Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, not exactly because over time by repressing the truth, you and they eventually sincerely believe that they never believed in God. So at this stage in your life your non belief is probably sincere. You are right I will never waver in my faith I have already been an agnostic, I will not be an atheist or an agnostic again, there is too much evidence for God. I hate to see you stop I have enjoyed our discussions, but I understand.
That's exactly what someone who had repressed the truth until he believed his own stories would say. ;)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Pushing your epistemic pillars!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
18,481
8,865
Somewhere, out there!
✟914,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm afraid I got banned because, in the course of a debate, I became critical of God, as shown in the Bible. I shall have to tread more carefully.
By the way, I hope that you and yours are safe and well in this difficult time.

Yeah, we're doing fine for the time being. And despite all of my verbosity and fire, I do hope you're getting along ok. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Yes.
Your god does not sound to powerful then.

That is because He is the real one, not a made up wish fulfillment god.

ed: The people that make these claims believe there is evidence for their claim just like your wife's claim that you love her.

cw: Sure, so do people that believe in Allah or big foot. I have evidence that my wife loves me, I have insufficient evidence that your god exits.
There is a little evidence for allah and no evidence for big foot, but a great deal of evidence for Yahweh.

ed: No, most businesses will not hire an unrepentant alcoholic and that is not against the law, so yes you can refuse to hire someone based on their immoral behavior. There is no right to have a job.

cw: An alcoholic cannot fulfill his duties in most jobs.
Actually there are some alcoholics that are highly functional. But they would still legally be able to not hire them.

cw: I cannot think of a job a gay person could not do because they are gay.
Given that they have much higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, they tend use a great deal of sick leave. But that is not really relevant, adulterers can do most jobs but businesses are not required to hire them. The business owner has a right to have his workers reflect his values.

cw: There are laws in most states against discriminating against gays.
That is because of the secularist humanist agenda against Christianity and America's founding principles.

cw: I know of none that protect alcoholics. You cannot refuse to hire a gay person because they are gay in most areas. Equating alcoholic behavior to being gay is immoral.
How do you know that is immoral? They are actually very similar.

ed: There is no right to marry even for heterosexuals. It is privilege that is earned through convincing your boyfriend or girlfriend to marry you. If it was a right, the government would have to provide you with a spouse even if you are loser nerd or someone that no one is attracted to.

cw: This is a ridiculous take. That would mean that the government would need to supply everyone with a gun. That is just stupid.
Owning a gun does not require consent of another person. The government just protects your right to buy one if you want one.

cw: The supreme court said that no state can discriminate against gay people to get married if they allow heterosexual marriage.
The Supreme Court cannot make up rights nor invent social institutions. They are just to interpret laws passed by Congress and determine if they are Constitutional. This is similar to the other unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions like Roe and Dred Scott. They are plain violations of the separation of powers.

ed: Gay marriage is an inherent contradiction, like a married bachelor. Of course, they are free to pretend that it exists and make a commitment to each other, but the government should not recognize it because no such thing exists, and scientific studies have shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you. So it should be discouraged by the government like it discourages smoking and heavy drinking.

cw: The government gets to decide what marriage is. Not you.
Not in this nation, according to our founding documents, the biblical God and His laws do. Both His revealed and Natural laws. Gay marriage violates both. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual union throughout all of human history and there is scientific evidence for it even in prehistory.

cw: What studies show gay marriage as bad.
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

cw: The divorce rate for gay couples is half of that for christian marriages.

