Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

maliagar wrote:

Oh, it is very relevant. It means that all of us (those who think homosexuality is wrong, and those who think it is great) are influenced by more or less "arbitrary"personal choices, acts of "blind" faith, decisions to put our trust here and not there.

I do not think those decisions to be arbitrary. I used to be far more homophobic than you and have since seen how insipid my beliefs were.

maliagar wrote:

And if this is true

See above, I do not agree that it's true.

maliagar wrote:

then there is no point in disqualifying a Christian argument because of the acts of faith it may involve.

How very convenient. ;-) If so, what's the point in discussing it? If you decide that there is no point in disqualifying your beliefs it's probably a good idea not to try to disqualfy the beliefs of others.

maliagar wrote:

All the other arguments are also "tainted" with (i'd prefer guided by) faith.

I have never argued this with you on the basis of religion. I couldn't care less about your faith as it is your business. I ahve argued that you have gone nowhere with your contention that homosexuality is wrong and you continue to bring up faith and the absence of it as a red herring.

It would be much easier to just say that it is your blind and unquestioning belief and that you will question the beliefs of others while determining that yours are off limits. That way it is at least more obvious that discussion with you on this point is a waste of time.

But, hey, I have a few minutes so I might as well have a bit of fun.

maliagar wrote:

[/b]Those who believe there is no God are as faith-driven as devout Muslims. I've said this several times already: Fath is an inescapable fact of life.

Sigh, I agree. It'd be nice if we could "escape" the blind devotion but I guess there is room for superstition in this world.

maliagar wrote:

Did I? But that shouldn't matter, right? 'Cause these discussions are useful to clarify and better situate the issue, right?

Sure. But in changing your contentions you have still not made any attempt to illustrate your contentions.

maliagar wrote:

I have, and I won't repeat myself. Maybe you should read my message carefully. Or refute it.

I ahve read it, and have refuted it. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I am asking you to illustrate your contention that homosexuality is unatural (which I consider false) and that it is therefore wrong (because unatural does not equal wrong in and of itself).

maliagar wrote:

Because it involves a limitation of the human potential (biologically, emotionally, socially) in one of its most essential expressions: sexuality.

So it's wrong to have lost one's urinals in a tragic farming accident. Because that is also a "limitation" Rolling Eyes

.

maliagar wrote:

You want illustration? Here it goes: Homosexuals cut themselves from the experience (and personal challenge) of a physical, emotional, intimate, committed, and lasting relationship with the opposite sex.

Two can play this game. Heterosexuals cut themselves from the experience (and personal challenge) of a physical, emotional, intimate, committed, and lasting relationship with the same sex.

So? I'm a heterosexual. I don't mind not having the "experience" with those of the same sex. ;-)

Your argument here would suggest that bisexuality is the "most right". If missing out on an experience is wrong I strongly suggest that you try beastiality. Ya wouldn't want to miss out on all those experiences would you? lol

I'm having fun with it because it is such a silly argument. People have what is called free will. They are not required to experience the experiences you determine for them. If they choose otherwise it is their prerogative.

I happen to think bestiality is wrong. But under your ludicrous argument it might be somethign you want to try, so as to avoid missing out on all those barnyard experiences.

maliagar wrote:

Homosexuality is usually the result of a solidified inability to deal with the opposite sex on an intimate level.

LOL, you purport to know much about homosexual nature. But ok, two can play.

Heterosexuality is usually the result of a solidified inability to deal with the same sex on an intimate level.

Again, you'll need more to have a point.

maliagar wrote:

Homosexuals take the easy route and indulge in their own limitations (and even self-destructive feelings).

You make precious little sense. Homosexual feelings are no more self-destructive than many heterosexual feelings. This is another absurd axiom that you posit without any attempt to ascertain its veracity.

maliagar wrote:

Those who indulge in these fears and limitations end up avoiding the real experience (and challenge) of parenthood, which for the wife is intensely physical, and for the husband a total challenge for his capacity to feel empathy for his wife.

So now not having kids is wrong? he he

maliagar wrote:

It is not surprising that psychologists often detect higher levels of infantilism / immaturity among homosexuals.

A) Please corroborate this with scientific study.

B) I contend that most phycological issues that homosexuals have are the result of ignorant attitudes towards them.

maliagar wrote:

Homosexuality is often the result of a psychological-emotional limitation (or worse, of confusion and seduction at a sensitive time in a teen's life).

This is another axiom taht not only does not have any supporting evidence here but also has many contradictory studies that refute it.

Again, you claim to know far too much about homosexual nature.

maliagar wrote:

Homosexuals cut themselves of the social aspects of marital and family life.

So anyone who doesn't get married and have a family is wrong? Please inform Jesus of this. He would be most surprised.

maliagar wrote:

Now, of course, you may ask: "Why is this wrong?" Why should we strive to live fulfilled lives?

Not at all. I laugh, then I ask why you think your criteria for fullfilment is somethign everyone should adhere to?

If a homosexual tell you you need to have homosexual sex to be "fulfilled" would you accept that argument?

maliagar wrote:

After all, we can always indulge our limitations and lowly desires and "not worry, be happy". We don't need society, children, the opposite sex, to be happy, right? Wrong.

LOL Now you are telling everyone what they need to be happy? Do you purport to have the key to happiness in addition to the "truth" about what people should do when they want to have sex?

Well, you have made me laugh so you are at least capable of spreading some cheer.

maliagar wrote:

No, those are not "other" topics. I'm sure you know what "reasoning by analogy" means. Or you are among those who BELIEVE that mathematical reasoning is the only way to go?

This has nothing to do with the validity of analogy in general or mathematical thinking. It is quite simple, I think your analogies were horrible and that they still do nothing towaord your statements that homosexuality is wrong.

