Gay Marrige

I guess we're dodging each other's points then. I was under the impression that you wanted to debate God's existence, which is a derailment. My bad ^^.

Let's see if I understand you right. You want to debate whether religion and gay rights views are related? If so then I will debate it here. Yes, my moral views derived from Christianity directly influences my views on homosexuality.

Correct me if I understand you wrong!

But this will be my last post for tonight. I'll try to respond to anything you post tomorrow.

Your argument, as I understand it, appears to be:

1. God exists.
2. If God doesn't like something, then we shouldn't like it, either.
3. God doesn't like homosexuality.
4. Therefore, we shouldn't like homosexuality.

I'm challenging 1, 2, and 3. If any of those are false, then your argument is no longer valid. As well, I would put forth:

1. The Bible condones numerous absurdities and atrocities and therefore should not be used as a source or moral guidance (for instance, though this is by no means the only example, the destruction of cities and the death of all their inhabitants is typically regarded as a major atrocity)
2. That the Bible is a contradiction and thus is not a logically sound source of anything. (Another example that relates to homosexuality: why would God create a class of people simply to hate them? That is not the act of an all loving God, but rather of a twisted and sadistic one)
3. Homosexuality cannot be demonstrated to infringe on the rights of anyone, and thus the interests of liberty outweigh.
4. Homosexuality cannot be demonstrated to have any harms that would override the interest of liberty.

As well, just to make the debate more interesting:

Quote:If homosexuality was such as a new issue then why would a book "written thousands of years ago" make a judgement call on it and condemn it?

Whether it does that or not is a subject up to debate. Regardless, homosexuality as is popularly understood does not correspond to older notions of homosexuality. Societies back in that time were age-structured rather than gender-structured.

Quote:the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (no it was not just for gluttony),

The Jews would like to have a word with you.

Quote:Also aren't there medical risks to this lifestyle?

"Homosexuality" refers to same-sex attraction (that is, when a male is sexually aroused by other men, or when a woman is sexually aroused by other women). Thus, your question is absurd.

I would also like to add that the romans, the greeks, and most other societies that were highly influential to our current lives and cultures practiced the art of homosexuality and pedophilia. because that is a sin and a sinners ways, beliefs, and lifestyles should be rejected (according to your god) then shouldnt you stop using all of their inventions and ideas? basically get off the earth...

Quote: Your argument, as I understand it, appears to be:

1. God exists.
2. If God doesn't like something, then we shouldn't like it, either.
3. God doesn't like homosexuality.
4. Therefore, we shouldn't like homosexuality.

I'll accept that argument as an accurate portrayal of my stance. I assume that your numbered points below each address my numbered points above?
Quote:
1. The Bible condones numerous absurdities and atrocities and therefore should not be used as a source or moral guidance (for instance, though this is by no means the only example, the destruction of cities and the death of all their inhabitants is typically regarded as a major atrocity)

I challenge you to name them without taking them out of context. I am highly suspicious that you will use the conquest of Canaan to justify your objections to claim 1. I suggest that you examine your stance in light of historical context.

Present these atrocities so that I know which ones you will specifically refer to. Meanwhile I hope you will justify your moral foundation on which you judge the Christian faith.

Also, claim 1 states that "God exists". Judging from your post, I assume you are trying to debunk that statement by proving that the Bible lacks moral authority?

Quote:
2. That the Bible is a contradiction and thus is not a logically sound source of anything. (Another example that relates to homosexuality: why would God create a class of people simply to hate them? That is not the act of an all loving God, but rather of a twisted and sadistic one)

Name the contradictions. I suggest once again that you examine the context before posting something.

Your object assumes that homosexuality is decided by genetics. AFAIK, science has not justified that stance but if you have anything I'll listen.

Secondly, even if people were born with a attraction to the same sex, it is the action that is punished, not the nature. For example, the Bible states that all people are born with a sinful nature; however, having a sinful nature will not send you to Hell (hence that is why babies go to heaven). Rather, the act of sinning will send you to Hell (without a Savior).

