In Romans 1 and temple prostitutes I addressed the myth that the homosexual sins mentioned in Romans 1 were really just about temple prostitutes.
Another argument pro-gay theologians try to use against the clear and emphatic teaching of Romans 1 is that it is only sinful when people act outside their sexual desires. That is, if you have heterosexual desires but go and deliberately have homosexual sex then you are sinning. If you have homosexual desires with homosexual sex that is OK. But if you have homosexual desires and have heterosexual sex then that is a sin.
As you might have guessed, that is a poor argument.
Who has consensual sex with someone without the desire for it? For men, it would be virtually impossible from a physical standpoint. Some think that prostitutes don’t have the desire, but that view was debunked in the link above and Romans 1 makes it clear that both parties are fully responsible and are sinning.
And if everyone just follows their natural desires when it comes to sex, to whom is Paul speaking? There would be no one to talk to! And wouldn’t anyone charged with this sin just claim to be bisexual?
And the born that way argument is irrelevant. Even if it were true, predispositions don’t excuse behavior. And this view would assume that the Holy Spirit wasn’t aware of this alleged genetic link.
The main problem for the pro-gay theologians is that the original Greek says that they abandoned their natural functions, not their natural desires. Romans 1 mentions three times that “God gave them over . . .” He gave them over to these desires. They burned in desire for one another, so they weren’t acting outside their desires. But they weren’t using their natural functions. Read this carefully:
Romans 1:26-27 (NASB95) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Some people try to say that function is synonymous with desire, and that the gays “function” as gays so they are doing what comes naturally. But this view requires that you ignore the plain meaning of function plus the part of v. 27 that says “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another . . .”
There is no way around this. No matter how hard people try to twist it, this passage is about people abandoning the opposite sex for same-sex partners. It is very tightly and clearly written – almost as if God anticipated all the arguments that would be brought against this passage today.
Homosexual behavior is rebellion against God. Heterosexuals who help rationalize this behavior (and any other sins) join in the sin.
Romans 1:32 (NASB95) and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
God’s way is the best way. I plead with anyone involved with this to trust Jesus to help you overcome your false beliefs.
Does that mean heterosexuals should grandstand on this sin because it isn’t a temptation for them? Of course not. We should defend the truth of the Bible against false teachers, but we should also teach that all sexual sin is sin, and that we are all sinners in need of a Savior.
Also see Romans 1 and homosexuality and Paul, Romans and Homosexuality by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.
Filed under: Bible, Christian worldview, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, gay, God, homosexual, homosexuality, Jesus, Politics, religion, romans 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Does your god punish animals for abandoning their “natural functions”?
Are you arguing, Havok, that, because homosexual behavior has been observed in some species, the behavior is morally permissible for us?
Shall I remind you that, in some species, the mother eats her own offspring, or would you like to argue that filial offspring is morally permissible?
Christianity rejects both the hedonist who believes that the universe is wholly good and the gnostic who believes the universe is evil: we believe the universe was created good but is now fallen. Therefore, we see in the animal kingdom behavior that mimics what is virtuous for us humans and behvaior that mimics what is not — e.g., symbiosis and parasitism.
For that reason, the existence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom isn’t an indication that the behavior is morally permissible for us.
And we don’t believe that God condemns animals for such behavior — or for things like parasitism or filial cannibalism — because moral culpability requires something we like to call free will.
I will reiterate that free will is one of those things for which atheists cannot provide a plausible explanation. Taken to its logical conclusion, atheism means that we cannot criticize homosexual behavior because that behavior is not freely chosen and — note this well — it also means that we can’t criticize criticism of homosexual behavior because that criticism wasn’t freely chosen, either.
(I meant “filial cannibalism” when I wrote “filial offspring,” above.)
I know you were being silly, but you’d be surprised at how many people actually use the “but some animals have homosexual sex” argument. How desparate is that?
A male dog may hump a female dog, a male dog, your leg, your coffee table, etc. If someone wants to say that is “natural” so it must be OK then good luck with that.
I have yet to see proof of a genetic component to the behavior, but it they find one perhaps they can fix it. Or more likely, it will be aborted out of existence in prenatal testing. I think that would be bad, though (abortion is immoral).
Bubba, not once did I bring morals or ethics into the picture. Neil wrote that homosexuality is a sin. I simply asked if the animals get punished.
