People Who Use "religion = Evil" In A Blase Way

Nadagast · January 2005

The lengths some religious people will go to for internal consistency is amazing...

This is GOD HIMSELF speaking to Moses in Lev 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Yeah good call. Lets kill all them damn homos. God said so! What a joke. Either the bible is lying (God didn't say this to Moses), God doesn't exist, or the God that does exist is a terribly cruel God. Now, I'd say option 3 isn't too likely since I've seen the phrase "God loves everyone" about 100 times.

Option 2 and option 1 lead logically to the same conclusion: The Christian God does not exist.

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 03:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>actually, now that i thought about it, it's actually pretty clear that it's wrong, biblically speaking.

sexual immorality consists of two things - fornication, and adultery. Both are expressly prohibited.

Adultery is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming a married state.
Fornication is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming an unmarried state.

Therefore, the only setting that the expression of sexual desire is proper is in the context of [biblical] marriage.

Therefore:
Bestiality is wrong, because you can't marry an animal.
Homosexuality is wrong.
pedophilia is wrong.
etc etc etc.

thank you and good night, i have church tomorrow morning, and i must away to bed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ok, now show me where the bible sais I can't marry a 9 year old, or a man (The latter is probably pretty easy).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bah. Its too easy when you pick something like rape. Lets try something more dificult shall we? Lets say my mother was killed. Now, being the vengefull type and none to happy about my mother's demise I go and kill the murderer. Was I right in doing so? He killed my mother, and therefore deserves to die, so was I wrong in killing him? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Aha - but I dont need it to be difficult, because in many situations moral clarity is easy. You are claiming right and wrong does not exist; I am under no obligation to prove it exists in deep complicated ways - all I have to do is prove it undeniably true in one case and the bottom line of your argument is destroyed.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think you're missing my point. It isn't that right and wrong don't exist, mearly that they are human concepts and therefore subjective. With the "difficult" questions everybody will have different reasons for wether it is right or wrong, to me that shows that, at the very least, humans can't intuitively understand morality, which leads me to believe that there is no absolute morality.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You may throw in some curvy morality questions, but all that will result in is me trying to find a common moral standard against which these actions can be judged that both you and I agree on which, if you are being intellectual consistent, wont happen, because you deny any such standard. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm not saying that you and I couldn't come to an agreement about it. I'm saying that our underlying logic of why it is right or wrong might differ.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Moral relativism isnt an answer to anything, its a non answer, a cop out. Moralists do the hard yards, relativists simply shrug their shoulders. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think you have that backwards. I backup my statements on morality with logic. Religious types tend to back up theirs with scripture, not bothering to draw a logical conclusion as to why its wrong because god already did the hard work.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you insist I will attempt to tackle them, but I consider that pointless in your regard, as I will merely be expressing my opinion, and you will judge how it matches up to your own, and even if the two coincide, will still dismiss the notion of absolute morality</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes. Because not every person on earth will agree with us. Thats my point, we don't have any intuitive sense of what is right or wrong, we have to decide that for ourselves. And since everybody is deciding for themselves (at least partially) then that suggests to me that morality isn't absolute.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now granted, I can't think of a situation where rape would be OK, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And thats beside the point, since the christian God condemns as wrong things which are clearly right in my book. God's version of right doesn't mesh with mine, in fact I don't know of anybody whose morality meshes perfectly with mine. I'd be willing to bet that even among faithfull christians you'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree entirely on every matter of right and wrong. So doesn't that suggest that right and wrong are not absolute? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your first sentence is a paradox of your belief. It doesnt matter if you cant think of a situation where rape would be okay - because the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it are purely opinion based terms. You believe that morals are relative, therefore cannot distinguish any form of superiority between the statement "Rape is wrong" and "Rape is good".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're right I can't. Because neither statement is supports itself with any logic.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If I think rape is right, who are you to question the validity of my belief?
If morals are mere opinions on what should be done, you have no right to criticise me having my way with your sister against her will - you cannot force that opinion on me any more than I can force my opinions on God onto you.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh I can critisize you all I want. I can have my opinions too you know. Just as you can (and do) critiseze my ideas about God. Since when have opinions not been subject to critisism? You're right though, I can't force my ideas on you, but I don't have to because we have a legal system that is (or at least should be) designed to protect individual rights.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your second sentence brings us to the crux of the matter - you dont embrace moral relativity because its intellectually satisfying, you just refuse to accept any sort of absolute lawgiver because you dont like his laws (assuming he exists of course).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I refuse to accept any form of absolute law giver because it seems to me that no form of absolute law exists. If it did then right and wrong would be intuitively apartent, and they aren't. This is enforced by my logically defined moralitiy not coinciding with the absolute law giver's whim-based morality.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your 3rd and 4th sentences are correct - very few people agree 100% with each other, even Christians. Yet the very nature of an absolute moral is that it exists whether anyone believes it or no. If everyone believes that rape is right, including me, then I'm wrong, and so are they. If they believed rape was right in some circumstances, they're still wrong. A difficult moral question people cannot agree on no more disproves absolute morality than a difficult maths problem disproves mathematics. I agree people cannot agree - but right and wrong remain the same whether they agree or no.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, if an absolute morality existed, then why isn't it intuitively obvious? Why would the law giver leave us with such loose definitions of right and wrong for us to follow (and possibly screw up)? This is why it seems to me that no such absolute definition actually exists.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT: Also, CrystalSnake asked a good question a ways back that sort of applies here: "The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, pedophilia is condemned, though in a roundabout way. The Jews only considered their young children until they reached sexual maturity, and then they were married. To have sex before you were married was banned, so pedophilia is out.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ok, so your saying that the only way that pedofilia is condemned is via a technicality? God clearly said that killing your fellow human beings (unless he ordered you to, I guess) was wrong, why can't he make a similarly concrete statement about pedofilia? Hell, does it even say anywhere at what age a child becomes an adault? 15? 18?

