Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/01/2010 06:36:21 AM · #3576

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required?

Something just occurred to me.....

If you were given concrete proof that God did not exist today, tomorrow you would live a life of self-centered hedonism and debauchery.

And you wonder why so many reject your God?

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/01/2010 06:52:26 AM · #3577

[off topic] I wonder, if half the time and resources given to this benign argument where aimed at the impoverished, how much better the world would be? [/off topic]

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/01/2010 07:07:18 AM · #3578

Originally posted by alans_world:

[off topic] I wonder, if half the time and resources given to this benign argument where aimed at the impoverished, how much better the world would be? [/off topic]

And just half the money raised for the "battle" of Prop 8 in California... boggles the mind, doesn't it?

01/01/2010 08:12:35 AM · #3579

Originally posted by alans_world:

[off topic] I wonder, if half the time and resources given to this benign argument where aimed at the impoverished, how much better the world would be? [/off topic]

Yeah, really....

It pretty much seems to me that this is just beating my head against the wall. It distresses me terribly how these people who claim to be good and right can be so intent on their persecution and discrimination of an entiore segment of our society.

The moderates claim that the fundamentalists don't speak for them, yet they're in the same camp when it comes to the judging of gays as an abomination.......that does too much to blur the lines for me.

I can't do this any more. This newest of the righteous seems even scarier to me than anyone else I've met in this discussion.

He's simply confirmed for me just how destructive and dangerous organized religion can be, why it scares me, and why I want nothing to do with it.

I can only hope, and do what I can as someone who cares for his friends, that what little I can do as far as stepping up to the plate and trying my best to support human rights will help overcome these people.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/01/2010 11:08:48 AM · #3580

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
It's funny how Christianity is always accused of being so oppressive, discriminatory, and exclusive when if you examine history all the societies that have tried to eliminate religion (namely communist China and the Soviet Union) ended up being more oppressive, cruel, and violent than the religions they were trying to destroy. At least in China and Russia, it seems like Christianity has brought more self-sacrifice, peace, and social justice than atheism.

. . .

During the Inquisition people were violently killed in the name of Christianity. However, the motives behind the Inquisition were not Christian motives, but ones of political power and personal greed. The Inquisition was horrendous, and it's unfortunate that it was conducted in the name of Christianity, but the true ulterior motive was political, not religious.

Please apply your own argument to communist China and the Soviet Union.

Please also note that neither of those societies "conduct[ed]" the society "in the name of [atheism]" (unlike the Inquisition), but rather in the name of Communism and/or Marxism - specifically Maoism (China) and Stalinism (Soviet Russia). These were, ultimately, personality cults whose tenets were designed to further the "political power and personal greed" of the designated leaders. They were in no way societies based on rational, scientific thought - indeed they were highly irrational political cultures, with this irrationality being the source of their ultimate downfall and dissolution. Even China, which still remains a nominally communist state was required to mitigate the most egregious aspects of its social and political structure in order to preserve other aspects of the system. The adoption of atheism by both states was driven by the desire to reduce competition for the political and social loyalty of the citizenry and eliminate exposure to rival belief systems - in other words, they banned churches for the same reason they censored media and literature, the cult could not allow citizens to be exposed to anything that might undermine the citizens loyalty to and dependency on the state and the "great leader."

You are not only making a logically inconsistent argument (applying special pleading to separate your own "Christian" belief from other christian belief systems for which you find unappealing aspects) but are also making a historically ignorant argument.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 11:37:15.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/01/2010 11:19:43 AM · #3581

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:
Hm? What now? What's the argument being made that logic and reason can be used to defeat atheism?

I will simplify my argument for you.

If you're an atheist that calls for social justice in the world (of which there are many), you're idea of justice and injustice stems from a supernatural standard of justice, therefore you believe in the existence of the supernatural and are thus not atheist.

Well, that's just stupid. Sorry. You can't just make shit up and think you've arrived at some perfect unassailable construction of logic that turns every atheist on the planet into a gibbering idiot. I can't believe anyone would have to point this out to you, but THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL STANDARD OF JUSTICE. That's just plain dumb. I won't even ask you to prove it. What would be the point?

But let's say there is a supernatural standard of justice. What the hell, were all throwing reason and logic out the window. Prove to me that the the supernatural standard of justice does not arise from people trying to deal with the body thetans attached to one's meat thetan.