Most male gay couples have open "marriages". And the divorce rate for devout Christians that attend church regularly is much lower. In addition, Studies have shown that gay couples have higher domestic violence rates than heterosexual couples.

ed: What is its rationale for not engaging in promiscuous sex? At one time many humanists in the late 60s and 70's believed it was sexual repression to not do so.

cw: So what? I was not a humanist in the 60's or 70's, ask them.
So what is your objective rationale for discouraging it? And how would you debate the ones that disagree with you?

ed: But there is no actual objective principle in humanism that states that you should protect the unborn.

cw: Humanists are not all the same. Just like there is not one christian doctrine but as many as there are different Christians. I believe as a humanist the principle of well being for all should lead us to protect the unborn. Other humanists do not. Just like pro choice Christians.
No, there are biblical and scientific principles that can be used to demonstrate pro choice Christians are in error. There are none for humanists.

ed: But only Christians that violated the objective Christian principles against slavery, humanism has no such principles. They subjectively feel that slavery is bad but they have no objective principles against it. The Christians that followed the actual teachings of Christianity ended it.


cw; Humanism does have principles against owning other people. Read a book by humanists and not religious propaganda.
Maybe, but they dont have an objectively rational basis for those principles. Humanist morality is based on an irrational sentimentality for the mostly hairless primate homo sapiens.

cw; The bible has no such prohibition, it actually states explicitly that at one time to go out and take slaves from the other nations and pass them down as inheritances, calls them property. The NT says to obey your slave masters as a slave. Christians that advocated for abolition of slavery did it becasue they knew it was wrong, not that the bible told them that it was wrong. Because it does not.
It allows the poor from other nations to voluntarily sell themselves, not involuntarily. Go back and read my thread of posts to cvanwey. I dont want to repeat myself so soon after posting dozens of times already on this thread on that subject.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, we're doing fine for the time being. And despite all of my verbosity and fire, I do hope you're getting along ok. :cool:
Thank you. Yes, quite alright here. But I do hope we can reach the end of this global crisis soon...as do we all.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Pushing your epistemic pillars!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
18,481
8,865
Somewhere, out there!
✟914,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
53
Texas
✟102,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is because He is the real one, not a made up wish fulfillment god.
Ok, if you say so then.

There is a little evidence for allah and no evidence for big foot, but a great deal of evidence for Yahweh.
There is actually better evidence for Big Foot. I have video footage, pictures, eyewitness accounts that I can talk to today for example not so with Yahweh.

Please provide your evidence for Yahweh then.


Actually there are some alcoholics that are highly functional. But they would still legally be able to not hire them.


Given that they have much higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, they tend use a great deal of sick leave. But that is not really relevant, adulterers can do most jobs but businesses are not required to hire them. The business owner has a right to have his workers reflect his values.


That is because of the secularist humanist agenda against Christianity and America's founding principles.


How do you know that is immoral? They are actually very similar.


Owning a gun does not require consent of another person. The government just protects your right to buy one if you want one.


The Supreme Court cannot make up rights nor invent social institutions. They are just to interpret laws passed by Congress and determine if they are Constitutional. This is similar to the other unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions like Roe and Dred Scott. They are plain violations of the separation of powers.


Not in this nation, according to our founding documents, the biblical God and His laws do. Both His revealed and Natural laws. Gay marriage violates both. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual union throughout all of human history and there is scientific evidence for it even in prehistory.


Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders



Most male gay couples have open "marriages". And the divorce rate for devout Christians that attend church regularly is much lower. In addition, Studies have shown that gay couples have higher domestic violence rates than heterosexual couples.


So what is your objective rationale for discouraging it? And how would you debate the ones that disagree with you?


No, there are biblical and scientific principles that can be used to demonstrate pro choice Christians are in error. There are none for humanists.


Maybe, but they dont have an objectively rational basis for those principles. Humanist morality is based on an irrational sentimentality for the mostly hairless primate homo sapiens.
I will just bypass this since this thread is not about these topics. I will gladly talk to you about your bigotry, your understanding of how our county actually works and how it was founded if you like in another thread.


It allows the poor from other nations to voluntarily sell themselves, not involuntarily. Go back and read my thread of posts to cvanwey. I dont want to repeat myself so soon after posting dozens of times already on this thread on that subject.
It does for Hebrews but for non-Hebrews it also allows forced enslavement.