Anyway, this has all strayed quite a ways off topic, so if we're going to continue arguing about it lets at least try to wrap it up.

kida · January 2005

...

Sky · January 2005

Kida, who is that in your avatar?
If it is who I think it is, oh the irony.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> stuff </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think you're missing my point. It isn't that right and wrong don't exist, mearly that they are human concepts and therefore subjective. With the "difficult" questions everybody will have different reasons for wether it is right or wrong, to me that shows that, at the very least, humans can't intuitively understand morality, which leads me to believe that there is no absolute morality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'll type this response out from a book I have, which puts it better than I have so far:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In order to participate in the modern debate we should use modern terms. So we shall defend "objective values" by refuting the most common arguments against them. (Ideally, we should use a neutral term which suggests neither subjectivism ["values"] nor objectivism["laws"] - perhaps "right and wrong." But the language of the debate has by now been set; both sides use the term "values." So we will too, reluctantly.

Objection 1:
<i>Values are relative to cultures. Only provincialism and ignorance of the facts of cultural diversity blinded humanity to this truth until recently, when anthropologists discovered that there are some cultural exceptions to every supposed universal value.

Put in syllogistic form, the argument is this:
1. If cultures differ about values, then values are subjective and relative.
2. Cultures do differ about values.
3. Therefore values are subjective and relative.
</i>
Reply: Both of the premises of this syllogism are false. The first premise is false because cultures can err just as individuals can. The fact that the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was right and the Jews thought it was wrong does not mean that it really was right for the Aztecs to murder innocent children. What is culturally relative is <i>opinions</i> about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves. The word <i>values</i> fudges this distinction.
The second premise is false because even opinions about right and wrong are not wholly relative to cultures. No culture ever existed which taught a totally different set of values. For example, honesty, justice, courage, cooperation, wisdom, self-control and hope were never all thought to be evil, and lying, theft, murder, rape, cowardice, folly, addiction, despair and selfishness were never all thought to be good.
The origin of the belief in objective morality is not ignorance, for the belief is compatible with and coexists with the knowledge of cultural diversity. Anthropology does not discover a diversity of values, only value opinions. Anthropology is not the science of values. Ethics is.

Objection 2:
<i>It is a psychological fact that all of us learn our values from our society; that is, society conditions our values in us. Thus the origin of values is not something outside human minds, some truth objective to all human minds, but comes from within human minds themselves - from parents and teachers and society. What comes from human subjects is subjective.</i>
Reply:
1. Once again the subjectivist confuses values with value-opinions. Society conditions opinions in us, but not truth.
2. Nor does society condition us, like rats, it teaches us, like men and women.
3. Furthermore, the fact that we learn our moral opinions from teachers does not entail the conclusion that these opinions are merely subjective or arbitrary. Some of the things we learn from teachers are subjective fancies, like tastes in food and clothes, but others are objective truths, like 2+2=4. The objector has not yet proved that values are not in the second class.

