I am homosexual, what the Bible says

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - Remind me never to come

Joy - Remind me never to come to your house for dinner.

I'm just curious why you would post such an obvious lie to this forum:

Joy - The point is we all know it is wrong to eat other human beings.

Whitefire13's picture
An honest argument.

An honest argument.

Joy...you are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong/bad/disordered.

When asked how you came to your conclusion, you claim “nature”. This is where I believe you are being dishonest. I believe you came to your conclusion based on a holy book.

Nature is full of processes, reactions, instincts, competition etc. that provide advantages, neutrality or disadvantages for a species.

There can be an appearance of design (one of our advantages was the ability to pattern seek), however “waves in a sand dune” are not designed, as inferred through intelligence...my painting of it is.

It may, or may not benefit you to access information outside your bias. This is not an insult, we all have bias and it is a difficult thing to “overcome”. Approaching a subject and then using rationality (logical principles) to weigh the information presented and most importantly the evidence supporting the claim. Sometimes we can study a subject and not come to any conclusions.

Perhaps examine Social Evolution. Perhaps examine why the Koran holds no sway over you. Even a cursory examination of the bible’s laws/commandments, when read from a Social Evolutionary point of view can “explain” much. Having these various written records give us “clues” to the human mindset.

The oldest written record of laws, the “Code of Ur-Nammu” can be found here ...

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/ur_nammu_law.htm

https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-writings/instructions-...

The above is other ancient proverbs and moral instruction.

Then there’s Ethology (study of animal social behaviour)

Cool read .. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-t...

Edited to add that the above link is the introduction of money to monkeys

Joy--'s picture
“Joy...you are of the opinion

“Joy...you are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong/bad/disordered.
When asked how you came to your conclusion, you claim “nature”. This is where I believe you are being dishonest. I believe you came to your conclusion based on a holy book.”

You would be wrong. And once again because you fail to understand the natural law argument. Once again, it is not about that which we can find in nature!

“It may, or may not benefit you to access information outside your bias.”

Right back at ya.

“Perhaps examine why the Koran holds no sway over you.”

Way ahead of you. Been there. Done that.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joyless" And once again

@ Joyless
" And once again because you fail to understand the natural law argument'

Perhaps because it is mere presuppositional verbiage not an argument at all the way you express it.

David Killens's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

"natural law argument"

I Googled that term, and it is built on the presupposition of a god. If you desire to convince me that has any value, first you must prove a god.

Whitefire13's picture
* Picked fallen jaw off of

* Picked fallen jaw off of ground *

Your definition... “Natural law means man can know what is right/good and in his best interest based on acknowledgement of the order/shape/form/function of things, reason, logic, and observation of this world and our relationship with it.”

The gap between your definition and then your conclusions is staggering. That is why I inferred your belief in the bible - an outside influence biasing your conclusions.

Your conclusions have been assertions and you pick and choose facts to fit your conclusion (working backwards).

Where are the studies backing your assertions from the scientists that have worked in these particular fields of study?

...and then there is the whole complete field of “Natural Law” which I highly doubt you are educated in.

boomer47's picture
@Whitefire 13

@Whitefire 13

Morality is that which is in one's best interest? Does't that sound a bit familiar? Does to me. It's called 'ethical egoism'. On the face of it a very unchristian position.. Not surprising, christianity is at base an utterly selfish faith. The faithful do positive good or avoid negative (wrong) actions for reward IE the reward of heaven or avoidance of hell.

The best concept of moral good I've ever seen is from Buddhist , a belief system which seeks to destroy ego. The teaching is that the moral man does good for its own sake .

My own natural bent is moral relativism, which avoids moral absolutes. Arguments of exceptions do not negate principle. Eg There is one exception which springs readily to mind; child rape.

The old testament is full of exceptions to absolute morality; for the individual, incest and rape (not rape if it's a slave) For god himself; punishing all of humanity, forever, because of the sins of two people. (Adam and Eve) The sadistic cruelty towards Job and Abraham . The punishing of the entire Egyptian people because of the recalcitrance of their Pharaoh . Finally, of course, the genocide of the Flood, saving Noah and his family out of all humanity .