01/01/2010 11:36:12 AM · #3582

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you're an atheist that calls for social justice in the world (of which there are many), you're idea of justice and injustice stems from a supernatural standard of justice, therefore you believe in the existence of the supernatural and are thus not atheist.

No. Please see my post above, which provides one argument for the derivation of objective moral standards derived from non-supernatural bases. You don't have to agree with it, but you will need to show where the argument is logically flawed or inconsistent. (This is likely to be difficult - for you - and frustrating - for us - because you have not shown a very good understanding of logic in general, but perhaps Doc can help you out.) There are also other formulations of such naturalistic bases for morality, the formulation I provided being only one, although one which I find persuasive.

More generally to the idea of "human decency," the very existence of social groups would seem to inherently give rise to a need for social behaviors that favor the continued existence of the group. Thus, from a naturalistic perspective, individuals who have "human decency" are those individuals whose behavior conforms to these social requirements, such as a recognition of and desire for "fairness." If social groups - families, tribes, villages - were desirable from an evolutionary perspective - that is, they encouraged the passing on of the group's genetics by making the group more successful at breeding (which they most obviously do) - evolutionary processes would have favored individuals with genetic traits for "fairness" - empathy being the most obvious. So we now have a materialistic bases for "fairness" flowing from both genetic and social influences. Your hypothetical child raised in isolation until age 20 would probably have the genetic predisposition to empathy that almost all humans are born with, but having been isolated from any sort of society she would likely have no idea how to socially utilize these traits. Since such an experiment is morally repugnant - again see my post above for why this would be objectively morally wrong from a naturalistic perspective - we can only speculate.

01/01/2010 11:59:57 AM · #3583

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not going to be able to continue this because my parents are here, but what if an individual thinks the "decent" thing to do would be to try to cure someone of their homosexuality or to prevent them from acting on their perverse desires. Obviously you would disagree with them, but what would you appeal to in your quest to try to show him the error of his ways? Anything other than your personal experience? I think Johnny is trying to get at this problem (although he's not doing an awesome job at it).

One could try to persuade or convince, but could not morally act in a way that restricted the moral autonomy of the other - that is that prevents the homosexual individual from being a full moral participant in the social structure. (Which means voting, holding office, being employed, living where one wants, and - yes - marriage (aka, participating in a social and political institution which provides certain societal benefits and incurs other societal obligations.) People who engage in consensual, homosexual behaviors are not preventing others from acting in a way that restricts the moral autonomy of others, but those who seek to prevent homosexual men and women from engaging in full societal participation are seeking to restrict their moral autonomy. (And please - I'm looking at you jonnyphoto - do not make the argument that restricting your ability to order the society to your liking based on your religious tenets is restricting your autonomy; that amounts to an "I'm being oppressed because I am not being allowed to oppress others argument" - again, see my previous post for why this is not a morally acceptable stance.)

Therefore, if one disagrees with homosexuality - sees it as "perverse" - then the morally acceptable role is to engage in social persuasion to try and convince those who disagree to not engage in the perceived unacceptable behaviors. What is not morally acceptable is to physically restrict - meaning through law and custom as well as up to and including actual physical intimidation and/or violence - the action of those who disagree with you, when their action does not impinge on your own or other's moral autonomy. Thus, you can preach against homosexuality from the pulpit, but if Adam and Steve want to get hitched down at the courthouse, the moral obligation of the society is to allow them to do so.

01/01/2010 12:00:59 PM · #3584

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Please also not that neither of those societies did not "conduct" the society "in the name of [atheism]" (unlike the Inquisition), but rather in the name of Communism and/or Marxism - specifically Maoism (China) and Stalinism (Soviet Russia).

Right... Oppression was brought to the Soviet Union in the name of communism with political ulterior motives. Oppression was brought during the Inquisition in the name of Christianity with political ulterior motives.

My argument is valid. The leaders of Soviet Russia were no more atheist than the leaders of the Inquisition were Christian, it was all only in name. In both cases, it was all politics.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You know perfectly well this is a ridiculous hypthesis.......nobody's going to think that destroying your home by fire is the decent thing to do.

Explain to me how the cognizant, willful destruction is thoughtful?

In the mind of the person who burned down the house it was thoughtful. It's the thought that counts right?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

So, are you claiming that with the exception of you good Christians, the rest of the world is basically anarchy and mayhem? That humans are willfully bent on destruction through their own selfish, hedonistic, gratification?

