« Links Mentioned on the 2/26/16 Show | Main | Are Predestination and Salvation "To Everyone Who Believes" Compatible? »

February 27, 2016

Comments

Addressing this subject at all ,to me brings to mind the phrase ' The rearranging of the deck chairs on the titanic'.

Even discussing it rationally and sensibly gives the apologist an air of intellectual authenticity and gravitas they doesn't deserve.
Unless of course you first decide there was a man who built an Ark and put two of every animal on board before the whole world was flooded for 40 days etc...And unless you believe that god parted the waters for the tribes of Israel so they could escape from Pharaoh. Not forgetting Angels,talking animals,fish that swallow men for three days then spit them out alive,flying chariots.And unless you believe the planet is six thousand years old.etc.etc.

If any of this didn't happen then there is no reason to embrace any deity endorsed proclamation regarding who one should or shouldn't be allowed to love.
Sadly though on the strength of myth and legend society has for thousands of years have been discriminating ,incarcerating, killing ostracising ,etc..
And even sadder still, There are seemingly sincere intelligent people who would seek to defend,emulate and justify the moral tribal laws of 3000 year old dessert dwelling peasants who believed that you bred spotted goats by tying a goat up to a spotted stick whilst mating.

Find me an Ark strewn Turkish landscape and then come to me with your contemptuous 'Sexual Jehad '.



"Dessert dwelling peasants." Where were they, in Baked Alaska? And every fifty years they celebrated the cherries jubilee.

Ha ha.

Deuteronomy 18:22: If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

This is the standard of verifiability that Moses' law provides for the nation of Israel, and I think it's totally fair to use this standard against the Bible, too... because it's true!

Not to sound too credulous, but there is a guy who claims to have found the Ark in Turkey... search Google or Bing for "Noah's Ark Mount Ararat Location".

Counting backward, which historical figures do you doubt existed, or at least, doubt were similar to what we think of them?

Eisenhower. Washington. Newton. Charlemagne. Mohammad. Constantine. Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Jesus. Julius Caesar. Plato. Alexander. Darius. Nehemiah. Confucius. David. Joshua. Moses. Joseph son of Jacob. Jacob / Israel. Abraham.

James,

You list several miraculous things and act incredulous. But if God exists hardly anything there would be as unbelievable as you pretend. For instance, if God exists why would we be incredulous about angels? If God exists why would we be incredulous about miracles?

So to say that belief in these things doesn't deserve any intellectual "gravitas" is to say that belief that God exists doesn't deserve any intellectual gravitas. Or maybe you have some argument that even if God existed we should be incredulous that he would do miracles or that angels would exist.

So what is your argument for either of those claims? I mean if belief in the existence of God is so badly epistemically situation that it deserves to be treated seriously then you must surely have some argument for that.

Sadly though on the strength of myth and legend society has for thousands of years have been discriminating ,incarcerating, killing ostracising ,etc..

On the strength of these same "myths and legends" society has for thousands of years also built hospitals, started schools, and birthed science. And if it turns out that atheism is true then I'm not sure why we would be sad about people killing, discriminating, incarcerating etc. since there is nothing objectively wrong with any of those things being done on the basis of a person being gay or being blonde.

There are seemingly sincere intelligent people who would seek to defend,emulate and justify the moral tribal laws of 3000 year old dessert dwelling peasants

You seem to be under the impression that time, location, and social status has something to do with morality. For one thing, atheism provides no basis for objective morality, so why would it matter if we adopted one subjective code over another subjective code? Neither could be said to be better than the other. For another thing, if you believed morality is objective why would it matter whether you were a peasant or a president? Isn't that bigotry? Why assume that you know more about morality because you have an iPhone instead of a goat?

who believed that you bred spotted goats by tying a goat up to a spotted stick whilst mating.