Taking heroin is something that can be argued to be wrong, sure. But that does not help you establish that your homophobia is right.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
So if homosexuals feel happiness through fulfillment then homosexuality is right?

This comment leads me to believe that you are not reading my messages carefully. I already explained this.

You are the master at a cop-out. I'm usually too embarassed to cop-out so obviously.

maliagar wrote:

That's a more interesting question. To come up with the answer, think about this: Not all "negative consequences" are equally rooted in our essential selves. Some are more fundamental (graver) than others.

How grave are the negative consequences of ignorance and homophobia? How grave are the consequences of caring so mcuh about what consenting adults do for sexual recreation?

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
I do believe the homosexual minority has a better grasp on that nature...

I wonder why you have such a strange belief. There are all kinds of homosexuals, and I doubt that you can generalize about their grasp of human nature.

I said nothing of the sort. I posited that homosexuals might have a better grasp on the nature of homosexuality than you.

If you want to tackle generalizations that are unfounded try looking at your contention that homosexuality is wrong and how you use a few people you claim to ahve spoken to who say they agree that their homosexuality is wrong. THAT was a generalization based on a very small sample and very small thinking.

Fell free to continue with the cop outs. But my 2 simple questions still stand.

A) illustrate that homosexuality is not natural

B) illustrate that things unatural are wrong or that this in particular is.

Just because you say it's unatural doesn't mean it is.

Just because you say what is unatural is wrong does make it so. You are usning an unatural medium of communication here for example..

Simply address those two points. Put your money where your mouth is. The cop outs and twisting rants are not answers to those simple queries.

You ahve made a contention taht homosexuality is wrong. You can either continue with the cop-outs, just say it's your bline belief that shouldn't be questioned (as you have already stated) or you could try a little intellectual curiosity and defend your opinion scientifically.

In case you have already forgotten you have but two simple things to acheive this:

A) illustrate that homosexuality is not natural

B) illustrate that things unatural are wrong or that this in particular is.

I await with unbated breath.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:

You want illustration? Here it goes: Homosexuals cut themselves from the experience (and personal challenge) of a physical, emotional, intimate, committed, and lasting relationship with the opposite sex.

What are catholic priests doing? Is what they do "normal?" c.i.

0 Replies

Very good, Craven -- and CI.

Just have to reject the argument that "faith" or "belief" exists on both sides. Certainly cultural influences exist, but for those of us who are not believers, experience tends to determine our attitudes.

I'm really wary of people (from Rushies to fundamentalists) who take their lives out of a book or from something they've been told they should believe. And who, when asked, what is your experience of... homosexuality... or what ever... respond with something they've read.

Whether Maliagar is a Catholic or not, I'm not sure, but s/he bears no resemblance to the inquiring, experience-hungry members of that church that I know.

0 Replies

Whether or not maliagar's hypothesis is valid, its chief proponent has done little to validate it and much to press it. Simply shouting a thing over and over, Josef Goebbels aside, does not make it so. It is quite interesting that those assailing the argument, are, to the best of my knowledge, not particularly given to the practice of homosexuality.

Maliagar, it is not your position that is being rejected here, but your manner of its development and support. Passion and conviction do not constitute substance. All any here are asking is that you substantiate your argument, while all you have done is repeat it. Again, annecdotes and emotions are not evidence. Neither, per se, is adopting a stance congruent with a particulatr religious philosophy ... though a stance derived therefrom may well have rational, scientific, forensically valid support. Trot out your data, cite your sources and establish their credentials, deal with the issue.

So far you've merely danced to the tune of your "faith". Frankly, that in itself is a too widespread practice, and hinders the rational examination of the issue. The emotional baggage attached to many things weighs them beyond reason. Drop your baggage and come to grips with the issue, validate your position, or wallow in superstition ... its your choice to make as suits your sensibilities and capacities.

Cop-outs, unsupported assertions, generalizations, and rants just won't cut it with this crowd. If you want to play, you're gonna have to try harder. Think about it. Some folks do, you know, and to engage them, you have to think yourself, not rely on the thoughts provided you by a particular dogma.

0 Replies

But, timber, their dogma is the basis of their very existence. They believe in it with heart and soul. That's the reason they fall back on "faith" for all of their arguments. c.i.

0 Replies

In several posts, Maliagar, you have indicated that Protestants in particular, and non-Catholics in general, are making a mistake in not allowing the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for them -- since, as you indicated, the Catholic Church has both the authority and continuity to do so properly.

I wonder if you would favor us with the Catholic Church's interpretation of two particular passages from the Bible. They seen to me to be very straight forward, butwho knows.

The first is from Leviticus 25:44ff. The god of the Bible is speaking to Moses, and instructs:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

The second is from Leviticus 20:13ff. The god of the Bible is speaking to Moses, and instructs:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives."

I think doing this, Maliagar, would go a long way toward helping us understand your regard for Catholic thought, pedagogy, and its ability to make the intent of a passage clear.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

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 ... until then you are just pissing in the wind.

That would be more of a philosophical discussion, rather than a theological one. So I suppose we all piss in the wind from time to time.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

What is most telling to me is Maliagar's inability to relate to human experience and, worse (in my view), draw on his/her own experience. It's all rote (as Timber, I think, pointed out). It all comes out of a text somewhere, articulate but disturbingly disassociated and ultimately sad and boring.

Yes, I must have the heart of a rock, utterly out of touch with myself--only capable of touching myself... Laughing

If I told a thief that stealing is wrong, that would prove beyond a doubt my invincible incapacity to understand the thief's personal circumstances (greed? need?), right?

If I told a pedophile that having sex with children is wrong, that would prove beyond reasonable doubt my total disregard for the pedophile's human side, right?

I already mentioned the distinction between the general moral rule and the specific cases (go to the dictionary and look for the original meaning of 'casuistry').

