Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Critique of Newsweek's biblical arguments on ga...

Expand Messages
  • tcmadd2@aol.com
    Heinz, You seem to have a system of morality by which you make judgements about what is moral behavior and what is not. What is this system based on? How
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 18, 2008
      Heinz,
       
      You seem to have a system of morality by which you make judgements about what is moral behavior and what is not.  What is this system based on?  How did you discover it?  Is it personal, or universal?
       
      Tom M.
       
      In a message dated 12/17/2008 10:00:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, christian_skeptic@... writes:

      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
      <faithhasitsreasons @...> wrote:
      >
      > Heinz,
      >
      > You had written:
      >
      > << Gays are engaged in an activity that is morally neutral - it is
      > between two consenting adults and it is not hurting anyone else. >>
      >
      > I asked in reply:
      >
      > "Is incest between an adult son and his mother morally neutral? It
      > appears to satisfy your two criteria."
      >
      > You didn't answer my question. Instead, you wrote:
      >
      > << Reply: Interesting. Here you are discussing a heterosexual
      > relationship. ..can we apply negative arguments against heterosexuals
      > now? >>
      >
      > The question I asked was not about "heterosexuals" in general but
      > rather heterosexuals who engage in incest.
      >

      Reply: I didn't answer your question because we have already been over
      this ground before. Simply conjuring up distasteful practises does not
      automatically make it symbiotic with gay marriage. They exist
      independently, which means we are quite capable of allowing one while
      prohibiting others. And, unlike homosexuality, incest is not
      biological, it actually is a choice.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << Homosexuality is biological - not chosen. >>
      >
      > I replied:
      >
      > "These are not the only two options. The third, which is the correct
      > view in my understanding, is that homosexuality is a perversion, like
      > bisexuality and pedophilia."
      >
      > You responded:
      >
      > << Reply: Again, most pedophile crimes are heterosexual in nature.
      > Perhaps there is something wrong with heterosexuality. >>
      >
      > No, but there is something wrong with heterosexuals: they are fallen,
      > sinful creatures, behaving in ways that are immoral. You do know that
      > this is the standard Christian view, don't you? You do realize that
      > we think that "heterosexuals" also are sinners?
      >

      Reply: This is a big problem I have with believers as I find most
      beliefs to be inherently anti-human. I am not a sinner. I am not
      unworthy. I am not unclean. I do not need salvation. My achievements
      are of my own design and not that of some deity. The antihuman concept
      of sin does not deserve my respect.

      > I wrote:
      >
      > "People don't *choose* to become attracted to persons of the same
      > gender; adults don't *choose* to become attracted to little children;
      > but neither are these feelings normal, healthy, morally neutral
      > feelings. For that matter, an adult male's sexual desire toward many
      > women, while it may be biologically natural, is also not morally
      > neutral. Human beings have a capacity and a responsibility to rise
      > above their biological urges."
      >
      > You replied:
      >
      > << On the flip-side, celibacy and contraception is unnatural. I am
      > thankful that most people give in to their biological urges, you and I
      > would not be here otherwise. >>
      >
      > You aren't really arguing that all biological urges are natural and
      > also moral, are you?
      >

      Reply: No, and what is "moral" is what minimizes harm to others.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << I personally don't think gluttony is immoral...your question was
      > simply irrelevant. In a free society people should be free to do what
      > they want unless it harms others. It is however a Biblical sin.... >>
      >
      > And I agree that those who commit sins of gluttony have sinned. So,
      > my position is consistent. Agreed?
      >

      Reply: I agree that YOU acknowledge it as a sin - but many Christians
      find ways around this.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << I believe all Christians cherry-pick from parts of the bible -
      > it is why you have thousands of denominations. Most Christians that
      > over eat tell themselves they have a problem or disorder, and then
      > persist under this explanation. Christians can rationalize anything
      > they want away, and often do. The Bible speaks against wealth,
      > divorce, women being silent in Churches etc. How many Christians in
      > Spanish churches are illegal immigrants. If the majority of other
      > christians do it, it seems to get a free pass. >>
      >
      > Without getting into all of the particulars- -since you really don't
      > care what the Bible says about these things--I agree that those
      > Christians who ignore what the Bible says about their sinful
      > behaviors are indeed sinning. This applies to me as well. But again,
      > this has no logical relevance with regard to same-sex behaviors. The
      > fact that a hundred million Christians commit sin X does not mean
      > that the two million people (Christians or not) who commit sin Y are
      > not sinning.
      >