In another conversation with you earlier I pointed out that you didn't seem to be interested in the truth, but in maintaining village atheist caricatures of religion. This is more evidence of that. If you had actually read the narrative instead of cherry picking the narrative or pulling a single line from a village atheist website you would have seen that in the narrative Jacob attributes the sheep's being spotted or striped or whatever to God and not to sticks (Gen. 31).

But you purposely misconstrue what the Bible say sin order to try and make it look dumb. That doesn't speak very highly of your intellectual honesty. Or perhaps you just don't know what the biblical narrative says because you never bothered to actually look it up for yourself, you just copied it from what you read on some atheist website, which still doesn't speak highly of your intellectual rigor. Either way, you need to step up your game because this is the ridiculous sort of attack that indicates to the Christian that you don't deserve intellectual authenticity and gravitas.

Correction:

This sentence got pretty mangled: I mean if belief in the existence of God is so badly epistemically situation that it deserves to be treated seriously then you must surely have some argument for that.

Should be:

I mean if belief in the existence of God is so badly epistemically situated that it doesn't deserve to be treated seriously then you must surely have some argument for that.

But while I'm here correcting myself something else comes to mind:

Just like in the other thread that you and I had a discussion in, you seem to be dragging the topic off the rails with a host of side issues that you copy and paste from internet atheists sites.

There are plenty of posts on STR having to do with theism generally or atheism generally and those posts would be more appropriate to your general concerns than these posts.

And why is it that when you have an opportunity to post on a topic that is directly relevant to one of your copy/paste lists here you don't post on it? For instance, last time you posted in an STR article a claim that the Bible treats women like chattel and you posted this on STR article that had nothing to do with women (it was about whether a Christian can love homosexuals while condemning the behavior). But just a few days after that STR posted an article about the biblical view of men and women as of equal value. Wasn't that your opportunity to raise that objection? But you never appeared in that thread to raise your challenge even though you were actively posting at this website at the same time that that thread was active.

This thread has nothing to do with Noah's ark, the age of the earth, angels etc. It's about Jesus views on homosexuality. That's a question that can be answered even if we don't believe in Noah's ark, the age of the earth, angels etc.

So far your pattern seems to be to derail any topic on homosexuality with a list of atheist talking points. But when there is an STR blog directly addressing your talking point you don't participate.

Hello
Itallcs

Do you not find though that all these issues tend to overlap and rely on each other for validation. Though Jesus didn't address the subject of homosexuality in any of the for tracts we commonly know as the gospels it isn't inconceivable that he would have had an opinion on the matter. Opinions are easy. Miracles and wonders are less so. Of course if there is a god then he could do all that the bible says he did. (Presuming it is the god of the bible that exists). If there is no Ark and no flood,no angels,no archeological evidence that supports an Exodus or any supernatural miracle or deed done. No tower of Babel, no destruction of Tyre then Jesus opinion on any subject just does not matter. So I am very much agreeing with you,,,Or is it you with me.?

There is just not enough physical evidence to suggest that any of these events actually( without a doubt) took place .No first hand evidence for the events of the gospels. We can only best guess who wrote most of the tracts that went to make up the book we call the bible. If one wishes to believe they have enough evidence (weak as it may seem most off us) to justify a belief in a biblical god that is fine. I have no problem.
The problem is when on the strength of that (might be,could be) belief that person would seek to influence the rest of society to discriminate ,ostracise,villainies and diminish against a minority group,not on the basis of accepted modern morality but in deference to a set of rules implemented thousands of years ago by a tribe of roaming bronze age highly superstitious dessert dwellers.

Clearly there is no consensus or a single definitive view amongst christians when talking about the subject of homosexuality .That surely is the point of the article. It is my assertion that no group or individual based on the evidence available should feel so certain about the rightness of their cause that they should feel confident and able to diminish someone else's life experience
.
Kindest regards

James


ESCalifornia

Not to sound too credulous, but there is a guy who claims to have found the Ark in Turkey... search Google or Bing for "Noah's Ark Mount Ararat Location".

Will do.