Here we are talking about general rules, not specific cases. But it is now abundantly clear that you fail to see this oh so very simple point. Rolling Eyes

Take care.

0 Replies

I should say, Craven, that your challenges are the ones I find most relevant, focused and to the point--even though I don't get the impression that you're really pondering what I say. Maybe you are in too much of a hurry to "be amused" by my points... :wink: Of course, it may also be that I'm not clear enough about them. In the end, what really matters is not my ability to present a case, but the truth of it. And these are issues we struggle with permanently.

Let's make a few more comments about your views.

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar wrote:

Oh, it is very relevant. It means that all of us (those who think homosexuality is wrong, and those who think it is great) are influenced by more or less "arbitrary"personal choices, acts of "blind" faith, decisions to put our trust here and not there.

Quote:
I do not think those decisions to be arbitrary.

Well? Would you care to say why? Or I am the only one who is supposed to explain his points? I wonder why would that be...

Quote:
I used to be far more homophobic than you and have since seen how insipid my beliefs were.

I'm not homophobic. Are you Christian-phobic? Did you just see the "righteousness" of homosexuality? Or was it that the anti-homosexual argument didn't persuade you anymore and, by default, you ended up accepting homosexuality?

maliagar wrote:

then there is no point in disqualifying a Christian argument because of the acts of faith it may involve.

Quote:
How very convenient. ;-)

Isn't it? For you, for me, and for everybody else!!!! We are all in the same boat, my friend. We all have a set of ultimate beliefs that give our lives, pleasures and pains, some sense and purpose. Some people may think that they "reasoned" their individual creeds on their own, but the fact is: One can't do this every day, every week. You get to a point where you say: Enough already. This will be my "decalogue" and I'll live by it (or try to, because "sin" and hypocrisy are human conditions for atheists and Christians alike).

Atheists do this, Marxists, hedonists, agnostics, everyone. And once we are set on a Point of View, it is very uncomfortable for us to be challenged out of that zone of comfort. We may do it on a theoretical level, but it is very hard to accept the existential challenge.

Quote:
If so, what's the point in discussing it?

The point is very simple: By discussing these issues we clarify our arguments, and detect which of them are based on what type of evidence, and which of them are the result of value preferences that may or may not be arbitrary. It is a matter of awareness. Then we can examine the source of those value preferences, to see if they are arbitrary (for example, to justify a lifestyle that appeals to us regardless) or grounded in some sort of reflection about what being human means. Then we can judge if that reflection really does justice to the human phenomenon.

Believe me: Many people reject the Church's teachings not because they are not persuasive or false in their view, but because they are not convenient. Sometimes people struggle with a weakness, and instead of struggling they throw themselves into its claws. And they just embrace an alternative credo out of rebelliousnes or lack of hope. Like Adam and Eve.

Quote:
If you decide that there is no point in disqualifying your beliefs it's probably a good idea not to try to disqualfy the beliefs of others.

The key word here is "critique", in its original meaning: Testing the strengths and limits of a given view. And to be able to do this, one needs to be able to be self-critical as well.

Quote:
I have never argued this with you on the basis of religion.

I am the one who hasn't argued on the basis of religion. I haven't quoted the Bible (even though Frank insistently tries to make me do it) nor the Pope. But you haven't argued anything, so far. You've just tried to show how wrong I am (ok, ok, "you just want to have some casual fun"). And my point is that I wouldn't be so cocky (as you and others are) about the hidden "faith" components of my argument, if I'm not aware of how my own views are grounded in pure beliefs.

Quote:
I ahve argued that you have gone nowhere with your contention that homosexuality is wrong...

Perhaps. Or perhaps you don't see the point. Persuassion is a double-edged sword: A clear truth, and the ability to see it. Of course, rhetoric and logic are helpful... :wink:

Quote:
It would be much easier to just say that it is your blind and unquestioning belief and that you will question the beliefs of others while determining that yours are off limits.

I never said that my beliefs are off limits. I'm the only one here presenting a case. You haven't even remotely begun to do it. And by the way, the burden of proof is on those who advocate homosexuality, abortion, and all those "innovations". For thousands of years Western culture has deemed these practices as abominations. If you and those who think like you want to change how everybody else thinks, you should prove that your view is better than what we've always held.

Quote:
It'd be nice if we could "escape" the blind devotion but I guess there is room for superstition in this world.

I don't know about "superstition", but I know about faith. It is inescapable for you and for me. The real question is: Which faith do we embrace?

Quote:
So it's wrong to have lost one's urinals in a tragic farming accident. Because that is also a "limitation"

????? Don't you think it would be extremely unfortunate????? Are you going to ask me upon what axiom I base this belief???

Quote:
Heterosexuals cut themselves from the experience (and personal challenge) of a physical, emotional, intimate, committed, and lasting relationship with the same sex.

Finally, an interesting point. I don't know how you feel about this, but in my opinion, for a man it is no challenge to know a man. That is why most people report that homosexual relationships are "easier"--because "a woman knows how to please a woman, and a man how to please a man". And many people have come to believe that relationships are about pleasure (if that's the case, nobody knows how to please us better than ourselves). That is why I believe there is an element of projected masturbation in homosexuality.

Quote:
Your argument here would suggest that bisexuality is the "most right".

You're isolating my argument from the many others I gave (remember? the biological, emotional, social, economic requisites for procreation?)

Quote:
People have what is called free will. They are not required to experience the experiences you determine for them.

"Required"? Are we "required" to do anything at all"? Are we "required" to be happy? "Who is to say" what are the requirements? You seem to believe that morality is necessarily about external "requirements" (commandments). And since the question "Who is to say that we ought to do X?" is normally deemed as unanswerable, then let's get rid of morality altogether. Here may lie the root of all your objections. Furthermore, some people seem to believe that Christian morality is necessarily and unavoidable heteronomous (i.e., based on external commandments which are grounded in the "arbitrary" will of an invisible God).

