(December 14, 2024 at 1:23 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example.  The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better.  I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument.  I apologize.

Apology not accepted, maybe if you hadn't tried to falsely blame me for your outburst, and weren't doubling down on your lies, but life's too short.

I'm not blaming you for my outbursts. I accept full responsibility for them. I think you are choosing a reading which is justification for continued hostility instead of exhibiting some charity. If that's your choice, so be it. It doesn't have to be.

Quote:No, I'm not interested in discussing the kind of anthropomorphic god that you're arguing about. 

The god of the bible seems pretty anthropomorphic to me 

Quote:It's not an issue for classical theism because in that tradition, God doesn't make choices. 

Never have I heard god described as a mindless  automaton by any theist 

Quote:So I think we are interested in different things. That's OK.

Yes he seems interested in talking about god you seem interested in talking about some other creature

(December 14, 2024 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:01 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I never represented the bible at all, that was a straw man you made up. However until you remove that long stick from your arse, I see little point in trying to engage in honest debate with anyone so wilfully dishonest.

Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example.  The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better.  I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument.  I apologize.

(Bold mine)

Technically correct, but it repeatedly condemns acts of homosexuality. It’s as if the Bible is saying that you can be gay all the livelong day as long as you don’t act like it.

The seems like splitting rabbits.

Boru

(December 14, 2024 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example.  The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better.  I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument.  I apologize.

(Bold mine)

Technically correct, but it repeatedly condemns acts of homosexuality. The seems like splitting rabbits.

Boru

And I'm pretty sure by implication it also condemns the driver of those acts homosexual desires which would be an attribute of a person

(December 14, 2024 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example.  The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better.  I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument.  I apologize.

(Bold mine)

Technically correct, but it repeatedly condemns acts of homosexuality. It’s as if the Bible is saying that you can be gay all the livelong day as long as you don’t act like it.

The seems like splitting rabbits.

Boru

Technically correct -- the best kind of correct one can be! I'm not sure I would disagree, my only point was the misrepresentation of the bible.

(December 14, 2024 at 2:01 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

Technically correct, but it repeatedly condemns acts of homosexuality. The seems like splitting rabbits.

Boru

And I'm pretty sure by implication it also condemns the driver of those acts homosexual desires which would be an attribute of a person

Some feminists contend that rape is an act of control, rather than sex. One example that seems to fit this conception is the rape of Butch and Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction. Regardless of whether the rapist's desires are motivated by a desire to control or a desire for delicious same-sex booty, the bible condemns both acts equally, regardless of the motivating cause. There's also the case of bicurious people who engage in same-sex acts despite not having a homosexual orientation. So, no, there is not a necessary implication there that the bible is condemning homosexual oriented persons for who they are. In the same vein, scholars have suggested that the objection to same-sex acts was less about any sexual orientation, as they had no words for such, but rather the destabilizing influence of people engaging in acts which lie outside their prescribed gender roles, similar to how people argue against both gay marriage and transgenderism.

(December 14, 2024 at 1:04 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 12:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Divine objectivity is an oxymoron.  Things are either objective or not.  If a gods opinions are the truthmaker rather than facts of a matter we're dealing with subjectivity or relativity.  If facts of the matter are the truthmaker then a gods opinions and existence are irrelevant to the same.  See what I mean about your compulsion to immediately reject objectivity?

In the first sentence highlighted you argue against god's opinions, but in the latter you add in that his existence, too, is irrelevant.  

I didn't, mostly because I wouldn't know what those opinions are...but it's conceivable that I may even share some of a gods opinions if a god existed.  If the truthmaker is the existence of a shared opinion - which I think we both agree can exist and accurately describes both explicit opinions between demonstrably existent beings and between purported gods and the genuine followers of their various religions- this is relativism.  The truthmaking property of a statement being agreement with said statement but not necessarily agreement with the facts of the matter the statement purports to report.  So, for example..Teh Gay isn't bad for anything about Teh Gay - it's bad because god says so and gods followers agree.  

Quote:  Is God's existence itself not one of your so-called facts of the matter?  And if not, why not?

No more or less so than ours is.  That we demonstrably exist and certainly hold opinions about things doesn't signify or demonstrate that our opinions are objective.  That they accurately refer to what they purport to report..rather than ourselves, some group we belong to, or some god we worship.

Quote:I'll note in passing that we have in this thread a person arguing that God holds ultimate moral responsibility for the existence that he created.  Is it not possible then that the nature or being of God is also the ultimate fact of the matter?

In a fundamentally subjective reality it would be...but alas, by the nature of subjectivity...every contravening fact of every other creatures nature and every diametrically opposed opinion to said gods would be equally, ultimately, and simultaneously true.

I don't personally believe that a god would have ultimate moral responsibility if they existed. Specific incompetence. We were just talking about how gods couldn't possibly do anything and everything or know anything and everything. Some stuff is out of reach. Impossible even for a god. Incompetent agents are often believed to be less than fully responsible for the outcomes of their own actions, let alone the actions of all other actors. The christian religion here in the states, for example, is dogshit not for anything a god did - it just can't keep it's people in line. I presume this would still be true in a god filled world - the world the faithful already believe they inhabit.