      Reply: But these other "sins" do not get the same attention or airtime
      that anything having to do with gays does. I live in the Bible Belt
      but I have never seen anyone picket the KFC Buffet. Christians lack
      consistency in the things they condemn.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << Homosexuality represents less than 3 percent of any population -
      > it will never be in the majority. Have you not seen gays go through
      > the bullying and the mockery for accepting who they are. Have you not
      > seen the misery someone goes through when their parents shun them for
      > being themselves. You don't understand gays and yet you presume the
      > right to judge them. >>
      >
      > Please tell me why the above paragraph is a legitimate argument while
      > the following paragraph is not:
      >
      > << Pedophilia represents less than 1 percent of any population - it
      > will never be in the majority. Have you not seen pedophiles go
      > through the bullying and the mockery for accepting who they are. Have
      > you not seen the misery someone goes through when society shuns them
      > for being themselves. You don't understand pedophiles and yet you
      > presume the right to judge them. >>
      >

      Reply: Sigh! Again: Simply conjuring up distasteful practices does not
      automatically make it symbiotic with gay marriage. They exist
      independently, which means we are quite capable of allowing one while
      prohibiting others. People who live a monogamous gay life are not
      harming others. Pedophiles are predators that DO harm others, and this
      is why it is illegal.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << And there are instances where the Bible allows for murder/killing,
      > and it also allows for lying, and many Christian scholars and pastors
      > feel the Bible is not very straightforward on the homosexuality
      > issue. At one time the Scriptures now used to promote the anti-Gay
      > agenda were once used against masturbation. The Bible was once used
      > against Blacks and used to promote Slavery. It is certainly a
      > dangerous book in the hands of an angry Christian. >>
      >
      > None of this is relevant. Mistaken interpretations of the past have
      > no logical bearing on the validity of interpretations of the present.
      > If they did, then, by the same reasoning, we should ignore all of
      > modern science, because scientists in the past came to false
      > conclusions in their interpretations of the physical evidence.
      >

      Reply: Then perhaps history might judge you adversely as well.
      Churchill once said that American do the right thing, after they have
      done everything else. The same could be said of Christians. Eventually
      you will do the right thing and accept homosexuality, and shining
      lights in the present Christian community such as Bishop Spong and
      Tony Campolo will be honored as brave pioneers.

      > You wrote:
      >
      > << Reply: We all deal in deceptions Robert, or should I say "Mark
      > Archer?" We all look for rationalizations and loopholes, and we often
      > find them. >>
      >
      > I have no idea why you think my use of a pseudonym (a respected
      > practice for centuries and an accepted practice on internet forums)
      > on one forum years ago for a short period of time has any relevance.
      >

      Reply: And that is exactly what I expected you to say - it is your
      rationalization. I am not judging you because of it as I have done it
      myself and rationalized it the same way.

      > I wrote:
      >
      > "Marrying persons of other races has always been permitted, almost
      > everywhere. In *some* states in the U.S., whites marrying blacks was
      > forbidden."
      >
      > You replied:
      >
      > << I should have been more specific. The USA always had a problem
      > with Blacks, and there even areas where Blacks were not allowed to
      > marry native Americans. You overstated your case as marrying persons
      > of other races has always been illegal somewhere in the USA until
      > 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-
      > miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. There were 16 states at the
      > time with these laws. >>
      >
      > I didn't overstate anything; the United States is only one part of
      > the world. Saying that interracial marriage has always been permitted
      > almost everywhere is consistent with the fact that black-white
      > interracial marriage was always illegal somewhere in the U.S. prior
      > to 1967.
      >

      Reply: Is this a little word-play, or another rationalization?

      > In any case, my original point has once again been untouched, even
      > ignored. My position does not entail withholding a right from
      > homosexuals that is granted to everyone else. On my view, no one may
      > marry a person of the same gender.
      >

      Reply: Your view is irrelevant, and your position does indeed entail
      withholding a right from
      homosexuals that is granted to everyone else, whether you acknowledge
      that or not. Your opposition is mainly religious which makes this all
      the more disturbing and evidence of the necessity of building a
      stronger wall of separation between church and state if only to ensure
      liberty. Prop 8 has discrimination actually written into law,
      something that should make us all shudder.