Lev 25: 44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Read my thread on Slavery, a Guide.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Doctors have limits. Sometimes they cannot treat cancer without causing pain. Doctor and patient agree that the pain is a necessary evil to reach the cure.

But your God could supposedly cure without the pain. But he does not.
Yes, He could but the spiritual growth would be lost.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I hope you and @Clizby WampusCat won't mind if I add some thoughts.

Sure go ahead.


ed: There is no right to marry even for heterosexuals. It is privilege that is earned through convincing your boyfriend or girlfriend to marry you. If it was a right, the government would have to provide you with a spouse even if you are loser nerd or someone that no one is attracted to.

ia: Okay. For the sake of argument, let's accept that, and follow where your logic leads. Two people have no "right" to marry. But once two people have "earned the privilege" of marrying by deciding together that they would like to, why should it matter whether they are a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
See my post to clizby above about how there is evidence that engaging in that behavior is not good for you. In addition, the government want the best building block of society for its survival and the best is the nuclear family. Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children the best or at least have the potential to. IN addition, it makes marriage basically meaningless if it can mean any grouping of people or even animals or inanimate objects. Who is to say if it can mean anything you want it to mean? On what basis would you restrict it to just two people of either the same or opposite genders?


ed: Gay marriage is an inherent contradiction, like a married bachelor.

ia: Why?

For all of human history bachelor has always meant an unmarried male, and marriage has always meant a heterosexual commitment and joining together. In addition, even in an impersonal relationship like ideas it has always meant combining two different things, not two of the same thing.


ed: But only Christians that violated the objective Christian principles against slavery, humanism has no such principles. They subjectively feel that slavery is bad but they have no objective principles against it. The Christians that followed the actual teachings of Christianity ended it.

ia: First, humanists value human liberty and freedom, which means that they are opposed to slavery.
Second, the Christian religion is entirely pro-slavery. If Christians in modern times decide they against slavery, then good for them, but they are in opposition to God and Jesus, as the Bible clearly shows.
No, see my dozens of posts to cvaneway on this thread where I demonstrate that the bible only allows voluntary enslavement except for POWs and criminals, just like our constitution.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
But Aaron, who made the calf, was NOT killed. Also, the killing was totally random! Each their brother and neighbor. They were told to kill.

Imagine being one of the Levites with a sword. How would they chose whom to kill when the instruction is "kill each his friend, brother, neighbor"? And this is the Lord's command!
Aaron showed signs of repentance and remorse. They had all been involved in the idolatry, so actually He was being merciful since some survived.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
See my post to clizby above about how there is evidence that engaging in that behavior is not good for you.
Perhaps you could give me the post number? Provisionally, however, I shall just say that people do things all the time that are bad for them, without their being illegal or barring them from marriage. Eating too much sugar, failing to exercise, and procrastinating can all be bad things, and potentially lead to catastrophic situations, but they are no grounds for government authority to forbid people to marry.
In addition, the government want the best building block of society for its survival and the best is the nuclear family.
That does not give the government the right to determine who can marry who. And may I point out this is exactly the kind of argument that people once made - and, sadly, still do make - against interracial marriage.
Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children the best or at least have the potential to.
Since I assume you are not saying that a marriage that does not produce children is invalid, I see no merit in your argument.

In addition, it makes marriage basically meaningless if it can mean any grouping of people or even animals or inanimate objects. Who is to say if it can mean anything you want it to mean? On what basis would you restrict it to just two people of either the same or opposite genders?
Slippery slope fallacy. Possible future complications arising because of justice being done are no reason that justice should not be done.
In fact, though, there is a fairly simple answer to you question, and it is this: on the basis of consent. Children, animals and inanimate objects are unable to give fully knowledgeable consent. On the other hand, two mature people who are in love are fully capable of consenting to marry each other, and should not be barred from doing so.

For all of human history bachelor has always meant an unmarried male, and marriage has always meant a heterosexual commitment and joining together. In addition, even in an impersonal relationship like ideas it has always meant combining two different things, not two of the same thing.
Circular logic. "It's never been done, therefore it should never be done." Lacking a justification, it has no standing.

