Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Craven de Kere wrote:

You have had several rebuttals of your arguments that have nothing to do with an ad hominem and that dealt with your flimsy arguments directly.

You choose to ignore them.

I don't blame you.

I'm sorry, but I missed them (and I'm paying attention).

If you could do me the favor of outlining (not just mentioning) just one rebuttal, I'd really appreciate it.

If you can't do that, I'll understand. Smile

0 Replies

Tell ya what. I'll give you a rebuttal right now.

You posit that homosexuality is wrong because it's unatural.

First of all, that is a false statement on several levels. Homosexuality occurs naturally in anumals and humans. It's called un natural because of the most simplistic of notions: that it does not cause procreation.

Neither does watching a movie, kissing....

It occurs in nature without "unnatural" elements. Procreation is also not a criteria for "natural".

Furthermore, even if it were unnatural you'd have to illustrate something beyond that to make a point. If you do not do so you will, as you have here, have commited a naturalistic fallacy.

In your appeal to nature you made no attempt (and certainly had no success) in determining that homosexuality is unnatural. You then proceed to utilize that argument without any effort to establish that things unatural are wrong. It is an axiomatic statement without merit.

For it to have merit you must illustrate why your presumption is true. You must illustrate that what is natural is right and that what is unatural (e.g. using the internet to communicate) is wrong.

You cannot simply issue an appeal to nature and expect it to be a valid argument. If you want to use the appeal to nature without being fallacious then you must disprove axioms of others.

0 Replies

I struggle to understand why you, personally, accept an arbitrary church doctrine that homosexuality is wrong, Maliagar. Suppose I told you that heterosexuality was evil and quoted an ancient text as my authority. But you hold to your church's doctrine, so your path (in a democratic republic as in an online discussion with fellow citizens) must be to say, Look, my faith tells me homosexuality is wrong, and I accept that; I live in a community which says homosexuality is fine and normal and I know that as a citizen I have to accomodate that social commitment. Therefore, the best path for me would be to keep my faith, use it as my rule in life, and allow others equal space for their beliefs, not judge them or try to force them to believe as I do, or condemn them for not seeing my "truth."

To answer your questions, I'd have to say that, given the acknowledged problem of over-population, nature tells me that prideful production of heirs is destroying our planet. Etc. etc. Others have written about the violence represented by the heterosexual sex act to many women. the revulsion homosexuals sometimes express when trying to imagine love-making with the opposite sex. There are many who disagree with they see as your limited, unobservant view of what's "natural."

Or I could join with you in an endless either/or argument in which we'd both limit ourselves to strong opinions and in your case old church doctrine which many don't set much store by. Well, not me.

No. I believe that underlying your argument is disordered thinking in which you offer choices between extremes, imagine worst case scenarios, set up straw men and give us examples from people you "happen to know"!! But you're up against me and others who are scratching their heads and wondering, What the heck does homosexuality have to do with polygamy or kleptomania or rudeness! Why would this person imagine that church doctrine has a whole lot of weight with non-believers?

I have no problem whatsoever with marriage of homosexuals. If it's a matter of a religious ceremony, each church has to make up its own mind and ritual for the purpose -- or reject it altogether. That has nothing to do with civil marriage which I believe should be available to all sexual partners seeking a permanent relationship in the eyes of the community.

Why is homosexuality right? "Right" seems a curious word to choose (I'd assume "right" but use the word "natural" or "a fundamental natural human choice." ) But in answer, let's just say it's "right" in the same way that heterosexuality is "right"! Because it gives people pleasure, helps to cement good, stable, responsible human partnerships which are valuable both personally and to the community. Some of these relationships result in the raising of children (whether born to the couple or adopted by them) which, admittedly, needs careful thought and reponsible use of contraception so that the children are a gift to the world, not its death knell.

I think you get my point.

Old fifth-grade teacher mysteriously appeared in my office to whack me for spelling, among other things. Suggested tiny changes... Thus, edited!

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

A lot of labels, and not one argument or rebuttal.

No argument or rebuttal offered or implied, maliagar. As to lablels, well, if they apply, they're valid. If they do not apply, they are invalid. I merely opine you fail to support your argument, labels or other descsriptors, valid or otherwise, notwithstanding.

Quote:

Perhaps you can explain your reservations better than I?

Were my reservations germaine to the discussion they might merit explanation. As they have nothing to do either with the matter at hand or my assessment of your forensic skills, they are of no consequence.