...
Objection 4:
<i>"Situation ethics" shows us that situations are so diverse and complex that no moral rule can be universal. We can always imagine some situation where it would be right to lie, to steal, even to kill.
</i>
Reply: Even if this argument were valid, it would not prove subjectivism, only situational relativism. It would still be objectively right to lie to the Nazis about hiding Jews, or to kill in self-defense, or to steal a maniac's weapon.
However, the argument does not even prove relativism, only that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. The fact of different applications presupposes the truth of the principle. Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And just to address the part about "no absolute law exists":

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All forms of skepticism are self contradictory, in the last analysis. They all amount to saying that it is true that there is no truth, or we can know that we cannot know, or we can be certain that we cannot be certain, or it is a universal truth that there are no universal truths, or you can be quite dogmatic about the fact that you can't be dogmatic, or it is an absolute that ther are no absolutes, or it is an objective truth that there is no objective truth.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Universal subjectivism is refutable quite quickly, in the same way that universal skepticism is. If truth is only subjective, only true for me but not for you, then that truth too - the "truth" of subjectivism -- is not true, but only "true for me," (i.e., true for the subjectivist). So the subjectivist is not saying that subjectivism is really true and objectivism really false, or that the objectivist is mistaken at all. He is not challenging his opponent, not arguing, not debating, only "sharing his feelings." "I feel well" does not contradict or refute your statement "But I feel sick." Subjectivism is not an "ism," not a philosophy. It does not rise to the level of deserving our attention or refutation. Its claim is like "I itch," not "I know."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> stuff </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think you're missing my point. It isn't that right and wrong don't exist, mearly that they are human concepts and therefore subjective. With the "difficult" questions everybody will have different reasons for wether it is right or wrong, to me that shows that, at the very least, humans can't intuitively understand morality, which leads me to believe that there is no absolute morality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'll type this response out from a book I have, which puts it better than I have so far:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In order to participate in the modern debate we should use modern terms. So we shall defend "objective values" by refuting the most common arguments against them. (Ideally, we should use a neutral term which suggests neither subjectivism ["values"] nor objectivism["laws"] - perhaps "right and wrong." But the language of the debate has by now been set; both sides use the term "values." So we will too, reluctantly.

Objection 1:
<i>Values are relative to cultures. Only provincialism and ignorance of the facts of cultural diversity blinded humanity to this truth until recently, when anthropologists discovered that there are some cultural exceptions to every supposed universal value.

Put in syllogistic form, the argument is this:
1. If cultures differ about values, then values are subjective and relative.
2. Cultures do differ about values.
3. Therefore values are subjective and relative.
</i>
Reply: Both of the premises of this syllogism are false. The first premise is false because cultures can err just as individuals can. The fact that the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was right and the Jews thought it was wrong does not mean that it really was right for the Aztecs to murder innocent children. What is culturally relative is <i>opinions</i> about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves. The word <i>values</i> fudges this distinction.
The second premise is false because even opinions about right and wrong are not wholly relative to cultures. No culture ever existed which taught a totally different set of values. For example, honesty, justice, courage, cooperation, wisdom, self-control and hope were never all thought to be evil, and lying, theft, murder, rape, cowardice, folly, addiction, despair and selfishness were never all thought to be good.
The origin of the belief in objective morality is not ignorance, for the belief is compatible with and coexists with the knowledge of cultural diversity. Anthropology does not discover a diversity of values, only value opinions. Anthropology is not the science of values. Ethics is.

Objection 2:
<i>It is a psychological fact that all of us learn our values from our society; that is, society conditions our values in us. Thus the origin of values is not something outside human minds, some truth objective to all human minds, but comes from within human minds themselves - from parents and teachers and society. What comes from human subjects is subjective.</i>
Reply:
1. Once again the subjectivist confuses values with value-opinions. Society conditions opinions in us, but not truth. Society conditions opinions in us, but not truth.
2. Nor does society condition us, like rats, it teaches us, like men and women.
3. Furthermore, the fact that we learn our moral opinions from teachers does not entail the conclusion that these opinions are merely subjective or arbitrary. Some of the things we learn from teachers are subjective fancies, like tastes in food and clothes, but others are objective truths, like 2+2=4. The objector has not yet proved that values are not in the second class.

...
Objection 4:
<i>"Situation ethics" shows us that situations are so diverse and complex that no moral rule can be universal. We can always imagine some situation where it would be right to lie, to steal, even to kill.
</i>
Reply: Even if this argument were valid, it would not prove subjectivism, only situational relativism. It would still be objectively right to lie to the Nazis about hiding Jews, or to kill in self-defense, or to steal a maniac's weapon.
However, the argument does not even prove relativism, only that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. The fact of different applications presupposes the truth of the principle. Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Your source assumes that there is a difference between "value-opinions" and values themselves. I submit to you that there isn't any evidence for such a distinction. Values are opinions, and like all opinions can be flawed and are subject to critisism.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And just to address the part about "no absolute law exists":