Of course that means nothing to you since I have just temporarily derailed this topic into theology.

Quote:3. Homosexuality cannot be demonstrated to infringe on the rights of anyone, and thus the interests of liberty outweigh.

Liberty is meaningless when a God says that sex is only between married a couple, which has one male and one female. Of course that depends on whether He exists or not.

Your objection to my point 3 is also irrelevant. Whether it 'infringes' on the rights of anyone has no influence on whether God approves or disproves on homosexual actions. Thinking lustful thoughts about the opposite sex also doesn't damage anyone directly yet the Bible condemns such things.

My stance (which you supplied) was that "3. God doesn't like homosexuality". Therefore, you have to show me either that God does not exist or that God does not dislike homosexuality.

Quote:4. Homosexuality cannot be demonstrated to have any harms that would override the interest of liberty.

You challenged only the first 3 points so I'm not sure whether you gave this point to refute my point four or not.

Quote:As well, just to make the debate more interesting:

Whether it does that or not is a subject up to debate. Regardless, homosexuality as is popularly understood does not correspond to older notions of homosexuality. Societies back in that time were age-structured rather than gender-structured.

Meaning? I don't want to misinterpret your meaning.

Quote:The Jews would like to have a word with you.

So what 'abomination' was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for?

Quote:"Homosexuality" refers to same-sex attraction (that is, when a male is sexually aroused by other men, or when a woman is sexually aroused by other women). Thus, your question is absurd.

Fine fine, the homosexual lifestyle, as in the act of exchanging homosexual intercourse.

Marine Corps;78677 wrote:I would also like to add that the romans, the greeks, and most other societies that were highly influential to our current lives and cultures practiced the art of homosexuality and pedophilia. because that is a sin and a sinners ways, beliefs, and lifestyles should be rejected (according to your god) then shouldnt you stop using all of their inventions and ideas? basically get off the earth...

There are some parts of "Greek, Roman, and most other societies" that are morally neutral. So no. Suggesting that just because the Greek and Roman are immoral and does not result in an abandonment of all inventions of theirs.
Ah, and Apostle Paul used a Greek saying to reach out to the non-Christian Greeks.

Note: Ah, I think I'll be limited to one post per day. Sorry for any inconveniences!

I look forward to this discussion!

Enjoy the rest of your Monday!

First of all, my apologies in advance if I come across as a little rude. I don't mean to - I just hang around people who debate in this manner. Just ignore it, since I don't mean anything by it :)

Quote:I assume that your numbered points below each address my numbered points above?

You assume incorrectly.

Quote:Present these atrocities so that I know which ones you will specifically refer to.

Well, the one that I was referring to (since this is a thread about gay marriage) in my cities example was the whole debacle of Sodom and Gomorrah. The conservative Christian view is that the cities were destroyed because of their sexual sins. The Jewish view is that they were destroyed because of their inhospitality. In either case, the destruction of cities for *any* reason is typically regarded as a major human rights atrocity, especially if they are destroyed due to religious nonconformance. As well, turning people into salt is just silly (though a common theme in ancient stories), and is suggestive of senseless cruelty. As well, killing gays is typically considered a human rights atrocity.

A quick google also provides:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

In fact, the section that the above website has on science is rather amusing: Earth resting on pillars (Job 9:6), the sun revolving around the Earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5), the Earth being flat (Daniel 4:10-11), and other assorted silliness.

Quote:Meanwhile I hope you will justify your moral foundation on which you judge the Christian faith.

I am an error theorist/emotivist, and thus do not believe that moral propositions correspond to realities about the universe, but rather instead reflect subjective emotional states.

I should also note that I am not judging the "Christian faith", but rather your specific flavour of Christianity. You do not speak for all Christians, but rather for yourself.

