Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[seer]

We shouldn't have to invent morality from scratch for you in every thread. :P

No, but we need to present the reality. That ethics are subjective and relative in a godless universe, and can only be such.

[Paprika]

It--and similar arguments--have succeeded for a growing number of fundamentalist Christians.

That people accept the argument does not in any way imply that the argument is correct.

The difference has more to do with a person's empathy for LGBT people than with their stance toward the Bible.

Thank you for admitting the obvious: their support of homosexual acts and relationships are more to do with the feels rather than Scripture.

[shunyadragon]

That people accept the argument does not in any way imply that the argument is correct.


Thank you for admitting the obvious: their support of homosexual acts and relationships are more to do with the feels rather than Scripture.

The book trying to justify the morality of homosexual relationships is a mistake. There are not any references in the Bible that achieve that goal, and a number that outright forbid such relationships. It is like driving square pegs into square holes. There is modern views of morality and science that may be used as basis for secular morality that accepts homosexual morality, but the Bible, Islam and the Baha'i Fait do not accept homosexual relationships as moral. The natural case that homosexual relationships are the natural desire of some people, does not justify the morality of such relationships except from a secular perspective.

Just because a religious belief considers such acts immoral does not justify passing laws that forbid such relationships. Some religions of the world and secular cultures may not prohibit homosexual relationships and separation of church and state should stand and not pass such laws.

[Paprika]

The book trying to justify the morality of homosexual relationships is a mistake. There are not any references in the Bible that achieve that goal, and a number that outright forbid such relationships. It is like driving square pegs into square holes. There is modern views of morality and science that may be used as basis for secular morality that accepts homosexual morality, but the Bible, Islam and the Baha'i Fait do not accept homosexual relationships as moral. The natural case that homosexual relationships are the natural desire of some people, does not justify the morality of such relationships except from a secular perspective.

I agree.

Just because a religious belief considers such acts immoral does not justify passing laws that forbid such relationships. Some religions of the world and secular cultures may not prohibit homosexual relationships and separation of church and state should stand and not pass such laws.

I disagree.

[Jedidiah]

Just because a religious belief considers such acts immoral does not justify passing laws that forbid such relationships. Some religions of the world and secular cultures may not prohibit homosexual relationships and separation of church and state should stand and not pass such laws.

I disagree.

Depends upon what we mean by "passing laws that forbid such relationships." I can not support laws criminalizing homosexual relationships, but I see no reason to make all the special provisions we are making today to support homosexual marriage. Two separate issues.

[Carrikature]

Curious whether anyone here has read it and what their reactions might be.

The answer seems to be 'no, no one here has read it'.

[NormATive]

Exodus 21:16 and 22:21 ??

Like I said, the Tanakh does not come right out and condemn slavery (unless it's against them).

NORM

[MaxVel]

Like I said, the Tanakh does not come right out and condemn slavery (unless it's against them).

NORM

You're saying that Exodus 21 and following was only applicable to social relations etc between Israelites?



Let's grant that, for argument's sake: Since the Law was to establish the Israelites as a model nation living according to God's ethics and social patterns, we can conclude that God didn't want anyone to have slaves.

Exodus 22:21

Exo 22:21 Do not mistreat or abuse foreigners who live among you. Remember, you were foreigners in Egypt.

Exo 22:21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

I personally find it hard to see how Israelites could forcibly enslave any foreigners without mistreating or oppressing them.

[NormATive]

You're saying that Exodus 21 and following was only applicable to social relations etc between Israelites?

No, I am saying there is no "thou shalt not own slaves" commandment. There are all kinds of commandments about how to treat slaves, so....there is therefore now no condemnation.

I personally find it hard to see how Israelites could forcibly enslave any foreigners without mistreating or oppressing them.

The commandments regarding foreigners are probably referring to the numerous wandering tribes moving through their lands. They were commanded to treat them well. Of course, it's really difficult to make any kind of blanket statements since the Tanakh represents the work of multiple disparate authors over great lengths of time. However, I think you will search in vain to find any clear commandment against owning slaves. I find that curious.

NORM

[Tassman]

What does consent have to do with it? That is just an arbitrary distinction.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages...manrights.aspx

[Tassman]

And that is key Sea - your notion.The Paedophilia has his notion of morality, and you have yours. No position is more correct or valid.

...and more to the point, you have yours namely "blindly following some rules without concern for others unless the rules say to do so", to quote seasanctuary. That's not morality, that's unquestioned obedience of the sort demanded by all totalitarian rulers - from Yahweh to Genghis Khan to Joseph Stalin and Hitler.

[seer]

http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages...manrights.aspx

Oh stop Tass. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is arbitrary, invented and impotent. There are no "human rights" in a godless universe any more than there are rights for house flies.

[seer]

...and more to the point, you have yours namely "blindly following some rules without concern for others unless the rules say to do so", to quote seasanctuary. That's not morality, that's unquestioned obedience of the sort demanded by all totalitarian rulers - from Yahweh to Genghis Khan to Joseph Stalin and Hitler.

What is wrong with totalitarian rulers? After all that is exactly what we find in higher primate groups, and in most of human history. So it must have survival advantage?

[whag]

What is wrong with totalitarian rulers? After all that is exactly what we find in higher primate groups, and in most of human history. So it must have survival advantage?

Yes, and who made that form of rule in primates? And where you think those expressions like war come from, human beings primates and all?

[seer]

Yes, and who made that form of rule in primates? And where you think those expressions like war come from, human beings primates and all?

Well for man, it came from using our will wrongly. Choice. For animals - who knows, there are two possibilities. Like we discussed in the past. But the point is, in your godless universe these are completely natural acts, and most likely helpful for survival.