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All forms of skepticism are self contradictory, in the last analysis. They all amount to saying that it is true that there is no truth, or we can know that we cannot know, or we can be certain that we cannot be certain, or it is a universal truth that there are no universal truths, or you can be quite dogmatic about the fact that you can't be dogmatic, or it is an absolute that ther are no absolutes, or it is an objective truth that there is no objective truth.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Universal subjectivism is refutable quite quickly, in the same way that universal skepticism is. If truth is only subjective, only true for me but not for you, then that truth too - the "truth" of subjectivism -- is not true, but only "true for me," (i.e., true for the subjectivist). So the subjectivist is not saying that subjectivism is really true and objectivism really false, or that the objectivist is mistaken at all. He is not challenging his opponent, not arguing, not debating, only "sharing his feelings." "I feel well" does not contradict or refute your statement "But I feel sick." Subjectivism is not an "ism," not a philosophy. It does not rise to the level of deserving our attention or refutation. Its claim is like "I itch," not "I know."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This is rediculous. I never claimed that truth was subjective so the entire argument is flawed.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I refuse to accept any form of absolute law giver because it seems to me that no form of absolute law exists. If it did then right and wrong would be intuitively apartent, and they aren't. This is enforced by my logically defined moralitiy not coinciding with the absolute law giver's whim-based morality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your source assumes that there is a difference between "value-opinions" and values themselves. I submit to you that there isn't any evidence for such a distinction. Values are opinions, and like all opinions can be flawed and are subject to critisism.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Evidence for this opinion would be appreciated.

By the way, the argument would not be "flawed" if I were addressing something you didn't actually say. It would be called a red herring. The logic in that text is quite sound.

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I refuse to accept any form of absolute law giver because it seems to me that no form of absolute law exists. If it did then right and wrong would be intuitively apartent, and they aren't. This is enforced by my logically defined moralitiy not coinciding with the absolute law giver's whim-based morality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your source assumes that there is a difference between "value-opinions" and values themselves. I submit to you that there isn't any evidence for such a distinction. Values are opinions, and like all opinions can be flawed and are subject to critisism.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Evidence for this opinion would be appreciated.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It is written in the first quote of your post.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By the way, the argument would not be "flawed" if I were addressing something you didn't actually say. It would be called a red herring. The logic in that text is quite sound.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It is still flawed because it only applies if you accept that truth is subjective (and totally subjective, for that matter). I do not, therefore the argument isn't valid when applied to my ideas.

Wheeee · January 2005

so you're saying that there is truth, and it is objective, and it applies to all people?

*edit* by the way, your claim that we "made up" morality and "values" presupposes that there are human cultures where there is no sense of morality or "values/value opinions"

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> so you're saying that there is truth, and it is objective, and it applies to all people? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
More or less yes. Truth can be known, it can be observed or proved. These things cannot be done with moral values.

EDIR: </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*edit* by the way, your claim that we "made up" morality and "values" presupposes that there are human cultures where there is no sense of morality or "values/value opinions"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not nessesarily. Humans made up language too, yet it is a trait common to all cultures (that I know of). Its just how our brain works, we like to believe that there is order to the universe so we use morals to devide things that are good from things that are bad.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> so you're saying that there is truth, and it is objective, and it applies to all people? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
More or less yes. Truth can be known, it can be observed or proved. These things cannot be done with moral values.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Observe and prove that statement, if you please. Otherwise it's not an objective truth.

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> so you're saying that there is truth, and it is objective, and it applies to all people? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
More or less yes. Truth can be known, it can be observed or proved. These things cannot be done with moral values. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Observe and prove that statement, if you please. Otherwise it's not an objective truth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ugh, I don't have the patience to play these games.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not nessesarily. Humans made up language too, yet it is a trait common to all cultures (that I know of). Its just how our brain works, we like to believe that there is order to the universe so we use morals to devide things that are good from things that are bad.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Not true. Several animals have their own languages. Your analogy is flawed.

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not nessesarily. Humans made up language too, yet it is a trait common to all cultures (that I know of). Its just how our brain works, we like to believe that there is order to the universe so we use morals to devide things that are good from things that are bad. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not true. Several animals have their own languages. Your analogy is flawed.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I could argue that it isn't really language in the same sense as I was describing, but it would be quicker to just use a different analogy: All cultures have a concept of ceremony and ritual, however their ceremonies and rituals differ greatly. Its just one of those things, our minds like to bring order to the chaos.

