Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 10-14-2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It is evidence; it is not proof.

I did not say "proof". I said "any evidence". What evidence do you have that the writers spoke for God and not for themselves? I suggest that you start a new thread on inerrancy.

Will you admit that there is not any secular evidence at all that divorce is not a good thing at least some of the time?

Is refusing to give a tenth of one's income to the church any different than refusing to give up homosexuality?

How is a person supposed to know that homosexuality is wrong if they have never heard about the Bible?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-14-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Go with the above comment that I made above.

But will you admit that you made a mistake, something that I have never seen you admit, at least not regarding a particular mistake that you made. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

From my memory, it seems that we established that the only basis for saying that homosexuality is wrong is that which the Bible says. If establishing that which the Bible says is a defeat, then I guess that makes defeat a victory.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySketpic

You argued homosexuality at length from a secular viewpoint. Don't you remember bringing up NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? You brought up NAMBLA as a bogus attempt to correlate homosexuality with pedophilia. Consider the following from that thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But you said that there is a connection between homosexuality and having sex with children. Have you abandoned that position? You said that NAMBLA and other homosexual groups endorse having sex with children. I asked you which other groups and how many members the groups have, but you didn't answer my questions. Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I offered as an argument other than “The Bible says...” the argument, “Outside the Biblical injunction against homosexuality, I propose that homosexuality be banned because homosexuals (e.g., some who became Catholic priests) prey on, and abuse, children (which expresses my moral belief that one should not have sex with children, and this belief is not shared by all).”

But in one of your previous posts you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think the conclusion we must reach is that homosexuality (and anything else) is wrong only because the Bible says that it is wrong. There are no real arguments against homosexuality other than "The Bible says..."

Now which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Regarding “homosexuals……..prey on, and abuse, children,” first of all, some heterosexuals abuse children too, so your objection to abusing children does not apply specifically to homosexuals. What I wanted from you were objections that specifically apply to homosexuals. Second of all, the following organizations and individuals would never support homosexuals if the typical homosexual endorsed have sex with children:

The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Anthropological Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Martin Luther King's widow Coretta Scott King, Rev. Dr. James Lawson, a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to train the young people who staged the lunch counter sit-ins and Freedom Rides, Rev. Dr. Lewis Smedes, Biblical scholar, teacher, and author for over fifty years, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American School Counselor Association, and the American Bar Association.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This raised the issue of heterosexuals preying on children also and should we ban heterosexuals also. How about getting rid of all heteros and homos who abuse, or seek to abuse, children and see who is left.

That is a separate issue entirely. You might as well say let’s get rid of all heteros and homos who commit murder and theft. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? This thread is not about heteros and homos. It is about homos. Please stay on topic. What I am asking for is arguments that apply specifically to homosexuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I found the following at--
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/bless/diversity.htm

A gay organization in Boston, BAGLY, offers $25, plus free dinner and subway tokens, to boys who will come to their headquarters and discuss homosexual sex and other issues. The boys are also invited to a free, three-day, lakeside, weekend retreat in New Hampshire with other "boys" up to 25-years-old who are "attracted to or have sex with other men."

The Fistgate conference gives graphic instruction to teenagers on the practice of homosexual sex. This was done in sessions which mingled youth from 12-years-old to 21-years-old. It was sponsored by the homosexual organization, GLSEN.

Which has what to do with the views of typical homosexuals regarding having sex with children? You should know better than to attempt to establish a correlation between the preferences of a small percentage of gay men and the preferences of the vast majority of gay men. Would you like to assert that a sizeable percentage of gay men endorse having sex with children? If so, where is your documented evidence?

Now rhutchin, you are a very intelligent person. Are you going to try to convince people that you do not have any recollection whatsoever that you used some secular arguments in that thread? I have Microsoft Word copies of all of my debates with you on all topics. Would you like for me to post a good deal more evidence that you debated secular issues at length? It is reasonable to assume that you do remember that you used secular arguments, and that you only resorted to "the Bible says so" because you embarrassed yourself with your secular arguments. After weeks of debating you finally said that more research is needed. That comment most certainly did not have anything whatsoever to do with more research regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. Your comment was about the need for more SECULAR research. Homosexuality is a very controversial topic. It is not likely that you would forget that you spent a good deal of your time in that thread debating secular arguments. The truth is, you spent very little time saying "the Bible says so," and yet, you now claim that you have no recollection that you used any secular arguments at all. You most certainly cannot claim that you did not have any recollection of using secular arguments during our debates in that thread. As I showed previously, in that thread, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I offered as an argument other than “The Bible says...” the argument, “Outside the Biblical injunction against homosexuality, I propose that homosexuality be banned because homosexuals (e.g., some who became Catholic priests) prey on, and abuse, children (which expresses my moral belief that one should not have sex with children, and this belief is not shared by all).”