Quote:Also, claim 1 states that "God exists". Judging from your post, I assume you are trying to debunk that statement by proving that the Bible lacks moral authority?

You assume incorrectly.

Quote:Name the contradictions.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

No contextual examination is necessary, for if the Bible is the LITERAL truth of God, then "contextual examination" requires interpretation[i] rather than [i]parsing. If you don't hold the Bible as the literal truth of God, then the Bible becomes meaningless as a source of anything and all of your religious arguments immediately fail (which is fine for me, but it would seem unwise to take that position). I don't envy your challenge - you need to defend such absurdities as the death of nonbelievers, prohibitions against shrimp, a flat Earth, etc,. since if those arne't all literally true, then we have no evidence that ANYTHING in the Bible is true, and it all falls to "interpretation"....indeed, the areas regarding sexuality would similarly fall.

Quote:Your object assumes that homosexuality is decided by genetics. AFAIK, science has not justified that stance but if you have anything I'll listen.

No, it assumes that homosexuality is not chosen (it actually doesn't, but we'll limit the debate for now). This is very distinct from saying homosexuality is genetic - it could be prenatal, it could be developmental, it could be genetic.

Studies pioneered by Blanchard and Klassen seem to indicate that there is a strong correlation (in men at least) between birth order and homosexuality. As well, numerous physiological differences have been noted between gays and straights (including, most interestingly, in the reaction to human body odors).

Here are some links:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16137255
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11545724
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883379
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16705035
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10743878

As well, analytics can be used:

1. It would not be rational for any agent to "choose" to be gay. Gay individuals seem to have a tougher time with life, and there do not appear to be many benefits that would outweigh the discrimination, depression, and suicidality that would follow.

2. The presence of same-sex sexual behaviours in animals strongly suggests that homosexuality is also present in humans. If you don't believe in biology, you may not consider this to be a good argument.

3. Very few heterosexuals appear to report ever "choosing" to be straight at any point in their lives. In fact, if human sexual attraction could be changed at will, it seems like many would take advantage of that. Furthermore, it would contradict established knowledge about evolutionary fitness (which again, if you don't believe in biology, may not be convincing)

4. So-called "repairative therapies" would prove to be more effective. Their failure rate would seem to suggest human sexuality is not nearly as malleable as some believe.

5. I have anecdotal experiences to suggest the nonmalleability of sexuality, though I realise these are useless for you.

Quote:Of course that means nothing to you since I have just temporarily derailed this topic into theology.

Indeed.

Quote:Liberty is meaningless when a God says that sex is only between married a couple, which has one male and one female. Of course that depends on whether He exists or not.

You can accept this argument, of course, but it logically leads to the desturction of democracy and to a theocratic regieme. In fact, the Islamists in the middle east use this argument to effect: why is there a need for freedom of speech or freedom of religion or democracy or voting when all of the answers lie in the Koran? Why is any debate needed at all when all debates are resolved by a quick look at the Literal Word of God(tm)?

If you wish, you can say that liberty is not to be valued, and I'll accept it axiomatically, but I'd rather you say the words "Liberty is not to be valued above religion.", since I don't want to misinterpret your position on this issue - accusing someone of not valuing liberty is quite harsh in this country, and so I'd rather you say it than me :)

If you aren't prepared to say that, then you need to address the liberty argument.

Quote:Whether it 'infringes' on the rights of anyone has no influence on whether God approves or disproves on homosexual actions.

You misunderstand. My own arguments were not intended to be linked in the manner you ar elinking them (ie my 3 is not a response to your 3).

Whether God approves or disapproves is not relevant, until you can establish God.

Quote:You challenged only the first 3 points so I'm not sure whether you gave this point to refute my point four or not.

I did not. In fact, I did not give any of my enumerated points to challenge yours, but rather as other arguments that you need to face.

Quote:Meaning? I don't want to misinterpret your meaning.

Essentially, "homosexuality" referred to pederasty, not to relations between consenting adults.

Quote:So what 'abomination' was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for?