Pepe_Muffassa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 17 2005, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is GOD HIMSELF speaking to Moses in Lev 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Yeah good call. Lets kill all them damn homos. God said so! What a joke. Either the bible is lying (God didn't say this to Moses), God doesn't exist, or the God that does exist is a terribly cruel God. Now, I'd say option 3 isn't too likely since I've seen the phrase "God loves everyone" about 100 times.

Option 2 and option 1 lead logically to the same conclusion: The Christian God does not exist.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ahh, young padowine - you have much to learn...hmmm?

The context of that particular law is most important. It was given to Israel shortly after leaving the land of Egypt. The were a people who had not known God for 400 years, then he shows up, delivers them, and then instructs them how he would like them to live.

Now this is important - all these people, all the Israelties - they were "God's People". The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.

Fast forward to Today. The nation of America is not "God's People" - we were not specifically delivered from the hands of opressors. To kill a homosexual would go against the laws of our land.

However, with the nation of America there exists "God's People" - the church. The correct response to a homosexual in the church is to subject them to church discipline - ie. they don't take the sacraments (communion) and ultimatly, excommunication from the church - root out the evil from among us.

Understand though, that church discipline is always done for the good of the church and for the good of the person being disciplined. If there is repentance on the part of the offending individual, the discipline is lifted.

So there you have it, a short history lession followed by its own counterparts today.

Quaunaut · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Jan 15 2005, 04:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I love steering threads off-topic, so I'll ask a question I've been harboring for a long time:
The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Quite honestly, it says what to do to pedephiles very, very specifically. I can't remember it exactly, but every time pedephile and Bible come up in my head, pain immediately stabs into me. Its that bad.

Sky · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> so you're saying that there is truth, and it is objective, and it applies to all people? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
More or less yes. Truth can be known, it can be observed or proved. These things cannot be done with moral values. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Observe and prove that statement, if you please. Otherwise it's not an objective truth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Here's where I come in: you can't. Objective truth, subjective truth, values, morals, moral-values, value-morals, bull. You both are trying to quantify and predict the essential nature of humans, and I submit that you can't. The human mind cannot understand itself; the more we learn the more complicated we become.

Of course I can't prove this, but once again you can't disprove it, for the simple reason that we're talking about religion, faith, what makes a bag of water and flesh human. How you two, or any philosopher or theologist for that matter, hope to "prove" the nature of God or ourselves is ludicrous.

Think of it this way: I could say to you, "My brain doesn't work the same way as yours does." Can you disprove that statement? You could take all sorts of psychological tests, MRIs, skull measurements, the works, and conclusively say scientfically that my brain <i>should</i> work exactly like yours...but at the end of the day, I can still say, "We are different," and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Take the same track with religion and faith: How many religions do you think there are in the world? Definitely in the tens of thousands, possibly in the hundreds of thousands. Followers of each one are adamant that their beliefs are correct, and that yours are wrong. Proove them wrong. You can't; just as scientists can never shake your belief in Christianity with evidence, you can never shake their beliefs in their own religions because they have what you have: faith.

I said it once and I will say it again: moral and religious arguments are utterly futile. No analogy or example will ever be without its flaws. Analogies are just that: analogies, NOT the real thing. Examples are never indicative of the whole picture.

Interestingly enough, my post brings us right back to where we started in the first post:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Although I don't agree with this guy's theology, it touches upon several important points: the human mind, on its own, can pretty much never understand God's plans or will except on a very superficial level.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly. Oddly enough, the human mind can understand itself about as well as it can understand God, meaning only superficially.

FilthyLarry · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Now this is important - all these people, all the Israelties - they were "God's People". The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, and here we see another example of "Might makes Right". Funny how this is an argument used against relativist morals.

Or the flood for another example.

Wheeee · January 2005

Since you guys were too lazy to provide solid logic, I will do so for you now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'>
defn:
provable - able to be deduced logically a priori.
observable - having real, significant and repeatable consequences that can be directly measured by us, assuming certitude equals certainty - i.e. observations can be used as positive or negative proof.
objective truth - any statement which is valid without loss of generality and remains valid independent of human observation. e.g. "in cartesian geometry using decimal arithmetic, 2+2=4"

Proposition: There exists "objective truth."

Proof: Assume the negative: There is no objective truth. Then it follows that the statement "There is no objective truth" is not an objective truth, which renders itself invalid. Contradiction, therefore "objective truth" exists.

Proposition: All objective truths are provable and observable.

Sufficient for disproof:
The statement "All objective truths are provable and observable" cannot be proven. Thus, contradiction, and the proposition is negated.

Proposition: All objective truths are either provable or observable.

