|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Mar 22, 2021 13:40:23 GMT -5
I want someone to give me one good reason to support an ideology and/or a religion that wants me not only dead, but tortured for eternity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 6:48:06 GMT -5
A good question. I suppose for the same reason that the sin of running a red light is differentiated from the sin of speeding down the highway. Both are moving violations of a vehicle, but recognized differently by a court of law. There's a distinction made, but not a lot of difference.
Hi Justin,
I'm not sure that catches the drift of my question. Perhaps I should try to put it another way. In your previous post you implied that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside marriage were wrong for the same reason (sex outside marriage is wrong). However, is there another layer to this? Is homosexual sex outside marriage intrinsically more sinful than heterosexual sex?
Ha! However, regardless of who made the rule, are you able to explain it?
I believe there are circumstances where laws may be broken without punishment because they cannot cover all circumstances. For example, I would say it's okay to speed or run a red light if you were racing to hospital with a critically ill child in need of urgent attention. Are there any circumstances where you would accept that the rule against sex outside marriage could be broken?
I know that church law is different to civil law, but homosexual marriage is officially recognised in most western countries.
One thing I'm not curious about. Is it sinful for married homosexuals who do not share your beliefs to have sex, or is it only sinful if they share your beliefs?
It is sinful because they violate ABSOLUTE laws of God.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 4, 2021 7:54:19 GMT -5
It is sinful because they violate ABSOLUTE laws of God.
Why is it sinful to violate absolute laws of God? If one of those laws as was immoral (e.g the one that tells you to kill homosexuals - Lev 20:13) would it still be a sin to violate it?
In other words, do you think would be a sin to refuse to kill homosexuals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 8:18:23 GMT -5
It is sinful because they violate ABSOLUTE laws of God.
Why is it sinful to violate absolute laws of God? If one of those laws as was immoral (e.g the one that tells you to kill homosexuals - Lev 20:13) would it still be a sin to violate it?
In other words, do you think would be a sin to refuse to kill homosexuals?
Simce you are applying superficiality to this topic, that IS the answer you WOULD give. Your content again reveals since you don't accept God's reality , you don't really understand that which you are trying to convince us that you do
|
|
|
Post by burke on Jun 4, 2021 12:55:29 GMT -5
It is sinful because they violate ABSOLUTE laws of God.
Why is it sinful to violate absolute laws of God? If one of those laws as was immoral (e.g the one that tells you to kill homosexuals - Lev 20:13) would it still be a sin to violate it?
In other words, do you think would be a sin to refuse to kill homosexuals?
Hi Argy,
Why is it wrong to break civil laws? After all they are absolute as long as they are on books. Your Leviticus question doesn't only muddy the water, it runs what should be a good discussion to a screeching halt. I, for one, will move on.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 4, 2021 19:35:30 GMT -5
Why is it sinful to violate absolute laws of God? If one of those laws as was immoral (e.g the one that tells you to kill homosexuals - Lev 20:13) would it still be a sin to violate it?
In other words, do you think would be a sin to refuse to kill homosexuals?
Simce you are applying superficiality to this topic, that IS the answer you WOULD give.
I think you are picking and choosing which of God's commandments to uphold.
And, because you know that the biblical endorsement of killing homosexuals is wrong, I think you are doing so because your own moral compass is superior to the bible.
And that's a good thing.
I have no belief in gods. However, if you are able to provide independently verifiable evidence that one exists, I am willing to change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 4, 2021 19:40:11 GMT -5
Why is it sinful to violate absolute laws of God? If one of those laws as was immoral (e.g the one that tells you to kill homosexuals - Lev 20:13) would it still be a sin to violate it?
In other words, do you think would be a sin to refuse to kill homosexuals?
Hi Argy,
Why is it wrong to break civil laws? After all they are absolute as long as they are on books. Your Leviticus question doesn't only muddy the water, it runs what should be a good discussion to a screeching halt. I, for one, will move on.
Hi Burke,
I think the Leviticus question goes to the heart of morality. I don't think any sane person would, today, think it's a good thing to kill homosexuals. Quite the opposite; I think any sane person would be horrified.
That realisation allows us to understand that morality is not what is commanded in the bible. It comes from somewhere else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 23:21:43 GMT -5
Simce you are applying superficiality to this topic, that IS the answer you WOULD give.
I think you are picking and choosing which of God's commandments to uphold.
And, because you know that the biblical endorsement of killing homosexuals is wrong, I think you are doing so because your own moral compass is superior to the bible.
And that's a good thing.
I have no belief in gods. However, if you are able to provide independently verifiable evidence that one exists, I am willing to change my mind.
You don't get it. YOUR "belief" or what you think doesn't matter. If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist does that mean he doesn't exist because you don't believe it?
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 4, 2021 23:40:06 GMT -5
I think you are picking and choosing which of God's commandments to uphold.
And, because you know that the biblical endorsement of killing homosexuals is wrong, I think you are doing so because your own moral compass is superior to the bible.
And that's a good thing.
I have no belief in gods. However, if you are able to provide independently verifiable evidence that one exists, I am willing to change my mind.
You don't get it. YOUR "belief" or what you think doesn't matter. If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist does that mean he doesn't exist because you don't believe it?
You face the same issue, no?
Your belief that god exists does not mean he does exist.
My position is that I am unconvinced any gods exist. I am open to having my mind changed if you (or anyone) can provide independently verifiable evidence.
