Vorkosigan

Male homosexuality is one of the most disease ridden behaviors known to man.

Yes, it is nearly as disgusting as heterosexual sex.

NOGO

Jack TB

The situation is actually worse than that.
Take for example the case of David's son.

Yahweh knew that his birth was problematic.
He allowed him to be born so that He could kill him in order to punish David (Ed's claim).
The Bible actually says that it was because of what David did but Ed ignores anything that he cannot explain and substitutes his "out of the hat" favourite explanations.
So let it be known that Yahweh kills people in order to punish others. Morality according to Ed.

Either way this infant who had not learn to think yet was allowed to be born and since all that are born are guilty of sin then he deserved to die. So Yahweh killed him.

Funny, Yahweh could not think of any other way of punishing David for his crimes.

Funny also that the Bible says that David's sin was "put away". This means that he was forgiven. So Ed's contention that Yahweh killed the child to punish David is not only morally hideous but is also contradicted by the Bible.

NOGO

Please explain this statement, Ed.
It seems to be saying somthing totally absurd but I will reserve judgement until you clarify.

Sexually transmitted diseases are a subset of diseases which are passed on from person to person through contact.

Some like the bubonic plague was trasnmitted by simple contact.
The spread of these disease is amplified by the concentration of people and began in earnest when people started to move into cities.

Usually our skin protects us against most of these diseases but we do have a weak spot. Our genital areas are not all covered.
This is a point of entry which is designed in.

Promiscuity certainly helps the spread of STD but it does not create such diseases no more than concentration into cities produced the bubonic plague.

For the homosexual it was impossible in the past to have any kind of stable relations. Why? because society did not tolerate it. Society also forced all heterosexuals into stable relations without total success.

Ed, here is the question.

What in the homosexual relation make it worse than the heterosexual relation for the spread of disease?

winstonjen

From Ed's previous responses, I think I can accurately predict what he's going to say: "The bible says so, it must be right."

Ed

What new material? Everything I have presented is a logical deduction from the explicit and implicit teachings of the scriptures.

Quote:

Ed: But we also know God has other reasons not directly described in the scriptures... jtb: No, we don't "know" that.

Those that look at the scriptures in context and in depth know.

Quote:

Ed: ..but they are indirectly described in the scriptures teachings about the nature of God and the nature of humans. jtb: The Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). It is part of the NATURE of the Biblical God to kill indiscriminately, and to enjoy killing.

See above about your tunnel vision.

Quote:

Ed: Also we know the reasons are good because we know God is good thru experience with him. jtb: Nope.

I know you don't think so because you don't know Him. But you can know him, if you come to him without any preconceived notions.

Quote:

Ed: No, it is also possible if the judge meting out the punishment is omniscient. Only such a judge truly knows the motivations and attitudes of the heart. jtb: No amount of omniscience can possibly justify the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, as clearly stated in the Bible.

See above about innocents not really existing. Also read Romans 3:9-23.

Quote:

jtb: As for winstonjen's list: Ed: Since I have already dealt with many of these issues in previous posts and since most of them are just the result of very superficial readings of the bible... This is another lie, Ed. These claims result from reading what the Bible actually says. It is the APOLOGIST who must read the Bible "superficially" to avoid comprehending too much of it. Only a VERY superficial reading of the Bible allows apologists to claim that God is good, for instance: there are verses claiming this, but many contradictory verses that must be skipped. All Biblical inerrantists are incompetent scholars, Ed. No competent Biblical scholar can remain an inerrantist.

No, the hyperskeptic picks and chooses verses out of the context of the overall picture and teachings. Thereby making episodes appear to be what they are not. No competent biblical scholar can remain rational and reject inerrancy.

Quote:

Ed: Why is preservation of your own species completely rational? It is only rational from the perspective of specieism, but specieism has no rational foundation if atheistic evolution is true. jtb: On the contrary, speciesism has a rational foundation BECAUSE evolution is true. And, again, you know this by now. So you're lying AGAIN.

How? Are you an old school evolutionist? The only evolutionists that thought atheistic evolution favored humans above other species were the Victorians and the Nazis. And of course they thought it only favored Aryan humans. What in atheistic evolution makes humans more valuable than other species?

