Can we defeat homosexuality?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

How does this follow? I admit that you might not have read much sci-fi, but how about that He could just see all possibilities?

And I just said that this was a possibility, not that I thought it was fact.

And it is true that the Bible is very predestination friendly.

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?

Well, He hasn't been as open about it if He has.

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.

Because I say that even if they aren't literally true, they should be understood as being literally true when seeking to gain understanding from them. But then, I think that all stories should be read this way from Harry Potter to War and Peace to Gilgamesh.

JM

[GePap]

We need Blake, someone who is intensely devout to a religious tradition devoid of "God" cause these endless Christian v. Atheist debates get stale quick.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap
We need Blake, someone who is intensely devout to a religious tradition devoid of "God" cause these endless Christian v. Atheist debates get stale quick.

This is more mature then most because for the most part Boris (And Q3 definitely didn't) go "belief in God is ridiculous" as a response to everything.

Which reminds me, I haven't had a chance to go back to Q3 last post.

JM

[GePap]

Christianity is just one of MANY religious identities that have existed in the world. All of which were "moral", incluing say Mexica religious beliefs with their mass human sacrifices.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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.

Interesting, because that is NOT among the reasons for the prohibition that I have commonly seen given. One is directly contradictory to yours, that mixed fibres were of inferior quality:

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/192/Should-Christian-Wear-Clothing-of-Mixed-Fibers-Leviticus-1919.htm

Another is that the prohibition was for religious/xenophobic reasons:

The prohibition to not wear clothing made from mixed fiber was very specific to the religious practices of Palestine during the conquest period of Israel's history. If I remember correctly, treaties that were made with neighboring nations were signified by intermarriage and homage to foreign deities. This polytheistic method of political diplomacy was also expressed in the symbolic gesture of blending two types of material.

So here we have three completely different supposed rationales for what you are claiming is clear-cut. This is the very definition of subjectivity: You have your (unsubstantiated) interpretation, others have theirs. And there are three totally different conclusions to be drawn:

1) Mixed fabrics are too ritzy and you shouldn't show off your wealth.
2) Mixed fabrics are of bad quality and you should only wear the good stuff
3) Mixed fabrics are a sign of heathen/foreign influence and should be avoided.

Yes, clear as day...

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.

No one is arguing these stories don't exist to make a point. The issue is that the points are frequently obscure and lead different people to vastly different interpretations/conclusions, as aptly demonstrated above.

This is precisely what is meant by "subjective reasoning."

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).

I love how this contradicts your above "Huh? How is it hard...?" nonsense.

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

I don't see how anyone with a modicum of self-awareness could ask this with any hint of seriousness. The history of much of the world's great atrocities is based upon people following what they thought was the direction of their god. How did they come to think that these were their god's desires? Because they relied upon subjective things like prayer & meditation (which we in the world of reason just call "thinking to one's self) and a subjective interpretation of ancient holy texts that can be taken in different ways.

[Jon Miller]

?No, I said that the idea that the morality was for it's time and to study it in it's time isn't a difficult idea.

I didn't say the study would be easy.

I haven't actually done it in many cases, but have went with easier aspects (And more important oens).

JM

[Jon Miller]

And I disagree with you about attrocities. Most of them were done for politics, some of them using the excuse of religion.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How does this follow? I admit that you might not have read much sci-fi, but how about that He could just see all possibilities?

And I just said that this was a possibility, not that I thought it was fact.

And it is true that the Bible is very predestination friendly.

If the God of the Bible has decreed predestination, then we have to go back to the point that it therefore doesn't matter if someone does or doesn't believe in god, there's no Free Will in the matter anyway.

I'd say this is further proof of the inconsistency of the Bible, as the New Testament at least seems to suggest that Free Will is very much real.