Sufficient for disproof:
1) Any a priori, presupposed truth that is neither observable nor provable. E.g. "certitude equals certainty." If, however, certitude does not equal certainty, then objective truths cannot be proven by observation. That means that "All truths are either provable or observable," becomes neither provable, nor observable. Thus, a contradiction arises and the proposition is negated.

Proposition: Some, but not all, truths can be observed or proven.

Cases:
A) A truth can both be observed and proven.
i) All truths that can be proven can be proven independent of observation.
ii) Some such truths can be proven independent of observation.
a) Some such truths can be proven independent of observation, and all can also be observed.
b) Some such truths can be proven independent of observation, and some can also be observed.
c) Some such truths can be proven independent of observation, and none can also be observed.
iii) No truths can be proven independent of observation
iv) All truths that are observable are also provable.
v) Some observable truths are also provable.
a) Some such truths can also be proven independent of observation.
b) No such truths can also be proven independent of observation.
B) A truth can either be observed or proven, but not both.

Sufficient for disproof:
Ai. Any truth that cannot be proven except through observation. e.g. "A truth can both be observed and proven."
Aiia. Any truth that can be proven independent of observation, but cannot be observed. e.g. imaginary analysis (analysis using numbers in the complex plane).
Aiic. Any truth that can be proven independent of observation and also by observation, e.g. "2+2=4"
Aiii. Any truth that can be proven independent of observation, e.g. "2+2=4"
Aiv. Any truth that can be observed but not proven. e.g. any of the mathematical problems (like fermat's last theorem, although his is theoretically provable) that have been proven to be unprovable.
Avb. any truth that can be observed and proven independent of observation, e.g. "2+2=4"
B. Any truth that can be proven and observed, e.g. "2+2=4."

This leaves two cases that remain possible, namely
"Some truths can be proven independently of observation, and of these truths some can also be observed."
and
"Some truths can be observed, and some of these truths can also be proven."

This leaves us with four types of truths, none of which comprise the whole.
1) Truth that can neither be proven nor observed.
2) Truth that cannot be proven, but can be observed.
3) Truth that can be proven, but cannot be observed.
4) Truth that can both be proven and observed.

Therefore, your argument that morality cannot be a truth is ultimately false and flawed.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*edit* oops, left something out...

Jezpuh · January 2005

Religion just plain sucks. Seriously, suspend me from here if you want. But it's stupid.

Wheeee · January 2005

oh cmon jezpuh, you can do better than that <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />
nice trolling though.

Nadagast · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 17 2005, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is GOD HIMSELF speaking to Moses in Lev 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Yeah good call. Lets kill all them damn homos. God said so! What a joke. Either the bible is lying (God didn't say this to Moses), God doesn't exist, or the God that does exist is a terribly cruel God. Now, I'd say option 3 isn't too likely since I've seen the phrase "God loves everyone" about 100 times.

Option 2 and option 1 lead logically to the same conclusion: The Christian God does not exist. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ahh, young padowine - you have much to learn...hmmm?

The context of that particular law is most important. It was given to Israel shortly after leaving the land of Egypt. The were a people who had not known God for 400 years, then he shows up, delivers them, and then instructs them how he would like them to live.

Now this is important - all these people, all the Israelties - they were "God's People". The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.

Fast forward to Today. The nation of America is not "God's People" - we were not specifically delivered from the hands of opressors. To kill a homosexual would go against the laws of our land.

However, with the nation of America there exists "God's People" - the church. The correct response to a homosexual in the church is to subject them to church discipline - ie. they don't take the sacraments (communion) and ultimatly, excommunication from the church - root out the evil from among us.

Understand though, that church discipline is always done for the good of the church and for the good of the person being disciplined. If there is repentance on the part of the offending individual, the discipline is lifted.

So there you have it, a short history lession followed by its own counterparts today. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So... are you saying if it wasn't against the law to kill homosexuals in the USA you'd do it? Or that you believe killing homosexuals is right?

What I can gather from your response is that you don't want to kill homosexuals because American's are not "God's people" (whatever the hell that means, didn't he create us?), and that it would go against our laws. You never said you believed killing homosexuals is wrong did you?

Are you saying the homosexuals deserved death because they were both Christian and homosexual? What about current day? I'm sure out of all the Christians in America, some are homosexual... do they deserve death too?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

root out the evil among them?
So homosexuals are 'evil'? Please.

And to the people arguing about objective truth: It has no bearing on religion whatsoever. Even if there is no God and no universal objective truth who cares? It is not a prerequisite for anything.
If you use this as an arguement for religion, that's wrong. Someone who wrote the bible has no better sense of 'truth' than I do (worse, apparantly, since he thought slavery and killing homosexuals is ok).