Cruelty, lack of hospitality, bloodshed, etc,. In fact, popular Jewish interpretation seems to be rather closely linked to an overemphasis on the part of the Sodomites to property, which extinguished their compassion.

This interpretation would appear to conform far more to the "elevator speech" version of the teachings of Christ (Be kind to people, love thy neighbour, etc,.) since it directly relates to the ability of people to feel compassion and aleviate the suffering of others. Emphasising sexual practices appears to contradict those teachings, since it castigates people for a behaviour that harms no one.

Quote:Fine fine, the homosexual lifestyle, as in the act of exchanging homosexual intercourse.

Same-sex sex is not particularly different from differed-sex sex. Certain sexual practices, regardless of the participants, are riskier than others, but it has little to do with gender and a lot to do with common sense.

Furthermore, it isn't a good argument anyway: the government doesn't exist to completely nanny us. Things would be a lot safer if the government forced everyone to work out/eat right/not do risky things (like go skydiving or eating a rare steak or whatever). Why single out homosexuality? Why are you not at the forefront of the fight to establish the Department of Wellness, whereby every American who doesn't get 3 cups of vegetables a day is put in prison?

Even if we ignore that, it still isn't a good argument: it is like arguing against interracial marriage because of the lower level of human development in many African American communities. That would be racist, obviously, and completely without merit. Why single out gay couples but not black couples?

You seem to have wanted me to challenge your points directly, rather than merely ask you to justify them. Thus, I will do so now:

Quote:1. God exists.

0 (yes, this is the zeroth argument). First of all, there is no evidence to support this proposition, and thus it falls on that basis alone.

An argument that God needed to be the "first cause" falls into a regression issue, whereby the postulate "Everything needs a first cause" would necessitate the existence of an infinite number of Gods. If we accept infinity, however, then we can accept infinity as an explanation for existence.

An argument that relies on the order of the universe suffers from a bias: because we are the products of that order, we will automatically assume that order to be "good", whereas products of a different order would assume a different order to be good. As well, if we accept the postulate "Things that work work, and things that don't don't", then eventually (by much the same mechanism as natural selection) the universe would eventually give rise to life.

These are the two largest ones that would be given to support the general idea of God. Here are arguments that would oppose it:

1. The problem of evil.
A. Oh, but free will! - 1. Free will likely does not exist in the way that it commonly conceived (since desires are out of our control, and desires dictate our actions), 2. Free will may not be moral, 3. Free will does not affect whether things like hurricanes occur, 4. Free will contradicts omniscience.

2. The disparity between all of the religions of the world is striking. God seems to be toying with us. This is fine if you drop omnibenevolence.

3. Naturalistic explanations appear to cover the development of the various religions of the world.

4. A silly argument, but for someone who believes that God is extralogical, it works: Can God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it? This is fine if you are remotely logical (answer: "no.")

5. A perfect being has no reason to ever act at all, for it no longer differentiates thought and reality. This is fine if you are a Hindu.

All of these are independent reasons to declare "1. God exists" to be false.

Quote:2. If God doesn't like something, then we shouldn't like it, either.

1. Moral realism is absurd. It puts forth the existence of a magical property of the universe, "morality", that appears to be entirely unexplainable. What does it mean for a thing to be "bad"? To say "It means God will punish you" appears no better than to say "It is good for you to give me your money, because otherwise I'll punch your face in".

1b. Moral realism is absurd. Nobody appears to be able to at all prove that their morality is correct (I cannot go up to you and, on a chalkboard, prove that you should donate to charity), and thus there is no reason to affirm an independent morality. Indeed, the numerous separate moralities appear to call into question a god-given one, especially since these separate moralities appear to be explainable by historical circumstance.

2. Even assuming the magical "morality", there remains no reason for me to affirm: it would require me to value the moral judgment "You ought to do what God wills", but if I don't already value that, then it has no weight.