No, see my dozens of posts to cvaneway on this thread where I demonstrate that the bible only allows voluntary enslavement except for POWs and criminals, just like our constitution.
Again, perhaps you could tell me the post number. Until then, I shall point out that the Bible is fully in support of slavery:

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44 shows that slaves could be taken and kept for life:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10 shows that children may be born into slavery:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20 shows us that slaves in the Bible could be punished in the most brutal manner, as long as they did not die:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Possibly, it is up to you decide what you believe.
Thank you. In that case, based on what you said, I shall believe it's just as likely that it's you repressing the truth to yourself.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
46
USA, IL
✟34,304.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Aaron showed signs of repentance and remorse. They had all been involved in the idolatry, so actually He was being merciful since some survived.

Didn't work for Judas though. Also, Aaron wasn't told to spare people showing remorse, but to go and kill each his brother, neighbor and friend.

I appreciate your working hard on making your God look better. Kudos to you.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
46
USA, IL
✟34,304.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you cast out demons? Can you convert some one from spiritually dead to spiritually alive? Can you help someone overcome serious addictive sins like obsessive gambling or homosexuality? BTW, Christ would not want us to literally move a mountain because it would destroy many ecosystems and habitats for the creatures that live on the mountain.

Yep, casting demons is easy.
Of course spiritual death to life is also a piece of cake.

I can "help" with any sins. But notice, God's help still requires people to take medicine and attend counseling. So, yes, I help the same way. If things fail, just like with God, please don't doubt my abilities. Chalk it up to a part of a grander plan.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, He could but the spiritual growth would be lost.
If the patients need pain to get spiritual growth, why are the doctors trying to reduce the pain?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigV
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single

ed; That is because He is the real one, not a made up wish fulfillment god.

cw: Ok, if you say so then.

ed: Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

Most male gay couples have open "marriages". And the divorce rate for devout Christians that attend church regularly is much lower. In addition, Studies have shown that gay couples have higher domestic violence rates than heterosexual couples.


So what is your objective rationale for discouraging it? And how would you debate the ones that disagree with you?


No, there are biblical and scientific principles that can be used to demonstrate pro choice Christians are in error. There are none for humanists.

Maybe, but they dont have an objectively rational basis for those principles. Humanist morality is based on an irrational sentimentality for the mostly hairless primate homo sapiens.

cw: I will just bypass this since this thread is not about these topics. I will gladly talk to you about your bigotry, your understanding of how our county actually works and how it was founded if you like in another thread.
What bigotry? Sure go ahead and start a new thread.


ed: It allows the poor from other nations to voluntarily sell themselves, not involuntarily. Go back and read my thread of posts to cvanwey. I dont want to repeat myself so soon after posting dozens of times already on this thread on that subject.

cw: It does for Hebrews but for non-Hebrews it also allows forced enslavement.

Lev 25: 44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Read my thread on Slavery, a Guide.
No, the Mosaic law says that strangers and foreigners are to be treated just like a hebrew and not oppressed. Read Exodus 21:16, you cannot go into another nation and kidnap them for slavery. And read Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 22:21-24. So plainly in context of the verses I have provided Leviticus 25:44-46 is better understood to say "you may buy male and females who voluntarily request enslavement from the nations that are around you..." "you may also buy voluntary slaves from among the strangers who sojourn with and their clans around you." And the word "forever" is hebrew hyperbole, because actually all slaves are freed in the year of Jublilee so in fact it is not forever. I will pass on your thread, I am tired of talking about the falsehood that the bible endorses involuntary chattel slavery. Most of this thread has dealt with it from my perspective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, the Mosaic law says that strangers and foreigners are to be treated just like a hebrew and not oppressed. Read Exodus 21:16, you cannot go into another nation and kidnap them for slavery. And read Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 22:21-24. So plainly in context of the verses I have provided Leviticus 25:44-46 is better understood to say "you may buy male and females who voluntarily request enslavement from the nations that are around you..." "you may also buy voluntary slaves from among the strangers who sojourn with and their clans around you." And the word "forever" is hebrew hyperbole, because actually all slaves are freed in the year of Jublilee so in fact it is not forever. I will pass on your thread, I am tired of talking about the falsehood that the bible endorses involuntary chattel slavery. Most of this thread has dealt with it from my perspective.
And these slaves, who requested that they be made slaves - it was alright to punish them brutally? And to keep their children to be slaves as well? And to hold their families hostage in order to make them renounce their end-of-term freedom and be slaves for life?
These are all things you can find in the Bible. That was all okay, was it? Perfectly humane treatment?

