Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[The Grand Nudger]

@Sheldon

The rules only hold until the nuts wanna say crazy shit. I think that's our human nature bubbling up from under the gunk. We don't want to feel like idiots for the idiotic things we believe..and continuing to believe idiotic things without discomfort is often worth more to us than removing idiotic things from our beliefs. Especially so with religious beliefs - as expressions of how we wish the world were no matter what terms accurately describe those desires or how the world actually is.

A committed christian could tell us that they know they're degenerate sinners who don't deserve gods grace, but they still want it, and they think they're gonna get it. They could acknowledge that some facts make it difficult to believe in the contents of their scriptures...that they have trouble making sense of it all, and that this is why you need to get such things out of your life and lean in on faith. Rationality and logic are simply not among the organizing principles of a faith based firstly and wholly upon magic and wish thinking. These things can never meet in the middle of a genuine faith. There's no vicariously redemptive juice in rationality or getting facts right.

[Angrboda]

I was responding to your original argument that people who engage in homosexual acts are clearly, by implication, being maligned and penalized for being homosexuals.  In that context, if someone is maligned for the act, regardless of whether they have the sexual desires of someone with a homosexual sexual orientation, then your claim that the punishment of the act is an implied condemnation of homosexually oriented persons fails.  Not just any desire will do.

And I've already given you alternative guesses.  My guesses don't align with yours in every instance so the guesswork is not very telling.

 Actually I don't think it  fails because as I have said it's a clear case  that this culture condemns homosexuality as an act, so there is every reason that it's implied that expressed desires  or willingness to engage in the act due to other related desires would also be condemned  so far I don't see how any of your alternatives get around this. Just being honest with you here.

You missed my addendum pointing out that it is not the views of the culture that matter, but God's views, of which these codes are an expression.

Regardless, it's a moot point as your initial comment, quoted below, clearly identifies "homosexual desires," which are commonly defined as sexual desires for persons of the same sex. If I want to have sex because I'm afraid of what my peers will think of me if I don't, or because someone is holding a gun to my head -- any other kind of desire besides a sexual desire is not going to count.

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

Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other as my primary point was that Sheldon was misrepresenting what the bible says about same-sex sexual acts.

[Sheldon]

First off I said nothing about my needs, I pointed out one can guess how the culture would respond to expression of a desire to commit an act they clearly condemn without the use of a time machine.

Second, You clearly have a desire that's related to paying taxes. The desire for public service or to not go to jail for example or a desire to fulfill the social contract those are desires also again if a person in biblical times went around saying I'm willing to fuck another guy out of some related desire I'm pretty sure the response wouldn't be positive because they don't seem to have positive opinion of that act.

your claim that the punishment of the act is an implied condemnation of homosexually oriented persons fails.  

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

And I've already given you alternative guesses.  My guesses don't align with yours in every instance so the guesswork is not very telling.

For that matter, since the bible is primarily exposition of the revealed truths of God, not men, what the average person of the time thinks is somewhat moot.  It's God's opinion that matters.

You seem to think simply making the claim, makes it so. In order for a deity's opinion to matter, it would necessarily need to exist, and there is no objective evidence any deity exists, or that the bible isn't just another man made book. What's moot is that a book condemns people from living as who they are, for no rational or reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

It depends on the decade. Bibles the world over have been condemning the homosex since about 1980. Before that it was child molestors..though, culturally speaking, the authors may not have made much of a distinction. Grown men screwing little boys aren't exactly straight. It's a good example of the difference between objective and subjective frameworks, though. Is the badness of boyfucking something to do with a gods attitudes towards boyfucking, or is it something to do with fucking little boys?

I suspect it's the latter.

(kinda funny that a bunch of child molestors decided to translate a word referring to them as instead being about gay people, eh?)

[The Architect Of Fate]

 Actually I don't think it  fails because as I have said it's a clear case  that this culture condemns homosexuality as an act, so there is every reason that it's implied that expressed desires  or willingness to engage in the act due to other related desires would also be condemned  so far I don't see how any of your alternatives get around this. Just being honest with you here.

You missed my addendum pointing out that it is not the views of the culture that matter, but God's views, of which these codes are an expression.

Regardless, it's a moot point as your initial comment, quoted below, clearly identifies "homosexual desires," which are commonly defined as sexual desires for persons of the same sex.  If I want to have sex because I'm afraid of what my peers will think of me if I don't, or because someone is holding a gun to my head -- any other kind of desire besides a sexual desire is not going to count.

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

Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other as my primary point was that Sheldon was misrepresenting what the bible says about same-sex sexual acts.

First- I said nothing about gods' views, I spoke of the view as expressed in the bible which said culture follows (with the belief they are god's views)

Second-My comment on sex homosexual desires which I don't think was refuted nor was general notion of desires or willingness to engage in an act would likely still be condemned, so no I disagree non-sexual acts don't count. 