There is also an excellent filmed play, called "God On Trial" .Set in Auschwitz, a group of Jewish men who know they are to die the next day put god on trial. The charge: That in allowing the Holocaust, god has broken the Abrahamic covenant: Genesis 12-15

12 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”[b]"

In my daily life, ideally, I look at the common good as the basis for morality. It is not based some vague , dishonest notion of what is 'natural' . I therefore consider laws/beliefs demonising sexual preferences, identification and practice which do not harm others as callous, cruel and hateful .

In daily life, I must admit I tend to behave on the basis of self interest mostly. It is my opinion that most of humanity acts the same way, mostly. That for most people moral beliefs tend to act as an ideal rather than for daily use.. I recognise there are altruistic acts, many, many, many, daily. However, I have never met or read about a fully altruistic person. Yes, every now and then I have been guilty of an altruistic act, as have just about every person I've ever known.
.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.

Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, "Ethical egoism ... endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."[2]

Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism.[3] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism-

Harming the interests of others (such as their sexual preferences and practices) is NOT moral within this framework

"egoism "as a moral principle is a pretty big topic.

My reference:

"Milo: Egoism and altruism (Basic problems in philosophy series)" Ronald D Milo.

From the Devil's Dictionary . " Christian: One who believes that the New Testament isa divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin"

I don't condemn Christians or anyone else for being hypocrites, This because it is a life observation that hypocrisy is part of the human condition. Such actions do not necessarily define the individual,-----how can we possibly tell when they do?

Joy--'s picture
“Morality is that which is in

“Morality is that which is in one's best interest? Does't that sound a bit familiar? Does to me. It's called 'ethical egoism'. On the face of it a very unchristian position..
Not surprising, christianity is at base an utterly selfish faith. The faithful do positive good or avoid negative (wrong) actions for reward IE the reward of heaven or avoidance of hell.”

Well, since knowing what is right/good vs. bad/wrong is something all men can know regardless of religion, I think you’re off base. I don’t need the Bible to know it’s wrong to steal. I can use reason and quite frankly science, sociology, logic, etc to know it is not in my long term best interest to not steal.

“The best concept of moral good I've ever seen is from Buddhist , a belief system which seeks to destroy ego. The teaching is that the moral man does good for its own sake”

Yes, this is what is written in the world we live in. If we live in accordance with natural law or the natural moral order we will be more at harmony and peace with this world. If/when we try to live contrary to the moral order, we become off balance. Now, one could leave it there and live a good life. Or one can take it one step further and give credit to the creator of said world. Either way, at least for one’s life here on earth it’s a win-win.

By the way, in order to be able to do good for the sake of good, one would need to acknowledge good. Something can't be bad if we don't have a standard of good to compare it. Which is why moral relativism fails.

“My own natural bent is moral relativism, which avoids moral absolutes.”

And which is also illogical and self refuting. We all live every day with an understanding of moral absolutes and rightly so, whether we want to admit it or not.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - We all live every day

Joy - We all live every day with an understanding of moral absolutes and rightly so...

Yet another lie.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joyless

@ Joyless

"We all live every day with an understanding of moral absolutes and rightly so, whether we want to admit it or not."

Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance...oh and your bigotry.

Who exactly is "we all"? You have been pulled up before for your use of absolutes with no citations or, unsurprisingly, evidence.

" Or one can take it one step further and give credit to the creator of said world"

And once again a breathtaking assertion with absolutely no evidence at all. The same as your assertions of "natural Law" or even more amusing yopur baseless claim for a "Natural Moral Order"

Do please elucidate and tell me where these statutes are written? Who or what do they apply to? just humans? or all animals? What are the exceptions? To have a "Law" there must be exemptions and caveats..or do you not understand "Law" ?

Tin-Man's picture
@Oh, What A Joy Re: "Yes,

@Oh, What A Joy Re: "Yes, this is what is written in the world we live in." (Your response to, "The teaching is that the moral man does good for its own sake”)

Written WHERE, exactly??? On one of the walls of that cave in which you live?

Sheldon's picture
Joy "And which is also

Joy "And which is also illogical and self refuting. We all live every day with an understanding of moral absolutes and rightly so, whether we want to admit it or not."

I don't agree, but would appreciate a list of these "absolute morals" you claim exist, and some evidence to support the claim of course.

Joy "Something can't be bad if we don't have a standard of good to compare it....

,,,The best concept of moral good I've ever seen is from Buddhist "

God and bad are subjective concepts we create, so I think you are wrong here as well, but again please explain how we know what this standard is, and how you come to know it is an objective standard independent of our own reason? For a start Buddhism is man made, as are all religious concepts of morality.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - Well, since knowing

Joy - ...knowing what is right/good vs. bad/wrong is something all men can know...

