Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consenting homosexuals - why wrong?

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Shrimps too. God hates shrimps, and all shell fish. Leviticus, the same book that condemns gay people.

Ever see a pastor with a prawn cocktail or a crab salad? Hypocrite.
oo00
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:33:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well? : :

God doesn't see anything wrong with his creation but plenty of religious people do.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:05:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

You have been talking about how society should honour heterosexuality and nuclear family, on my topics where I have problematised arguments calling for reproduction. This goes further than that. A society could honour that while still see no problems with what happens in a bedroom. Ideologies like secular conservatism tend to be like that. The Bible however is not of that stance.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!!

Read above.

how many threads now Jovian?

Many. About different aspects regarding the anti homo stance.

are you gay?

No.

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

The topic was about consent where no one gets hurt. You specified a tortured baby. Where is the victim in homosexuality?

Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.

Except for the fact that nature always have rendered mankind with the same gift it has given to all other species, the instinct of survival, rendering only a few percent homosexuals, which is also the case in other species.

It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

What you just wrote is the ideology of secular conservatism. Like "Do whatever you want in private ad long as no one is hurt but keep it there". The Bible is not of that stance. The Bible prohibits every kind of homosexuality. And if consent couldn't work on it, then consent shouldn't work on people who consent to boxing as well. Violence.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:09:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

Ignore my previous answer on this. My real argument is: The baby didn't consent to this and couldn't consent on this either. So no, no consent between all parties here.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:10:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:33:05 PM, oo00 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well? : :

God doesn't see anything wrong with his creation but plenty of religious people do.

So you're saying that all prohibitions in the Bible are entirely unsubstantiated?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:13:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:29:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Shrimps too. God hates shrimps, and all shell fish. Leviticus, the same book that condemns gay people.

Ever see a pastor with a prawn cocktail or a crab salad? Hypocrite.

The Old Testament rules are considered by modern modern day Christians to be outdated unless aligned with the New Testament. However, you can still see anti-homosexuality Christians talk about how consent isn't any excuse. EternalVw just did in this thread for example.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:17:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

So you're just following orders and proclaiming them to be good because you happen to believe they come from God, but at the end of the day, you cannot think of a single good reason outside of because-(insert authority figure here)-says-so to comply?

Good to know.

Also, exceedingly convincing.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:35:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:17:58 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

So you're just following orders and proclaiming them to be good because you happen to believe they come from God, but at the end of the day, you cannot think of a single good reason outside of because-(insert authority figure here)-says-so to comply?

Good to know.

Also, exceedingly convincing.

It's an interesting point there. Many religious people seem to think that a crime only could have legitimate reasons of being a crime if God considered it wrong. I believe EternalVw to not adhere to this thinking although, but we atheists and agnostics tend to receive questions like how we could consider murder or rape wrong when we allegedly miss stable pillars for it.

And if someone religious really only have their god as a buffer to not do crimes, you can guess what could happen if said religious people would experience s religious crisis and become irreligious. That's one of my fears.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:47:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:05:20 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

You have been talking about how society should honour heterosexuality and nuclear family, on my topics where I have problematised arguments calling for reproduction. This goes further than that. A society could honour that while still see no problems with what happens in a bedroom. Ideologies like secular conservatism tend to be like that. The Bible however is not of that stance.

I don't care what happens in a bedroom, there could be two gays poking each other in the behind next door and I wouldn't give a rats bottom...however if they came knocking on my door to soliciting their activities or creating a topic in a forum, or asking my opinion about what God created and what Christians believe I would tell them, see the difference?


"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

The topic was about consent where no one gets hurt. You specified a tortured baby. Where is the victim in homosexuality?

Don't glaze over my point, in God's eyes "consenting adults" are irrelevant and could agree with anything, you never specified "no one gets hurt", and then we have to come to an agreement what constitutes someone getting hurt, and is gay sex something that could hinder or become a harm to someone.


Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.

Except for the fact that nature always have rendered mankind with the same gift it has given to all other species, the instinct of survival, rendering only a few percent homosexuals, which is also the case in other species.

So you do consider it?

It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

What you just wrote is the ideology of secular conservatism. Like "Do whatever you want in private ad long as no one is hurt but keep it there". The Bible is not of that stance. The Bible prohibits every kind of homosexuality. And if consent couldn't work on it, then consent shouldn't work on people who consent to boxing as well. Violence.