Thankyou

James

James,

It is my assertion that no group or individual based on the evidence available should feel so certain about the rightness of their cause that they should feel confident and able to diminish someone else's life experience.

Is that because you don't the evidence is strong enough to warrant any confidence, or is it because you think it is morally inappropriate to have a lot of confidence in one's view? Do you apply this to any moral position or just the subject of homosexuality?

James,

Though Jesus didn't address the subject of homosexuality in any of the for tracts we commonly know as the gospels it isn't inconceivable that he would have had an opinion on the matter. ... No tower of Babel, no destruction of Tyre then Jesus opinion on any subject just does not matter.

A lot of people would disagree. They would say that even if Jesus' beliefs about God acting in history is wrong he is still a great moral teacher that has clout.

The problem is when on the strength of that (might be,could be) belief that person would seek to influence the rest of society to discriminate ,ostracise,villainies and diminish against a minority group,not on the basis of accepted modern morality but in deference to a set of rules implemented thousands of years ago by a tribe of roaming bronze age highly superstitious dessert dwellers.

First, your observation about might be/could be: There is no logical certainty about virtually anything. You *might be* a brain in a vat. So what? You have to move beyond "might be" or "could be" to actual probability or plausibility. Now if you want to say that theism or Christianity is highly improbable then obviously you're making a contentious claim that many people (not just here) would reject.

Second, the appeal to "accepted modern morality" is misguided since just 20 years ago the accepted modern morality was still that homosexuality was wrong. Why should an individual accept "accepted modern morality"? Just because the majority says so?

In my last comment I raised some problems with the assumption that time or location have anything to do with morality. You've ignored those problems and instead repeat the line about "thousands of years" and a "tribe of roaming bronze age highly superstitious dessert dwellers." Why are you just repeating tendentious assertions that I've already shown are problematic? That's not how a dialogue works.

Again, since atheism has no basis for objective morality then an atheist (such as yourself?) has no reason to say that the morality of a bronze age nomad is worse than 21st century twitter social justice warrior. And if morality is objective, why should we assume that the 21st century social justice warrior has better access to it than someone in the 3rd century BC?

Sam

Is that because you don't think the evidence is strong enough to warrant any confidence, or is it because you think it is morally inappropriate to have a lot of confidence in one's view? Do you apply this to any moral position or just the subject of homosexuality?

I think its a principle that we could apply to every moral situation. We make a law against people who steal because there is evidence that stealing has a tangible negative effect on society ,as does slavery, pedophilia, rape, driving too fast.There is no evidence that being gay or listening to country music has any such tangible effect. So the problem comes when we seek to promote Ideas and influence laws that potentially diminish an-others life experience based not on any tangible bad that can be evidenced but simply because the deity of your choice has declared that 'thats how it should be'.

Make Oompa Loompas Great Again (lol)

Maybe, but then there are issues about the bibles innerancy.
I would have thought that most christians would have been of the mind that it is either all true or not true at all.

And if morality is objective, why should we assume that the 21st century social justice warrior has better access to it than someone in the 3rd century BC?

Yes I agree.
If there is no god then society has to draw a line about what is acceptable morality. It has no choice, however philosophically unsound but to do so. Over time our Ideas about morality have evolved. We certainly don't get it right all the time, but when a moral law is seen to dimminish the life experience of another for no perceptible reason then we change that law.

In my last comment I raised some problems with the assumption that time or location have anything to do with morality. You've ignored those problems and instead repeat the line about "thousands of years" and a "tribe of roaming bronze age highly superstitious dessert dwellers." Why are you just repeating tendentious assertions that I've already shown are problematic? That's not how a dialogue works.