Another falsehood.

boomer47's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

"Joy - ...knowing what is right/good vs. bad/wrong is something all men can know...

Another falsehood."

I may be incorrect: Imo morality is [mainly] a human metaphysical construct. As such so far unfalsifiable . We may have opinions and beliefs about morality , but ultimately no knowledge .

Of course this is quite wrong if you happen to have dogmatic beliefs about god and morality especially. For such people absolute truths such as the existence of god(s) and morality are simply accepted as obvious. .

I find the cost for such too great. IE A closed mind, purblind ignorance with a smug self righteousness which allows one to judge any and all with whom one does not agree. Side effects can include a callous indifference to the suffering of those outside of your ken. Plus outright hostility towards the have nots within one's own society -(The old, the sick, the poor and homeless children who ain't yours) ) -these worthies are often your working class tories and impoverished libertarians , who like to vote for Donald Trump, because he makes them feel 'included.

Whitefire13's picture
Cranky47... ditto. What a

Cranky47... ditto. What a pleasure to read! I’ve known of relative moralism and absolute moralism and I’ve always leaned towards relative...but the nuances within the subject are fascinating.

boomer47's picture
@Whitefire

@Whitefire

Thank you.

Very little original thought there. Milo is worth reading. It's philosophy 101, which Is when I read him, many years ago. Probably available in ebook form for a few dollars .

Kevin Levites's picture
I wanted to try to get

I wanted to try to get somewhere with Joy on this thread, but I feel like I'm talking to a deaf mind.

I guess I'll just cut my loses.

I will, however, track down that book by Pastor Gilease, and get it if it's available as an ebook.

P.S. I found the book, but it doesn't seem available as an ebook. I found another that may interest Joy. It seems on par with the bigotry and intolerance. See below:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Kevin Levites's picture
I tried to buy this book

I tried to buy this book about preventing homosexuality in children, but was surprised to find that it's actually being censored!!!

This is--to me--more disturbing than the subject matter of the book itself.

I want to read the book so that I can be informed on the nature of certian aspects of anti-gay sentiment when I get into arguments with people.

I always try to research the opposition before I open my mouth.

This book is a Bad Thing . . . no doubt about it.

But censorship? That's worse. Much, much worse.

As Carl Sagan said: "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge . . . and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science."

As much as I despise the things that come out of Joy's mind, I may owe Joy an honest "thank you" for bringing this instance of censorship to my attention . . . as I believe that it's very important to be aware of such things.

I am a professional writer myself (side money, as I still have my day job), so censorship is an important topic with me. If Amazon can censor this fucking asshole's book . . . then why shouldn't I be concerned about my voice being censored in the future? What if I want to write about something that other people don't like?

Sheldon's picture
@Kevin Levites

@Kevin Levites

I'm inclined to agree, as a rule of thumb, a pile of burning books makes me very uneasy, regardless of what's in them.

It also occurs to me that the kind of bigoted homophobic paranoia espoused by religious people like Joy, is hardly likely to be lessened by censoring them, and their ilk.

Sadly one of the unpleasant core concepts of religious indoctrination is that human morality is best served not by empathising with other humans, but by first and foremost trying to please an imaginary deity, with blind adherence to bronze age morality, or at best cherry picking through it.

Whenever I read this bigoted garbage that Joy is espousing I am always minded to ask, does she eat shell fish, stone unruly children, wear blended fabrics, or eat crops that have been grown on land adjacent to other crops. All of which represent some of the more bizarre things the bible rules are moral or immoral.

It usually becomes pretty obvious that religious bigots like Joy are cherry picking bits of the bible to feed their existing prejudices.

Whitefire13's picture
Which site is censoring it?

Which site is censoring it?

Kevin Levites's picture
Amazon. It won't take orders

Amazon. It won't take orders on it, and they removed the ebook.

Is it still possible to get the book?

Yes. But in a very roundabout, convoluted manner by going to obscure, questionable websites that don't have Amazon's credibility or trustworthiness. See below from NBC news:

NBC News
Amazon removes controversial books by 'father of conversion therapy'

See below link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nbcnews...

Don't get me wrong . . . I think that the book is rightfully discredited, and can do some real harm.

But . . . I can buy a book on Amazon that gives me instructions for creating methamphetamine in my garage.

