Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Silver]

I worry about the scientific method containing aspects of emotional expression.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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!

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.

First, are you arguing the people who wrote would be totally cool with someone professing their desire to have sex with a member of the same sex, or would they condemn under the same rules they put on the act of guy sex?

Second I didn't say Bicurious people are attracted to the same sex I said they desire to have sex with them that's not the same one is finding the same sex desirable the other is finding an act of interest Mike might not find Bob attractive, but she might be curious how it would feel to make out with him, it's still a desire and an attribute of a person and pretty sure if you said you wanted to do it to the authors of the bible their response wouldn't be "fine no problem".

[Angrboda]

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



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

First, are you arguing the people who wrote would be totally cool with someone professing their desire to have sex with a member of the same sex, or would they condemn under the same rules they put on the act of guy sex?

My time machine is in the shop, so we'll have to wait until it's out to answer your question.

Second I didn't say Bicurious people are attracted to the same sex I said they desire to have sex with them that's not the same one is finding the same sex desirable the other is finding an act of interest Mike might not find Bob attractive, but she might be curious how it would feel to make out with him, it's still a desire and an attribute of a person and pretty sure if you said you wanted to do it to the authors of the bible their response wouldn't be "fine no problem".

I'll accept that I may have misconstrued what you wrote. Still, it's possible that there are people who are bicurious because they want to avoid the stigma of not being sufficiently liberated rather than because they desire sex with a person of the same sex. So even on a corrected reading it doesn't follow.

[Sheldon]

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

Yes I understand the distinction theists often use to justify homophobia, but it's a tenuous distinction for me, telling people who they are is ok, as long as they deny it all their lives, by living as if they aren't gay. Also and for the record, that claim came after I'd said I had not represented the bible at all, and was an entirely different context. Since I was referring to the lie I had misrepresented what the bible said about omniscience and omnipotence, when in fact I'd made no comment whatsoever about what the bible claims about either. 

And yes, I agree, splitting rabbits...

To reiterate, and in response to @TheWhiteMarten's original claim, I find the notion a deity (omniscient or not, omnipotent or not) can create everything, then have no culpability for any of the outcome, palpably absurd. 

FWIW, the bible has passages that certainly assert the deity it depicts has literally limitless power. 

For example "Luke 1:37: "For with God nothing is ever impossible..."

And the same is true of omniscience...

"Psalm 147:5: "Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite"

Job 11:7-9: God is infinite, meaning that there are no boundaries on His qualities and existence 

But hey what do I know, I am just an "ignorant moron" apparently.

[Angrboda]

(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

Yes I understand the distinction theists often use to justify homophobia, but it's a tenuous distinction for me, telling people who they are is ok, as long as they deny it all their lives, by living as if they aren't gay. Also and for the record, that claim came after I'd said I had not represented the bible at all, and was an entirely different context. Since I was referring to the lie I had misrepresented what the bible said about omniscience and omnipotence, when in fact I'd made no comment whatsoever about what the bible claims about either. 

And yes, I agree, splitting rabbits...

To reiterate, and in response to @TheWhiteMarten's original claim, I find the notion a deity (omniscient or not, omnipotent or not) can create everything, then have no culpability for any of the outcome, palpably absurd. 

FWIW, the bible has passages that certainly assert the deity it depicts has literally limitless power. 

For example "Luke 1:37: "For with God nothing is ever impossible..."

And the same is true of omniscience...

"Psalm 147:5: "Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite"

Job 11:7-9: God is infinite, meaning that there are no boundaries on His qualities and existence 

But hey what do I know, I am just an "ignorant moron" apparently.

Fine. Then your claim that God cannot violate the law of noncontradiction does not hold and your claim about omniscience and omnipotence fails.

Btw, it's a common caveat that speakers in the bible can be wrong in the propositions to which they give voice, and that people aren't necessarily speaking literally all the time, so it becomes complicated.

[The Architect Of Fate]

First, are you arguing the people who wrote would be totally cool with someone professing their desire to have sex with a member of the same sex, or would they condemn under the same rules they put on the act of guy sex?