      > Finally, you made the point that civil unions do not necessarily
      > ensure equal benefits to marriages in some respects. I think some of
      > these inequities could be resolved. On the other hand, I see nothing
      > wrong with the government granting some tax benefits, for example, to
      > married couples that it does not grant to same-sex couples.
      >
      > Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose Jack, who is single, has an
      > older brother Jim who is also single, and who becomes permanently
      > disabled. Jack takes Jim into his home. He cares for him daily. He
      > takes him to the doctor and to the hospital as needed. They live in
      > the same home for many years. They obviously constitute a family
      > unit, since they are literally related. They do not, however, have a
      > sexual relationship. Should Jack and Jim be accorded all of the same
      > legal and financial benefits of a married couple?
      >

      Reply: They already have the rights as family members that gays are
      deprived of, many will receive disability benefits and that applies to
      caring family members as well. Personally I cannot imagine the
      hardships of caring for the less able so I would be happy with giving
      them even more legal and financial benefits of a married couple. I am
      not talking about disabled persons, I am not talking about criminals,
      I am not talking about incestuous relationships that could result in
      harm to newborn infants, I am talking about nice normal people who are
      born with an attraction to members of the same sex, who eventually
      fall in love but are denied certain rights and privileges shared by
      the majority. In a free society this should anger lovers of liberty
      and freedom.

      Heinz




    • Heinz Schmitz
      It is a system based on minimizing harm to others, that s all. Heinz ... about ... on? How did
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 19, 2008
        It is a system based on minimizing harm to others, that's all.
        Heinz

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
        >
        > Heinz,
        >
        > You seem to have a system of morality by which you make judgements
        about
        > what is moral behavior and what is not. What is this system based
        on? How did
        > you discover it? Is it personal, or universal?
        >
        > Tom M.
        >
      • tcmadd2@aol.com
        Heinz, History shows us that there have been lots of folks who felt that allowing others to be free and to pursue their enlightened self interest was harmful.
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 19, 2008
          Heinz,
           
          History shows us that there have been lots of folks who felt that allowing others to be free and to pursue their enlightened self interest was harmful.  According to your system, do they get to limit other folk's freedom based on their ideas of harm, or is there some overriding authority who decides what is harmful and what is benificial?
           
          Tom
           
          In a message dated 12/19/2008 8:32:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, christian_skeptic@... writes:

          It is a system based on minimizing harm to others, that's all.
          Heinz

          --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
          >
          > Heinz,
          >
          > You seem to have a system of morality by which you make judgements
          about
          > what is moral behavior and what is not. What is this system based
          on? How did
          > you discover it? Is it personal, or universal?
          >
          > Tom M.
          >




        • Heinz Schmitz
          If you want to engage in activities that may be harmful to yourself then you should be allowed to do that. You shouldn t want to live in a society that
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 20, 2008
            If you want to engage in activities that may be harmful to yourself
            then you should be allowed to do that. You shouldn't want to live in a
            society that prohibits sky-diving or over-eating. You may not however
            engage in activities that harm others.
            Heinz

            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
            >
            > Heinz,
            >
            > History shows us that there have been lots of folks who felt that
            allowing
            > others to be free and to pursue their enlightened self interest was
            harmful.
            > According to your system, do they get to limit other folk's freedom
            based on
            > their ideas of harm, or is there some overriding authority who
            decides what
            > is harmful and what is benificial?
            >
            > Tom
            >
            >
            > In a message dated 12/19/2008 8:32:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
            > christian_skeptic@... writes:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > It is a system based on minimizing harm to others, that's all.
            > Heinz
            >
            > --- In _biblicalapologeticsbiblicalapolobib_
            > (mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com) , tcmadd2@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Heinz,
            > >
            > > You seem to have a system of morality by which you make judgements
            > about
            > > what is moral behavior and what is not. What is this system based
            > on? How did
            > > you discover it? Is it personal, or universal?
            > >
            > > Tom M.
            > >
            >
            > Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
            >
            (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
            >
          • wglmp
            ... allowing ... was harmful.
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 21, 2008
              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
              >
              > Heinz,
              >
              > History shows us that there have been lots of folks who felt that
              allowing
              > others to be free and to pursue their enlightened self interest
              was harmful. <

              Examples?

              > According to your system, do they get to limit other folk's
              freedom based on
              > their ideas of harm, or is there some overriding authority who
              decides what
              > is harmful and what is benificial? <

              I can't speak for him, but I am a libertarian, and I would say, 'yes,
              the criteria would be harm, as perceived by the supposed victim. If
              there is no victim, there is no crime. If someone comes foreword with
              a claim of being victimized, then there should be an investigation of
              the facts and circumstances, and a determination and judgment of an
              authority. Who that authority is to be is problematic, but not
              impossible to solve.
              Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" makes some suggestion in
              this area. I highly recommend it.

              Matt
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.