I think that's reasonable. Do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 23:48:02 GMT -5
You don't get it. YOUR "belief" or what you think doesn't matter. If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist does that mean he doesn't exist because you don't believe it?
You face the same issue, no? NO
Your belief that god exists does not mean he does exist. Either GOD EXISTS or he doesn't Exist BUT they cannot be simultaneously true. One is closer to the TRUTH and you are much further away from truth
My position is that I am unconvinced any gods exist. I am open to having my mind changed if you (or anyone) can provide independently verifiable evidence. So until YOU are convinced then god doesn't exist until YOU are swayed?
I think that's reasonable. Do you? NO
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 5, 2021 7:45:17 GMT -5
You face the same issue, no? NO
Two can play at that game.
YES.
Prove it. Prove that I am "much further away from truth".
Why? Why is it unreasonable to wait for independently verifiable evidence?
|
|
|
Post by burke on Jun 5, 2021 7:50:55 GMT -5
Hi Argy,
Why is it wrong to break civil laws? After all they are absolute as long as they are on books. Your Leviticus question doesn't only muddy the water, it runs what should be a good discussion to a screeching halt. I, for one, will move on.
Hi Burke,
I think the Leviticus question goes to the heart of morality. I don't think any sane person would, today, think it's a good thing to kill homosexuals. Quite the opposite; I think any sane person would be horrified.
That realisation allows us to understand that morality is not what is commanded in the bible. It comes from somewhere else.
Hi Argy,
You are taking the whole thing out of context. The passage says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev 20:13. It does not say, "If a man is attracted to a male as to a woman . . .." The problem with looking at this from a 21st century perspective is that we have no idea what the impact of homosexual behaviour had on a small agrarian community. What the law did in a small community is give a gay person second thoughts of becoming sexually active. In a discussion in another forum Russ Gold, an orthodox Jew, said that there was no record of any homosexual being killed.
Let me give you a modern scenario: this pandemic rages on with mutations outstripping vaccines to the point that the total collapse of life as we know it is a real possibility. The consensus is that the best solution is to crank up the birth rate, women are urged to have babies, but the specter of abortion on demand is so ingrained in society that they continue at an unacceptable rate. Society outlaws abortion and is forced to implement tougher and tougher penalties to the point of declaring it a capital crime with the death penalty, all for the common good, the survival of life as we know it. Is the criticism of that law 4,000 years from now justified? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it would not be cut and dried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 9:06:12 GMT -5
Two can play at that game.
YES.
Prove it. Prove that I am "much further away from truth".
Why? Why is it unreasonable to wait for independently verifiable evidence?
1- TWO can play but I am right 2- WHY is it necessary to prove to YOU? Is your acceptance or rejection what determines the existence of God?
I wonder how an atheist can know what is good and bad? who tells them what is good and bad? To an atheist, everything is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by burke on Jun 5, 2021 15:20:46 GMT -5
I found this interesting
Pascal's Wager Blais Pascal was a 17th century French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, writer and Catholic theologian.
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up You must wager (it is not optional) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 5, 2021 16:14:56 GMT -5
Hi Burke,
I think the Leviticus question goes to the heart of morality. I don't think any sane person would, today, think it's a good thing to kill homosexuals. Quite the opposite; I think any sane person would be horrified.
That realisation allows us to understand that morality is not what is commanded in the bible. It comes from somewhere else.
Hi Argy,
You are taking the whole thing out of context. The passage says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev 20:13. It does not say, "If a man is attracted to a male as to a woman . . .." The problem with looking at this from a 21st century perspective is that we have no idea what the impact of homosexual behaviour had on a small agrarian community. What the law did in a small community is give a gay person second thoughts of becoming sexually active. In a discussion in another forum Russ Gold, an orthodox Jew, said that there was no record of any homosexual being killed.
Hi Burke,
I guess what you're saying is that morality depends on circumstances.
The theory of evolution suggests that the ubiquity of homosexuality (it has been found in almost every species studied, from humans to horses to fruit flies) confers an evolutionary advantage. There is a very good Ted Talk that goes into this in detail. Suffice to say, the descendants of large families with a preponderance of male offspring fared better when one of them was a homosexual. There are all sorts of reasons for this, one of which was the fact that they tended to be more nurturing. (A testosterone filled household is counter-productive.)
In other words, as counter-intuitive as it might be to you, homosexuality actually benefits the reproductive success of a gene line.
That example really illustrates the point I was making above. Namely that morality is flexible. Moral "good" depends on circumstances, and we have a moral compass that is independent of the bible. In fact, our moral compasses allow us to be critical of biblical attitudes to homosexuals, adultery, rape, slavery, etc.. Anyone today trying to implement laws based on the commandments of the Old Testament would be run out of town.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 5, 2021 16:23:39 GMT -5
I found this interesting Pascal's Wager Blais Pascal was a 17th century French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, writer and Catholic theologian. The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233): God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up You must wager (it is not optional) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. Any thoughts?
The flaw with Pascal's wager is that it assumes only two possible outcomes. There are many religions, each of which has a different idea of god. Which one should be worshipped? If you worship the wrong one, you risk offending the real one and being consigned to hell for eternity.
Even if there is no god, worshipping has its costs. You risk wasting all the effort, time wasting and sacrifice devoted to worship at the expense of living a more fulfilling life. So there is potentially something to lose by worshipping a false god.
Also, if there is a god, he would see through any phoney attempt to garner favour from insincere worship.
|
|