common sense bits that the bible managed to get right?

Are you going to ignore the rest of my points...?
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Ok, and? Ok, say I was to write a book on how to live fruitfully, and, to give you the benefit of the doubt, it was more or less a good set of guidelines to live life by. In the text, however, I condone slavery, murder, genocide, and condemn harmless things like homosexuality and belief in other Gods. Why is it then that anyone should ignore the ludicrously repulsive portions for the few common sense bits that the bible managed to get right?

Are you going to ignore the rest of my points...?
Decent example, but there are a few things here. 1) Are you an all-powerful being that created the universe AND humans? 2) So, lets say that those things that, in your opinion, are wrong about the Bible, are excessive. When weighed in with the benefits, does it really matter? You are being offered the chance to life forever on an earth with no war, disease, famine, death, suffering, pain, etc. etc. And you would throw that away, because, you believe that to guys should be able to have sex even if they do not have the desire to, and because god acted in a way that in your opinion, could have been handled differently.
 
Decent example, but there are a few things here. 1) Are you an all-powerful being that created the universe AND humans?
Does that lend any credence at all to moral determination? If I built an insular community of sentient robots, would I be given the right to make up my own morality to impose on them? Morality doesn't come from divine command.

2) So, lets say that those things that, in your opinion, are wrong about the Bible, are excessive. When weighed in with the benefits, does it really matter?
This is part of the reason I find religion so dangerous. Adherents are willing to accept immoral and/or irrational dogma because they feel they will eventually be rewarded and their bigotry will be insignificant compared to the good that they believe will come later. Despite lacking any sort of reasonable evidence, people are willing to treat others unfairly because they feel it won't matter later.

And you would throw that away, because, you believe that to guys should be able to have sex even if they do not have the desire to, and because god acted in a way that in your opinion, could have been handled differently.
Two men, two women, two squirrels- it doesn't matter at all, as long as there is consent. I'm willing to throw away a delusion to remain a morally sound individual, absolutely.

This isn't just a driving issue for me, this is an issue for entire generations growing up in a vastly more acceptant society that even their parents or grandparents.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/millennials-leave-religion-over-gay-issues
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Does that lend any credence at all to moral determination? If I built an insular community of sentient robots, would I be given the right to make up my own morality to impose on them? Morality doesn't come from divine command.
Yes, you would have that right. Now, granted, it wouldn't be a good idea to make them suffer unnecessarily, but if you so wished, you technically would have that right. There is a huge difference between having the power to do something, and how you actually use said power.


This is part of the reason I find religion so dangerous. Adherents are willing to accept immoral and/or irrational dogma because they feel they will eventually be rewarded and their bigotry will be insignificant compared to the good that they believe will come later. Despite lacking any sort of reasonable evidence, people are willing to treat others unfairly because they feel it won't matter later.
Tell me, how exactly am I treating people unfairly? I let them live their lives, I do not get involved with the political affairs of our nation, I do not command them to do anything, I do not even treat them differently when I am around them. I actually have a few friends on this site that are gay, want me to send you our conversations? You'll see that I act no differently to them than I would any other person.

Two men, two women, two squirrels- it doesn't matter at all, as long as there is consent. I'm willing to throw away a delusion to remain a morally sound individual, absolutely.
Say homosexuals didn't exist, would you throw away said "delusion", over not having the rights to homosexual acts then? If no one wants to do it anyways, then why fight for the right to do it?
 
Yes, you would have that right. Now, granted, it wouldn't be a good idea to make them suffer unnecessarily, but if you so wished, you technically would have that right. There is a huge difference between having the power to do something, and how you actually use said power.
That's simply not how morality works. The "might is right" approach to morality is as close to empirically flawed as any moral system can be, and you are suggesting we take it and apply it to everything. Morality is independent of humans, independent of Gods- it exists as an effect of the way the universe works, not as the product of a command.

Quick question: if God came down tomorrow and told you murder was right, would you accept it because he told you so?

Tell me, how exactly am I treating people unfairly?
Did I say you were? I wasn't talking about you at all, I was talking about others who are willing to take their beliefs and project them onto others in the form of discriminatory laws and social isolation. One of the few things I actually like about the LDS is the fact that they generally aren't bigoted idiots willing to harm others for their beliefs. I'm never trying to attack you personally, ever. If I do, just tell me so, and I'll cut it out. I will attack your beliefs... so if you can't separate yourself from your beliefs you might be better off ignoring me.

Say homosexuals didn't exist, would you throw away said "delusion", over not having the rights to homosexual acts then? If no one wants to do it anyways, then why fight for the right to do it?
People DO have homosexual tendencies. They are born with that predisposition. Even if no one anywhere was homosexual or would ever be homosexual, I would still want that right because limiting freedoms unnecessarily is harmful in every context.