Quote:

There are many animal practices that are completely unacceptable in human society. Unless, of course, you claim that animal behavior should be normative for us...

To apply a label or two, that straw dog is a consumate example of reductio ad absurdam, and, as are most such, thoroughly lacking in substance or foundation.

Quote:

Aprobation? Of what? Of my argument or of the promiscuous lifestyle?

Perhaps, as you now bring it up. However in the context of the foregoing discussion, that is not at issue, and apart from being a matter with which I would have no referential basis, has no bearing on this conversation.

Quote:

Of course. Promiscuity is not the monopoly of homosexuals. However, it is far more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.

While I suspect such may be the case, it would be incumbent upon you to provide corroborative evidence, as it is you who make the assertion.

Quote:

And whatever lifestyle that leads to promiscuity goes against the demands of love, commitment, and child rearing.

Where are such "Demands" codified, and by whom, other than in canonical writings given to agenda-driven interpretation and accorded no academic credence. I'll grant that recreational sex does not directly serve the propogation of the species, but then neither does overeating or philosophy.

I wrote:

I do not posit that you are wrong per se, but that your arguments as presented fail to support yor position in any forensically valid manner.

To which in response you wrote:

Would it be too much to ask why?

I believe I have addressed that. I await your forensically valid support of your argument, asking that you provide evidence and actuality, not emotion and annecdote.

0 Replies

Maliagar

I'm back.

Shore was great.

I feel spectacular.

I see lots has gone on while I was ogling the young women on the beach.

I'm not even going to try to catch up. I'll focus on one aspect of your postings for now -- and take up any others that may be interesting at some other point.

You quoted my comment: "Your claims that there is but one church -- and that the church is the Catholic Church is audacious and offered with nothing more than your "belief" as support."

...and then wrote:

maliagar wrote:

Not true. It is something that can be proved.

You can PROVE there is but one church!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to see you attempt that!

Quote:

You just have to look at the historical record. You can begin your research with the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is no official publication of the Catholic Church). Then you can read 1st, 2nd, 3d, and 4th century Christian authors, to see if they were affiliated to different "Christian" churches, or just to the One and Only

Read the record yourself.

Open that Encyclopedia of yours to the section titled "Martin Luther" or "Henry XIII."

Or better yet, open a telephone book to the YELLOW PAGES and look under churches.

This was either very sloppy writing -- or very lazy writing. I'm not yet sure which. I would suggest, however, that you abandon this line of argument -- and instead call my attention to the fact that by writing "your claims that there is but one church"...I have paraphrased your position on that matter with a bit less precision than should be allowed in this kind of undertaking.

By all means, take a second shot at whatever it is you were trying to say here.

In fact, as a good-will guesture, I'll give you more to work with.

I maintain that damn near everything you are saying about the Catholic Church -- about what is and what is not the "true" church -- and about most of the (admittedly cursory) theology you have offered so far -- IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN YOUR BELIEFS.

Ball is in your court.

0 Replies

In response to a harangue of yours about the folly of individual interpretations of the Bible -- the need to understand the bible so as not to misinterpret it -- and other inferences...

...I essentially asked you to give an example of what you were referencing.

I wrote: "...if a particular passage of the Bible has been misinterpreted here -- which is what you are essentially asserting -- bring it up for discussion. Offer your take as to the correct interpretation."

Now you are responding to that with:

Quote:

There is no point in doing that. We probably wouldn't move beyond a war of Bible verses, or of acts of faith (I believe in X, you believe in Y). And I'm not presenting "my take" on this issues. I'm presenting (as much as time and space allow) the Christian view of these things, as expressed by the largest, most ancient, and most authoritative Christian body: The Catholic Church.

1) Then why did you bring it up???

2) I will NEVER tell you anything that I "believe." EVER!

If I make a guess, calculation, or speculation during our discussion -- I will identify it as a guess, calculation, or speculation.

Don't avoid my request for an example on that account.

And, since we are discussing the homosexuality issue, why not use that?

Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?

What is the punishment the god of the Bible demands of people who engage in homosexual conduct?

Share with us the rationalizations that you and the Catholic Church have concerning this.

0 Replies

God and California. Wink

c.i.
***********************

California

Once upon a time in the kingdom of Heaven, God was missing for six days.

Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God. "Where have you been?"

God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put Life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."

"Balance?" Inquired Michael, still confused.