Bubba said: I will reiterate that free will is one of those things for which atheists cannot provide a plausible explanation.
Because a simple statement – “I don’t beleive in god(s)” cannot be extended into all sorts of other areas, suddenly your god is the one and only?
Besides, scientific progress is being made into the nature of consciousness and freewill.
Havok, you’ll have to check with God. The Bible only speaks of humans being able to sin. Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a serious question.
Re. “scientific progress” – of course, you already know the answer if you are an atheist. There can be no such thing as “morality” because it is immaterial and materialism can’t provide a foundation for it.
Havok, I answered whether animals are condemned for their behavior — generally Christians answer in the negative, primarily because we believe animals do not have free will — but I went further than that to preempt the common argument that we can deduce what’s moral from what’s observed in the animal kingdom.
I have literally no idea what you meant by this question:
Because a simple statement – “I don’t beleive in god(s)” cannot be extended into all sorts of other areas, suddenly your god is the one and only?
And I disagree that science is making progress in exploring the nature of free will. If human beings truly have free will — and I believe we do — that freedom must logically be at least partially independent from the physical universe. Otherwise, all our thoughts and behavior can ultimately be attributed either to determinism or randomness, and neither allows for free will.
Rather, what some scientists are doing — and to do this, they must make metaphysical assumptions that are outside the realm of science — is trying to disprove free will as some sort of an illusion. But in trying to reject our (at least partial) independence from the material universe, they are undercutting the very foundation of both free will and human rationality; they are thereby cutting at the branch that supports their own ability to engage in science.
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT REGARDING FREE WILL
Imagine that you’re creating a computer-based role-playing game, that Heroes are controlled by human players, that Orcs are creatures that cannot controlled by the player, and you’re creating the rules for how an Orc behaves.
Those rules could be a deterministic decision tree…
IF the Hero is within 3 feet, swing the axe; ELSE, don’t.
…or they could be the result of a random dice roll (or a pseudo-random simulation of a dice roll):
Roll a d20; IF the result is at least 11, swing the axe.
You could make it as simple or as complex as you want. If you made it complex enough, your Orc might be able to pass (or approach passing) the Turing test and trick your human players into thinking that it is also controlled by a human. But no matter how complex the rules are, the Orc can NEVER escape those rules. His behavior is always dictated by a decision tree or a dice roll or some complex combination of both.
The Orc does not have free will.
In the context of the game, the Hero does have free will. That free will isn’t unlimited, as it can be constrained by rules both deterministic…
NO Hero can move run than 20 hex spaces in a single turn.
…and random:
IF a Hero swings his sword, roll a d20, and if the result is greater than 4, the sword hits.
But the Hero is free in precisely the degree to which his behavior can be influenced by a source external to the game and all its decision trees and dice rolls — such as a human at his computer.
Now, a clever programmer might create a script to simulate human input, and that simulation wouldn’t have true free will in the context of the real universe, but it would have free will in the context of the RPG, so long as it was providing input to a Hero’s behavior, so that the Hero’s behavior wasn’t wholly caused by in-game elements of deterministic decision trees and random dice rolls.
–
Now, step back from the virtual context of the RPG to the real context of our universe. Move your focus from the Orc you created to the actual human playing as the Hero.
Does this human have free will? Well, what can be said about the Orc can be said about the human: if the human’s behavior is wholly attributible to deterministic and/or random forces from within this physical universe, he doesn’t have free will. What guides his behavior is certainly different than the decision trees and dice rolls that guide the Orc, and they may even be more complex, but that difference and complexity is not enough to change the fundamental point: only true independence from the universe allows for free will.
This independence is what the materialist denies and what the atheist often denies and can never explain.
For their to be human rationality, freedom, and morality, we must be at least partially independent from the physical universe. Put another way, our respective minds, wills, and souls must be transcendent.
And transcendence is something atheists can’t explain.
Nice straw man Bubba.
Transcendence is not something that “atheists” have to explain.
You’re postulating the existence of a transcendent soul. Any evidence there?
I mean it has to interact with the physical universe to influence our brains, to cause us to act, think etc. Surely we can measure that influence. Haven’t seen anything like that yet? Didn’t think so.
Oh, and btw, atheism is simply “I don’t believe in god(s)”. That doesn’t mean that atheism = materialism, or anything else for that matter.