Apologies, I think a problem with theologians is that often they ascribe intelligence and nobility where there is none
The ancient Hebrews were a typical desert tribe of the time.Their religious rituals were similar to all the other tribes of the time and of that region.To survive they had to be more thuggish and more brutal than all the other tribes around them. They practiced sacrificial guilt offering like every other tribe in the area and the story of Abraham tells us that child sacrifice was probably common practice amongst his people. Unruly children, gay people, people who wore mixed fabrics all stoned to death.,the slaughter of innocents, slavery.The denigration and dis empowerment of women.All these examples make up only a small part of what makes up the back catalogue of biblical justice and morality..We can certainly talk about this using terms like context,ceremony and historicity but modern society would have just cause to claim moral superiority. In the absence of a god we must assert that right. What makes us more right than ISIS or Al-Qaeda ? In the absence of a higher Interventionist being then again we must assert that right. Could we be wrong?...Yes.but lets make our decisions in deference to evidence gleaned from what benefits society as a whole rather than on arbitrary proclamation that stems from ancient ritual.

Regards

James


James

Maybe, but then there are issues about the bibles innerancy. I would have thought that most christians would have been of the mind that it is either all true or not true at all.

That's incorrect.

Over time our Ideas about morality have evolved.

Evolution doesn't equal progress.

We certainly don't get it right all the time

If there is no objective morality there is no such thing as getting morality right.

All these examples make up only a small part of what makes up the back catalogue of biblical justice and morality..We can certainly talk about this using terms like context,ceremony and historicity but modern society would have just cause to claim moral superiority.

You still haven't addressed the problems I raised. All you did was make some assertions (ancient people had to be more brutal), give us a misleading list of some laws, and then merely assert that you (which you mistakenly conflate with "modern society") are morally superior.

You still haven't explained why, if morality is objective, you have better access to it than an ancient person. And you still haven't addressed the problem that your atheism undercuts any claim to moral superiority anyway.

You're left mouthing the empty assertion that "we must assert that right"--which makes no sense since we have no actual rights if you're correct about atheism!

lets make our decisions in deference to evidence gleaned from what benefits society as a whole rather than on arbitrary proclamation that stems from ancient ritual.

The remark about an arbitrary proclamation is guilty of the question begging fallacy. Christians don't grant that biblical ethics is arbitrary and you've done nothing to argue for that assertion. Furthermore, on atheism your own system is just as arbitrary as the ancient ritual.

Taking the first part of your claim, that won't get us anywhere near what the vast majority of people would recognize as a moral system. Suppose I only want to do what benefits white society. Why should I care about society that extends beyond white people? Or even if we include all of humanity in our "society" suppose that we decide it would be best for humanity as a whole to institute eugenics and euthanize people with mental disorders. Why should what benefits the society take precedence over the individual?

But your assertion can't even settle the simple dispute about homosexuality even if I grant you those points. Does the normalization and special protections of homosexuality benefit society? Arguably it doesn't. Especially if Christians are correct about their religion. In that case, normalizing homosexuality is normalizing a morally degenerative and harmful practice. It erodes the foundation of society, the family unit. It erodes religious liberty.

Hello

Make Oompa Loompas Great Again

'Well being' is a good foundation for morality.
I reject the premise that' without a deity there can be no objective morality '
If morality means anything then it references 'well being'. If you see it as something other than that then we are talking about different things.
Moral evaluations based on "well being' are what we make, there is no intrinsic right or wrong.

.....if Christians are correct about their religion. In that case, normalizing homosexuality is normalizing a morally degenerative and harmful practice. It erodes the foundation of society, the family unit. It erodes religious liberty.

Unlike slavery, pedophilia, rape, and speeding there is no evidence that being gay ,eating scallops or listening to country music has a tangible negative effect on 'well being'.
If you personally believe this I would be interested to know whether you would object to your child being taught by a gay person, treated by a gay doctor , rescued by a gay fireman? Or for you is it merely an intellectual stance ?

.....Suppose that we decide it would be best for humanity as a whole to institute eugenics and euthanize people with mental disorders. Why should what benefits the society take precedence over the individual?...

'Well being 'is the foundation of right and wrong and as such eugenics and involuntary euthanasia is in violation of 'well being' irrespective of anyones opinion .