God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, but cold and harsh, while southern Europe is going to be poor but sunny and pleasant. "I have made some lands abundant in water and other lands parched deserts. This one will be extremely hot and while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land mass and said, "What's that one?"

"Ah," said God. "That's California, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful beaches, deserts, streams, hills, and forests. The people from California are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent and humorous and they are going to be found traveling the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking and high achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there would be balance!!!"

God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the idiots I put in Sacramento."

0 Replies

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Tell ya what. I'll give you a rebuttal right now.

You posit that homosexuality is wrong because it's unatural.

I dealt with your "rebuttal" in a long message, and I just lost it. I'm still trying to recover it, but it looks that I won't be able. I hope to be able to prepare a shorter version soon.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tartarin wrote:
I struggle to understand why you, personally, accept an arbitrary church doctrine that homosexuality is wrong, Maliagar.

Because I don't think it is arbitrary. And don't worry, the whole modern world struggles with this.

Quote:
Suppose I told you that heterosexuality was evil and quoted an ancient text as my authority.

I already mentioned a hundred times that that is not the way historic Christianity defines its teachings. Maybe Benny Hinn, but not historic Christianity. Do you know the difference?

Quote:
But you hold to your church's doctrine....

I already explained this. When you are a true Christian or a Buddhist you don't just live by an external doctrine. You see the point. And once you see the point, it is note something external anymore (something outside that you hold on to). It is as internal as your views on homosexuality (which by the way, were preached to you by someone until you also "saw the point"). So don't go on pretending that your views are "yours" (internal, rational) whereas my views are "foreign" (imposed by an external and arbitrary religious organization). For the 11th time, your views are also based on a faith. An internalized faith, but a faith nonetheless.

Quote:
I live in a community which says homosexuality is fine and normal and I know that as a citizen I have to accomodate that social commitment.

Wrong. I don't know in what world you live, but in the world I live (the U.S.) homosexuality is a highly controversial issue. This means people are divided about it. This means homosexuality is not just fine and normal. Therefore, I don't have to accomodate to it, for there has been no social commitment in its favor. Homosexuality is far from being a settled issue.

Quote:
Therefore, the best path for me would be to ... allow others equal space for their beliefs, not judge them or try to force them to believe as I do, or condemn them for not seeing my "truth."

Can you tell me at what point did I want to force my views on you or anybody?

Quote:
What the heck does homosexuality have to do with polygamy or kleptomania or rudeness!

Well, apparently you're missing the whole point. Let's try just one more time: Homosexuality, polygamy, kleptomany, pedophilia are behaviors that have been considered immoral during most of the West's history. Nowadays, there is an effort to turn homosexuality into an acceptable practice, while the others are still no-nos. This is an arbitrary effort, since the same arguments that are used to favor homosexuality can be used to favor a host of other traditionally immoral behaviors. Where should we draw the line?

Quote:
Why would this person imagine that church doctrine has a whole lot of weight with non-believers?

Are you really reading my messages? I know that most un-believers do not care for the teachings of the Church (some of them do though, 'cause they see the need of moral anchors in an increasingly chaotic world). But apparently you fail to see that, up to this point, I haven't grounded any of my attacks on homosexuality on one single Bible verse or papal document. So, are you paying attention? If I mention the Church it is because you guys seem to believe that (1) it is the main enemy of homosexuality, and (2) its positions are absolutely arbitrary, based on Bible verses. And I have time and time again said that this is not true and why, to no avail.

Quote:
civil marriage which I believe should be available to all sexual partners seeking a permanent relationship in the eyes of the community.

From the very beginning of this exchange you've repeated several times that you BELIEVE that homosexuality is OK. I have pointed this to you. I asked for a REASON for your beliefs, to no avail. And you really think that your position is "rational"? It is just an act of faith, but you don't see it. You could write your belief on a piece of paper, and quote it as your Bible.

Quote:
Why is homosexuality right?... let's just say it's "right" in the same way that heterosexuality is "right"!

The same way? I'm sure you realize there is something key lacking in homosexual relations (as opposed to heterosexual ones).

Quote:
Because it gives people pleasure...

There are many things that give pleasure that are not right.

Quote:
helps to cement good, stable, responsible human partnerships which are valuable both personally and to the community.

This is not true about homosexual relationships.

I'm sorry, but your "explanation" of why homosexuality is "natural", "right", and "good" is lame at best.

0 Replies

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Maliagar
You can PROVE there is but one church!!!!!!!!! I'd love to see you attempt that!