It’s not a world view, it’s simply not believing in a god or gods. There is no reason implied as to the cause of that disbelief.
You don’t believe in the Norse pantheon of gods (I assume, else you’re a very strange christian indeed), so to those gods, you’re atheistic.
Welcome to the club!
What I find most interesting is that Paul didn’t have to say anything. He couldn’t just ignored the problem. After all, didn’t Jesus say to love one’s neighbor and pray for our enemies?
The fact that Paul goes out of his way to make a point gives more credibility to the Gospel. Some things are just wrong and Christians cannot turn the other cheek. At least, philosophically and theologically speaking, we must protest. We can’t please everybody. And no, we are not saying we are perfect. We’re sinners too. We just don’t excuse our sins. We confront them and ask for forgiveness.
It’s a sign of a person’s spiritual poverty when they hold up animals as models for behavior or passive-aggressive arguments against the doctrine of sin.
Pathetic.
I don’t want to side track the discussion too much, but it seems as though Havok just said that atheism is not a world view?
I have yet to see proof of a genetic component to the behavior, but it they find one perhaps they can fix it.
How very condescending, arrogant, not to mention, homophobic. Neil it’s entirely possible one of your children/grandchildren may be gay, what will you do then?
Neil said: Gary, thanks for seeking clarification. My apologies if my tongue in cheek comment didn’t come across properly. I’m against eugenics and have clearly stated that I am against all abortions (other than to save the mother’s life). I just know how the human mind works.
People abort for all kinds of reasons. One lady just had a late term abortion because her child was a dwarf. Man, I bet short people get nervous around that lady! 90+% of gender selection abortions are done to girls. ~90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted.
Do you seriously think that if heterosexual parents were told that their unborn child had predispositions to be gay that they wouldn’t abort? We wouldn’t have, though.
If any friend or relative chose to participate in gay behavior I would still love them. I would not encourage it, though, because it is spiritually, emotionally and physically destructive.
And what exactly are you trying to fix? Surely, you only need to fix something when it’s broken – gay people aren’t broken Neil, they’re human beings just like us.
Neil said: Yes, they are human beings worthy of love and acceptance. But it couldn’t be more obvious that the behavior is unnatural (regardless of silly arguments about gay animals). So in a Margaret Sanger / Darwinian worldview then of course one would want to fix it.
And the “born that way” argument is irrelevant. Even if it were true, predispositions don’t excuse behavior. Really?? This is interesting… so Neil, when exaclty did you decide you were hetrosexual?
Neil said: Ever since I was little I have liked girls. Then again, I am fortunate to say that I had good parents who let me be who I am, I wasn’t sexually abused, etc.
But do you think that gives me a blank check to do any sort of heterosexual activity? Heterosexual adultery and lust are still wrong for me. Sin has consequences.
Duane, if you’re a christian, you’re an atheist with respect to Thor. I guess both of us being atheists, we must have the same world view, huh?
Neil said: If any friend or relative chose to participate in gay behavior I would still love them. I would not encourage it, though, because it is spiritually, emotionally and physically destructive.
Please tell me demostrate how it is destructive?
That would be two same sex people having a consenting sexual relationship with each other.
Neil said: Why just two? Are you bigoted against polyamory? Why just people? What do you have against bestiality? Why consenting? Seems to me that there is a lack of consent in the animal kingdom at times, so by your logic that must be ok.
Lets leave out the spiritually damaging part, because then you’d have to show that spirits/souls/your god etc exist before you could show that damage.
Neil said: I don’t have to leave that out. This post is about a passage of the Bible, so I won’t apologize for making spiritual claims. Shaking your fist at God has serioius consequences.
Also, lets leave out any social stigma, as that’s generally the result of bigots.
Neil said: Ooh, nice straw man / ad hom combo! Bonus points for that. Because you’d never want any social stigma for what goes on in gay pride parades, bath houses, etc.
How is it physically or emotionally damaging neil?
Neil said: AIDS (Oh, wait, AIDS isn’t a gay disease . . . unless you don’t support even more disproportionate funding for it, in which case you are a homophobe). Go here for more, but be warned – it is pretty gross – http://americansfortruth.com/news/truly-scaaary-%e2%80%98gay%e2%80%99-health-quotes-2nd-annual-halloween-edition.html
Do some research on the rates of drug use, alcoholism, abuse, etc. in the gay community. And you can’t blame the social stigma, because it is far more acceptable in the MSM to be gay than Christian. And I haven’t started reaching for the bottle.