Think again. The view of morality that I've been trying to present here is not legalistic. I'm not citing codes or Bible verses. The view of morality I'm trying to present here (within the limitations of time, space, language, and understanding :wink: ) is SAPIENTIAL. I mentioned Aristotle, I mentioned Buddhism (a philosophical non-theistic religion), and I mentioned the curious fact that ALL the major historical religious traditions AGREE on their basic moral codes (including their view of homosexuality).

So if you ponder all of this, you may start to open your eyes to the possibility that the label "Christian" is leading you to not understand what I am saying.

Quote:
I happen to think bestiality is wrong.

May I ask why?

Quote:
you purport to know much about homosexual nature...

Who knows? Maybe I do...

Quote:
Again, you'll need more to have a point.

Again, persuassion is a function of many variables.

Quote:
Homosexual feelings are no more self-destructive than many heterosexual feelings.

I wonder why you feel the need to qualify your assertion by introducing the word "many".

Quote:
This is another absurd axiom.

By now you should have understood already that I'm not presenting axioms here. Axioms are by definition so evident that they don't need to be proved.

Quote:
So now not having kids is wrong?

For a healthy married couple, that's absolutely right. But you probably wouldn't understand.

maliagar wrote:

It is not surprising that psychologists often detect higher levels of infantilism / immaturity among homosexuals.

Quote:
A) Please corroborate this with scientific study.

So now you're asking me to give you a list of books to read?

Quote:
B) I contend that most phycological issues that homosexuals have are the result of ignorant attitudes towards them.

And of course, you don't feel the need to prove this, do you?

maliagar wrote:

Homosexuals cut themselves of the social aspects of marital and family life.

Quote:
So anyone who doesn't get married and have a family is wrong? Please inform Jesus of this. He would be most surprised.

Are you paying attention to what I am saying? Anybody who engages in a sexual relationship should do it within the context of (1) a lifelong total commitment, (2) heterosexual love, and (3) and (3) openness to procreation. Clearly, Jesus doesn't fit here. He chose not to embark on such a relationship. Therefore, his decision was simply vocational.

Quote:
I laugh, then I ask why you think your criteria for fullfilment is somethign everyone should adhere to?

I'm glad that you're having a good time. Just "fun", right? Anyway... This is another key point, and let me just say this: People may have wildly different ideas of "fulfillment". For a person that feels attracted to murder, to actually kill somebody may seem like a "fulfillment" of a potential... So, clearly, we need a more specific notion of fulfillment. It can't be "just what I feel like doing". So then we need to move away from a relativistic, untenable understanding of happiness. Now, (1) if there is ONE human nature that we ALL share, and if (2) that nature can be perfected and fulfilled, then (3) the path towards perfection, fulfillment, and happiness is one and the same for all mankind (wihch is what all religions and classic philosophers say).

Quote:
LOL Now you are telling everyone what they need to be happy? Do you purport to have the key to happiness in addition to the "truth" about what people should do when they want to have sex?

Oh yes. Let's see if you understand: Sexual addiction can lead to a lot of personal and family unhappiness. Right? Self-indulgence as well (insofar as it cuts us from everybody else and from the best of us. Right? Are you going to ponder this, or is your laughter going to prevent you from thinking?

Quote:
Well, you have made me laugh so you are at least capable of spreading some cheer.

Great! I'm contributing to your own personal fulfillment and happiness!!!

Quote:
This has nothing to do with the validity of analogy in general or mathematical thinking. It is quite simple, I think your analogies were horrible and that they still do nothing towaord your statements that homosexuality is wrong.

I'm coming to realize that you're not really arguing AT ALL. You are just laughing, and that is preventing you from feeling the need to explain your views. Why are they "horrible" analogies?

Quote:
Taking heroin is something that can be argued to be wrong, sure. But that does not help you establish that your homophobia is right.

I'm not arguing in favor of homophobia--or any phobia for that matter. The question is: The same arguments used against heroin use can be employed, analogously, against homosexualiy. This is not a matter of fear, but of morality. And you haven't established that my views are wrong.

maliagar wrote:
Quote:
So if homosexuals feel happiness through fulfillment then homosexuality is right?

This comment leads me to believe that you are not reading my messages carefully. I already explained this.

Quote:
You are the master at a cop-out. I'm usually too embarassed to cop-out so obviously.

So make up your mind: am I a master, or an embarrasment? No escaping here (you are not really reading what I say; you're the one opting out). I've mentioned several times that "fulfillment" doesn't have to do with a "feeling" (like the "fulfilled" murderer) but with a full assessment of human nature. And I already gave some clues about that human nature. And I already presented some difficulties involved in your "rebuttal" of my notion of "human nature".

I have to stop here. Hope to be able to continue tomorrow.

Take care.

0 Replies

Hey, Frank, you're so eager to engage in a Bible-verse war, eh? You ask:

Quote:

I wonder if you would favor us with the Catholic Church's interpretation of two particular passages from the Bible.

I already mentioned that Christian theology and moral teaching are not the result of isolated Bible passages. But of course, you already know that, 'cause you really know Catholicism... :wink:

You probably also know that neither the Church nor Judaism are in the business of providing verse-by-verse interpretations of the Bible. That ahistorical and legalistic expectation completely disregards the holistic way the Jewish and Christian communities have related to the Scriptures for centuries. In fact, this literalist expectation is a comparatively recent phenomenon, rooted in the Protestant "reformation" and its notion of "sola scriptura". And it taints all discussions on Christianity in predominantly Protestant countries. (The same happens with the discussion about "evolution" and "creationism", which, as I'm sure you know full well, does not concern the Catholic Church; it is reserved to literalist fundamentalist evangelicals).