Man, it seems to me that people are not really reading what I write... Or perhaps I'm assuming that they know at least something about Christianity when they really don't.

The point is very simple. Christ founded but one Church. That Church is still around. It is the Catholic Church. If you don't believe me, go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is no official publication of the Catholic Church). Then read 1st, 2nd, 3d, and 4th century Christian authors to see if they were affiliated to different "Christian" churches, or just to the One and Only. From this One Church all the other broke away. Hence, the Catholic Church is the most ancient, most authoritative Christian body.

If you think that I don't know there are Protestant churches around, you must have a very funny idea of who you're talking to.

Never mind. Let's see...

Quote:
Read the record yourself. Open that Encyclopedia of yours to the section titled "Martin Luther" or "Henry XIII."

I suppose you meant Henry VIII (I guess this was a typo... or perhaps lazy writing?)

Quote:
I maintain that damn near everything you are saying about the Catholic Church ... IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN YOUR BELIEFS.

"Near everything"? That is a very bold assertion. Can you be a bit more specific? Why do you maintain this? What are your BELIEFS regarding Christianity and the Church?

Maybe I can help you clarify your beliefs...

0 Replies

Here's proof what maliagar says about the Catholic Church being the only "true" church. http://www.truecatholic.org/ ROTFLMAO. c.i.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I wrote: "...if a particular passage of the Bible has been misinterpreted here -- which is what you are essentially asserting -- bring it up for discussion. Offer your take as to the correct interpretation."

Now you are responding to that with:

There is no point in doing that. We probably wouldn't move beyond a war of Bible verses, or of acts of faith (I believe in X, you believe in Y). And I'm not presenting "my take" on this issues. I'm presenting (as much as time and space allow) the Christian view of these things, as expressed by the largest, most ancient, and most authoritative Christian body: The Catholic Church.
1) Then why did you bring it up???

I didn't. You did. You said: "...if a particular passage of the Bible has been misinterpreted here -- which is what you are essentially asserting -- bring it up for discussion. Offer your take as to the correct interpretation."

Quote:

2) I will NEVER tell you anything that I "believe." EVER!

Should I applaud??? Smile

Quote:

If I make a guess, calculation, or speculation during our discussion -- I will identify it as a guess, calculation, or speculation.

More applauses? Very Happy

What's your point?

Quote:

Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?

The God of the Bible, the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the God of humanity and of the universe, is offended by any sin, i.e., by any self-destructive act of His children. And homosexuality is such an act.

Quote:

What is the punishment the god of the Bible demands of people who engage in homosexual conduct?

Here's where you start drifting, out of overconfidence in your own speculative powers... Do you think that just by quoting a specific Bible verse you've captured the essence of Christianity's moral teaching? You don't know what you are talking about. The various books of the Bible are to be read together, not by isolating one verse from the other (as you and the thousands of fundamentalist Protestant sects do). We have to discern the word of God out of those human words. That's why we have theology and Church pastors. Let me summarize Christian theology for you: God is just, but mercyful. We cannot regard one without the other. Both his mercy and his justice are infinite. Hence, it is not up to individuals to judge the depths of their neighbor's heart. It is up to omniscient God. We as Christians are only to present the Truth, not to judge people by it. We are not equipped to do it. No human is. This knowledge (or wisdom) is the result of receiving the whole of the Christian message in our open hearts, and not of shooting Bible verses here and there out of overconfidence in ourselves (as Benny Hinn does, and as you seem all too eager to do :wink: ).

Quote:

Share with us the rationalizations that you and the Catholic Church have concerning this.

Is this "a guess, calculation, or a speculation"? Laughing

Take care.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's proof what maliagar says about the Catholic Church being the only "true" church. http://www.truecatholic.org/ ROTFLMAO. c.i.

Check this one out:

http://www.whostartedyourchurch.com/

0 Replies

Yeah, Frank, Don't you dare take anything in the bible out of context. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, Frank, Don't you dare take anything in the bible out of context. c.i.

Finally you're understanding something... Smile

Yes, tell him... Very Happy

Nothing is to be understood out of context.

Good lesson for today, eh?

0 Replies

"Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?"

"The God of the Bible, the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the God of humanity and of the universe, is offended by any sin, i.e., by any self-destructive act of His children. And homosexuality is such an act."

Dodge. Try again: "Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?" Yes? No? Proof?

* * * *

"What is the punishment the god of the Bible demands of people who engage in homosexual conduct?"