Neil said: Yes, they are human beings worthy of love and acceptance. But it couldn’t be more obvious that the behavior is unnatural (regardless of silly arguments about gay animals). So in a Margaret Sanger / Darwinian worldview then of course one would want to fix it.
How is the argument that animals display gay behaviour silly in this context? Seeing that animals display gay behaviour means it is entirely natural. Since it appears in a large number of animals, including us, I guess we can discount a darwinian viewpoint wanting to “fix” it.
Neil said: Yes, and eating your children, killing your rivals, etc. are all natural. We wouldn’t want to prevent those behaviors.
Neil said: Neil said: Ever since I was little I have liked girls. Then again, I am fortunate to say that I had good parents who let me be who I am, I wasn’t sexually abused, etc.
And what about the women who say the same thing as you? Or the boys who have always liked boys?
Neil said: You missed my point. Just because they have desires doesn’t mean they should act on them. And if they have those desires because of abuse and/or bad relationships, they need and deserve help.
P.S. I’ll also accept comments that are on the topic of the proper interpetation of this passage (hint, hint). I realize that atheists don’t care about Romans 1. My issue is with Christians who don’t follow it.
P.S.S. My apologies for the sarcasm – I really shouldn’t blog in the morning.
I am not sure this is the best place for this comment, but here it is.
I have been watching the discussion for the last couple of weeks, but I have been working long hours and the discussion seems to just make me tired.
I think some people have things wrong. It is not up to Christians to prove anything nor are they responsible for anyone’s salvation. We are only called to be sure that people know the story, what they do with it is up to them. We try to convert people because we are filled with the love of the Holy Spirit and we want others to find the same thing. Sometimes we get frustrated and sometimes we get carried away.
I started teaching the High School Sunday School class when my oldest son was in it. So I teach kids that I have known all their lives. I took my turn in the church nursery when they were little, I have watched their sports events, school plays and band concerts. I love these kids and I know they are at or are appoaching a time in their lives when they have lots of questions. I encourage tough questions because I think our faith can deal with them and it would not be worth much it could not.
I came to God through faith, but I wanted to prove to my students that I was right. I looked at a lot of convincing evidence that I was firmly convinced was proof.
But what I have learned is that if you go searching for proof of God’s existence you will never find it. That is not an accident, if the clouds spelled out “created by God” every morning or we each had a birth mark saying “Made in Heaven, Patent Pending” it would wreak havoc with free will.
You need to go searching for God. If you search for God sincerely, with an open mind, you will find him. And when you find him he will provide the proof you need. If you think you have found God and get no proof, then keep looking. When you find him you will know him beyond a doubt.
If I could just add to the animal arguments for just a second,
That some animals may engage in apparently same-sex behavior does not indicate that it is natural. What they do with specific body parts does. If the a being is using a body part for purposes outside its design, that could be said to be unnatural. The parts in question are for procreation, thus, an animal or human using those parts for other purposes is engaging in unnatural acts. I submit that, because of the above, sex for pleasure is an unnatural act as well, but is allowed by God in the context of a traditional marriage.
It can also be said that the homosexual behavior is deviant, as it deviates from the norm, or perverted, as it perverts the function of the aforementioned body parts.
I have heard that there are farmers who have found a way to lessen the chances of their sheep ‘being gay” through some sort of biological manipulation. I don’t recall the details, but the “gay community” is alarmed by this as it might lead to the same “corrections” in humans.
Havok asked about the harm such behavior would cause. I’ve heard it said that homosexual behavior is ideal for the spread of disease and again, the misuse of certain body parts causes damage to the body. Many of the sexual practices of homosexuals are used in hetero situations, but the incidents of diseasee and physical damage, as a percentage of the population, indicates that the standard methods of sexual interaction amongst homosexuals is indeed harmful. That is, the primary sexual practices of homosexuality are harmful right from square one, whereas this is not so within the hetero world.
As to the Romans exerpts, Neil, I don’t know that anything can be added to your already clear analysis. I’ve seen the same arguments countered in the same way many times before that I’m surprised they are still being put forth.