3. Morality itself appears to *operate* as a set of prohibitions and encouragement that (on an individual level) encourages/prohibits certain behaviour and (on a society-wide level) helps to shape that society. It does not appear to act as though morality is "objective", but rather merely a reaction to ones environment. (In fact, a great portion of the Bible can be explained through this)

4. Assuming certain moral statements (for instance, "Women are morally equal to men", "We should live in a secular society"), the literal Bible contradicts these, and thus a proof by contradiction dispels the notion that we ought to do what God says.

Once again, these are all independent reasons to negate (even 1b).

Quote:3. God doesn't like homosexuality.

I'll wait for the resolution of the above-arguments before moving onto this one, except to say that the inconsistent revelation to the various world religions seems to indicate that, at the VERY BEST, God is completely unknowable, and thus we can't tell whether he likes or dislikes homosexuality (this, of course, is another independent reason to negate)

i'm not going to get into all this existence of god stuff, but in reply to AP930: i believe in god and that god does not approve of sin, but nothing i know about god and my faith makes me think that homosexuality is a sin. so what's the basis for that?

Quote:First of all, my apologies in advance if I come across as a little rude. I don't mean to - I just hang around people who debate in this manner. Just ignore it, since I don't mean anything by it :)

It's fine. Our views may differ but we can enjoy this discussion nevertheless! ^^
Quote:
Well, the one that I was referring to (since this is a thread about gay marriage) in my cities example was the whole debacle of Sodom and Gomorrah. The conservative Christian view is that the cities were destroyed because of their sexual sins. The Jewish view is that they were destroyed because of their inhospitality. In either case, the destruction of cities for *any* reason is typically regarded as a major human rights atrocity, especially if they are destroyed due to religious nonconformance. As well, turning people into salt is just silly (though a common theme in ancient stories), and is suggestive of senseless cruelty. As well, killing gays is typically considered a human rights atrocity.

1. Traditional Jewish views have been that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, inhospitality is not the sole reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Quote:They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. -Genesis 19:5-6

This follows with other Hebrew verses such as:

Quote:Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev. 18:22)

Quote:They also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. (1 Kings 14:23-24)

This verse collaborates with one of the reasons for the Canaan conquest which was to purge the detestable Canaan practices from the land. One prominent activity Canaanites engaged was homosexual intercourse.

Quote:
A quick google also provides:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

From my experience skepticsannotatedbible.com takes verses out of context or usually deserves a "so what" answer. If you have any specific ones I'll try to answer them.

Quote:In fact, the section that the above website has on science is rather amusing: Earth resting on pillars (Job 9:6), the sun revolving around the Earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5), the Earth being flat (Daniel 4:10-11), and other assorted silliness.

As a work of literature, the Bible also contains figurative language.

Job 9:6, the pillars are figurative. Figurative language is not limited exclusively to Shakespeare.

Ecclesiastes 1:5, common phrases like these we use even today. This is another example of figurative language.

Daniel 4:10-11, this was a supernatural event, just like Jesus' Coming and his temptation on the mountain.

On the other hand, while not a science textbook, the Bible is scientifically sound:

1. As the Bible suggests, Arabs and Israelites are genetically related (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm)
2. Quote:Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance? (Isaiah 40:12)
This passage supports isostasy, a relatively new study.
3. Quote:As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish (Isaiah 55:10)
The Hebrew writer of 700 B.C. successfully predicted that the water of the earth replenishes the water in the air, in agreement with hydrology.
4. Quote:When He imparted weight to the wind
And meted out the waters by measure (Job 28:25)

5. Quote:Have you entered into the springs of the sea
Or walked in the recesses of the deep? (Job 38:16)
There are springs in the sea indeed.

Now I hope you don't ignore these verses that are complemented by science just because they lack scientific terms. Examining the ANE words, they did not have words such as 'mammal', 'cell', 'isostasy', etc.

Quote:I am an error theorist/emotivist, and thus do not believe that moral propositions correspond to realities about the universe, but rather instead reflect subjective emotional states.