"Here's where you start drifting, out of overconfidence in your own speculative powers... Do you think that by quoting a specific Bible verse you've captured the essence of Christianity's moral teaching? You don't know what you are talking about. The various books of the Bible are to be read together, not by isolating one verse from the other (as the thousands of Protestant sects do). We have to discern the word of God out of those human words. That's why we have theology and Church pastors. Let me summarize Christian theology for you: God is just, but mercyful. And it is not up to individuals to judge the heart of their neighbor. It is up to God. We as Christians are only to present the Truth, not to judge people by it. This is the result of receiving the whole of the Christian message in our hearts, and not of shooting Bible verses here and there (as Benny Hinn does, and as you seem all too eager to do ). "

Dodge. Same as above.

Your ratings for this inning, Maliagar: Confabulatingobfuscation: 10. Intellectual integrity: 0.

Next?

0 Replies

maliagar,

I am still waiting for your rebuttal to both of my posts here.

A) that your claim that morality is as society dtermines it is presented ina way that contradicts the way society reaches said conclusion.

and

B) That your arguments about homosexuality are based on a appeal to nature that is both 1) false and 2) fallacious.

------

Tips (it's patronizing but I mean well):

:: Back off the first argument because our middle ground there isn't too shabby for you.

:: Claim that the occurances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is due to man's sinful influence or possesion or some such. That way you will have taken the argument to a new level of contention and it'sa nice stall.

You'd still have to deal with the naturalistic fallacy, the above only helps you argue that it is unatural and I really have no suggestions to help you there.

I'd not want to be arguing that point as it's one of the more easily understood fallacies and you'll be very hard pressed to even nuance it into confusion.

0 Replies

I'm starting to worry that you may not know how to read...

Tartarin wrote:

"Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?"

"The God of the Bible, the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the God of humanity and of the universe, is offended by any sin, i.e., by any self-destructive act of His children. And homosexuality is such an act."

Dodge. Try again: "Is the god of the Bible offended by homosexual behavior?" Yes? No? Proof?

* * * *

"What is the punishment the god of the Bible demands of people who engage in homosexual conduct?"

"Here's where you start drifting, out of overconfidence in your own speculative powers... Do you think that by quoting a specific Bible verse you've captured the essence of Christianity's moral teaching? You don't know what you are talking about. The various books of the Bible are to be read together, not by isolating one verse from the other (as you and the thousands of fundamentalist Protestant sects do). We have to discern the word of God out of those human words. That's why we have theology and Church pastors. Let me summarize Christian theology for you: God is just, but mercyful. And it is not up to individuals to judge the heart of their neighbor. It is up to God. We as Christians are only to present the Truth, not to judge people by it. This is the result of receiving the whole of the Christian message in our hearts, and not of shooting Bible verses here and there (as Benny Hinn does, and as you seem all too eager to do ). "

Dodge. Same as above.

Your ratings for this inning, Maliagar: Confabulatingobfuscation: 10. Intellectual integrity: 0.

Next?

0 Replies

Sorry man, but wasn't able to recover the long message I had penned.

No need for your "advice", though. If you don't think my position is sustainable, think again. I suppose that you've heard of Thomas Aquinas or Princeton's Robert George.

That is one of the funny prejudices of secularists: They believe they are the only ones coming up with rational arguments... Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar,

I am still waiting for your rebuttal to both of my posts here.

A) that your claim that morality is as society dtermines it is presented ina way that contradicts the way society reaches said conclusion.

and

B) That your arguments about homosexuality are based on a appeal to nature that is both 1) false and 2) fallacious.

------

Tips (it's patronizing but I mean well):

:: Back off the first argument because our middle ground there isn't too shabby for you.

:: Claim that the occurances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is due to man's sinful influence or possesion or some such. That way you will have taken the argument to a new level of contention and it'sa nice stall.

You'd still have to deal with the naturalistic fallacy, the above only helps you argue that it is unatural and I really have no suggestions to help you there.

I'd not want to be arguing that point as it's one of the more easily understood fallacies and you'll be very hard pressed to even nuance it into confusion.

0 Replies

the only theologically sustainable thesis that can be put forward by the holy roman church (or any other of the abrahamic dogmas) is that essense preceeds existence, all else falls to the side of argumentative discourse of interpretation. if you wished a conversation on the above thesis, there just might be some interesting dialogue, until then you are just pissing in the wind.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know