Uhh no, I'm not a secular conservative, it's just not my business. The OT Jews prohibit homosexual relations within their own community under their own laws for the sake of spiritual purity for their own purpose collectively. Christians are not responsible for OT Jews and what they follow rather for themselves. The NT passage that is mentioned in Romans, it is not a command or a law, it's just knowledge and the authors opinions. WE, as Christians are commanded to love, that is our responsibility.
However, loving does not mean compromise either, if we are asked, made to change meanings of institutions or share our beliefs then they will be expressed, protected and preserved for what they are.
Yes, the Bible prohibits gay sex as it should and states it's opinions on the matter, but for Christians there is no command to persecute or hate gay people so I believe my position is just fine.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:59:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:17:58 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

So you're just following orders and proclaiming them to be good because you happen to believe they come from God, but at the end of the day, you cannot think of a single good reason outside of because-(insert authority figure here)-says-so to comply?

What orders Athomos? I'm proclaiming what is good based on what God created and what sex was meant for and meant with which is the obvious, that's it. You don't believe in any of that so it does not concern you, your perceptions are not the same as mine. For that matter I could say the same about you, how do you know what is good outside of mere feelings and cravings? what consideration have you ever given to homosexual sex in Theism or Christianity? Can you think of a single reason not to accept this position if God exists? if you can please elaborate why I should take your position over mine.... that gay sex is good, healthy and God's will.

What do I do with my beliefs?.....nothing, but apply it to myself and answer questions when relevant.


Good to know.

Also, exceedingly convincing.

I wouldn't expect that to happen with an atheist, just the way it is.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:05:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:09:08 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

Ignore my previous answer on this. My real argument is: The baby didn't consent to this and couldn't consent on this either. So no, no consent between all parties here.

I didn't want that to become an argument over whether or not the baby consented, that was not the point. The point was that "consenting" adults could agree on anything, it is irrelevant to God what adults would consent to.
I'm also not asserting that Homosexuals are hurting each other (though that could be debatable in context), rather that what people decide or consent to is not always "good" especially in the eyes of a Creator.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:07:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:47:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:05:20 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

You have been talking about how society should honour heterosexuality and nuclear family, on my topics where I have problematised arguments calling for reproduction. This goes further than that. A society could honour that while still see no problems with what happens in a bedroom. Ideologies like secular conservatism tend to be like that. The Bible however is not of that stance.

I don't care what happens in a bedroom, there could be two gays poking each other in the behind next door and I wouldn't give a rats bottom...however if they came knocking on my door to soliciting their activities

What does soliciting mean here? Tell you about them? Ehm, most people would find any people telling of their sexual activities as repulsive. My example was homosexuality which affects no one.

or creating a topic in a forum,

Freedom of speech.

or asking my opinion about what God created and what Christians believe I would tell them, see the difference?

If you say "Well in my religion it's wrong, but hey, no one should live according to my religion if they don't want", I see no problems.

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

The topic was about consent where no one gets hurt. You specified a tortured baby. Where is the victim in homosexuality?

Don't glaze over my point, in God's eyes "consenting adults" are irrelevant and could agree with anything, you never specified "no one gets hurt", and then we have to come to an agreement what constitutes someone getting hurt, and is gay sex something that could hinder or become a harm to someone.

Which heterosexuality also could. Or washing machines. What's your point?

Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.

Except for the fact that nature always have rendered mankind with the same gift it has given to all other species, the instinct of survival, rendering only a few percent homosexuals, which is also the case in other species.

So you do consider it?

Not at all. I couldn't understand why a man would be attractive. But that is my taste solely, something only concerning me.

It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

What you just wrote is the ideology of secular conservatism. Like "Do whatever you want in private ad long as no one is hurt but keep it there". The Bible is not of that stance. The Bible prohibits every kind of homosexuality. And if consent couldn't work on it, then consent shouldn't work on people who consent to boxing as well. Violence.

Uhh no, I'm not a secular conservative, it's just not my business. The OT Jews prohibit homosexual relations within their own community under their own laws for the sake of spiritual purity for their own purpose entirely. Christians are not responsible for OT Jews and what they follow rather for themselves. The NT passage that is mentioned in Romans, it is not a command or a law, it's just knowledge and the authors opinions. WE, as Christians are commanded to love, that is our responsibility.
However, loving does not mean compromise either, if we are asked, made to change meanings of institutions or share our beliefs then they will be expressed, protected and preserved for what they are.
Yes, the Bible prohibits gay sex as it should and states it's opinions on the matter, but for Christians there is no command to persecute or hate gay people so I believe my position is just fine.