As for Exodus 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death," I think you're reading quite a lot into that. Since it seems to contradict the verses that say that you can take slaves, the obvious interpretation would be that it is a crime to kidnap the wrong type of people and take them as slaves. It is quite unwarranted for you to interpret that as saying that it is a crime for any person to kidnap and enslave any other person.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And the word "forever" is hebrew hyperbole, because actually all slaves are freed in the year of Jubilee so in fact it is not forever.
And what do you base that interpretation on?
Let me quote the Reverend Dr. Richard Furman, 1838, in his Communication to the Governor of South California.
"In the Old Testament, the Isrealites were directed to purchase their bond-men and bond-maids of the Heathen nations; except they were of the Canaanites, for these were to be destroyed. And it is declared, that the persons purchased were to be their "bond-men forever;" and an "inheritance for them and their children." They were not to go out free in the year of jubilee, as the Hebrews, who had been purchased, were: the line being clearly drawn between them.*[See Leviticus XXV. 44, 45, 46, &c.] In example, they are presented to our view as existing in the families of the Hebrews as servants, or slaves, born in the house, or bought with money: so that the children born of slaves are here considered slaves as well as their parents."

Looking at Leviticus 24:45-6, it seems he's got the right of it.

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

I'm sure it would be nice if the Bible said that they didn't take slaves, they took servants, who wanted to be such voluntarily, and they were to be well treated, and set free after a certain while. But unfortunately, slavery in the Bible is much closer to the slavery of pre-Civil War USA - and the preachers of the time knew it perfectly well.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,467
✟266,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You’re gay, aren’t you?



That is because He is the real one, not a made up wish fulfillment god.


There is a little evidence for allah and no evidence for big foot, but a great deal of evidence for Yahweh.


Actually there are some alcoholics that are highly functional. But they would still legally be able to not hire them.


Given that they have much higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, they tend use a great deal of sick leave. But that is not really relevant, adulterers can do most jobs but businesses are not required to hire them. The business owner has a right to have his workers reflect his values.


That is because of the secularist humanist agenda against Christianity and America's founding principles.


How do you know that is immoral? They are actually very similar.


Owning a gun does not require consent of another person. The government just protects your right to buy one if you want one.


The Supreme Court cannot make up rights nor invent social institutions. They are just to interpret laws passed by Congress and determine if they are Constitutional. This is similar to the other unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions like Roe and Dred Scott. They are plain violations of the separation of powers.


Not in this nation, according to our founding documents, the biblical God and His laws do. Both His revealed and Natural laws. Gay marriage violates both. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual union throughout all of human history and there is scientific evidence for it even in prehistory.


Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders



Most male gay couples have open "marriages". And the divorce rate for devout Christians that attend church regularly is much lower. In addition, Studies have shown that gay couples have higher domestic violence rates than heterosexual couples.


So what is your objective rationale for discouraging it? And how would you debate the ones that disagree with you?


No, there are biblical and scientific principles that can be used to demonstrate pro choice Christians are in error. There are none for humanists.


Maybe, but they dont have an objectively rational basis for those principles. Humanist morality is based on an irrational sentimentality for the mostly hairless primate homo sapiens.