For a brief analogy, consider this: No one anywhere wants to unstitch every fiber of a shirt by hand, so congress outlaws it. Is that moral? Furthermore, is that reasonable?
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Finally, I apologize for not responding to our earlier debate, The posts just got very long and I just didn't have the time to write such a long post. But if its all the same, there are one or two things I would like to either clarify, or ask you to clarify, if that's alright with you.
It is mostly the same stuff as now. You need to prove God's moral virtue without relying on assuming it in the first place, and give better reasoning for your supposed evidence for his existence. There are two separate points here:

1) Does God exist?

and

2) Is God, as described in the Bible, morally virtuous?

Not really. Let me kind of expand on that. Lets say that, for whatever reason, you are unsure if theft is good or bad. Until that conclusion is reached, you shouldn't steal, because once the decision is made, it is irreversible.
But you have pretty clearly said that homosexuality is a sin and thus evil. Are you going back on that?

EDIT: And that is a bit too clear-cut of a division. You need to judge the probability of whether it is right or wrong and act on the best knowledge you have. Why should "unsure" imply that we should by default avoid it as if it was evil?

That specific example, was more of an argument for existence, not morality. People would like to say god doesn't even exist just so they can get out of things. You could deny that Kim Jong-un even existed, but that wouldn't stop him would it? That was the point I was trying to make there.
Obviously that is what your strict wording was, but you were using it in an argument over whether God is morally good, so it is going to be taken as an argument in favor of that position.

If you admit that power does not imply moral virtue, that's fine, but the obvious next question is whether this has anything to do with the matter at hand. You are only saying, "If there is evidence that God exists, we should believe that he exists." But nobody is questioning that proposition; they are questioning whether that evidence exists.

How does this help you prove God's moral virtue in any way? Or God's existence for that matter?

Combination of those and several others.

I could list them specifically, if you want, but I won't waste my breath if you wont read it anyways.
Well, let's talk about these two at a general level.

1) Vague prophecies.

If I were to say "The earth shall shake" and not specify any specific time, space, or other quantities, it would only be a matter of time until it took place. Why? Because earthquakes are known to happen, so they will probably take place eventually.

If I were to say "The earth shall shake more than usually" and not specify any specific time, space, or other quantities, it would only be a matter of time until it took place. Why? Because the frequency and strength of earthquakes vary depending on a variety of factors, so it is very likely that there will be periods with more and stronger earthquakes.

It's like taking a coin and saying, "I will get heads at an unspecified time." Unless you get tails every single time, it is bound to happen. The more you try to flip the coin, the more likely it is. Simple statistics. Do you want me to spell out the exact math on this?

Now, if you were able to perfectly list the outcome of the first 100,000 coin flips, it would be impressive.


2) "It can't be chance" argument.

Why can't it be chance? If we had been unlucky and the laws of physics in our universe or conditions on Earth did not support humans evolving, we wouldn't be here today. There would be no one wondering about why we are here or making up religions. Do you see intelligent beings on Venus or Mars following their own religious dogma? No. Why? Because conditions were such that no intelligent life appeared. You can't be wondering about the reason of your existence if you don't exist.

Therefore, if we know that a person exists, there is a 100 % chance that conditions had been suitable for his existence.

Say you have a lottery. It is unlikely for any one person to win it, but it is very likely that someone does. And when that person does win, we know with a 100 % certainty that he won. Sure, someone else could have won, but they didn't. This is no proof of the lottery being rigged; it could have just been chance. Again, simple statistics.


The entire point of allowing humans to rule was to show that humans ruling themselves will eventually lead to the downfall of the human race. So once the race does destroy itself, it will be a fact that the only was life can go on in this planet is with a non-human ruler. So if a person disagrees with that, then there will be the fact that human rulership busted up the earth in the past. Let me provide a legal example from one of my books. Once a specific type of court case is fought, then when other similar cases pop up, they use the original case as a prerequisite, to make the judgement much more swift. It would be the same way, those people who disagree would be proven wrong before they even started.
So you are just assuming that everyone will agree with God. Well, could you answer what he is going to do if not?

But regardless, your reasoning is horribly flawed because you can't judge individuals based on what other people have done. Stop treating mankind as a unitary group. Morality doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, you need a separate argument for why God's rule would be better. If a ruler screws up, it by itself in no way implies that another ruler won't. It is all the more suspect in this case because God has set up the initial conditions and interfered on many occasions, contributing to the original downfall.