Again, no problem if you just speak out of personal opinion. You however have neglected the consent part.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:11:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:05:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:09:08 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....

Ignore my previous answer on this. My real argument is: The baby didn't consent to this and couldn't consent on this either. So no, no consent between all parties here.

I didn't want that to become an argument over whether or not the baby consented, that was not the point. The point was that "consenting" adults could agree on anything, it is irrelevant to God what adults would consent to.
I'm also not asserting that Homosexuals are hurting each other (though that could be debatable in context), rather that what people decide or consent to is not always "good" especially in the eyes of a Creator.

But why would consent be bad if it was done between two rational people?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:18:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Consent doesn't dictate whether it is a moral action or not. It may however have an effect on whether it is prosecutable in our justice system.

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

Happiness (real or perceived) is not a sign of morality.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?

Some actions depend on why they are done. Sports even though they involve some elements of danger are not immoral - otherwise every form of manual labour essentially becomes immoral. Recklessly endangering your life could be.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:26:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:18:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Consent doesn't dictate whether it is a moral action or not. It may however have an effect on whether it is prosecutable in our justice system.

Maybe not, but how could something being done in private be something to hook up oneself on?

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

Happiness (real or perceived) is not a sign of morality.

Well again, it doesn't make sense that a god would care so much about an activity which makes no impact at all.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?

Some actions depend on why they are done. Sports even though they involve some elements of danger are not immoral - otherwise every form of manual labour essentially becomes immoral. Recklessly endangering your life could be.

Homosexuality is however not recklessly endangering ones life. Well, at least not if safe sex is performed. Also, wouldn't this logic apply to stuntmen? Many stuntmen die while filming.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:37:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:26:46 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:18:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Consent doesn't dictate whether it is a moral action or not. It may however have an effect on whether it is prosecutable in our justice system.

Maybe not, but how could something being done in private be something to hook up oneself on?

I'm sorry can you rephrase that, I lost you on that one...

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

Happiness (real or perceived) is not a sign of morality.

Well again, it doesn't make sense that a god would care so much about an activity which makes no impact at all.

Everything has an impact. Your sexuality is a gift from God (as is everything else you've been given), to abuse that gift is an offense to God. From a secular view, there is nothing you do that doesn't affect you and your character to the positive or the negative. You affect everyone around you. Thus there is no action that does not have consequences socially.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?

Some actions depend on why they are done. Sports even though they involve some elements of danger are not immoral - otherwise every form of manual labour essentially becomes immoral. Recklessly endangering your life could be.

Homosexuality is however not recklessly endangering ones life. Well, at least not if safe sex is performed. Also, wouldn't this logic apply to stuntmen? Many stuntmen die while filming.

Homosexual sex is however endangering your relation with God which is much worse than endangering your body.

A stunt mans actions may be immoral. If he is recklessly endangering his body then it very well could be sinful. If the directors are demanding stunts that has a high probability of death they too may be acting in a sinful manner.

These things are near occasions of sin where an action is not necessarily sinful, but could become so if taken too far.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:40:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:29:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Shrimps too. God hates shrimps, and all shell fish. Leviticus, the same book that condemns gay people.

Ever see a pastor with a prawn cocktail or a crab salad? Hypocrite.

And I thought I was the only one
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:48:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:59:34 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:17:58 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

So you're just following orders and proclaiming them to be good because you happen to believe they come from God, but at the end of the day, you cannot think of a single good reason outside of because-(insert authority figure here)-says-so to comply?

What orders Athomos? I'm proclaiming what is good based on what God created and what sex was meant for and meant with which is the obvious, that's it. You don't believe in any of that so it does not concern you, your perceptions are not the same as mine. For that matter I could say the same about you, how do you know what is good outside of mere feelings and cravings? what consideration have you ever given to homosexual sex in Theism or Christianity? Can you think of a single reason not to accept this position if God exists? if you can please elaborate why I should take your position over mine.... that gay sex is good, healthy and God's will.

What do I do with my beliefs?.....nothing, but apply it to myself and answer questions when relevant.


Good to know.

Also, exceedingly convincing.

I wouldn't expect that to happen with an atheist, just the way it is.