I'm not saying that at all. The world is full of non-Christians that do more "good" than Christians. Whether you like it or not, a good majority of our western morals come from Christianity. Christianity doesn't make all Christians good. Christianity gives the world a benchmark for judging what good should be.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Some of us simply understand that being, and doing good, is its own reward.

It's sad that concept is incomprehensible to you.

I was posing a question to you Jeb, not making a statement. Belief in God is certainly not required to do something decent. If that was the case then religious folk would be the only decent people around. I was simply asking you why you do decent things? Just cause?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If you were given concrete proof that God did not exist today, tomorrow you would live a life of self-centered hedonism and debauchery.

And you wonder why so many reject your God?

Wrong. You're own predetermined ideas are keeping you from seeing what Christianity is all about. Christianity is based on Christ. Christ came and died for sinners in order that they could be saved (in other words he did something decent). Christ was already God, so how could he get an even greater reward? You see, Christ, the basis of Christianity, did something nice for people out of genuine love, not for a reward.

So, if I was given concrete proof that God did not exist today, I would continue living a life of self-sacrifice and humility because first and foremost Christianity has taught me to love.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It pretty much seems to me that this is just beating my head against the wall. It distresses me terribly how these people who claim to be good and right can be so intent on their persecution and discrimination of an entiore segment of our society.

I can't do this any more. This newest of the righteous seems even scarier to me than anyone else I've met in this discussion.

He's simply confirmed for me just how destructive and dangerous organized religion can be, why it scares me, and why I want nothing to do with it.

I can only hope, and do what I can as someone who cares for his friends, that what little I can do as far as stepping up to the plate and trying my best to support human rights will help overcome these people.

Well Jeb, you've succeeded in repeating yourself, you made me sound horrible, and you made yourself sound righteous. Try putting your aside your predetermined beliefs for one moment so that I don't have to repeat myself again.

Christianity as a religion alone does not judge one segment of the society. Christianity judges the entire world because it teaches that all are sinners and all are abominations in God's eyes. The only way to be righteous in God's eyes is through his son, Jesus Christ. You see Jeb, you think that Christians do good to get rewards. Actually, that's more like Islam and Judaism. Christianity teaches that there is absolutely nothing we can do that will earn us anything.God rewards us for believing in his son and God does not reward us for doing something good or decent. Christianity teaches that Christ did everything for us that is required to receive salvation, or some sort of reward, and there is nothing we can do that will earn us a reward in heaven. So, a true Christian does not do something good in hopes of getting rewarded for it. Instead, a true Christian does something good simply out of love because he/she believes that is exactly what Christ did for them (something good out of sheer love). If you want rewards for doing something good then Christianity is the wrong religion for you.

I agree that organized religion is scary when it is combined with political power. If you look at a country like China, where Christians are oppressed and have zero political power, Christianity does not harm in places like that. Here in America you get a bunch of Republican idiots using Christianity to gain more political capital, and yes, that is nasty. Organized religion is abused by society for political gain. Organized religion is not the abuser.

Stop confusing organized religion and history with true Christianity. And stop confusing me with some hateful, discriminatory jerk. I never said that I personally discriminate against anyone for any belief. Just like the Bible never gives permission to discriminate against gays.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 12:08:38.

01/01/2010 12:09:28 PM · #3585

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Therefore, if one disagrees with homosexuality - sees it as "perverse" - then the morally acceptable role is to engage in social persuasion to try and convince those who disagree to not engage in the perceived unacceptable behaviors. What is not morally acceptable is to physically restrict - meaning through law and custom as well as up to and including actual physical intimidation and/or violence - the action of those who disagree with you, when their action does not impinge on your own or other's moral autonomy. Thus, you can preach against homosexuality from the pulpit, but if Adam and Steve want to get hitched down at the courthouse, the moral obligation of the society is to allow them to do so.

I agree with that statement %100, and it's what I've been trying to argue this entire time.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 12:09:47.

01/01/2010 12:14:06 PM · #3586

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly a personal choice separated from physical forces would require a supernatural explanation. Every firing of every synapse in your brain would qualify as a "physical force" so we would be talking about a dualistic "mind" controlling the physical brain. Obviously that is not possible in Materialism.

No matter how hard you try to make it so, atheism does not equal materialism, and the perception that you are in control of your actions does not require supernatural explanation.

I just don't know how to get through to you. Talk to Shutterpuppy, he can at least outline the "free will requires the supernatural argument" because I know he understands it.