Again, since atheism has no basis for objective morality then an atheist (such as yourself?) has no reason to say that the morality of a bronze age nomad is worse than 21st century twitter social justice warrior. And if morality is objective, why should we assume that the 21st century social justice warrior has better access to it than someone in the 3rd century BC?

'Well being is the foundation of right and wrong and as such.. (1 Samuel 15:3) is in violation of 'well being' irrespective of anyones opinion... as is (Psalm 137:9),(Exodus 22:18)(Judges 11:30-1, 34-5).etc...you get the idea.


'Well being' is a good foundation for morality.

This is the Sam Harris line, but it's confused. You're confusing picking a standard of what counts as good or bad with providing an ontological basis for good or bad. Why is "whatever promotes well being" good instead of "whatever promotes Donald Trump"?

Unlike slavery, pedophilia, rape, and speeding there is no evidence that being gay ... has a tangible negative effect on 'well being'.

Actually there is evidence that homosexuality is strongly correlated with mental instability. This is why homosexuals have an extremely high suicide rate, even in nations that are accepting of homosexuality and even when compared to other groups that suffer social stigma (e.g., the black community).

Furthermore, a Christian has very good reasons to believe that homosexuality has a negative effect on the individual's well being, even if it's not immediately tangible.

Furthermore, homosexuality has a very strong correlation with sexual promiscuity and, in turn, sexually transmitted diseases. Normalizing the homosexual life style will break down social mores against this harmful behavior. Furthermore, normalizing homosexuality obscures the good of marriage, which is the foundation to society. These results don't have to be immediate or "tangible" in order for society to recognize them and view them as harmful. This is why, for instance, prostitution is illegal even though there is no immediate tangible harm. Normalizing homosexuality also harms children who are now going to be raised in a home that by design lacks a mother or a father. Furthermore, there is a concerning link between the homosexual movement and the arguments the explore and pederasty. Pro homosexual journals (like Journal of Homosexuality) publish a disturbing amount of articles that seem to seek to desensitize readers to pederasty.

If you personally believe this I would be interested to know whether you would object to your child being taught by a gay person,

That would depend on the age of my child and what the gay person was teaching my child. I wouldn't want a prostitute teaching my child either, in most circumstances.

treated by a gay doctor

That would depend on the context. I wouldn't care if me or my child had a gay surgeon, but I wouldn't make him my pediatric.

rescued by a gay fireman?

I couldn't care less about that.

'Well being 'is the foundation of right and wrong and as such eugenics and involuntary euthanasia is in violation of 'well being' irrespective of anyones opinion .

That doesn't answer the question. Do we weight the well being of the group above the individual or vice versa? And we can't even assess well being without a system of teleology in place, which atheism eschews. Sam Harris and his followers always overlook that--as though it's relatively obvious what well being is. But normalizing transgenderism arguably isn't promoting the well being of transgender people, who suffer from mental illness at even higher rates than homosexuals. The secular promotion of charting your own course and goals is at odds with Sam Harris et al's attempt to tie morality to well being. On the one hand, you'll have to say that what counts as flourishing is up to the individual and the path they want to choose for themselves. On the other hand, you'll have to say that there is some objective fact of flourishing that exists regardless of whether the individual acknowledges it. So should a man cut off his genitals if it makes him feel better or not?

But as I mentioned above that's not the most fundamental issue. The more fundamental issue is what grounds morality in the first place.

'Well being is the foundation of right and wrong and as such.. (1 Samuel 15:3) is in violation of 'well being' irrespective of anyones opinion... as is (Psalm 137:9),(Exodus 22:18)(Judges 11:30-1, 34-5).etc...you get the idea.

This is a naive understanding of well being that undercuts the ability to punish wrongdoers. And it has no room for justice or the fact that some people are incorrigible. It's out of touch with reality.

Great Oompa Loompas

This post takes me back to my original point.

.....This is a naive understanding of well being that undercuts the ability to punish wrongdoers. And it has no room for justice or the fact that some people are incorrigible. It's out of touch with reality.....