I just pointed out an important consideration. That too often theism offers moral pronouncements, but no moral rationale. It's precisely what allows Christians not to blink at the fact that God supposedly created mankind in such a way that incest was absolutely required, but then proceeded to outlaw it, which, obviously, is fine by them just in the same measure. Good has been redefined as whatever God does or commands, which voids the whole concept of any meaning and opens the door - who would have guessed? - to relativism, a special all-encompassing form, theocratic relativism. If God were a deceitful malicious deity, these Christians would take their marching orders to heart with the same diligence, left with no real way of knowing whether what they'd just been ordered was benign or not.

Secular ethics, on the other hand, attempts to erect a moral edifice grounded on empathy and rationality alone. And contrary to what some theists assert, it is not particularly difficult to build such an edifice from basic reasonable premises.

On average, the total fertility rate in the West, where planned parenthood is prevalent ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) lies somewhere around the 1.5 mark. This tells you something rather important about the role of sex. Its primary function is not reproductive. Do bear in mind I am not claiming reproduction is not of paramount importance, it is, but that were it the sole or even primary role of sex then couples would devote themselves to it once or twice a year, not once or twice a week. Additionally, homosexuality prevalence does not threaten population growth ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) , which might be a consideration if its numbers were considerably higher.

If sex plays an indispensable part in our individual happiness, if it can fill us with joy and bliss and a sense of bond and intimate communion with another human being, the mere fact the couple in question happens to be homosexual does not change that. In this sense, the Christian narrative offers no reason in which to ground the ban on homosexual intercourse. As a happy heterosexual individual, I see no reason for such a ban to persist and cast misery over the lives of so many fellow human beings, no reason outside of a discretionary arbitrary pronouncement God is said to have made some millennia ago.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:58:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:37:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:26:46 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:18:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Consent doesn't dictate whether it is a moral action or not. It may however have an effect on whether it is prosecutable in our justice system.

Maybe not, but how could something being done in private be something to hook up oneself on?

I'm sorry can you rephrase that, I lost you on that one...

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

Happiness (real or perceived) is not a sign of morality.

Well again, it doesn't make sense that a god would care so much about an activity which makes no impact at all.

Everything has an impact. Your sexuality is a gift from God (as is everything else you've been given), to abuse that gift is an offense to God. From a secular view, there is nothing you do that doesn't affect you and your character to the positive or the negative. You affect everyone around you. Thus there is no action that does not have consequences socially.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?

Some actions depend on why they are done. Sports even though they involve some elements of danger are not immoral - otherwise every form of manual labour essentially becomes immoral. Recklessly endangering your life could be.

Homosexuality is however not recklessly endangering ones life. Well, at least not if safe sex is performed. Also, wouldn't this logic apply to stuntmen? Many stuntmen die while filming.

Homosexual sex is however endangering your relation with God which is much worse than endangering your body.

A stunt mans actions may be immoral. If he is recklessly endangering his body then it very well could be sinful. If the directors are demanding stunts that has a high probability of death they too may be acting in a sinful manner.

These things are near occasions of sin where an action is not necessarily sinful, but could become so if taken too far.

So I've seen the main thing about doing what God intended in your argument. However, wouldn't this apply to hermits as well? Are they abusing what God gave them through not choosing any partner at all?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 11:05:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:58:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:37:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:26:46 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:18:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Consent doesn't dictate whether it is a moral action or not. It may however have an effect on whether it is prosecutable in our justice system.

Maybe not, but how could something being done in private be something to hook up oneself on?

I'm sorry can you rephrase that, I lost you on that one...

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

Happiness (real or perceived) is not a sign of morality.

Well again, it doesn't make sense that a god would care so much about an activity which makes no impact at all.

Everything has an impact. Your sexuality is a gift from God (as is everything else you've been given), to abuse that gift is an offense to God. From a secular view, there is nothing you do that doesn't affect you and your character to the positive or the negative. You affect everyone around you. Thus there is no action that does not have consequences socially.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well?

Some actions depend on why they are done. Sports even though they involve some elements of danger are not immoral - otherwise every form of manual labour essentially becomes immoral. Recklessly endangering your life could be.

Homosexuality is however not recklessly endangering ones life. Well, at least not if safe sex is performed. Also, wouldn't this logic apply to stuntmen? Many stuntmen die while filming.

Homosexual sex is however endangering your relation with God which is much worse than endangering your body.