One thing about Romans 1 that I never want to miss, is that it is a beautiful chapter telling me about God, how transcendent He is, and how we should worship Him, the Creator, not anything in this creation.
Another thing about it, is that it doesn’t quite end at the end of the chapter. Remember those Chapter and Verse delimiters were added by his Grace, Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury in the early 1200’s, not Paul when he wrote it.
The end of our chapter 1, flows into chapter 2. (yes I know it continues to flow, but there has to be a stop somewhere)
“They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”
Amen, the word of the Lord.
Neil, May I add,, Homosexuality isa direct violation of the ten Commandments,specifically, “You shall not have any other Gods before me” and “You shall not make any graven image…”
To make the assertion that God was wrong or mistaken when He said Homosexuality is an abomination, is to put oneself on at least an equal level with God.
Likewise, the practice of Homosexuality is in itself a sort of God to those who practice it. I have never met a homosexual who wasn’t obsessed with sex. To the homosexual, sex is God.
One last thought, for those who insist that ay relationships are simply an alternative expression of love, remember this:
God is Love,but Love is not God.
Neil said:Ever since I was little I have liked girls. Yes, Neil, and every gay person will say they have liked a guy/girl since they were little – but what exactly is your point?
Neil said: If you re-read my original comment, you’ll see what I meant: “Ever since I was little I have liked girls. Then again, I am fortunate to say that I had good parents who let me be who I am, I wasn’t sexually abused, etc.
But do you think that gives me a blank check to do any sort of heterosexual activity? Heterosexual adultery and lust are still wrong for me. Sin has consequences.”
Natural does not equal moral. In fact, what comes naturally to us is often quite immoral.
Havok, I concede that atheism doesn’t necessarily entail materialism, but I don’t believe atheism can offer any explanation for anything that transcends the material universe.
For what it’s worth, by asking for evidence of a transcendent soul, you certainly seem to indicate that you are an atheist who denies transcendence, which means that you fit the supposed straw man I’m invoking.
And by asking about scientific measurements of the influence of a transcendent soul on a physical body, you miss the obvious point that such a thing can’t be measured scientifically because the work of science is bound by the physical universe. Nevertheless, I doubt that, in real life, you actually deny your own free will and your own rationality, imperfect as it obviously is.
Speaking of poor logic, this is frankly fatuous:
Duane, if you’re a christian, you’re an atheist with respect to Thor. I guess both of us being atheists, we must have the same world view, huh?
You invoke a key phrase (“with respect to Thor”) only to drop that phrase in your very next sentence. The next sentence wouldn’t make sense with the phrase left in, since a worldview isn’t determined only by belief or unbelief in one deity, but in any deity. And it’s certainly not the case that a Christian is an atheist “with respect to any deity.”
I’m reminded of the argument that goes something like this:
“As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. We’re practically the same.”
The argument is idiotic. In fact, it is so idiotic that Christians rarely form a coherent repsonse to it because it’s rare to confront such astounding stupidity.
Suppose that we’re dealing with the question of, “what number is the sum of 2 + 2?”
Suppose that Jones thinks there is only one answer, and that the answer is 4. Suppose that Smith thinks that there is no answer.
“You deny all answers but one,” says Smith. “I deny all answers, even your answer. We’re really practically the same.”
Smith’s argument is absurd. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you. If you can see that but still condone the exact same approach in comparing monotheism and atheism, then I still can’t help you.
The belief that there is only one anwer to a question of truth is dramatically, emphatically, and clearly different than the belief that there are no answers. The logical and philosophical consequences of the former will bear little resemblance at all to those of the latter.
The gulf between monotheism and atheism is equally wide.
And, if the atheist truly thought any different and wasn’t just trying (and failing, spectacularly) to be clever, he wouldn’t be bothering the monotheists and trying to insist that his beliefs were both different and correct.
“The belief that there is only one anwer to a question of truth is dramatically, emphatically, and clearly different than the belief that there are no answers.”
What atheist is claiming that there are no answers? I think you are confusing atheism with post-modernism.
Leonard, I was using an analogy to address the ridiculous argument that some atheists make that there is a negligible difference between atheism and monotheism. Hence this statement:
“The gulf between monotheism and atheism is equally wide.”