Ed

It is not an exact analogy but having an omniscient being choose your representative is better than having a human judge choose him which is the case if you are too poor to pay a lawyer. And You do have to face the consequences of your lawyer or legislator or president if he errs. Most western legal scholars believe representative justice and government is fair and is in fact the best form of justice or government.

Quote:

ng: The idea of original sin is an absurd idea created by Paul. It is nowhere to be found in either the OT nor in Jesus' mouth. Plase see my post "God's Plan - a challenge for Christians" in Biblical Criticism and archaeology.

Read I Kings 8:46. And also David said he was conceived in sin. So it is in the OT.

Jack the Bodiless

Nope, you're lying AGAIN.
YHWH is a storm god adopted as a tribal totem and war god! In the OT he demands blood sacrifices! He perpetrates genocide and commands others to do so! It is a FACT that the Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). No "tunnel vision" required!
See my previous post about the morality-crippling effect of your religion. It is perfectly obvious to any sane person that MANY people are entirely innocent of any crime, and also perfectly obvious to any sane person who reads the Bible that the punishment of people FOR THE CRIMES OF OTHERS is a common theme.

If you believe that everyone deserves death, then ANY atrocity is justifiable. This is the morality of the Holocaust.

And Romans 3:9-23 is merely more of the sick, perverted morality of Paul. I can't imagine why you thought that citing it would help your case.
You are lying AGAIN, Ed. Every verse I have cited is IN CONTEXT. It is the inerrantist who takes verses out of context.

There are NO competent Biblical scholars who are inerrantists. NONE.
What are you blathering about?

OF COURSE evolution favors humans above other species! That's why we are so successful as a species! But I have never claimed that humanity was the GOAL of evolution: that is a THEISTIC concept.

Humans are OBJECTIVELY successful as a species because of our mental and physical characteristics. But "speciesism" is SUBJECTIVE: it is a form of prejudice. Evolution explains why speciesism exists: it provides a rational foundation for the existence of speciesism.

But you know this already. Or you should, by now. It is very difficult to determine if you are feigning ignorance, or if this comes naturally to you.
If God was omniscient, I wouldn't NEED a "representative".

You are discussing a legal system that was created BECAUSE nobody is omniscient!

It is perfectly clear to ANY SANE PERSON that the guilt or innocence of every single one of us is entirely independent of any decision made by Adam and Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve was originally a story of God's FEAR of them: the fear that they would become rival gods. THAT is why they were kicked out of Eden.

Later, this story was perverted into a story of "spiritual poisoning": Adam and Eve "infected" the human race with sin, which God (being NON-omnipotent) was initially powerless to remove. This is your "spiritual DNA" argument: God is powerless to fix "spiritual DNA", and is therefore NON-omnipotent.

So it isn't OUR fault. We are INNOCENT.

Ed

Because that is exactly what you all are doing. You set your tunnelvision sights on events that superficially appear unjust but when looked at in the overall context they are not.

Quote:

wj: Why don't you give us concrete examples of this experience?

He helped me get thru college and grad school during periods when I had trouble concentrating on my work, he helped overcome my selfish tendencies in high school, he provided me with a decent secure job and many other things.

Ed

No, that just explains the rational basis for feelings or what IS, it does not provide a rational basis for what OUGHT TO BE. Just because you have certain emotional responses to certain stimuli does not mean that everyone OUGHT to have those same responses. For example, Hitler felt bad about the things that you feel good about and he felt good about the things you feel bad about. So both your moralities are just based on feelings. How is that rational? And how do you rationally choose one over the other since both yours and Hitlers feelings are the result of the same evolutionary processes?

This is the end of part I of my response.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed:

This issue has been addressed. Several times.

RE-READ THIS THREAD. NOW.

Here's a clue: look for where I pointed out that NEITHER of us has a RATIONAL basis for "what OUGHT to be".

Look for where I pointed out that this is an EMOTIONAL issue.

Look for where I pointed out that my worldview is superior to yours precisely because it provides a RATIONAL basis for the EXISTENCE of the EMOTION.