Almost - contra-causal free will requires some sort of dualism/supernatural explanation, and this is the sort of free will that religious people are generally concerned with - the idea that one has a physically separated "soul" that provides the individual with the ability to make moral choices divorced from any naturalistic process.

The debate in the free-will research right now is whether our perception of free will is illusory - we really do not have free will and are merely highly complex automatons - or whether natural processes can give rise to some level of actual, not just perceived, range of choice - that is, while the range will be limited by natural processes, there may well be some mechanism that essentially provides us with a list of options when faced with a choice based on the interaction of our genetic predispositions and environmental influences. If the latter case is accurate, then the question further becomes what is the effect of environment versus genetic "hard-wiring"; although, even in the former case, the influence of environmental factors is not ruled out.

The point that Doc is getting at is that either of these options necessarily eliminate the sort of religious free will that he, Bear and the other believers find most important.

01/01/2010 12:23:30 PM · #3587

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Therefore, if one disagrees with homosexuality - sees it as "perverse" - then the morally acceptable role is to engage in social persuasion to try and convince those who disagree to not engage in the perceived unacceptable behaviors. What is not morally acceptable is to physically restrict - meaning through law and custom as well as up to and including actual physical intimidation and/or violence - the action of those who disagree with you, when their action does not impinge on your own or other's moral autonomy. Thus, you can preach against homosexuality from the pulpit, but if Adam and Steve want to get hitched down at the courthouse, the moral obligation of the society is to allow them to do so.

I agree with that statement %100, and it's what I've been trying to argue this entire time.

Excellent! But what you fail to grasp is that your arguments for the supposed "perversity," immorality or incorrectness of homosexuality are completely unpersuasive outside of your own religious reference. Your arguments, in the end, amount to a plea that homosexuality is a "sin" - a behavior that is proscribed because it is proscribed, not because of any inherent harm flowing from that action. While the non-believer can certainly believe in morality - actions that are objectively "good" or "bad" - there is no room for the concept of sin.

If you want to persuade outside of your own religious reference, you must put forth arguments that do not rely on an acceptance of your base assumptions. Of course, if you are here merely to proselytize (ineffectively, I will add), then carry on.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 12:30:35.

01/01/2010 12:34:02 PM · #3588

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're own predetermined ideas are keeping you from seeing what Christianity is all about.

What predetermination would this be? I'm 54 years old, was not indoctrinated into any religion whatsoever. I base the way that I feel about organized religions on the experience I get from people like you. You have no idea what you sound like to someone outside your narrow purview. I don't care for it because it means that life has no meaning outside of fealty to a being whose existence you cannot prove.

I choose to live life with and for the family and friends I coexist with here and now.

That you cannot comprehend that one could achieve joy and goodwill for one another without your concept of God is just that much more of a reason why it doesn't work for me. You have your "Answer"......you spend all your time making the questions in life fit. That's no kind of life for me.

If there is some ultimate judgement, I'll take my chances based on the life I live now, not on the off chance that my sucking up, or trying to live by some 2000 year old, unbelievably controversial tome is going to save me.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/01/2010 01:02:50 PM · #3589

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're own predetermined ideas are keeping you from seeing what Christianity is all about.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What predetermination would this be?

Well, let's see...
"You have no idea what you sound like to someone outside your narrow purview." -Jeb
So, you think my understanding is narrow.

"you cannot comprehend that one could achieve joy and goodwill for one another without your concept of God" -Jeb
So, you think that I can't have joy apart from God.

"you spend all your time making the questions in life fit" -Jeb
So, you think Christians spend all there time focused on questions and never have peace about what they believe.

"I'll take my chances based on the life I live now" -Jeb
So, you think God grants salvation based on how you live.

"or trying to live by some 2000 year old, unbelievably controversial tome is going to save me." -Jeb
So, you believe that the Bible is controversial.

You're never going to have a logical, intelligent, respectful conversation with a Christian with those assumptions. I don't care how old you are.

And for the record...
My understanding is not narrow. I've seen what Christianity is like in 9 different countries. I have had good friends that were Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and atheist. I've seen what Buddhism is like in Korea and Japan. I have good friends that are missionaries in other countries. I've had conversations with people who are Christian and gay. I have had gay friends. My aunt is a Lutheran pastor that has a large gay fellowship at her church. And, to top it all off, I was once a skeptic who did not believe in Christianity and who believed the same things you're saying right now. I don't think I have a narrow understanding of these sorts of things.