You seek to justify and rationalise the slaughter of innocents, slaying of witches and grotesque acts of OT deity endorsed barbarism by by invoking gods holy and superior morality and accuse me of being naive and out of touch with reality...???
This is indeed is why christians should think twice about seeking to influence laws that dimminsh another persons life experience simply because they believe their god decrees it.
There is no physical or historical framework for the supernatural events you claim are true....With this growing realisation christian apologists are now busy performing philosophical summersaults ,building intellectual arguments and devices that absolve them of the need to produce actual evidence.
Again... ' Find me an Ark strewn Turkish landscape and then come to me with your contemptuous 'Sexual Jehad '.

Sadly your attitude to homosexuals is not based on compassion, knowledge and the willingness to understand .Gay people suffer such awful discrimination based on ignorance and fear that there is little wonder that there are so many that feel so much depression and sadness. I would imagine that your church like so many teaches that homosexuality is an abomination and verses like the ones in the OT where the punishment is death only go to reinforce and validate negative deity inspired homophobic attitudes and responses.

Kindest regards
james

James,

You seek to justify and rationalise the slaughter of innocents, slaying of witches and grotesque acts of OT deity endorsed barbarism by by invoking gods holy and superior morality and accuse me of being naive and out of touch with reality...???

And this also brings you back to your tendentious assertions. God has the right to give life and take life. Likewise, God has the right to command someone else to take life.

You can throw a temper tantrum if you want, but you can't marshall any argument against it.

You can pretend to be on the moral highground if you want, but you can't actually defend a single moral proposition as objectively grounded.

You can't object to biblical morality without also attacking the de facto merits of theism. And you've offered us *nothing* by way of an argument for that.

Your behavior here amounts to nothing more than virtually stomping your feet and huffing that God's rules are bad because there is no God. Meanwhile, if there is no God then you have no basis for saying God's rules are dumb.

And we're supposed to take you seriously?

There is no physical or historical framework for the supernatural events you claim are true...

I'm not sure what this sentence even means. Historical framework? Do you mean historical evidence? There is a lot of historical evidence for various things in the Bible. There is also a lack of evidence for many things. So what? You mention Noah's ark. So you need to tell us why it is that we should find evidence of the ark. According to young earth creationists, the flood happened over 4,000 years ago and the Bible only indicates the general whereabouts. You need to explain to us why we should expect to find a 4,000 year old wooden boat when we don't even have a very good idea of where to look. (With apologies to ESCalifornia, hardly anyone (even YEC) take claims to have found the ark seriously.) If the day-age theorist reading of Genesis is right then the flood would be an even more distant event.

With this growing realisation christian apologists are now busy performing philosophical summersaults ,building intellectual arguments and devices that absolve them of the need to produce actual evidence.

Which indicates that you're not very familiar with apologetics, because they are using the same philosophical arguments that have been around for thousands of years.

Sadly your attitude to homosexuals is not based on compassion, knowledge and the willingness to understand .

That's the exact impression you give towards Christianity: you copy/paste strings of tendentious and misleading readings of the Bible and barely give any effort to answer the challenges that are presented to you in a dialogue, which, sadly, exposes an attitude towards Christians not based on compassion, knowledge, and the willingness to understand.

Earlier (and in another thread) you attempted to argue that homosexuals should be skeptical of Christians who claim to love them, since there have been anti-sodomy laws in the past. That's an obvious non-sequitur (and I pointed that out to you)... and so you'll have to excuse me of being skeptical of your ability to assess my compassion, knowledge, or willingness to understand.

Gay people suffer such awful discrimination based on ignorance and fear that there is little wonder that there are so many that feel so much depression and sadness.

You're still trying to gesture towards the same move that I already anticipated and rebutted in my last response. That shows an inability to deviate from the standard talking points of homosexual activists. I already pointed out that gay people have extraordinarily high suicide rates even among cultures that are more open to homosexuality and even among groups that have faced actual widespread awful discrimination (like blacks).