My time machine is in the shop, so we'll have to wait until it's out to answer your question.

Second I didn't say Bicurious people are attracted to the same sex I said they desire to have sex with them that's not the same one is finding the same sex desirable the other is finding an act of interest Mike might not find Bob attractive, but she might be curious how it would feel to make out with him, it's still a desire and an attribute of a person and pretty sure if you said you wanted to do it to the authors of the bible their response wouldn't be "fine no problem".

I'll accept that I may have misconstrued what you wrote.  Still, it's possible that there are people who are bicurious because they want to avoid the stigma of not being sufficiently liberated rather than because they desire sex with a person of the same sex.  So even on a corrected reading it doesn't follow.

First off, I pretty sure you don't need a time machine to make an educated guess on that culture's reaction to expressions of homosexuality.

Second Not sure how one can be stigmatized for not being liberated and still even if that was somehow motivation it's still willingness or a desire to participate in the act which an attribute of someone so again I must say I think it does follow.

[Angrboda]

My time machine is in the shop, so we'll have to wait until it's out to answer your question.



I'll accept that I may have misconstrued what you wrote.  Still, it's possible that there are people who are bicurious because they want to avoid the stigma of not being sufficiently liberated rather than because they desire sex with a person of the same sex.  So even on a corrected reading it doesn't follow.

First off, I pretty sure you don't need a time machine to make an educated guess on that culture's reaction to expressions of homosexuality.

Second Not sure how one can be stigmatized for not being liberated and still even if that was somehow motivation it's still willingness or a desire to participate in the act which an attribute of someone so again I must say I think it does follow.

Nobody was addressing your needs. I was pretty sure you were talking about mine. But while we're at it, exactly what would you be basing your educated guess upon?

As to the second, willingness and desire-to are not the same thing. I'm willing to pay my taxes. Whether I desire to do so is another matter.

[Sheldon]

Yes I understand the distinction theists often use to justify homophobia, but it's a tenuous distinction for me, telling people who they are is ok, as long as they deny it all their lives, by living as if they aren't gay. Also and for the record, that claim came after I'd said I had not represented the bible at all, and was an entirely different context. Since I was referring to the lie I had misrepresented what the bible said about omniscience and omnipotence, when in fact I'd made no comment whatsoever about what the bible claims about either. 

And yes, I agree, splitting rabbits...

To reiterate, and in response to @TheWhiteMarten's original claim, I find the notion a deity (omniscient or not, omnipotent or not) can create everything, then have no culpability for any of the outcome, palpably absurd. 

FWIW, the bible has passages that certainly assert the deity it depicts has literally limitless power. 

For example "Luke 1:37: "For with God nothing is ever impossible..."

And the same is true of omniscience...

"Psalm 147:5: "Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite"

Job 11:7-9: God is infinite, meaning that there are no boundaries on His qualities and existence 

But hey what do I know, I am just an "ignorant moron" apparently.

your claim that God cannot violate the law of noncontradiction 

I never claimed this. I am also an atheist, so invite you to see why I would never make such a claim. 

your claim about omniscience and omnipotence fails.

What claim, please quote the post and embolden it.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

In an objective world (or in an objective sense if we prefer), a given subjects nature and whether or not it's actions are coherent with that nature are not truthmaking properties.  A god could be very goddy, and everything a god did could inherit it's godness...but insomuch as that outcome or that subject may be true or moral it is true or moral by reference to some facts about the purported objects of the report and not facts about the subject of the report - such as it's nature or predilections or whatever it happens to be doing at a given moment.

[Angrboda]

your claim that God cannot violate the law of noncontradiction 

I never claimed this. I am also an atheist, so invite you to see why I would never make such a claim. 

your claim about omniscience and omnipotence fails.

What claim, please quote the post and embolden it.

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

If omnipotence means that God is not bound by the law of noncontradiction, then he is not violating said law because said law does not apply to this domain. It's akin to saying that the singularity violates the laws of classical physics even though the laws of classical physics are basically undefined with regard to the singularity. It would be similar to saying that Vladimir Putin has violated U.S. law when he is not subject to U.S. law as he is not a U.S. citizen.