And...
I have plenty of joy in my life outside of my faith. My family, my wife, my pet, traveling, photography, movies, board games, music, etc... all bring me joy.

I spend more time living according to the answers I've found, than trying to find answers to new questions.

I live believing that I can't earn my salvation, and that's the first thing a person needs to realize before becoming a Christian. You're not a Christian because you believe you can do something good to earn the favor of whatever god might exist.

The Bible is only controversial because it's misused, and because people like you believe other people's interpretations of the Bible rather than reading it and interpreting it for yourself.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 13:04:17.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/01/2010 03:22:54 PM · #3590

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your statement that "the perception that you are in control does not require supernatural explanations" is true. But that wasn't what I was saying, was it? I was saying the ACTUAL control requires supernatural explanations. Don't twist my words.

I'm not twisting your words, but I'm also not willing to make the same additional assumption. You've already concluded that there IS actual control vs. just the perception. That's an 'argument from personal incredulity' fallacy. All you have is the perception that you're in control, and rational logic stops there because real control is indistinguishable from that perception (studies have shown that stimulating certain areas of the brain can produce a predictable response, yet the subject continues to believe he's in control). You agree that "the perception that you are in control does not require supernatural explanations" is true, and that's all I ever claimed. Any debate on the nature of ACTUAL control is no different from debating the nature of God, the color of a leprechaun's eyes or how extraterrestrials built the pyramidsâ�� it's speculating on the details of a general claim that's unproven.

01/01/2010 03:44:02 PM · #3591

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're own predetermined ideas are keeping you from seeing what Christianity is all about.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What predetermination would this be?

Once again, you failed to understand and answer the question. My ideas are not predetermined, they are the product of about four decades of looking for sprituality in religion, and discovering that I can't find it that way.

Predetermination is what you've shown me you live through Christianity as you present your views.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I spend more time living according to the answers I've found, than trying to find answers to new questions.

That's exactly what I'm referring to......new questions about life, people, and the world arise every day.

It's not really living life if you've already got the answers you need for everything. The rest of us out here who know that we don't have it all figured out live a much richer existence.

I had firsthand experience with this during the trip I made to Honduras with another church group......a Christian church group. The wonderful, pure people that I met in Honduras were much different than the unfortunate poor that they met.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I live believing that I can't earn my salvation, and that's the first thing a person needs to realize before becoming a Christian. You're not a Christian because you believe you can do something good to earn the favor of whatever god might exist.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible is only controversial because it's misused, and because people like you believe other people's interpretations of the Bible rather than reading it and interpreting it for yourself.

No, the Bible is controversial because y'all can't even agree with its various interpretations and permutations amongst yourselves. I'm not sure why you'd argue that knowing it yourself.

01/01/2010 03:47:18 PM · #3592

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I've had conversations with people who are Christian and gay. I have had gay friends. My aunt is a Lutheran pastor that has a large gay fellowship at her church.

So.....then you're in favor of gay marriage, right?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And, to top it all off, I was once a skeptic who did not believe in Christianity and who believed the same things you're saying right now.

You cannot possibly believe, feel, and know the same things I do and have embraced Christianity.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/01/2010 03:49:03 PM · #3593

Can you have free will in its accurate definition of the concept and actually be a Christian?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/01/2010 03:54:19 PM · #3594

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So, you believe that the Bible is controversial.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible is only controversial because it's misused...

LOL! It's not controversial, and only IS controversial because...

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So, you think my understanding is narrow.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The only way to be righteous in God's eyes is through his son, Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Stop confusing organized religion and history with true Christianity.

So none of your good friends who are Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and atheist are righteous, and organized Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. aren't true Christians either. Yes, that's extremely narrow.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Christianity gives the world a benchmark for judging what good should be.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Christianity judges the entire world because it teaches that all are sinners and all are abominations in God's eyes.

Judging everyone on the world to be bad is some benchmark.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

"you cannot comprehend that one could achieve joy and goodwill for one another without your concept of God"

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So, you think that I can't have joy apart from God.

No, he said you can't comprehend that people can achieve joy and and goodwill for one another without your concept of God.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

"you spend all your time making the questions in life fit"

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So, you think Christians spend all there time focused on questions and never have peace about what they believe.

No, he's saying you think you already have the answers (a claim you've made repeatedly):

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I spend more time living according to the answers I've found, than trying to find answers to new questions.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/01/2010 04:00:46 PM · #3595

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible is only controversial because it's misused, and because people like you believe other people's interpretations of the Bible rather than reading it and interpreting it for yourself.