Unfortunately, and despite your vast knowledge of Catholicism, a Biblical-literalism-fundamentalism prejudice has crept in and cracked what I'm sure is an otherwise solid knowledge of Christianity. That's why I cannot satisfy your request.

Quote:

The first is from Leviticus 25:44ff. The god of the Bible is speaking to Moses, and instructs:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

If the issue that concerns you is slavery, and you really want to know Christian teaching about it (and not just what Leviticus says), I'm sure you have at hand a heavily highlighted and underlined 2nd edition of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. The books of the Bible do not provide a systematic presentation of Jewish or Christian doctrines. This is provided by a Catechism (but of course, you already knew that).

Quote:

The second is from Leviticus 20:13ff. The god of the Bible is speaking to Moses, and instructs:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives."

Again, if the topic that worries you is homosexuality, go and check your Catechism (if it's worn out, it's also on the web Smile

). I cannot give you "the Church's interpretation" of isolated Bible verses, because very simply, the Church doesn't do that. But I'm sure you know that.

Quote:

I think doing this, Maliagar, would go a long way toward helping us understand your regard for Catholic thought, pedagogy, and its ability to make the intent of a passage clear.

Once again, the Church does not ground its teachings in isolated Bible verses. Remember: The Word of God is, primarily, Christ himself. Also remember: The Apostles were sent out to preach the Gospel, not to write. Christ himself did not write anything. Nobody carried a Bible under their arm. I don't need to tell you that the role of the Bible in Christianity is not the same as the role of the Koran among Muslims (except for the comparatively minoritarian sects of Christian literal-fundamentalists).

The books of the Bible were in separate scrolls, they were expensive, few people knew how to read, and the Christian message was meant to be announced, not written down. In other words, first was the Church, then the oral preaching, then disperse written versions of the oral message, and much later, a gradual editing and putting together of those manuscripts, and finally a decision that canonized certain manuscripts and rejected others.

This was done by the Catholic Church. And those who accept the Bible as inspired are accepting (whether they realize it or not) the authority of the institution that declared it inspired. So the Protestants accept the authority of the Church that put together the Bible but do not accept its authority to define the rest of the Christian message.

Now, in Protestant countries many atheists and non-believers have absorbed from the culture the fairly recent idea that Christian teaching is rooted in specific Bible verses. Not at all. Not in the most ancient Christian churches: the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox. Not in Judaism. You can also find more about this in the Cathechism, which I'm sure you've read already several times. Laughing

Take care.
Manuel

0 Replies

Quote:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

I should say, Craven, that your challenges are the ones I find most relevant, focused and to the point--even though I don't get the impression that you're really pondering what I say. Maybe you are in too much of a hurry to "be amused" by my points... :wink: Of course, it may also be that I'm not clear enough about them. In the end, what really matters is not my ability to present a case, but the truth of it. And these are issues we struggle with permanently.

Thank you, I actually ponder quite a lot. But preponderance of pondering is usually perceived only when patience is displayed and the appearance of haste often clashes with the notion that one has digested.

I always post in haste, this transmits dismissiveness, terse rudeness and all sorts of unintended values but there's a greater chance of you enjoying homosexual sex than me slowing down. ;-)

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
I do not think those decisions to be arbitrary.

Well? Would you care to say why? Or I am the only one who is supposed to explain his points? I wonder why would that be...

I can explain and I certainly should be called upon to do so.

I alledged that these decisions are not always arbitrary but the very definistion of the word complicates that argument.

Homosexuality as an individual right is determined by law. That takes care of the main definition of arbitrary. I am a fan of law because morals differ between individuals and law is the collective morality that keeps us from the chaotic cesspool that we'd live in if each person's morrality was allowed to be acted upon.

Yet in no way is my mention that homosexuality is legal an argument in favor of it's "rightness". I disagree with many laws. I mention law here to tackle the issue of whether it is arbitrary or not.

Futhermore I posit that our opinions are not arbitrary because they hold no real power. And are absolute only to ourselves if we let them.

To roound out the definitions my opinion about homosexuality is not based on personal preference nor is it random. My instinct was to be vehemently against homosexuality and only after much thought was my mind changed.

All of the above do not, of course, preclude an individual making these statements and opining about this subject in arbitrary manner.

It can happen.

maliagar wrote:

I'm not homophobic. Are you Christian-phobic?

This is a fair question and my initial answer is no. But I grew up in a very strange Christian cult so I will think about your question. I think it unlikley that I'd ever concede a phobia but maybe an inordinate distaste. I'll weigh myself for bias but my initial answer is no.

maliagar wrote:

Did you just see the "righteousness" of homosexuality? Or was it that the anti-homosexual argument didn't persuade you anymore and, by default, you ended up accepting homosexuality?

How about "none of the above"? I don't view homosexuality as any more "righteous" than heterosexuality. And at the same time it was not the lack of persuasiveness in anti-homosexual arguments that set my thinking so much as the perfidy I perceive in many of the arguments.

I operate under a rule I once read that is very similar to what Christ stipulates in the "Golden Rule". it is only slightly enhanced.

Christ said that all the law is fulfilled in the word "love". Unfortunately I have witnessed persons using said justification for any deed. Pedophiles routinely justify their acts as "loving". discounting the harm they bring to the children, which is anything but loving.

My rule simply elaborates it. i saw it somewhere and have since adopted it.

"sin lies only in hurting (people, things, situations) unecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. Hurting yourself unecessarily is not sinful, just stupid."

Some of it needs elaboration. e.g. hurting yourself might hurt others and "necessarily" is a value laden criteria and is open to a judgement call.