A stunt mans actions may be immoral. If he is recklessly endangering his body then it very well could be sinful. If the directors are demanding stunts that has a high probability of death they too may be acting in a sinful manner.

These things are near occasions of sin where an action is not necessarily sinful, but could become so if taken too far.

So I've seen the main thing about doing what God intended in your argument. However, wouldn't this apply to hermits as well? Are they abusing what God gave them through not choosing any partner at all?

Nah, we're not muslim, we're Catholic!

They have chosen to selflessly give back wholly to God the natural goods which he had received in a sign of love. Like getting a chocolate bunny at easter. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the bunny you received (so long as you don't abuse it), and there is nothing wrong on giving it back as an act of self sacrificial love.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 1:06:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:48:28 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:59:34 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:17:58 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I've explained this to you before, the problem with atheists is they ignore the responses and pretend they haven't been addressed and go and repeat the questions to what they were already told.

Christians here should go on strike and never answer or bring up any more topics about homosexuality then we will see who keeps bringing up the issue...IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW DON'T ASK, stop making threads about gays if you aren't willing to receive answers!! how many threads now Jovian? are you gay?

"Consenting adults" are irrelevant and it's a weak argument, two "consenting adults" could agree to anything, I've heard of "consenting adults" agree to adopt a precious child only to beat and torture it....
Of course if no God exists as atheists want to believe then there is going to be no evaluation or consideration towards the intentions of God between man and women, it doesn't exist.
It's not about depriving any consenting adults Jovian, it's about preserving what God intended, protecting what has been established as good and appropriate. If you don't care about those things then just stop asking.

So you're just following orders and proclaiming them to be good because you happen to believe they come from God, but at the end of the day, you cannot think of a single good reason outside of because-(insert authority figure here)-says-so to comply?

What orders Athomos? I'm proclaiming what is good based on what God created and what sex was meant for and meant with which is the obvious, that's it. You don't believe in any of that so it does not concern you, your perceptions are not the same as mine. For that matter I could say the same about you, how do you know what is good outside of mere feelings and cravings? what consideration have you ever given to homosexual sex in Theism or Christianity? Can you think of a single reason not to accept this position if God exists? if you can please elaborate why I should take your position over mine.... that gay sex is good, healthy and God's will.

What do I do with my beliefs?.....nothing, but apply it to myself and answer questions when relevant.


Good to know.

Also, exceedingly convincing.

I wouldn't expect that to happen with an atheist, just the way it is.

I just pointed out an important consideration. That too often theism offers moral pronouncements, but no moral rationale. It's precisely what allows Christians not to blink at the fact that God supposedly created mankind in such a way that incest was absolutely required, but then proceeded to outlaw it, which, obviously, is fine by them just in the same measure. Good has been redefined as whatever God does or commands, which voids the whole concept of any meaning and opens the door - who would have guessed? - to relativism, a special all-encompassing form, theocratic relativism. If God were a deceitful malicious deity, these Christians would take their marching orders to heart with the same diligence, left with no real way of knowing whether what they'd just been ordered was benign or not.

First of all...with or without God my views have always been the same regarding homosexual sex, so no you are wrong about taking orders. I don't need Christianity to suggest to me what I think about it.
But don't forget this is not something I dwell on, has no priority in my day to day, I'm simply responding to this forum. I love gay people it doesn't matter to me, I enjoy discussing spirituality with them and they are interested. The argument is simple for theists, yal want to make things more complicated than they need to be. If you approve of gay lifestyles that's your prerogative, but don't make it sound like we are a bunch of mindless zombies taking orders, I have my own dern views.


Secular ethics, on the other hand, attempts to erect a moral edifice grounded on empathy and rationality alone. And contrary to what some theists assert, it is not particularly difficult to build such an edifice from basic reasonable premises.

I have empathy for anyone, I have no problem with that. We are not talking about specific people but lifestyles and what is appropriate in Christianity.


On average, the total fertility rate in the West, where planned parenthood is prevalent ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) lies somewhere around the 1.5 mark. This tells you something rather important about the role of sex. Its primary function is not reproductive. Do bear in mind I am not claiming reproduction is not of paramount importance, it is, but that were it the sole or even primary role of sex then couples would devote themselves to it once or twice a year, not once or twice a week. Additionally, homosexuality prevalence does not threaten population growth ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) , which might be a consideration if its numbers were considerably higher.