Bubba, your idea of a transcendent soul would actually fall within the realms of scientific investigation, as it would have a definite impact on the physical world, or does your concept of soul not impact your free will?
Science isn’t “bound by the physical universe”, it’s a tool to investigate reality. Our investigations thus far have not shown there is anything outside of the “physical universe”. It’s not a limitation of the scientific process.
The straw man you present was the simplistic argument for transcendence you presented, not that I was a materialist.
I wasn’t painting us both as atheists with respect to norse gods to say we had a lot in common. I was presenting it to show that you cannot say a lot about anything when it comes to disbelief. Neither of us believe in the invisible pink unicorn (I assume), but we don’t refer to ourselves as a-unicornists do we?
Your contrasting “2 + 2 = 4″ with the statement concerning atheism is a strawman.
Given some simple axioms of number theory, the abstract concepts behind the statement “2 + 2 = 4″ can be proven to be true.
If someone was to make Smiths statement, you could work through the proof with them. In the end they’d either have to agree, or not understand the proof. It is logically sound.
Please present your case to prove the God of the christian bible. Take you’re time, you guys have already had 2000 years
Havok, please spare us your well-rehearsed “prove it” sound bites. We’ve provided and linked to reasoning many times, but you play the “but it’s not empirical” game (and haven’t shown empirically why the evidence must be empirical). But thanks for the material for my upcoming “Poor arguments to use with theists” post.
Nice try wiggling out of Bubba’s comment, but he annihilated your “but we just believe one less God than you” bit.
In my younger years I used to be troubled with the notion of free will. It is a natural question for any thinking person to grapple with. It stopped bothering me when I realized that what we refer to as free will is not a primary attribute of our nature, but a derived one. The primary gift that the Good Lord has chosen to share with us is his ability to create. But in order for us to be able to use this gift, he had to, at the same time, give us the ability “to break the rules”; that is, to have free will.
Perhaps you keep hearing the “prove it” sound bites because the reasoning you present is flawed and unconvincing?
And how exactly did Bubba “demolish” the ““but we just believe one less God than you” bit with his flawed comparison? Sorry if you think that showing the flaws in an argument is “wriggling” out of it.
If you want a link to the proof of “2 + 2 = 4″, I’m sure you can hunt one up for you
Gee, since you said all the arguments are flawed and unconvincing I’ll have to take your word for it. That statement alone effectively dismantles the arguments from cosmology, truth, transcendence, morality and so many others. With logic like that you don’t need empirical proof that our arguments are flawed and unconvincing (even if you could prove with empirical evidence that only empirical evidence is valid).
Yes, he demolished it. He could have used any number of examples besides 2+2=4. Saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite. Saying it is just a little different is an incorrect and meaningless diversion.
Now, if you have something on topic to say, you are more than welcome to stop back.
Here’s a few reasons for the existence of God to chew on for those who are interested – http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/2007/08/21/whygod?blog=5
Neil, I didn’t say there is no god. I said I don’t believe in your god (or any others for that matter).
It’s a little different to how you’re presenting my argument.
I’ll gladly stop posting if you request it
“…the original Greek says that they abandoned their natural functions, not their natural desires. Romans 1 mentions three times that “God gave them over . . .” He gave them over to these desires. They burned in desire for one another, so they weren’t acting outside their desires. But they weren’t using their natural functions.”
My God, Neil, thats revelation…at least to me. After reading that again and looking at the process of arrival, God’s response to them not behaving right sexually was to release them to the desires of the behavior they adopted. Stunning. Of course, that does not mean every person who has struggled with homosexuality.
The progay theopundits teach it the other way around.
That desires come naturally (born gay) thus the behavior.
Okay I must do a post on this!
I think God giving us over to our sins and our natural desires is one of the worst things that could ever happen. I shudder to think about how evil I could be if God had elected to leave me to myself. When we compare our natural selves to that which God wants us to be, the natural, sinful self is so heinous. When we realize that we can’t get ourselves out of the filth and are helpless, is when He can do the most with us.
This verse and the Sheep and Goats parable is so very frightening. Thank God for them! They put me on my knees and make me cling to my hope in Jesus Christ all the more.
Elisa that is deeply frightening to me. To me its like being cast into hell. God turning us over to whatever base desires our flesh craves is a death sentence (unless he has mercy).
These people are completely spiritually blind not to see that.