It allows the poor from other nations to voluntarily sell themselves, not involuntarily. Go back and read my thread of posts to cvanwey. I dont want to repeat myself so soon after posting dozens of times already on this thread on that subject.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: See my post to clizby above about how there is evidence that engaging in that behavior is not good for you.

ia: Perhaps you could give me the post number?
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

ia: Provisionally, however, I shall just say that people do things all the time that are bad for them, without their being illegal or barring them from marriage. Eating too much sugar, failing to exercise, and procrastinating can all be bad things, and potentially lead to catastrophic situations, but they are no grounds for government authority to forbid people to marry.

I am not saying making it illegal, it should just be discouraged like we do smoking and becoming an alcoholic or addicted to gambling. Also, I would not bar them from marriage. They are free to get in a real biological marriage. Not the 21st century made up institution called "gay marriage."

ed: In addition, the government want the best building block of society for its survival and the best is the nuclear family.

ia: That does not give the government the right to determine who can marry who. And may I point out this is exactly the kind of argument that people once made - and, sadly, still do make - against interracial marriage.

They are not making that determination, as long as it is a real biological marriage with the societies needed characteristics for survival. And of course, two people of the same sex are perfectly free to have some kind of commitment ceremony and call it anything they want, but the government would not recognize it.


ed: Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children the best or at least have the potential to.

ia: Since I assume you are not saying that a marriage that does not produce children is invalid, I see no merit in your argument.
In biology even a mating pair of a male and a female that does not produce children is still considered a single reproductive unit. Which is what marriage has always been based on.

ed: In addition, it makes marriage basically meaningless if it can mean any grouping of people or even animals or inanimate objects. Who is to say if it can mean anything you want it to mean? On what basis would you restrict it to just two people of either the same or opposite genders?

ia: Slippery slope fallacy. Possible future complications arising because of justice being done are no reason that justice should not be done.

No, such "marriages" have already occurred in other countries. And they are pushing to legalize polygamy in the US. The slope has arrived. It is not justice when real marriages are rendered meaningless.

ia: In fact, though, there is a fairly simple answer to you question, and it is this: on the basis of consent. Children, animals and inanimate objects are unable to give fully knowledgeable consent. On the other hand, two mature people who are in love are fully capable of consenting to marry each other, and should not be barred from doing so.
On what basis is consent required? Who made that rule up? And who made the rule of only two people and why?


ed: For all of human history bachelor has always meant an unmarried male, and marriage has always meant a heterosexual commitment and joining together. In addition, even in an impersonal relationship like ideas it has always meant combining two different things, not two of the same thing.

ia; Circular logic. "It's never been done, therefore it should never be done." Lacking a justification, it has no standing.
No, not circular logic, it has never existed and therefore still does not. Just believing something exists does not mean it actually does. Just because you believe that a married bachelor exists, does not mean he does.

ed: No, see my dozens of posts to cvaneway on this thread where I demonstrate that the bible only allows voluntary enslavement except for POWs and criminals, just like our constitution.

ia: Again, perhaps you could tell me the post number.
See my post to Clizby above where I boil it down to three verses.

ia: Until then, I shall point out that the Bible is fully in support of slavery:

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44 shows that slaves could be taken and kept for life:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10 shows that children may be born into slavery:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
These are dealt with in my Clizby post.

ia: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20 shows us that slaves in the Bible could be punished in the most brutal manner, as long as they did not die:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Yes, they could beat them but as seen in my post above slaves were under the same laws as the free hebrews. So any permanent damage by the beating was covered under the eye for eye law. IOW, punishment equivalent to the crime done either by the slave or the master.