But that is the basis of my reasoning in this subject.

maliagar wrote:

Isn't it? For you, for me, and for everybody else!!!! We are all in the same boat, my friend. We all have a set of ultimate beliefs that give our lives, pleasures and pains, some sense and purpose. Some people may think that they "reasoned" their individual creeds on their own, but the fact is: One can't do this every day, every week. You get to a point where you say: Enough already. This will be my "decalogue" and I'll live by it (or try to, because "sin" and hypocrisy are human conditions for atheists and Christians alike).

I get what you are saying but I think deciding to go with something and stop questioning it is intellectually lethargic and dangerous.

And that's not a knock on Christianity. Christians can be as open minded as the next guy. There was a time when I ceased my hatred for homosexuals and still continued with my theism. My reasoning went that the homophpbia in the Bible was the result on man and not God.

Paul obviously had some issues with sex and his writings are colored by his opinions, even if he were inspired by God.

In any case I think all opinions should be a work in progress. They are determined by criteria that change ot are discovered to have been different.

maliagar wrote:

Atheists do this, Marxists, hedonists, agnostics, everyone. And once we are set on a Point of View, it is very uncomfortable for us to be challenged out of that zone of comfort. We may do it on a theoretical level, but it is very hard to accept the existential challenge.

We all certainly are subject to this weakness. I do not contend that it is exclusive to any demographic piece of the pie.

And to some extent it is indeed difficult to incessantly challenge ones values and opinions. Earlier in this very post you saw an example. You asked me if I was "Christian-phobic" and I answered that I was not (while leaving for a later time a more carful consideration of your question).

Ultimately it's much more work to maintain an open mind and yes, we do have our comfort zones.

I simply think it important to make sure we don't get too comfy. I have had to eat my absolutely stated axioms in the past and they have a bitter taste. I prefer the incessant discomfort.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
If you decide that there is no point in disqualifying your beliefs it's probably a good idea not to try to disqualfy the beliefs of others.

The key word here is "critique", in its original meaning: Testing the strengths and limits of a given view. And to be able to do this, one needs to be able to be self-critical as well.

I agree.

maliagar wrote:

I am the one who hasn't argued on the basis of religion. I haven't quoted the Bible (even though Frank insistently tries to make me do it) nor the Pope.

Frank has a thing for the Pope. ;-) Nah, Frank likes to discuss religion.

maliagar wrote:

You've just tried to show how wrong I am (ok, ok, "you just want to have some casual fun"). And my point is that I wouldn't be so cocky (as you and others are) about the hidden "faith" components of my argument, if I'm not aware of how my own views are grounded in pure beliefs.

First of all I'm not here to show you that you are wrong. That would be futile. I wanted you to illustrate that you are right.

There is a big difference between saying "Homosexuality is wrong" and "i believe homosexuality is wrong".

When prefaced as a personal belief it becomes a fact. If all you are saying is that it's your belief and as long as you don't mistreat others or attempt to impose this belief I have no qualm.

maliagar wrote:

I never said that my beliefs are off limits. I'm the only one here presenting a case. You haven't even remotely begun to do it.

My "case" here is only in that yours is lacking. ;-) More below.

maliagar wrote:

And by the way, the burden of proof is on those who advocate homosexuality, abortion, and all those "innovations".

I disagree about burden of proof in this case. I did not come here and say "homosexuality is right" you did enter and state that it was wrong. As to abortion and such they are other complicated issues that I shall leave for another thread and another day.

maliagar wrote:

For thousands of years Western culture has deemed these practices as abominations.

That does not indicate burden of proof. You have created the epitome of a argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy here, laced with a tad of argumentum ad populum.

It may well be that the statement is true. But to introduce it in an argument without substantiation is fallacious.

For thousands of years people believed that the sun was a god. The popularity and longevity of the belief is no indication of its veracity and that would have to be established by other means.

maliagar wrote:

If you and those who think like you want to change how everybody else thinks, you should prove that your view is better than what we've always held.

Fair enough. Let's do this.

One person entered this topic and asserted that homosexuality is both unatural and wrong.

I would like this to be proven or retracted for the already nuanced statement that this is merely a belief that does not trump that of others.

maliagar wrote:

I don't know about "superstition", but I know about faith. It is inescapable for you and for me. The real question is: Which faith do we embrace?

I embrace doubt.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
So it's wrong to have lost one's urinals in a tragic farming accident. Because that is also a "limitation"

????? Don't you think it would be extremely unfortunate?????

Quite unfortunate. My sympathies. I crack myself up sometimes

maliagar wrote:

Finally, an interesting point. I don't know how you feel about this, but in my opinion, for a man it is no challenge to know a man. That is why most people report that homosexual relationships are "easier"--because "a woman knows how to please a woman, and a man how to please a man". And many people have come to believe that relationships are about pleasure (if that's the case, nobody knows how to please us better than ourselves). That is why I believe there is an element of projected masturbation in homosexuality.

That's quite a tangled web. It bases the "ease" on a single factor (familiarity with the equipment).

I believe there is an element of projected masturbation in all sex.

i also believe that we tread strange territory here and that people are starting to cast some funny glaces our way. ;-)

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Your argument here would suggest that bisexuality is the "most right".

You're isolating my argument from the many others I gave (remember? the biological, emotional, social, economic requisites for procreation?)

Yup. Divide and conquer right?

I can take up the other ones as well, but I am becoming bored and will do so very quickly.

boobs are for babies, they are also quite sexually stimulating. I do not contend that theor primary function makes their secondary function wrong.

Sex is for procreation, it's also enjoyable. I do not think it is wrong to enjoy sex without procreation.

Such a line of thinking leads (and I am creating a fallacious slippery slope here because I will not substantiate now) to a generalized negative outlook on pleasure.

I can defend my slippery slope if asked to but for brevity will not do so now.