(December 14, 2024 at 2:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 2:01 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: And I'm pretty sure by implication it also condemns the driver of those acts homosexual desires which would be an attribute of a person

Some feminists contend that rape is an act of control, rather than sex.  One example that seems to fit this conception is the rape of Butch and Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction.   Regardless of whether the rapist's desires are motivated by a desire to control or a desire for delicious same-sex booty, the bible condemns both acts equally, regardless of the motivating cause.  There's also the case of bicurious people who engage in same-sex acts despite not having a homosexual orientation.  So, no, there is not a necessary implication there that the bible is condemning homosexual oriented persons for who they are.  In the same vein, scholars have suggested that the objection to same-sex acts was less about any sexual orientation, as they had no words for such, but rather the destabilizing influence of people engaging in acts which lie outside their prescribed gender roles, similar to how people argue against both gay marriage and transgenderism.

That really doesn't get around my point. If a man back then told another man he wanted to have sex with another man, I'm pretty sure that desire would be condemned under the same rules as the act of engaging in gay sex. 

Also, orientation and desire aren't the same thing bicurious people clearly have a desire to have sex with members of the same sex even if it not an orientation (it could be argued it is) that desire is still an attribute of the person and highly doubt the people who wrote the bible would make much distinction in condemning it.

(December 14, 2024 at 2:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 2:10 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Some feminists contend that rape is an act of control, rather than sex.  One example that seems to fit this conception is the rape of Butch and Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction.   Regardless of whether the rapist's desires are motivated by a desire to control or a desire for delicious same-sex booty, the bible condemns both acts equally, regardless of the motivating cause.  There's also the case of bicurious people who engage in same-sex acts despite not having a homosexual orientation.  So, no, there is not a necessary implication there that the bible is condemning homosexual oriented persons for who they are.  In the same vein, scholars have suggested that the objection to same-sex acts was less about any sexual orientation, as they had no words for such, but rather the destabilizing influence of people engaging in acts which lie outside their prescribed gender roles, similar to how people argue against both gay marriage and transgenderism.

That really doesn't get around my point. If a man back then told another man he wanted to have sex with another man, I'm pretty sure that desire would be condemned under the same rules as the act of engaging in gay sex. 

Well, if you're sure, then I guess that settles it!

(December 14, 2024 at 2:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Also, orientation and desire aren't the same thing bicurious people clearly have a desire to have sex with members of the same sex even if it not an orientation (it could be argued it is) that desire is still an attribute of the person and highly doubt the people who wrote the bible would make much distinction in condemning it.

No. Bicurious people are not necessarily attracted to people of the same sex. You're adding assumptions to the hypothetical without justification.

(December 14, 2024 at 2:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:04 pm)Angrboda Wrote: In the first sentence highlighted you argue against god's opinions, but in the latter you add in that his existence, too, is irrelevant.  

I didn't, mostly because I wouldn't know what those opinions are...but it's conceivable that I may even share some of a gods opinions if a god existed.  If the truthmaker is the existence of a shared opinion - which I think we both agree can exist and accurately describes both explicit opinions between demonstrably existent beings and between purported gods and the genuine followers of their various religions- this is relativism.  The truthmaking property of a statement being agreement with said statement but not necessarily agreement with the facts of the matter the statement purports to report.  So, for example..Teh Gay isn't bad for anything about Teh Gay - it's bad because god says so and gods followers agree.  

Quote:  Is God's existence itself not one of your so-called facts of the matter?  And if not, why not?

No more or less so than ours is.  That we demonstrably exist and certainly hold opinions about things doesn't signify or demonstrate that our opinions are objective.  That they accurately refer to what they purport to report..rather than ourselves, some group we belong to, or some god we worship.

Quote:I'll note in passing that we have in this thread a person arguing that God holds ultimate moral responsibility for the existence that he created.  Is it not possible then that the nature or being of God is also the ultimate fact of the matter?

In a fundamentally subjective reality it would be...but alas, by the nature of subjectivity...every contravening fact of every other creatures nature and every diametrically opposed opinion to said gods would be equally, ultimately, and simultaneously true.

I don't personally believe that a god would have ultimate moral responsibility if they existed.  Specific incompetence.  We were just talking about how gods couldn't possibly do anything and everything or know anything and everything.  Some stuff is out of reach.  Impossible even for a god.  Incompetent agents are often believed to be less than fully responsible for the outcomes of their own actions, let alone the actions of all other actors.  The christian religion here in the states, for example, is dogshit not for anything a god did - it just can't keep it's people in line.  I presume this would still be true in a god filled world - the world the faithful already believe they inhabit.

I think you're conflating the subjective aspects of God with his objective aspects. While for the sake of argument I will accept your claim that his subjective aspect is irrelevant to morality, that doesn't preclude objective facts about him having moral bearing. I've recently been reading about how life molecules have a certain handedness, and scientists are worried that creating life forms possessing a different handedness would pose a hazard as such organisms might be invisible to the defenses of our standardly handed life forms. Is it not possible that God's nature is similarly handed with respect to his being and therefore any thing he creates will necessarily inherit said moral handedness?