Thank God that he didnt allow me to fall into my cravings. Not that I even deserved it, but his mercy….
I know. Nothing can compare to it. Awful, awful business.
The sheep and goats parable is one of the key passages that brought me to belief in Christ. Especially when He convicted me that at that time…I was “a goat.” The idea of hell and being apart from Christ is a terror I am so glad I don’t have to face again.
Havok said: “Duane, if you’re a christian, you’re an atheist with respect to Thor. I guess both of us being atheists, we must have the same world view, huh?”
Havok,
With all due respect, you are equivocating. I can’t take that view of atheism seriously.
The article ‘atheism’ in Encyclopaedia Britannica 1:666, 1992, reflecting the usual definition in philosophy, begins:
‘Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.’
It does not simply apply to anything we do not believe, like Thor? That is revisionist.
Atheism is a world view friend.
Duane. From the OED
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
You’re belief in your god means you take the things in the bible seriously. It means you try to live your life by the examples given in that book. There is no “Big book of Atheism” which contains the world-view i need to subscribe to in order to be an atheist.
You’re trying to attribute values to a valueless statement.
Sorry for joining the thread so late, been on the go.
The temple prostitution argument always interested me from the standpoint that in the passages where the argument is used God specifically addressed sex between same sex partners (males). I guess that means if you went to a temple prostitue of the opposite sex it was OK.
As for homosexuality in animals, everything I’ve read on the subject seems to indicate that God would not have to do the punishing since their own species usually deal with the problem.
Ever since I was little I have liked girls. Then again, I am fortunate to say that I had good parents who let me be who I am, I wasn’t sexually abused, etc.
Huh? What does this even mean?
Are you implying gay people are gay because of sexual abuse?
Are you implying gay people are gay because they didn’t have good parents?
Are you implying gay people are gay because their parents didn’t let them be whoever they wanted to be?
Neil, this is quite disturbing to read.
Neil said: I encourage you to do some research, Gary. Relationship issues and sexual abuse are major causes. Even Tammy Bruce, a pro-gay, pro-choice lesbian journalist noted that virtually every one of the thousands of gay people she’s known was abused at some point. Her words, not mine.
Also see narth.org among others.
I’ve met many who fall in these categories and have read of many counselors who validate it.
Do you seriously think that if heterosexual parents were told that their unborn child had predispositions to be gay that they wouldn’t abort?
Why would they abort? They’re having a baby, isn’t that the most important issue?
And until you produce some data for this statement, it remains entirely your opinion. I have a higher opinion of people.
Neil said: Yes, it is my opinion. Again, go do your own queries. People abort because they don’t like the gender, because of Down Syndrome (90%!!!!), inconvenience, etc. If you seriously think many parents wouldn’t abort over a homosexual predisposition I think you are being naive.
I wouldn’t have aborted over that, but then again I think abortions are immoral.
And you know what is really funny (weird funny, not ha-ha funny)? You have the audacity to say that it would be wrong to abort over homosexual predispositions, but you defend abortions for all the other reasons. Please consider the inconsistency. If abortions weren’t immoral for other reasons, why are they wrong in this case? After all, it is the woman’s choice, right?
I wrote more about this dilemma here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/an-ethical-dilemma/
Neil, do you actually know any gay people? Your bias/ignorance on this is astonishing.
Neil said: Yes, I know lots, and we get along great. I don’t try to “fix” them and I don’t try to fix the sins of heterosexual people. I just treat them like I would anyone else and hope I’ll get a chance to share the Gospel with them if they are interested.
But I also don’t encourage people to participate in sinful, destructive behavior. That would be unloving. If heteros asked me if they should have sex outside of marriage I’d discourage them as well.
“I guess that means if you went to a temple prostitue of the opposite sex it was OK.”
Of course not. That must have been a joke. Obviously that would fall under adultery or fornication, both frowned upon.
Actually, Neil, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it is sinful to have sex when:
1) you are doing it for children;
2) you are raped (raping = fine; being raped = sin*); and
3) sexual experimentation.
Rules are put in place so you don’t do whatever you want to do at the moment. Sheesh, people! Three-year-olds grasp this point.
*gotta love liberals
Havok,
If atheism is (according to OED?) “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.”, that’s great! So you agree with me then that atheism is a worldview. If you want to continue equivocating that’s fine. But if you play the definition game, you are building the walls of the paradigm. It’s inescapable. You can deny it until you’re blue or switch back to equivocation. Neither helps you.
