Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the above crops up regularly with respect to people compelled to make religious truth statements (i include religious moral statements here as claims to a moral truth). Like rationality, to an aggressive or expansionist religious ideology objectivity is an item to posess - not a rule to follow. If gods rules don't agree with objectivity then objectivity is wrong. It may be true..but it will be wrong nevertheless - hence our new friends reliance on divine objectivity, rather than plain old objectivity - a claim that turns the whole thing into an immediate farce..as they're indicating that they believe that gods opinions or nature is the truthmaking property regardless of what the facts of a given matter may be.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Thus we do not live in a logical world..so any arguments from christian apologists about how they possess logic are empty utterances with no meaning or content beyond whatever social leverage they believe it grants them with people who -do- believe we live in a logical world. A stolen concept disingenuously applied.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

Thus we do not live in a logical world..so any arguments from christian apologists about how they possess logic are empty utterances with no meaning or content beyond whatever social leverage they believe it grants them with people who -do- believe we live in a logical world.  A stolen concept disingenuously applied.

That doesn't follow. As an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, it's fine; as a statement of truth, no.

It's akin to people arguing that because their desire to obey the norms of society are ultimately rooted in irrational emotions, obeying norms is irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

That we do not live in a logical world explicitly follows from the idea that gods are not subject to logical laws and so a logical contradiction is not an existential issue for a god. If a person is trying to convince you of something by logic in a world they contend is illogical then they are peddling a stolen concept which they do not themselves believe in.

-and it would be irrational to obey norms because of their normness or because we desire to, ofc. We still do it, but we do many irrational things, we are very much motivated by our emotions...? Irrational isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor, and it accurately describes a great deal of human behavior, objectively speaking. Thank god we lowly human worms realize that and periodically reassess our norms. Now, if we could just get these silly gods caught up on the curve with us...

[Sheldon]

your claim that God cannot violate the law of noncontradiction

Sheldon wrote: 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. 

This assumes a deity exists (can) exist, and that it is not bound (or that anything cannot be bound) by the principles of logic, this doesn't demonstrate my claim fails, only tries to ringfence a particular theistic belief from the principle of logic, I have no objective reason to accept any of that. The innate contradictions remain.

[Angrboda]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sheldon]

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.

Thus we do not live in a logical world..so any arguments from christian apologists about how they possess logic are empty utterances with no meaning or content beyond whatever social leverage they believe it grants them with people who -do- believe we live in a logical world.  A stolen concept disingenuously applied.

You have to see the irony, in anyone trying to invoke logic to defend any beliefs, while simultaneously trying to claim it's principles can be set aside.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

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.

[Angrboda]

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. 

This assumes a deity exists (can) exist, and that it is not bound (or that anything cannot be bound) by the principles of logic, this doesn't demonstrate my claim fails, only tries to ringfence theistic beliefs from the principle of logic, I have no objective reason to accept any of that.

No, it doesn't assume a deity exists. It's a hypothetical. And in particular, 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. And given that you seem beholden to only accepting things that are logically consistent, regardless of whether it's an attempt to ringfence theistic beliefs or not, it's clear that you have allegiances which would justify your accepting that your formulation is thereby nonsensical. But then, I don't expect you to be particularly beholden to logic when applied to your own arguments as much as you are eager to apply, or perhaps misapply, it to the arguments of others.