Emotional :: emotions are not an exact science and are not good bedfellows with generalizations. A homosexual can easily contend that forcing himself into a heterosexual relationship can have disaterous emotional concequences.

economic :: in this day and age procreation is not in demand. Homosexuals are no threat to human existance.

In the beginning they might have been.

But in the beginning leprosy was fatal. Back then it was right to shun the leper lest more die needlessly.

In modern times this is silly. I have lived with a leper (I usually use the term "Hansen's Disease" and am using "leper" for rhetorical value here). They no longer need to be considered "unclean".

maliagar wrote:

"Required"? Are we "required" to do anything at all"? Are we "required" to be happy? "Who is to say" what are the requirements? You seem to believe that morality is necessarily about external "requirements" (commandments). And since the question "Who is to say that we ought to do X?" is normally deemed as unanswerable, then let's get rid of morality altogether.

The ultimate result of "right and wrong" are requirements. You can mount a fantastic argument against morality but try putting this to the test in our legal system.

maliagar wrote:

Here may lie the root of all your objections. Furthermore, some people seem to believe that Christian morality is necessarily and unavoidable heteronomous (i.e., based on external commandments which are grounded in the "arbitrary" will of an invisible God).

Think again. The view of morality that I've been trying to present here is not legalistic. I'm not citing codes or Bible verses. The view of morality I'm trying to present here (within the limitations of time, space, language, and understanding :wink: ) is SAPIENTIAL. I mentioned Aristotle, I mentioned Buddhism (a philosophical non-theistic religion), and I mentioned the curious fact that ALL the major historical religious traditions AGREE on their basic moral codes.

I will have to cop out of this one. It's not too central to the subject and I want to finish this post.

But if you want a simple refutation try argumentum ad numerum.

maliagar wrote:

So if you ponder all of this, you may start to open your eyes to the possibility that the label "Christian" is leading you to not understand what I am saying.

Like i said, I am not even considering religion in this issue. Many atheists amke the same contention that homosexuality is wrong.

I argue this on the merits of that statement alone.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
I happen to think bestiality is wrong.

May I ask why?

Animals can't give consent. It is therefore subject to the overwhelmingly likely possibility that the relationship will be an abuse of power and superior intelligence.

it can also be an abuse of ownership and a litany of other criteria.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Homosexual feelings are no more self-destructive than many heterosexual feelings.

I wonder why you feel the need to qualify your assertion by introducing the word "many".

I was in a hurry. Inserting "many" made it less absolute and less assailable.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
So now not having kids is wrong?

For a healthy married couple, that's absolutely right. But you probably wouldn't understand.

There's a difference between understand and agree.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
B) I contend that most phycological issues that homosexuals have are the result of ignorant attitudes towards them.

And of course, you don't feel the need to prove this, do you?

It's already proven. Earlier i contended exactly that. ;-)

If you want me to prove my contention I'll state right here and now that I am unwilling to go through the effort but if you make a big enough stink about that contention someone will probably do it for me.

Heck, if you really invest something in a challenge of that contention I'll do it myself.

You'll have to do something like state it in stark terms with capital letters saying it was wrong. That would probably motivate me.

But for the purpose of brevity let's cancel out each other's research and deal with teh two contentions theoretically.

You contend that homosexuals have a high degree of "issues". I contend that this might not be inherent to their sexuality and might have more to do with society's consequence.

To be fair about my refusal to cite works for my contention I will operate under the assumption that your contention about homsexuals and their physcological problems is true. That is a free "get out of jail" card.

But do you ascertain that it is inherent to their sexuality? Do you concede that circumstantial factors might come into play?

maliagar wrote:

Are you paying attention to what I am saying? Anybody who engages in a sexual relationship should do it within the context of (1) a lifelong total commitment, (2) heterosexual love, and (3) and (3) openness to procreation. Clearly, Jesus doesn't fit here. He chose not to embark on such a relationship. Therefore, his decision was simply vocational.

Well.. nevermind. i won't argue that Jesus had sex... well.. ok nevermind. i shall not quote scriptures.

I agree in that your argument exhonerates Jesus.

I disagree with your argument.

maliagar wrote:

I'm glad that you're having a good time. Just "fun", right?

It better be fun. Heck I lose a lot of money and time on this site. If it's not fun I'm stupid.

maliagar wrote:

Anyway... This is another key point, and let me just say this: People may have wildly different ideas of "fulfillment". For a person that feels attracted to murder, to actually kill somebody may seem like a "fulfillment" of a potential... So, clearly, we need a more specific notion of fulfillment. It can't be "just what I feel like doing". So then we need to move away from a relativistic, untenable understanding of happiness. Now, (1) if there is ONE human nature that we ALL share, and if (2) that nature can be perfected and fulfilled, then (3) the path towards perfection, fulfillment, and happiness is one and the same for all mankind (wihch is what all religions and classic philosophers say).

I never argued that a sense of fullfillment is right. i think fulfillment is bogus. I argued against it, not for it.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
LOL Now you are telling everyone what they need to be happy? Do you purport to have the key to happiness in addition to the "truth" about what people should do when they want to have sex?

Oh yes. Let's see if you understand: Sexual addiction can lead to a lot of personal and family unhappiness. Right? Self-indulgence as well (insofar as it cuts us from everybody else and from the best of us. Right? Are you going to ponder this, or is your laughter going to prevent you from thinking?

Laughter and thinking are not mutually exclusive. I shall laugh heartily while composing the rest of this post and the funny looks from the cats be damned.

Actually I won't have to keep up the insane laughter for long, my argiment will be a simple one.

There is no established connection with homosexuality and unhappiness in your argument.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Well, you have made me laugh so you are at least capable of spreading some cheer.

Great! I'm contributing to your own personal fulfillment and happiness!!!

And that in itself is a funny thing. Real laughs now.

maliagar wrote:

I'm coming to realize that you're not really arguing AT ALL. You are just laughing, and that is preventing you from feeling the need to explain your views. Why are they "horrible" analogies?