So your moral view is subjective too? If so, in what sense?

Quote:I should also note that I am not judging the "Christian faith", but rather your specific flavour of Christianity. You do not speak for all Christians, but rather for yourself.

Hopefully I speak as accurately according to the Bible as possible. However, I will not say that I never err.

Quote:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Quote:
No contextual examination is necessary, for if the Bible is the LITERAL truth of God, then "contextual examination" requires interpretation[i] rather than [i]parsing. If you don't hold the Bible as the literal truth of God, then the Bible becomes meaningless as a source of anything and all of your religious arguments immediately fail (which is fine for me, but it would seem unwise to take that position). I don't envy your challenge - you need to defend such absurdities as the death of nonbelievers, prohibitions against shrimp, a flat Earth, etc,. since if those arne't all literally true, then we have no evidence that ANYTHING in the Bible is true, and it all falls to "interpretation"....indeed, the areas regarding sexuality would similarly fall.

Context is very important. Jesus himself did not uphold a solely literal interpretation if you recall. Please give me specific examples with specific references.

By context this is what I mean:
1. Literary context
Psalm 14:1
Quote:"There is no God"
Wow, the Bible is debunked by itself. But wait, if we examine the verse in context it actually says
Quote:The fool says in his heart, "There is no God"
Therefore, it becomes necessary not to isolate verses and pull them out of context to support ANYTHING, whether it is debunking Christianity or promoting a doctrine.

2. Historical context
Many skeptics are appalled at the conquest of Canaan but they neglect to analyze the historical context that
a. Certain Canaanite tribes had attacked Israel
b. Canaanites were not 'innocents murdered by war-mongering Jews'.

I never said that the punishment for nonbelievers and prohibitions against shrimp weren't literal. In fact I hold the opposite.

Just because some parts of Scripture are not taken literally or in a physical sense (Ie. Jesus says to eat the flesh of the Son of Man) does not result that everything in the Bible is therefore subject to interpretation.

Remember that the Bible does not use solely technical words:
Quote:All the kings of the earth sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.

Does that mean even the kings from the Asia and every single ancient culture came? No. The Bible is not a dry report meant to be read only in a literal sense. If you think that because in this case "All the kings of the earth" was not a literal reading and therefore, "Punish adultery" is also not a literal statement, then you are very mistaken.

No, the command to put to death "a man who lies with another man" was literal indeed. So were the commands against adultery.

Quote:You can accept this argument, of course, but it logically leads to the desturction of democracy and to a theocratic regieme. In fact, the Islamists in the middle east use this argument to effect: why is there a need for freedom of speech or freedom of religion or democracy or voting when all of the answers lie in the Koran? Why is any debate needed at all when all debates are resolved by a quick look at the Literal Word of God(tm)?

If you wish, you can say that liberty is not to be valued, and I'll accept it axiomatically, but I'd rather you say the words "Liberty is not to be valued above religion.", since I don't want to misinterpret your position on this issue - accusing someone of not valuing liberty is quite harsh in this country, and so I'd rather you say it than me

This calls for some theology again. God has allowed people to create their own governments to govern themselves. Of course, these man-made governments are imperfect. The only perfect government would be when Jesus Himself reigns physically.

So is your argument still saying that if God [assuming that he exists] said that committing homosexual actions is wrong, then liberty nullifies God's commands?

I'll add more later if you don't think this adequately explains it.

Sorry, I'm out of time. I've got homework and a test tomorrow. Chances look like I won't be able to respond Wednesday or Thursday but it's not impossible. I'll do my best to get back as soon as possible.

Have a good week!

Quote:1. Traditional Jewish views have been that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, inhospitality is not the sole reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Traditional Abrahamic views are inclined toward such, yes. Traditional views also held that women are unequal and thus deserve unequal political rights.

Times change, and so has Judaism.