Have gay people suffered discrimination? Sure, but so have Christians, Jews, African Americans, etc. Also the discrimination that gay people by and large point to is largely a case of crying wolf. They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they view homosexuality as sin. They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they refuse to endorse gay marriage. They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Calling any of that "awful discrimination" is a farce. And then the fact that the homosexual activists, by and large, rely on such "discrimination" to explain homosexual suicide rates is a cynical stance on the graves of the dead that the should be ashamed of.

I would imagine that your church like so many teaches that homosexuality is an abomination and verses like the ones in the OT where the punishment is death only go to reinforce and validate negative deity inspired homophobic attitudes and responses.

Your condemnation will never be very convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, since it presuppose the falsity of Christian theism. You'll need to argue for that first.

....You can throw a temper tantrum if you want..

Thank you.

....They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they view homosexuality as sin. They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they refuse to endorse gay marriage. They claim that Christians are discriminatory so long as they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Calling any of that "awful discrimination" is a farce...

I agree

All the issues you have mentioned ,I would consider to be of little consequence .Nevertheless there have been and continue to be serious
issues of discrimination, judical incarceration, homophobic hate crime .Largely inspired by and as a result of the influence that religion has commanded.

....I'm not sure what this sentence even means. Historical framework?

No archaeology, geology, physics. No Ark,No actual peer reviewed science that suggest there was a world wide flood or any real science or scientists of consequence that would point to the world being just a few thousand years old .Even if you account for miracles and wonders by way of the supernatural there would still be physical evidence available that could be a scrutinised by the scientific community.

"if there is no God then you have no basis for saying God's rules are dumb."

If there is a god then he is clearly capable of acting as he pleases. If there is a god and it is the biblical god then I claim moral superiority on the basis that my moral framework has come from a god given mind that values reason and understanding. I will judge god on that basis .

....You can pretend to be on the moral highground if you want, but you can't actually defend a single moral proposition as objectively grounded.

I don't feel the need to pretend. When christians defer to the superior nature and morality of god does this absolve them from having to question deity endorsed OT atrocities. This doesn't seem to Indicate an objective moral grounding to me. I think the basis for moral objectivity is best described by the principle of ' well being ',which I'm sure you are acquainted with.

Your condemnation will never be very convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, since it presuppose the falsity of Christian theism. You'll need to argue for that first.

Its about planting the seed of doubt.

..anti-sodomy laws in the past..

Past ,present...future
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/

Nevertheless there have been and continue to be serious issues of discrimination, ... homophobic hate crime

Nope, I don't think so. Like I said earlier, I'm sure there are instances of discrimination or hate against homosexuals. But I'm not convinced it is *more* than the discrimination or hate against Christians, or blacks, or Jews.

As I pointed out to you already, there are plenty of instances of gay people falsely claiming to be discriminated against or to have been victims of hate. Here is just a sample of homosexual activists dishonestly claiming to be victims of hate or discrimination:

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/IndyBlog/archives/2012/08/07/about-that-missoula-gay-bashing-it-didnt-happen

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/lesbian-waitress-who-reported-fake-hate-crime-is-fired/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518748/Vassar-graffiti-hoax-culprit-transgender-student-leading-investigations.html

http://theothermccain.com/2013/12/28/another-fake-hate-crime-arrest-discredits-tennessee-anti-gay-case/

And I could post more. *And* these are just the ones that got caught. You have to assume there are many that never get found out.

Homosexual activists have pushed a false narrative about hate and discrimination that, unfortunately, does great damage to the actual instances of homosexual's experiencing hate.

Recently Bruce Jenner said he receives *more* hate for being a Republican than for being transgender. So if you are concerned about hate and discrimination you should be crusading on leftist forums that bash conservatives.

judical incarceration ... Largely inspired by and as a result of the influence that religion has commanded.

I consider that to be of little consequence, to quote you.