Of course that is not the only function of sex, I never denied it's an aspect of pleasure. In spirituality we elevate more valuable things that are related to building that aspect up. Again, as I pointed out this is a matter of perception, there really is no reason for an atheist to agree with anything we say about the issue, because what happens behind closed doors nobody sees right Athomos?
Sex in the appropriate context acts as a binder, not just strictly carnal satisfaction. God created man and women to fit together like a puzzle with all these aspects working together, not just one or the other.

If sex plays an indispensable part in our individual happiness, if it can fill us with joy and bliss and a sense of bond and intimate communion with another human being, the mere fact the couple in question happens to be homosexual does not change that. In this sense, the Christian narrative offers no reason in which to ground the ban on homosexual intercourse. As a happy heterosexual individual, I see no reason for such a ban to persist and cast misery over the lives of so many fellow human beings, no reason outside of a discretionary arbitrary pronouncement God is said to have made some millennia ago.

This depends on what a persons focus is and what they find valuable. Obviously God made sex to be fun, but that fun is meant to bind the man with the women, this is what keeps us interested in one another. When we leave the original purpose and intent then fun is the focus, and the original purpose becomes lost and insignificant.

My friend, don't mistake this discussion for me making lives miserable, you have no idea what you are saying. I enjoy the company of anyone and love all people, we are simply discussing lifestyles, not people. I can love and accept people and disagree with things they do, sorry if that offends you.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 1:16:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 10:11:06 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 10:05:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:09:08 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:40:13 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:


But why would consent be bad if it was done between two rational people?

Can we find some common ground here at all Jovian? do you really not see any of the points that have been made, any?
What do you want me to say or do that would make you happy? obviously this is an issue that bothers you greatly and I don't want you to walk away again just with the intention of creating another gay thread, can we came to an understanding here?

I don't have any problems with gay people, in my real life it's not an issue, we are just discussing lifestyles in the context of Theism, I'm not trying to hurt anyone or degrade them do you understand that?
It doesn't matter what I think anyway, God cares because He cares about our individual temples and what we do with them, why? because maybe you don't realize that God is indeed an extremely personal Being, I don't think people know that about God or understand it.
So what do want here, you want me to admit God doesn't care, that He likes and approves of gay sex? that He really had no intentions creating man and women? how can we meet in the middle, I would love to do that...
oo00
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:26:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:10:23 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:33:05 PM, oo00 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 7:53:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
Take an example of two homosexuals in a relationship with each other. They are adult, fully consenting to it and are happy. Exactly why would a god find anything wrong with this?

Religious people who are against homosexuality won't ever buy the consent aspect of it. Despite how much the orientation won't affect anyone else, and make the said homosexuals be happy, there still seems to be a need to interfere in what happens in some bedroom somewhere.

There are many things prohibited by the Bible or other books which people could consent to as well, without religious people objecting. I mean, the Bible surely prohibits violence, yet you will find friends saying "Punch me as hard as you can on my upper arm" to each other because they like to harden themselves. Or why not people who do full contact martial arts? Does the consent aspect not work here as well? : :

God doesn't see anything wrong with his creation but plenty of religious people do.

So you're saying that all prohibitions in the Bible are entirely unsubstantiated? : :

In order to understand why the flesh perceives good and evil and interprets the scriptures falsely, you need to understand how man was created.
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:32:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm a Christian that supports gay-rights and gay-marriage. When Christians argue against gay marriage I always think they have not read their Bible enough. In truth, the Bible only talks about homosexuality a couple times. Those who argue against gay marriage using the Bible are doomed to fail. There is just simply not enough in the Bible to constitute it being doctrine.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 3:01:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Full Definition of fetish
1
a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence
b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession
c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3: fixation

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Lets see how many people actually take the time to understand what the scripture here is saying.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 8:03:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
SpiritandTRuth, I mean, Universal Theologian, has a long track record of void assertions and aspersions on homosexuality. In the past, when pressed to defend and substantiate his claims, he backed off silently.

I expect no different this time around.
Looncall
Posts: 458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 10:06:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 3:01:54 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Full Definition of fetish
1
a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence
b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession
c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3: fixation



"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Lets see how many people actually take the time to understand what the scripture here is saying.

You should realize that using scripture when debating with people not of your religion is the same as saying nothing at all.

By the way, quoting without attribution is plagiarism.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.