Furthermore, we then have to ask as to why killing all these people was the only answer, if it was God who predetermined they would be wicked in the first place? Couldn't he just "unharden" their hearts? He is supposedly omnipotent, after all. He could at least have spared the children and sent them to a new town full of good people to be raised under their influence so they'd grow up to be good people themselves.

I can think of any number of solutions besides a holocaust.

Well, He hasn't been as open about it if He has.

Perhaps he was to someone else, just not to you.

There are many people who believe god has spoken to them and warned them of disasters. Today, we generally call them insane.

Because I say that even if they aren't literally true, they should be understood as being literally true when seeking to gain understanding from them. But then, I think that all stories should be read this way from Harry Potter to War and Peace to Gilgamesh.

If the stories are literally true, any understanding to be gleaned from the moral lesson trying to be taught is vastly overshadowed by the realization that God chose to horribly murder thousands of people (including one for just peeking) while saving a man who offered his daughters up to be raped. This is a window into the mind of this supposed god that can't be ignored.

Likewise, it makes a big difference whether or not Harry Potter or Gilgamesh are literally true, as it would upend modern understandings of physics if they were.

Any geologist, physicist or biologist would do a spit take if told it didn't make a difference whether or not Genesis was or wasn't literally true.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And I disagree with you about attrocities. Most of them were done for politics, some of them using the excuse of religion.

JM

Religion is inseparable from politics - after all, how can you pssibly separate the use of temporal power from the supposed source of morality and the basis for lawmaking?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
?No, I said that the idea that the morality was for it's time and to study it in it's time isn't a difficult idea.

And I never disagreed with that. In fact, I said that was the entire value of it. Which is why I asked "what are you arguing about?"

But we're back to the issue of the immutable morality of God, which is a doctrine of Christianity and other religious faiths. If the actions of people or god were moral 5000 years ago, they have to be moral today as well. If morality has changed, the most reasonable conclusion is because the moral precepts supposedly imposed by god were not correct because, in truth, they were the morals of the people of the time, and they fabricated their image of god around those moral views.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Christianity is just one of MANY religious identities that have existed in the world. All of which were "moral", incluing say Mexica religious beliefs with their mass human sacrifices.

Hence my point that, were he born in India, JM would likely be arguing just as strenuously regarding Hinduism instead of Christianity.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The idea of Church seems to contradict what Jesus says anyway, since Mark Chapter 6 verses 5-6 instruct people not to pray in public, but rather do it in private in a closet. Seems to me 99% of Christians ignore this command.

I know everyone knows this but it should be pointed out that: it was generally not a good idea to pray in public as the Romans had a hostile stance towards christianity, but they didn't mind as long as as you kept it in private (cf. Pliny the younger's conversation with Trajan when he ruled over Bithynia & Pontus).

I'm trying to say that it's another example of the bible being written in a particular age and time. How God is to be worshiped now shouldn't be taken literally from the bible. So openly praying is okay, if in return those praying people don't consider gays as sinful ppl

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I know everyone knows this but it should be pointed out that: it was generally not a good idea to pray in public as the Romans had a hostile stance towards christianity, but they didn't mind as long as as you kept it in private (cf. Pliny the younger's conversation with Trajan when he ruled over Bithynia & Pontus).

I'm trying to say that it's another example of the bible being written in a particular age and time. How God is to be worshiped now shouldn't be taken literally from the bible. So openly praying is okay, if in return those praying people don't consider gays as sinful ppl

Matthew 6 verse 5 explicitly states the reason for not praying in public, and it wasn't due to the threat of the Romans:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

The purpose of the prohibition is actually quite clear in this case: no showing off your piety in public to make yourself look good.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Elok


Good call, Doc. I guess maybe they think the Episcopals should not only have gay bishops but have every last one of you support the idea of gay bishops? My best guess.

No, gay Canadians think liberal Christians are a bunch of phonies trying to be cool.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


No, gay Canadians think liberal Christians are a bunch of phonies trying to be cool.

Aside from the fact that they ARE, I didn't know you supported gay marriage?