No archaeology, geology, physics. No Ark,No actual peer reviewed science that suggest there was a world wide flood or any real science or scientists of consequence that would point to the world being just a few thousand years old .Even if you account for miracles and wonders by way of the supernatural there would still be physical evidence available that could be a scrutinised by the scientific community.

It's disingenuous to quote that one line and ignore the rest of what I said which directly challenged you on the thing you are repeating here. I'll repeat what I already said, since you're just making the same mistake:

You mention Noah's ark. So you need to tell us why it is that we should find evidence of the ark. According to young earth creationists, the flood happened over 4,000 years ago and the Bible only indicates the general whereabouts. You need to explain to us why we should expect to find a 4,000 year old wooden boat when we don't even have a very good idea of where to look. (With apologies to ESCalifornia, hardly anyone (even YEC) take claims to have found the ark seriously.) If the day-age theorist reading of Genesis is right then the flood would be an even more distant event.

If there is a god then he is clearly capable of acting as he pleases.

Which misconstrues the point I made. I clearly said nothing about God's *capabilities* but about God's *rights*.

If there is a god and it is the biblical god then I claim moral superiority on the basis that my moral framework has come from a god given mind that values reason and understanding.

Then you need to read more of the Bible. The Bible also teaches that our moral conscience can be seared (1 Tim. 4:2) that we are blinded by sin and the devil (2 Cor. 4:4) etc. So If there is a God and it is the biblical God then you can't claim moral superiority on the basis of a god-given mind, values, reason, and understanding--since the Bible gives us no reason to think our values, reason, or understanding are untainted by sin, in fact it's the opposite.

I don't feel the need to pretend.

Your actions betray your words. You pretend as though you have an objective moral basis for your judgments, when you clearly don't.

When christians defer to the superior nature and morality of god does this absolve them from having to question deity endorsed OT atrocities.

That's a complex question fallacy. God doesn't endorse any OT atrocities.

I think the basis for moral objectivity is best described by the principle of ' well being ',which I'm sure you are acquainted with.

This is more evidence of your disingenuous nature. You can write in a polite manner and end your posts with "kindest regards", but if you really want to be "nice" to your dialogue partner you should start by not pretending to be raising points I haven't already responded too.

You repeat your talking points as if I haven't already rebutted them. I'll just copy and paste the same rebuttal I already gave:

This is the Sam Harris line, but it's confused. You're confusing picking a standard of what counts as good or bad with providing an ontological basis for good or bad. Why is "whatever promotes well being" good instead of "whatever promotes Donald Trump"? ... And we can't even assess well being without a system of teleology in place, which atheism eschews. Sam Harris and his followers always overlook that--as though it's relatively obvious what well being is. But normalizing transgenderism arguably isn't promoting the well being of transgender people, who suffer from mental illness at even higher rates than homosexuals. The secular promotion of charting your own course and goals is at odds with Sam Harris et al's attempt to tie morality to well being. On the one hand, you'll have to say that what counts as flourishing is up to the individual and the path they want to choose for themselves. On the other hand, you'll have to say that there is some objective fact of flourishing that exists regardless of whether the individual acknowledges it. So should a man cut off his genitals if it makes him feel better or not? But as I mentioned above that's not the most fundamental issue. The more fundamental issue is what grounds morality in the first place.

Its about planting the seed of doubt.

It's totally inept for anyone who has actually read the Bible in context. You try to plant seeds of doubt by relying on mischaracterization of the Bible and hoping your audience is ignorant. You try to plant seeds of doubt by repeating assertions that have already been refuted and hoping you don't get refuted again or that I'll have given up on the conversation.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/#sthash.h60oQeas.dpuf

I have no objection to anti-sodomy laws. Having laws against sodomy is no more unloving, per se, than laws against incest or laws against drunk driving. If you want to say anti-sodomy laws are discriminatory or hateful you'll need an actual *argument*.

Oompa

Thank you for responding to my comments.
It has been most enlightening .

Kindest regards

James

The comments to this entry are closed.