I don't like double-standards.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Whitefire13's picture
Oh I agree with you!

Oh I agree with you!

I detest censorship ...“I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it!” ( not my original thought but a saying I’m on board with).

Kevin Levites's picture
Thank you for the support and

Thank you for the support and the validation.

I generally regard the "slippery slope" mentality as a fallacy . . . but at the risk of sounding like (or actually being) a hypocrite, I get concerned about any censorship, as it seems to feed on itself and expand.

In the end, there are massive book burnings . . . government control of thought . . . and horrible tragedies like the burning of the great Alexandria Library in antiquity.

We know the there were about 4 to 5 million books or so at it's height, and only about 10,000 survived to this day.

We know that Sophocles wrote about 123 plays, and only 8 exist today.

We lost works by Alexander the Great, Democritis, Hippocrates, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoros, Euclid, Hypatia, and so on.

Incalculable loss to humanity!!!

A huge stash of these books was discovered in early Muslim times, and the Caliph (who was involved in the situation) said "Burn them. If they agree with the Koran, then they are superfluous. If they disagree with the Koran, then they are heretical and blasphemous. So burn them."

If the library had survived, then maybe we wouldn't have had the "dark ages" of medieval Europe for 1,000 years.

boomer47's picture
@Whitefire13

@Whitefire13

"I detest censorship "

I especially loathe censorship by the back door. In my country they do that through anti hate speech laws and laws against vilification /insult, which are a form of censorship . Imo, freedom of speech MUST include the right to offend. (Australia has no bill of rights)

Here I express my opinion, not after a debate .I am in the minority in Australia . I AM grateful I have the freedom to express a dissident view,.

Clip on freedom of speech with Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais and Rowan Atkinson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOxJ-789YtA

"You're offended? So fucking what?" (Stephen Fry)

Kevin Levites's picture
Agree 100%.

Agree 100%.

I do see certian restrictions on free speech as being appropriate. I don't believe that freedom of speech allows me to yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre just for my own entertainment. I also don't believe that freedom of speech should be interpreted to allow one to make and/or distribute child pornography.

I would like to believe that these restraints on free expression can't be twisted around and perveted (no pun intended) into telling us that certain books are harmful, so that we don't get to read them.

Whitefire13's picture
Kevin...both examples cause

Kevin...both examples cause harm (panic in theatre, people moving out of theatre, fire department being called, etc ; child porn is exploiting a minor, who has no ability to consent, for a consenting adults’ sexual pleasure - and the harm involved in obtaining said child and emotional harm). Both examples lead to real world consequence.

However, the banning of books https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
Is thought control.

David Icke wasn’t allowed to speak in Canada (hate laws). Ridiculous. Btw, I don’t agree with his ideas, but he has a right to express them.

Kevin Levites's picture
I agree 100%.

I agree 100%.

The irony of banning books seems work in reverse, as people seem to want to get their hands on something that's forbidden.

David Killens's picture
@ Whitefire13

@ Whitefire13

"David Icke wasn’t allowed to speak in Canada (hate laws). Ridiculous. Btw, I don’t agree with his ideas, but he has a right to express them."

I am Canadian and I hope to add some insight. Canada strives for inclusiveness, and part of that agenda is denying hate speech. It is illegal in Canada. These are our laws, we are not bound by any US laws or documents.

David Icke does not have that "right" in Canada.

boomer47's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

"David Icke wasn’t allowed to speak in Canada (hate laws). Ridiculous. Btw, I don’t agree with his ideas, but he has a right to express them."

Agreed.; takes about 3 minutes to see the bloke is a complete loon.

Don't know if he was refused a visa in Oz; we do not 'ban 'people (sniff)

Holocaust denier David Irving was refused a visa. There's a pretty good film about his libel case with the wonderful Timothy Spall. "Denial" 2016

The Westboro Baptist Church was also refused a visa You know, a vile, hateful christian mob, who like to protest at the funeral of GI's killed overseas .They carry signs with fragrant expressions such as "GOD HATES FAGS '

There is no doubt in my mind that they were refused visas for their own protection. If they tried that shit here, pretty good chance some of the mourners (especially diggers) would take umbrage and beat the living crap out of them

Nyarlathotep's picture
A store refusing to sell a

A store refusing to sell a certain product isn't exactly what I'd call censorship.

It took me less than 5 seconds to find a reputable vendor that sells it.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.