ia;Possibly, it is up to you decide what you believe.
Thank you. In that case, based on what you said, I shall believe it's just as likely that it's you repressing the truth to yourself.
Of course you are free to believe that. Christians believe in freedom of conscience unlike atheist founded nations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟87,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders
You've answered the wrong question. I didn't ask if there was evidence that homosexuals had from a statistically greater risk of mental health problems. I asked for evidence that engaging in homosexual behaviour was bad for you.
I am not saying making it illegal, it should just be discouraged like we do smoking and becoming an alcoholic or addicted to gambling.
Why? Where is your evidence that homosexual relationships are bad for you and so should be discouraged? If that's what you're talking about.
Apart, of course, from religious reasons, which are of no concern to society.
Also, I would not bar them from marriage. They are free to get in a real biological marriage. Not the 21st century made up institution called "gay marriage."
Yuck. What a horrible thing to say.
"Of course you can marry! Just not the person you love."
A classic argument against interracial marriage too, by the way.
They are not making that determination, as long as it is a real biological marriage with the societies needed characteristics for survival.
Again: what right has the government to say to two people who love each other, "You cannot get married because your needs to not serve the state?" Sounds like a totalitarian fantasy.
And of course, two people of the same sex are perfectly free to have some kind of commitment ceremony and call it anything they want, but the government would not recognize it.
Not up to you, I'm afraid. In fact, gay marriage is recognised in more and more places all over the world. You can refuse to call it that if you wish, but that does not change anything.
In biology even a mating pair of a male and a female that does not produce children is still considered a single reproductive unit. Which is what marriage has always been based on.
Marriage has always been based on the science of biology? Nonsense.
Nor has marriage always been based on the ability to have children, which is what I think you meant.
No, such "marriages" have already occurred in other countries. And they are pushing to legalize polygamy in the US. The slope has arrived. It is not justice when real marriages are rendered meaningless.
I'm sorry you think heterosexual marriage is rendered meaningless because other people can get married too. Also, polygamy is fine by me, so long as all parties are consenting adults. There are, of course, historical problems with polygamy, largely due to some parties not being consenting, and I can certainly see that there is a greater risk of disagreements and unhappiness; but in principle, there's nothing wrong with it.
On what basis is consent required? Who made that rule up? And who made the rule of only two people and why?
Because if consent isn't given, then it's not real marriage. If one party is unwilling, then no agreement between them can be binding. It's simple.
No, not circular logic, it has never existed and therefore still does not.
Says you. In fact, plenty of governments (including the US government) say that gay marriage is real marriage, and it's what they think that counts.
Just believing something exists does not mean it actually does. Just because you believe that a married bachelor exists, does not mean he does.
Because a bachelor is an unmarried man. An unmarried married man is a logical contradiction. On the other hand, two men being married or two women being married is perfectly reasonable and, thankfully, happening.
See my post to Clizby above where I boil it down to three verses.
Is this what you mean? My responses in red.
No, the Mosaic law says that strangers and foreigners are to be treated just like a hebrew and not oppressed.
Unless they're slaves.
Read Exodus 21:16, you cannot go into another nation and kidnap them for slavery.
It says you shall be put to death for stealing a man. Obviously this means "unless you were capturing slaves in the approved manner.
And read Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 22:21-24.
Seriously? Obviously these verses did not apply to captured slaves because they weren't citizens in good standing.
So plainly in context of the verses I have provided Leviticus 25:44-46 is better understood to say "you may buy male and females who voluntarily request enslavement from the nations that are around you..." "you may also buy voluntary slaves from among the strangers who sojourn with and their clans around you."
Except that it says you shall buy them and keep them forever.
And the word "forever" is hebrew hyperbole, because actually all slaves are freed in the year of Jublilee so in fact it is not forever.
This only applies to Hebrew slaves. And even they can be kept for life under special circumstances.
Yes, they could beat them but as seen in my post above slaves were under the same laws as the free hebrews. So any permanent damage by the beating was covered under the eye for eye law. IOW, punishment equivalent to the crime done either by the slave or the master.
All it meant was that you couldn't cause permanent disfigurement. Nothing to stop you from cutting a slave's back to ribbons every day if you chose.
Of course you are free to believe that. Christians believe in freedom of conscience unlike atheist founded nations.
So kind of you. You won't allow gay people to marry the ones they love, but you will allow me to disagree with you. By the way, there are no atheist founded nations. Atheist means nothing more than "is not a theist".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Agnos
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.