Quote:From my experience skepticsannotatedbible.com takes verses out of context or usually deserves a "so what" answer. If you have any specific ones I'll try to answer them.

Actually, I'm more interested in your defence of the destruction of cities.

Quote:As a work of literature, the Bible also contains figurative language.

Your case dissolves right here. If the Bible contains figurative language, then I can use language to attach any meaning I wish to any section of the Bible. Thus, I'll choose to attach the interpretation "All references to same-sex relations in the Bible are intended to figuratively portray a situation where the traditional order has been turned upside down, and are not meant to be taken literally". I could make a Marxist interpretation, a feminist interpretation, a conservative interpretation....Once we get into interpretive readings, we can make the Bible say anything we want it to.

If the Bible itself is not literally true, then you have no basis whatsoever on which to ground any challenge of this interpretation.

Thus, you lose arguments 2 and 3 if the bible contains "figurative language". All your warrants for Argument 1 disappear as well, meaning that your conclusion is wholly unsupported.

Quote:Figurative language is not limited exclusively to Shakespeare.

And even with Shakespeare everyone who reads Hamlet or other great works takes away a different impression of what really happened. The situation is infinitely worse, however, when one begins to claim that Hamlet is true.

Quote:So your moral view is subjective too? If so, in what sense?

Well, obviously it is since we seem to have come to different conclusions about morality.

Quote:Context is very important. Jesus himself did not uphold a solely literal interpretation if you recall. Please give me specific examples with specific references.

Heh, I'm not about to defend the idea that the Bible ought to be taken literally, especially since your interpretation of the Bible completely destroys your argument.

Quote:Just because some parts of Scripture are not taken literally or in a physical sense (Ie. Jesus says to eat the flesh of the Son of Man) does not result that everything in the Bible is therefore subject to interpretation.

Of course it does. What gets to decide which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted and which are to be taken literally? The Bible certainly can't help us in this process, because it isn't 100% literally true: thus, we can't tell whether any part that supports interpretation OR literalism ought to be interpreted or taken literally. Thus, the only "genuine" source of knowledge has come into question.

The only way to resolve the impass is for you to arbitrarily determine which parts are to be taken literally and which parts are not. Once you do that, though, the Bible becomes a reflection of YOU, rather than a reflection of the reality of the universe.

Quote:So is your argument still saying that if God [assuming that he exists] said that committing homosexual actions is wrong, then liberty nullifies God's commands?

I don't need to make any further arguments now. By accepting non-literalism, you've destroyed the Bible as a source of any objective knowledge whatsoever. It becomes a tool for personal reflection rather than a tool to explain the universe. Only you get to decide which areas to interpret literally and which areas to interpret figuratively, and so unless you want to make the argument that *you* are Jesus himself, it is meaningless in any debate.

I mean, your language betrays this rather large feat of cognitive dissonance. You say "Traditional Jewish views are X, therefore hospitality *is not* the sole reason blah blah" - but if that whole story is meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally (which is what Jews do), then you have no basis whatsoever for making such a sweeping, categorical statement of truth. Hell, by your own position, it isn't even truth-apt! If YOU get to decide that the part regarding homosexuality is literal, but the part regarding the Earth being flat is figurative, the part regarding the water cycle is literal but the part regarding heliocenterism is figurative, then you are doing nothing but picking and choosing what you want to believe. "Anything that contradicts anything I want to be true is figurative, and so no contradiction exists, but anything that confirms what I want to be true is literal."

That isn't particularly intellectually honest in the slightest. At least most conservative Christians are willing to accept the consequences of their beliefs, and so they affirm the Bible in its entirety for if even 1 part is left to interpretation, it becomes wholly impossible to tell whether other parts do or do not. They recognise this, and so they stick by their faith.

You are little better than the liberal who uses the Bible to justify their system of beliefs. They simply reverse what you've done: for you, parts that talk about X are literal, and Y are figurative. They just take Y to be literal and X to be figurative.