Now that was AFTER you had said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think the conclusion we must reach is that homosexuality (and anything else) is wrong only because the Bible says that it is wrong. There are no real arguments against homosexuality other than "The Bible says..."

You might try to get away with claiming that now you have no recollection of using any secular arguments in that thread, a claim which I doubt many people will believe, but you most certainly cannot hope to get away with claiming that during that debate you did not contradict yourself.

Amaleq13 · 10-14-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

What vice could not be promoted on such grounds?

The complaint appears to be that Christianity fails to adopt the vices chosen as a shibboleth by those in power in a particular culture at a particular date. Indeed so.

The complaint, IMO, is that adherence to these ancient moral guidelines restricts the individual to the ignorance of those times so that one feels free to label the biological nature of another a "vice" or, even more ignorantly, one that has been "chosen" by that person. Indeed so.

Clivedurdle · 10-14-2006, 11:10 AM

Is there not a major question about what exactly the alleged moral guidelines in the Bible are? I have quoted parts of an article that give three major examples of erotic love stories - song of songs, David and Jonathan and if someone would read the article - Ruth and Naomi.

The article asserts the use of Hebrew is explicitly erotic in these examples. That is an assertion that can be proved or disproved, would someone kindly do that before we focus on Leviticus, Romans and whatever?

Is it not important to establish what is written before we march in with our modern concepts of what we think it says, like god hates fags for example?

Roger Pearse · 10-14-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The complaint, IMO, is that adherence to these ancient moral guidelines restricts the individual to the ignorance of those times so that one feels free to label the biological nature of another a "vice" or, even more ignorantly, one that has been "chosen" by that person. Indeed so.

Your faith is strong. I'm afraid that we both have a fair idea of the people who created these ideas you follow in the last few decades, and I don't know of any good reason to believe that they did so for any reason than amusement.

But it's your life. Trust them if you like.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 10-14-2006, 01:09 PM

http://www.mcctoronto.com/resources/bible_article_2.htm

Johnny Skeptic · 10-14-2006, 02:43 PM

Message to Roger Pearse: Are you an inerrantist? If so, why?

mens_sana · 10-14-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I have quoted parts of an article that give three major examples of erotic love stories - song of songs, David and Jonathan and if someone would read the article - Ruth and Naomi.

I can't imagine anyone arguing that the Song of Songs isn't chock full of eroticism. Both the Jews and the Christians had problems rationalizing its canonical status. As late as 1st century CE, rabbis were protesting against the singing of its verses in local pubs. The Ruth/Naomi story is more subtle, while acknowledging male dominance in the culture.

The David/Jonathan story may be a different kettle of fish. I believe it was Baruch Halpern who argued (David's Secret Demons?) that the writer(s) of Davidic history were anxious to reassure everyone that David did NOT usurp the throne — and that they did this by promoting David's loyalty to Saul and Jonathan. David surely arranged for the killing off of Saul's entire line (one accusation survives, 2 Sam 16.7-8), allowing only Shimei and Mephibaal to suvive, both of whom praised David for his clemency. The alleged David/Jonathan affair may therefore be nothing more than spin, and disappointing, if true.

Clivedurdle · 10-14-2006, 03:36 PM

But the thread is about xianity and homosexuality! Homosexuality is currently leading to a major split in the church of England, and we have at one end of the spectrum "god hates fags". These attitudes use some texts from the Bible, which interestingly contains one highly heterosexual erotic story, and probably at least two homosexual stories!

It is irrelevant that David and Jonathan might be made up - it is about two men loving each other!

So the question is why pick on some bits and ignore others? Cherrypicking?

Quote:

Another story, that of David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.

This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)

The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty (I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel 20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41), refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).

One cannot read this account without discerning that Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the closet too long!

rhutchin · 10-14-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You might try to get away with claiming that now you have no recollection of using any secular arguments in that thread, a claim which I doubt many people will believe, but you most certainly cannot hope to get away with claiming that during that debate you did not contradict yourself.

I proposed a secular argument. It did not fly (for obvious reasons).

10-14-2006, 02:43 PM	#27
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Christianity and Homosexuality Message to Roger Pearse: Are you an inerrantist? If so, why?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2006, 11:10 AM	#24
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is there not a major question about what exactly the alleged moral guidelines in the Bible are? I have quoted parts of an article that give three major examples of erotic love stories - song of songs, David and Jonathan and if someone would read the article - Ruth and Naomi. The article asserts the use of Hebrew is explicitly erotic in these examples. That is an assertion that can be proved or disproved, would someone kindly do that before we focus on Leviticus, Romans and whatever? Is it not important to establish what is written before we march in with our modern concepts of what we think it says, like god hates fags for example?

10-14-2006, 01:09 PM	#26
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://www.mcctoronto.com/resources/bible_article_2.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.