Can we defeat homosexuality?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrFun

I'm religious - not anti-science.

But this still does not negate the existence of God. I'm convince he just is, without questioning. I simply do not demand for scientific evidence for his existence.

When you lack evidence for or against, then you have to believe or disbelieve on faith.

And I think that once you believe, and follow Christ, you realize you made the right choice.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are once more ignoring the story (or 'myth' if you will). It isn't a crime of inhospitality or sodomy that was the reason why they were destroyed. The angels had already come to destroy them, their actions had nothing to do with the effect (at the time).

Directed at the wrong person. I didn't say what the crimes supposedly were or weren't, that was MrFun. I just pointed out that that the supposedly-righteous Lott offers his daughters up to be raped instead, that a lot of innocents would have had to have been killed when the towns were destroyed (what did the children do?), and that Lott's wife was killed because she looked at it happening. These things about the myth aren't really debatable.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Directed at the wrong person. I didn't say what the crimes supposedly were or weren't, that was MrFun. I just pointed out that that the supposedly-righteous Lott offers his daughters up to be raped instead, that a lot of innocents would have had to have been killed when the towns were destroyed (what did the children do?), and that Lott's wife was killed because she looked at it happening. These things about the myth aren't really debatable.

If the children were innocent, surely there would have been at least 10?

Especially since Lot seems to count, so you can see that God was definitely stretching the definition of righteous.

JM
(Anyone who has been around children knows that there isn't necessarily anything innocent about them.)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
How people conceive of God as they imagine him to be has changed over the past couple thousand years. People who wrote the passages that became the Old Testament believed God to have been a domineering, incredibly demanding and even violently retributive God.

Today, many reasonable Christians no longer conceive that God is such. Look at how extreme fundies blamed sinners for such horrible disasters as the tusnami in Southeast Asia - many other people, including majority of Christians, never thought to believe God would have wanted that. And some of us DENOUNCED such bigoted remarks by the extreme fundies.

If one can't find immutable morality in a book supposedly written with the inspiration/approval of the omnipotent creator, I fail to see why we should take anything it says seriously.

This changing conception of God that you yourself acknowledge is just futher evidence that it is man who has created gods, and not vice-versa.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yours was made in a blatant attempt to genuinely offend me. Mine was, I guess, a slip of the tongue with no intention of offense.

See, you're wrong. I genuinely hope you one day see reason and reject all superstitions. I believe it will make you a better person.

[Jon Miller]

How could something as incredible as God be contained completely in a book?

How could something as incredibly complicated as morality be contained in every possible situation in a book?

You aren't being reasonable.

The only things that can work is experience with such a Being. That means praying, meditation, and the study of past experience with Him(Her) ((the Bible)).

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
(Anyone who has been around children knows that there isn't necessarily anything innocent about them.)

This is utterly ghastly. Children by and large have not developed the rational abilities to make real moral decisions. To suggest, as you are here, that scores of children might have deserved to be murdered horribly doesn't bespeak well of conception of the deity in your holy book. On the contrary, it makes him look positively monstrous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How could something as incredible as God be contained completely in a book?

How could something as incredibly complicated as morality be contained in every possible situation in a book?

You aren't being reasonable.

This is lame. It doesn't have to contain everything, but it least should be internally consistent and not present a picture of the world that is fundamentally at odds with reality.

It is entirely reasonable to dismiss the Bible as a collection of myths and legends. That's what I do. It's also entirely reasonable to look at the alleged actions of this posited deity contained within the book and judge them as monstrous, should they show themselves to be such. If you agree that these stories are not true but rather fables, then fine, we have do argument.

The only things that can work is experience with such a Being. That means praying, meditation, and the study of past experience with Him(Her) ((the Bible)).

Conveniently subjective!

Had you been born in India, you'd be saying the same thing about Hinduism.

[Jon Miller]

I will agree that there is some age when no moral decisions are being made. And I will agree that complete adult abilities aren't there yet in a child.

That doesn't mean that a child has no abilities at all.

It does not mean that the child is responsible for none of his and her actions.

It is well known that children can be monsters, and that there is no sudden shift with adulthood to stop being a monster if a child is one.

God, being omniscient, obviously is able to judge even the young (btw).

There isn't some switch the completely changes a person when they move from childhood to adulthood. Be reasonable.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This is lame. It doesn't have to contain everything, but it least should be internally consistent and not present a picture of the world that is fundamentally at odds with reality.

It is entirely reasonable to dismiss the Bible as a collection of myths and legends. That's what I do. It's also entirely reasonable to look at the alleged actions of this posited deity contained within the book and judge them as monstrous, should they show themselves to be such. If you agree that these stories are not true but rather fables, then fine, we have do argument.