You seem to have an idea of what worship is in you mind already,, do you mind if I ask what that is?
Accepting him as a moral authority or even as an absolute moral authority, like you seem to do. In other words, dogmatically believing that something is right or wrong simply because he says so.


Secondly, we seemed to have focused mostly on the fact that god would be the ruler of this "Kingdom". But he would not be the only ruler. The Bible actually states that god will give the right to rule to his son Jesus, and that he will rule with a group of humans from earth. So actually, calling the kingdom a dictatorship, would be inaccurate.
It doesn't matter for my arguments whether it is a dictatorship or an oligarchy where the ruling class is doing the oppression. The key point is that it is a tyranny where individual liberties are suppressed. Just look at North Korea; it is not as though Kim Jong-un carries out all government functions by himself, but that doesn't make it a morally admirable state.
 
Last edited:

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
That's simply not how morality works. The "might is right" approach to morality is as close to empirically flawed as any moral system can be, and you are suggesting we take it and apply it to everything. Morality is independent of humans, independent of Gods- it exists as an effect of the way the universe works, not as the product of a command.

Quick question: if God came down tomorrow and told you murder was right, would you accept it because he told you so?
Good question. And I don't know. But what I do know is this: 1) Even if he said it was okay, I most likely still wouldn't do it. 2) He wouldn't say that. I believe the expression is "cross that bridge when you come to it"

Now, secondly. It has not so much to do with might, but more, legal principles. Let me explain. If you were to bring something into existence that was previously nonexistent, then by the legal principles of the world, it belongs to you. You can do with it as you please. Now that doesn't mean you necessarily should. You CAN tell something what to do, but you shouldn't give it commands that it physically or mentally is incapable of, or abusive.


People DO have homosexual tendencies. They are born with that predisposition. Even if no one anywhere was homosexual or would ever be homosexual, I would still want that right because limiting freedoms unnecessarily is harmful in every context.

For a brief analogy, consider this: No one anywhere wants to unstitch every fiber of a shirt by hand, so congress outlaws it. Is that moral? Furthermore, is that reasonable?
But the thing is, no one would be born with homosexual tendencies. That's just it. And perhaps god will lift the law because just plain no one will care, but I can't say that for certain now can I? All, I'm saying is, that it simply won't even be an issue then. And you would still be willing to fight for it? Doesn't seem like something worth bothering with to me. And remember, this is coming from a bisexual.
 

Maedar

Banned
Yes, slavery is bad, I won't deny it, but there are a few things that should be considered here. One of them being, the fact that slavery can be undone at any time, things like murder, cannot. You can always free a slave. Secondly, many people associate slavery with abuse, that was not part of the culture at that time, slaves were more associated with a butler than a dog. And third, after a certain amount of time, they had to release the slave, or the slave could chose to stay with his master, and many did chose to stay, would they have stayed if they were abused?

In summary, yes slavery is bad, but, I'd say not abusing the slave decreases the amount of evil.

Okay, I see the problem. You are confusing "sins" with "crimes". They are two different things.

A "sin" is the drive that causes a mortal to commit an act of evil. A "crime" is the actual act of evil. In fact, some group them into the Seven Deadly Sins, as impulses that drive mortals to commit evil acts.

As you said, murder is a "crime", and because crimes are actual actions, they cannot be reversed. Even if a murder is unsuccessful, the attempt was still made, and the victim likely will never trust the would-be killer again. What is done cannot be undone. A

Sins may cause someone to commit crimes, but they aren't the crimes themselves. Sins are the intentions, drives, and causes that cause man to commit evil deeds, or crimes. As such, a sin can be redeemed. A sinner can make amends for the crime he caused - if it indeed came to that - and possibly find redemption.

Here's an example. A well-dressed businessman is walking down the sidewalk, when all of a sudden, a teenager rushes towards him from the opposite direction, barrels into him, knocks him over, and causes him to spill his coffee on himself.

The kid apologizes and helps him get up, but now the man is angry. For a brief moment, he's furious and would like nothing better than to punch this careless brat in the face.

Now this is a mild case of sin, anger. If the man decides to let it go, it will pass, and it's obviously too grey for the Powers that Be to notice. But, if he lost control and really punched the kid, he's crossed the line, and it's become a crime.

And if he goes too far and kicks the kid in the head after doing that, sending him to the hospital, well, it becomes far worse.

Now multiply that by a thousand, and think of the cruelest tyrants and despots in history who started out because they were angry at someone.

I'm pretty sure that's how Fred Phelps because the guy he is. And given that he lost his license to practice law over frivolous lawsuits, maybe some greed was there too.
 
Top