Why are you assuming that Jeb - or any of us who disagree with you - are not "reading and interpreting" the bible for ourselves?

It is a simple fact that people who read and study the bible (believers and non-believers) come to different interpretations of its meaning. Your own position regarding the faith versus works debate is prime case in point, with this being the fulcrum point for the major division in christendom and with both sides of the divide being absolutely sure that the bible is clear and fully supports their own, preferred interpretation. Any honest biblical scholar will own up to the fact that the bible is - probably intentionally - ambiguous. The bible is "misused" - in your terminology - because it is so capable of being misused: the inherent ambiguity of the text lends itself to being adopted to just about any position you choose to take.

For example, the bible was used to support the institution of slavery in the antebellum south and was used to attack slavery in the north. Both sides of the debate stated that the bible clearly supported their position, and both sides were correct. The bible is used to justify war and has been the inspiration for pacifist movements, with both sides legitimately claiming clear support from biblical instruction. The bible was used to attack the Equal Rights Amendment in the 60s and has provided a basis for arguments supporting female empowerment and full social and political equality by at least some feminist christians.

The key when looking at biblical interpretation is the realization that the bible always is interpreted to support the a priori moral judgments of the group seeking to use it as support. If you want to make a particular moral argument, it is a safe bet that you can find support for that argument in the biblical text. This is the problem with those who call for the use of the bible as a sort of moral handbook - it demonstrably provides no such guidance, and is so ambiguous and internally inconsistent as to be adaptable to almost any moral stance one wishes to take. The moral judgment comes first and then biblical authority is selected that supports that judgment.

What you want to do is say that only your interpretation of the bible is to be credited as "true," with any others, no matter how sincere or thought out, being "misinterpretations." But, like your moral claims generally, you fail to provide any reason for the adoption of your particular interpretive claims that do not rely on an acceptance of your underlying assumptions.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

01/01/2010 05:54:57 PM · #3596

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

But what you fail to grasp is that your arguments for the supposed "perversity," immorality or incorrectness of homosexuality are completely unpersuasive outside of your own religious reference. Your arguments, in the end, amount to a plea that homosexuality is a "sin" - a behavior that is proscribed because it is proscribed, not because of any inherent harm flowing from that action. While the non-believer can certainly believe in morality - actions that are objectively "good" or "bad" - there is no room for the concept of sin.

If you want to persuade outside of your own religious reference, you must put forth arguments that do not rely on an acceptance of your base assumptions.

Thank you for posting this; beautifully stated.

I have been looking for precisely this kind of argument from the theists here, one that asserts some harm to the individual or society (that would result by granting full civil rights to homosexuals) and that doesn't rely solely on the "God/my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong" statement. If someone has made this argument and I missed it, I apologize and would greatly appreciate hearing it again.

01/01/2010 06:56:14 PM · #3597

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Can you have free will in its accurate definition of the concept and actually be a Christian?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking if becoming a Christian changes the definition of free will? Free will is free will regardless of what religion you follow. If you're asking if I believe in free will, then my answer is yes, I do.

Jeb, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you because it's absolutely pointless. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I don't know if you've ever actually specified what your beliefs are, but whatever they are I don't judge you for having beliefs. You said that organized religion and my faith scare you, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't really understand why you would be afraid of Christianity. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity throughout history, but certainly you can acknowledge that Christianity has also done a lot of good in many places throughout the world. Christianity is not all good, and Christians are not all good, but God is all good. I hope you realize that someday, but in the meantime I hope that you get over your negative feelings toward Christianity and realize that people like me are not less than you just because their Christian.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 19:00:14.

01/01/2010 07:16:50 PM · #3598

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If you want to persuade outside of your own religious reference, you must put forth arguments that do not rely on an acceptance of your base assumptions. Of course, if you are here merely to proselytize (ineffectively, I will add), then carry on.

I guess we are going with the "carry on" option then?

01/01/2010 07:22:49 PM · #3599

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I have been looking for precisely this kind of argument from the theists here, one that asserts some harm to the individual or society (that would result by granting full civil rights to homosexuals) and that doesn't rely solely on the "God/my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong" statement. If someone has made this argument and I missed it, I apologize and would greatly appreciate hearing it again.

As would I. Specifically, I would like to hear some harm-based argument that could not be equally applied to heterosexual behavior.

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 19:25:24.