Look as far as I can tell, one inaccuracy in the 'book of God' means it has no credibility and was clearly written by man... Now can someone explain to me how Noah's Ark happened (it's impossible) and how does every dating measure we use to date the Earth give us at least billions of years old?

lolfighter · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

root out the evil among them?
So homosexuals are 'evil'? Please.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I've pondered this a great deal too. The least offensive interpretation I can come up with is "it's not the homosexuals that are evil, but homosexuality is," and that's still a pretty tough pill to swallow. Or cup to drink, if we want to use the words of Christ. I really, REALLY think this warrants elaboration, Pepe.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look as far as I can tell, one inaccuracy in the 'book of God' means it has no credibility and was clearly written by man...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I always thought this was pretty much universally accepted? Among moderate christians (which all christians ought to be, moderation is good), at least?

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So... are you saying if it wasn't against the law to kill homosexuals in the USA you'd do it? Or that you believe killing homosexuals is right?

What I can gather from your response is that you don't want to kill homosexuals because American's are not "God's people" (whatever the hell that means, didn't he create us?), and that it would go against our laws. You never said you believed killing homosexuals is wrong did you?

Are you saying the homosexuals deserved death because they were both Christian and homosexual? What about current day? I'm sure out of all the Christians in America, some are homosexual... do they deserve death too?

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No. Refer to the incident where Jesus saved the prostitute/adulteress from being stoned.

And thanks for misunderstanding all of Christianity, if you really are that prejudiced against it there's no way you'll ever understand what our religion is about anyway.

As for why God comanded homosexuals to be put to death by Jews...one rotten apple spoils the bunch, ya know?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And to the people arguing about objective truth: It has no bearing on religion whatsoever. Even if there is no God and no universal objective truth who cares? It is not a prerequisite for anything.
If you use this as an arguement for religion, that's wrong. Someone who wrote the bible has no better sense of 'truth' than I do (worse, apparantly, since he thought slavery and killing homosexuals is ok).

Look as far as I can tell, one inaccuracy in the 'book of God' means it has no credibility and was clearly written by man... Now can someone explain to me how Noah's Ark happened (it's impossible) and how does every dating measure we use to date the Earth give us at least billions of years old?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I beg to differ. Objective truth has everything to do with this debate, and if you can't see it then you haven't thought about it clearly, and allowed your emotions to cloud your judgement. who cares? what are you talking about? objective truth and God is what religion claims to know about, so if there is none religion is disproved? what are you talking about? I am extremely confused by your contradictory message here.

Also, who are you to say that the people who wrote the Bible have no better sense of truth than you do? They were inspired or directly contacted by God, who we define as the whole truth. If you deny the possibility that this happened, then fine. We have nothing to argue about. If, however, you are willing to admit that it is possible, but you don't believe it happened, then we can have a discussion.

By the way, what's wrong about Noah's ark? The fact that 40 days of straight raining couldn't have made the water level rise so far as to cover the mountains? Guess what, it was a miracle. If you want to debate the existence of those, then fine.

Keyser · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So... are you saying if it wasn't against the law to kill homosexuals in the USA you'd do it? Or that you believe killing homosexuals is right?

What I can gather from your response is that you don't want to kill homosexuals because American's are not "God's people" (whatever the hell that means, didn't he create us?), and that it would go against our laws. You never said you believed killing homosexuals is wrong did you?

Are you saying the homosexuals deserved death because they were both Christian and homosexual? What about current day? I'm sure out of all the Christians in America, some are homosexual... do they deserve death too?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'm not sure what you were reading, but I got the clear message that the purpose of his explanation was explain why the two situations are totally different. The times and punishments are so different that you can't draw direct comparisons.

So what the normal punishment for going against the will of the church in old times might be death, the today equivalent might be not being able to participate in certain church rites or excommunication.

Hopefully you see the bible teaches forgiveness and tolerance as well. Personally, one of my coworkers and best friends is ****, but she's probably one of the nicest and funniest people you'll ever meet. I don't necessarily approve of her lifestyle, but I treat her as any other person.

The way I see it, only God has the right to determine what and who is evil and what deserves punishment, not us. We can only try our best to follow in Jesus's footsteps.

Epidemic · January 2005

"God" created the the homosexuals, gave them urges as the heterosexuals. So how is it fair?

Wheeee · January 2005

God gave me urges to go out and procreate with women. I have to keep that under control. What do you mean by "fair" anyway?

SkulkBait · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> God gave me urges to go out and procreate with women. I have to keep that under control. What do you mean by "fair" anyway? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
God gave you an outlet through marriage. Homosexuals do not have that option.