Third- I still agree that he did, as I still think homosexual desires would be condemned, as would a willingness to engage in said act. 

Again just being honest with I don't think this response holds up

[Angrboda]

your claim that the punishment of the act is an implied condemnation of homosexually oriented persons fails.  

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

That's nice.

And I've already given you alternative guesses.  My guesses don't align with yours in every instance so the guesswork is not very telling.

For that matter, since the bible is primarily exposition of the revealed truths of God, not men, what the average person of the time thinks is somewhat moot.  It's God's opinion that matters.

You seem to think simply making the claim, makes it so. In order for a deity's opinion to matter, it would necessarily need to exist, and there is no objective evidence any deity exists, or that the bible isn't just another man made book. What's moot is that a book condemns people from living as who they are, for no rational or reason.

It matters with regards to whether the proposition that the deity described by the bible and Christianity condemns the acts, regardless of sexual orientation or not, regardless of whether any such deity actually exists.

This is an example of moving the goalposts -- recasting a simple question about a proposition and its logical inputs into a question about what matters existentially.

[Sheldon]

Angrboda wrote: this is an examination as to whether your ideas of omnipotence and omniscience are internally consistent or not. Your ideas remain inconsistent regardless of whether such beings do or do not exist.

Only if one were to accept (even as a hypothetical) that a deity, or any being or entity can exist that is not bound by the principles of logic, or that omniscience and or omnipotence are possible. It is you who is claiming we can casually set logic aside in this way, and yet the claims can somehow magically remain logically consistent.  

The idea that omniscience and omnipotence contain innate contradictions are not mine either, they have existed for millennia.

[Angrboda]

Only if one were to accept (even as a hypothetical) that a deity, or any being or entity can exist that is not bound by the principles of logic, or that omniscience and or omnipotence are possible. It is you who is claiming we can casually set logic aside in this way, and yet the claims can somehow magically remain logically consistent.  

Well, that is what accepting a hypothetical means -- accepting something as true, provisionally, in order to concentrate on other things.

I don't recall making such a claim. Could you refresh my memory on the matter?

[Sheldon]

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

That's nice.

You seem to think simply making the claim, makes it so. In order for a deity's opinion to matter, it would necessarily need to exist, and there is no objective evidence any deity exists, or that the bible isn't just another man made book. What's moot is that a book condemns people from living as who they are, for no rational or reason.

It matters with regards to whether the proposition that the deity described by the bible and Christianity condemns the acts, regardless of sexual orientation or not, regardless of whether any such deity actually exists.

This is an example of moving the goalposts -- recasting a simple question about a proposition and its logical inputs into a question about what matters existentially.

Nope, it is a false equivalence your using, being gay, and having gay sex are not exactly the same thing of course, but to condemn people for having gay sex equates to condemning them for being gay. 

The condemnations of homosexuality in the bible are immoral to me, whether a deity exists or not of course. However to say "only god's opinion matters, and all else is moot" then claim that deity's existence is not relevant, is what I would describe as moving the goal posts. 

I am an atheist, it's a given I don't believe those condemnations or anything in the bible is the opinion of any deity.

[Angrboda]

You missed my addendum pointing out that it is not the views of the culture that matter, but God's views, of which these codes are an expression.

Regardless, it's a moot point as your initial comment, quoted below, clearly identifies "homosexual desires," which are commonly defined as sexual desires for persons of the same sex.  If I want to have sex because I'm afraid of what my peers will think of me if I don't, or because someone is holding a gun to my head -- any other kind of desire besides a sexual desire is not going to count.


Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other as my primary point was that Sheldon was misrepresenting what the bible says about same-sex sexual acts.

First- I said nothing about gods' views, I spoke of the view as expressed in the bible which said culture follows (with the belief they are god's views)

The bible is a document of divine revelation; you can't separate the two.

Second-My comment on sex homosexual desires which I don't think was refuted nor was general notion of desires or willingness to engage in an act would likely still be condemned, so no I disagree non-sexual acts don't count. 

Your claim was that performance of the act implied condemnation of the homosexual attribute of the person. While as a sociological matter it may be likely that the culture of those who embraced God condemned the sexual orientation, it also may be likely that those people condemned the act because the act was a part of a social role prescribed for men and women, regardless of the motivating factor. One can examine the writings of the time and find that they had no words to describe sexual orientations but it's clear that they had words to describe the appropriate behavioral roles of men and women (e.g. Roman writings about women of power). So while there is evidence from the writing for the latter, I'm unclear on what your evidence for the former is. Beyond that, because implication is a matter of authorial intent, and the bible and God's revelations are expressions of his intentions, whether God intended people to conclude that condemnation of the act was condemnation of the orientation, a subject for which they have no words, is ultimately a question about the author and His intent. Unless of course you want to go post-modern, and that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Third- I still agree that he did, as I still think homosexual desires would be condemned, as would a willingness to engage in said act. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but neither do I think you have satisfied the burden of proof in the matter at hand.