Completely stops laughing. Puts on seriosu face.

Ok, I'll be brief. I think they were bad analogies because they can be established as "wrong".

e.g. Say, you use beastiality as an analogy to homosexuality.

I would call it invalid because my criteria for the "wrongness" of beastiality is the lack of the animal's ability to give intelligent consent.

Since that criteria is not shared in the two examples I call it an invalid analogy if used toward that aim.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Taking heroin is something that can be argued to be wrong, sure. But that does not help you establish that your homophobia is right.

I'm not arguing in favor of homophobia--or any phobia for that matter. The question is: The same arguments used against heroin use can be employed, analogously, against homosexualiy. This is not a matter of fear, but of morality. And you haven't established that my views are wrong.

I don't want to establish that your views are wrong. As long as you do not impose them on others and do not employ them as justification for hateful acts I don't care.

But I do believe your contention that homosexuality is wrong to be wrong.

maliagar wrote:

So make up your mind: am I a master, or an embarrasment?

FIND: an
REPLACE WITH: of

maliagar wrote:

No escaping here (you are not really reading what I say; you're the one opting out). I've mentioned several times that "fulfillment" doesn't have to do with a "feeling" (like the "fulfilled" murderer) but with a full assessment of human nature. And I already gave some clues about that human nature. And I already presented some difficulties involved in your "rebuttal" of my notion of "human nature".

Ok, fair enough. You have determined fulfillment for the human race.

I posit that each individual has every right to reject them. Without necessarily being "wrong".

Let's make this simple:

Pick one of the following:

A) "I believe homosexuality is wrong"
B) "Homosexuality is wrong"

If A: "I agree, you do indeed believe homosexuality is wrong"
Else: "Please substantiate your earlier arguments that homosexuality is unatural"

If attempt made to substantiate is made: "let's bat this around"
Else: "I am waiting"

If bat this around: we eventually move to the establishment of a connection between unatural and wrong
Else: we give up

If connection between "unatural" and "wrong" is established: Your declaration will have validity
Else: it won't

0 Replies

Quote:

If I told a thief that stealing is wrong, that would prove beyond a doubt my invincible incapacity to understand the thief's personal circumstances (greed? need?), right?

If I told a pedophile that having sex with children is wrong, that would prove beyond reasonable doubt my total disregard for the pedophile's human side, right?

No. Wholly illogical. Straw men again. Neither has anything to do with whether homosexuality is "wrong." (I still have to put that in quotes because it is such a bizarre concept.)

0 Replies

P.S. When this discussion first start with Maliagar, I wondered why any of us picked up on it -- just to have a restful ol' discussion about angels on the head of a pin, maybe?

Then I wondered why it was being taken so seriously (still do)? Now why it's lasted so long? Am I missing something valuable here? Perhaps a genuine effort to blast through a wall of political correctness (always a worthwhile effort)? Or simply a further exposition of the destructiveness of religious zealotry?

I don't ask these questions idly or snidely. Craven, a busy guy as we all know, has taken the time to write some really good stuff in response. Is the issue that important?

0 Replies

And why are the core members of the discussion -- as it appears -- all men?

0 Replies

Tartarin,

To me this is a separate issue from religious zealotry. Adolescent males are quite often ragingly homophobic even without religious influence.

I decry such thinking because I used to be very anti-homosexual and I was very wrong. I have a particular distatse for the attempt to rationalize bigotry. Many groups do this, and what happens is that they end up being leaders for the outright hateful. Sure, one might simple say "i happen to believe it's wrong" but when they spread their prejudice they feed the minds of the scum who go out and translate the prejudice into physical violence.

The thinking is based on the most elemetary logical fallacies (the argument that anal sex is unatural is almost always cited as the example of a naturalistic fallacy in any book on them) but the attempt to rationalize the prejudice is eaten up like sugar coated bait by those who have the predisposition for such prejudice.

I argue against it because it's a prejudice. Furthermore it's a prejudice that seeks validity, not simple belief. If someone tries to validate hatred or dicrimination I will usually say something.

I'm tired of fallacious arguments being posited as legitimate reasons for prejudice and the attempt to make the prejudice sound smart is a dangerous tactic. If people miss the fallacy in the argument they might believe it's true.

Thankfully these arguments usually employ the most obvious of fallacies and it's pretty easy to point them out.

0 Replies

I think this has actually been a very level-headed discussion, much more so than some that pop up in this forum, or in politics. I have enjoyed watching it so far. As long as it stays civil, which it has, I am still interested. While I do not agree with maliagar's reasoning, he hasn't really flamed anybody, or been overly rude. I look forward to seeing where this thread goes.

0 Replies

Good response, Craven, within only a small quibble. As a former adolescent (well, I hope former!) who spent those years in a girls' boarding school, I can tell you that the same phobia existed alongside a common tendency -- even fashion -- to "have a crush" on an older girl. Lots of time was spent figuring out who was and who wasn't you-know-what among the teachers and staff! But that's about orthodoxy, sexual inexperience, and fear.

I think zealotry does come into the kind of stuff Maliagar has posted, somewhat attenuated by breezy style. It's familiar to me -- it's the style of the moment, particularly on the Right.

0 Replies

Well, one reason I pursue it is out of a little fear I have.

I fear that one day someone will have a prejudice (that I disagree with) that I can't find fallacy in. That would rock my world and I'd go all weird and such (yes, I am not weird yet).

Thankfully the world is still sane. I do not have to consider such prejudices seriously.

But it's good to check every now and then.

0 Replies

Yeah, I have to second cav's observation; maliagar has been civil to all his respondents, and he seems sincere in his beliefs and understandings on the subject. Five stars for maliagar. c.i.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know