Wheee, your argument makes sense (for the most part) up until you tack on the morality bit. What does morality (which I claim to simply be "opinion") have to do with truth?

Pepe_Muffassa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jan 18 2005, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The command to kill the homosexuals was given specifically to them so as to root out the evil from among them. They - as an entire nation - were to live the way God commanded them to live.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

root out the evil among them?
So homosexuals are 'evil'? Please.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I've pondered this a great deal too. The least offensive interpretation I can come up with is "it's not the homosexuals that are evil, but homosexuality is," and that's still a pretty tough pill to swallow. Or cup to drink, if we want to use the words of Christ. I really, REALLY think this warrants elaboration, Pepe.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look as far as I can tell, one inaccuracy in the 'book of God' means it has no credibility and was clearly written by man...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I always thought this was pretty much universally accepted? Among moderate christians (which all christians ought to be, moderation is good), at least?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
In order to understand the command to kill homosexuals, you really have to understand the situation that the people of Israel were in.

First of all, they had been slaves in Egypt. God rescues them "with a mighty hand and an outstreached arm". He then proceeds to tell them that they are not to live like the nations arround them - rather they are a nation chosen to be holy to the Lord.

At this time they receive the 10 commandments - as well as a list of auxiliray commands.

The punishment for homosexuality falls under the auxiliry commands. Now, understand their place - they were given as specific instructions as to how the people of Israel were supposed to live. They were the commands that facilitate the redemption of Israel - the sacrifices that were to be made, and also the specific ways in which they were to not "live like the other nations" - and that included homosexuality.

Notice here, it isn't just homosexuals that are killed either. The same fate happens to those who have relations with their brothers, sisters, mothers, step-moms, aunts, neices, nephews - pretty much any relationship that could have an offensive nature to it. It also applied to "other gods" - idols were burned and destroyed constantly.

Moving forward in time, to Jesus, we see the kingdom of God expanding to include gentiles as well as Jews - and the rules begin to change. No longer are God's people defined by Nationality - now it includes people from all nations under all kinds of laws. The command to kill homosexuals is not relavant - rather excommunication from the church become the means of discipline.

Understand - the excommunication is not any less of a punishment. It is a symbolic separation of that individual from the kingdom of God. It is a spiritual death - if you will.

So there you have it. I understand that this may seem harsh, cruel, and unfair - but you have to understand, these are God's people (as christians are today) and we accept that God made the rules, we must live by them.

Concerning the literal wording of the Bible - yes, it was written by men (using mens hands) - but moreso it was inspired by God. "every word is breathed by the mouth of God" - and as such it is to be read with the understanding that God is consistent and true and would not mis-speak.
Your reference to "moderate christians" - I believe that they are in error. After all, they are putting the wisdom of the world over the wisdom of God in an effort to become "moderate". As far as I am concerned, I trust the word of God a heck of a lot more than the knowledge of some puny humans.

Nadagast · January 2005

Ok, I don't have time right now to reply to everything, so this will be brief:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for why God comanded homosexuals to be put to death by Jews...one rotten apple spoils the bunch, ya know?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that there is a bad homosexual, and in turn God killed all homosexuals? Why would he not kill all men? He is just as much a man as a homosexual. For that matter, why not kill all groups that this man was associated with? Why would God choose just one group (of at least 2, probably 5 or more) that he was associated with and kill them? I don't get it.

Also, as far as Noah's Ark: Don't just say "Goddidit." That isn't a reasonable or valid explanation. You're trying to establish that this is a credible source.
Where did all the water come from?
How did the trees survive underwater?
How did saltwater fish survive if the water wasn't salty? Alternatively, if the water was salty, how did the freshwater fish survive?
Assuming there was 50 million species, how did they fit on the boat this small? Assuming there was 10 million species, how did they fit on the boat this small? Assume any realistic number you want, there just isn't enough space.
If there were 50 million species, they would have to be loaded in at a rate of 578 species per second (over 1000 actual animals per second). Assuming a mere 5 million, that's still over 100 animals per second. Even assuming ONLY 1 million species, that's still over 20 animals per second. How is this possible?
After the flood, how would a mere 2 animals from each species completely re-polulate the Earth? There are several problems here...
Genetic defects. For the first generations there would be massive inbreeding leading to huge defects and abnormal growth.
What would the 2 Lions eat? Suppose after a few days the 2 Lions get hungry and eat one of the deers or caribou or whatever. How would that species reproduce with only 1 member?

I have plenty more questions but I have to go to class now...

People Who Use "religion = Evil" In A Blase Way

Comments