How could it even contain most things. Even the moral statements (which get the closest) can only be relevant for the particular culture at being discussed. And I do encourage people to study the morality in the Bible relative to the cultures involved, I think the study is enlightening with respect to morality.

And it is obvious that some stories in the Bible are stories and meant to be, it is just as obvious that others are literal truth (and meant to be). I agree that there are some that there is some debate about. Some of the debate comes from people who basically don't believe in God, or at least a God able to do anything, and that is really their problem... not with a story of Jesus walking on water. (If you believed that God could do such things, there would be very little debate about such stories.)

Conveniently subjective!

No it isn't.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I will agree that there is some age when no moral decisions are being made. And I will agree that complete adult abilities aren't there yet in a child.

That doesn't mean that a child has no abilities at all.

It does not mean that the child is responsible for none of his and her actions.

It is well known that children can be monsters, and that there is no sudden shift with adulthood to stop being a monster if a child is one.

God, being omniscient, obviously is able to judge even the young (btw).

There isn't some switch the completely changes a person when they move from childhood to adulthood. Be reasonable.

JM

I find it mightily amusing that you're suggesting two cities, each presumably with at least a few thousand inhabitants, had children who were all positively wicked. Even the babies would have to be wicked... and yet you're imploring me to be reasonable?

You're working overtime to justify that which is beyond justification: God slaughtering thousands of people, including children. The Old Testament is full of such monstrosities, and defending them as the acts of a Just and Loving deity is what is genuinely unreasonable.

The most reasonable conclusion is pretty obvious: either these are fables made up to make what was then a moral parable (but said morality doesn't hold true in modern times), or they were post-hoc justifications for the genocidal acts of those who wrote the Old Testament (God commanded us to dash those babies' heads against rocks!).

[Jon Miller]

That is the point, even all the children were wicked (or, possibly, had no chance of not being wicked in their life, remember, God is omniscient). Yes, it is suppose to be an extreme example, how many cities has God destroyed in the last 3000 years?

Whether it is myth or reality has no bearing on understanding the meaning of the story.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How could it even contain most things. Even the moral statements (which get the closest) can only be relevant for the particular culture at being discussed. And I do encourage people to study the morality in the Bible relative to the cultures involved, I think the study is enlightening with respect to morality.

Once again, you've managed to make arguments that are clear as mud. What ARE you arguing about? I certainly would agree that the fables in the Bible would be relevant to the culture of that time and place. That's actually a big "No Duh."

The question is, are they relevant now? If people claim they are, then we are obligated to judge the actions of the players by what WE find morally acceptable. God is supposedly the source of an immutable morality. If we look at what this supposed God allegedly did, the only moral conclusion is that he was a monster back then.

And it is obvious that some stories in the Bible are stories and meant to be, it is just as obvious that others are literal truth (and meant to be).

This is entirely your subjective opinion. Many people say they are all literal truths. Even the Christians who claim some are literal and some are not rarely if ever agree on which is which. This is cafeteria Christianity.

No it isn't.

Then I can only conclude you have no idea what the word "subjective" actually means.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That is the point, even all the children were wicked (or, possibly, had no chance of not being wicked in their life, remember, God is omniscient).

Ahh, so the Bible teaches predeterminationism and a lack of Free Will. At least, that's what you're suggesting here.

It was O.K. for god to slaughter those babies, as they were going to grow up to be evil people and could do nothing to change that.

Yes, it is suppose to be an extreme example, how many cities has God destroyed in the last 3000 years?

How are we to know? Maybe he destroyed EVERY city that has been destroyed in the past 3000 years? If he's willing to do it once, why not a thousand times? Perhaps New Orleans was being punished for something?

Whether it is myth or reality has no bearing on understanding the meaning of the story.

It makes a BIG difference as to our moral understanding of a supposed god if stories like this are LITERALLY true. I don't see how any reasonable person could suggest otherwise, except as a means as dismissing inconvenient items contained in one's holy books.

[Jon Miller]

Huh? How hard is it to look at the directions relative to the time and then draw conclusions from them. A well known example:

There is instruction to not wear mixed fibers (or something). These clothing was outrageously expensive at the time. It would make sense that this is a direction that we shouldn't spend all our wealth on clothes/etc.

Not difficult. That isn't to say that others are (although a lot of the ones that people think are silly obviously would have health effects. )

I know very few people (there are some, I admit, they are generally the same people who believe that fiction is evil) who say things like "the story of the prodigal son isn't a story, it is literal". However, almost all Christians agree it is a story to illustrate a point. No, it isn't cafeteria Christianity.

It is just that reality is complicated. It is obvious that reality is complicated, would it make sense if reality was as simple as checkers? At least the key points of religion can be understood by a child (if you take them on faith).

How is it subjective when you are following the direction of God?

JM