But according to you, to be a world view, atheism needs a “book” akin to the Bible? How did you come to that conclusion?
“You’re trying to attribute values to a valueless statement.”
We’re slow in the south. What valueless statement is that?
Duane, snarfed from wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
“it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.”
There is no atheist framework through which to interpret the world. It is a single idea/belief among many, not a system of beliefs on it’s own, such as christianity.
What, so there isn’t a framework for atheism bc you don’t have a book to officially record the ’system’? Come on!
Havok,
I’m confused. I followed most of your comments, but then you said “Neil, I didn’t say there is no god. I said I don’t believe in your god (or any others for that matter).”
You don’t believe in any god, but won’t go as far as to say there is no god? I understand agnosticism and I understand aetheism and I hate to put labels on anything. But I need some help understanding your position.
Havoc,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is an “athiest worldview”, and most Athiests can get pretty dogmatic about it. After I get back I’ll put together a line of thought that seems to pretty well define “systematic athiesm” (for lack of a better term). I was suprised at how much of a “logical framework” there is for Athiesm. (I used quotes, only because it is internally logical, and has intellectual consistancy, within it’s framework). Alistair McGrath does a really nice job of tracing the history.
Duane, I’m not saying atheism is not a world view because it doesn’t have a book. I’m saying it is not a world view because it is not a framework of beliefs.
Randy, there tends to be 2 distinctions of atheist. Strong (denial) and weak (disbelief). A strong atheist would say that no gods exist. A weak atheist would say they don’t beleive in any gods (though leaving the door open for existence).
Craig, looking forward to your write up, though I still can’t see anthing in atheism to attach a logical framework to. Maybe you’re thinking of secular humanism, or something similar?
Havok,
Thanks for explaining the 2 distinctions, I hadn’t heard that before.
Since you believe that God may exist, I assume, you’re just not sure? That sounds scary. What if you’re wrong? If you’re in the camp where you’re sure there’s no God, then that would seem “safer” .
If I may ask another question, what do you believe happens after you die? Do you just simply stop existing? Reincarnation?
And do you make a distinction between God and gods? Do you believe there are no gods at all, or do you just disbelieve in Jehovah (or another name)?
I’m not sure if it was you or someone else who suggested that since I don’t believe in the Norse gods, someone of that faith would call me an aetheist. The implication was I would call them an aetheist. However, that’s not true. I have friends of other religions (e.g. Hindu) and I don’t consider them aetheist.
Randy, I can’t be certain, as it is nigh impossible to disprove any god’s existence. So I err on the side of probability and don’t worry about something that almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Which god should I believe in to be “safer”?
Pascal’s wager (which you’ve repeated here) is no argument for belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager
Most religions punish non-believers. Some sects of Christianity will even send other “Christians” to hell if they’re correct.
Aren’t you worried you chose the wrong God and beliefs? Perhaps the Muslims are correct, or the Hindus.
How did you manage to choose the right god and beliefs, when the majority of humanity has got it so wrong?
I think death is the end. While I can’t prove it to be fact, and an afterlife where you can be reunited with your loved ones is a nice idea, I believe existence simply ending is the most likely result, given what we currently understand about the universe.
Given the OED definition of atheism above, you’re wrong concerning Hindu’s and others not being atheists. The problem is we have another label for them – Hindu (or Muslims, or Thorists etc). Atheism is only really used to describe those who have no god(s), as they don’t have another handy moniker to use. Hindu’s are atheists as regards Yahweh, but we call them Hindu’s because that describes what they are, not what they aren’t.
Havok, I would love to see something resembling a rationale behind some of the things you write.
You write, regarding God, “I err on the side of probability and don’t worry about something that almost certainly doesn’t exist.”
On what basis do you claim that God “almost certainly doesn’t exist”? You exist, and like the rest of us you are capable of rational thought, aware of the moral law, and free to choose to obey that law. None of this can be adequately explained by materialistic naturalism, but the theistic assertion of a supernatural Creator does, in fact, account for existence, reason, morality, and freedom. Despite this, you believe that God “almost certainly” doesn’t exist; you must have a very compelling reason to believe this, and I would love for you to give us that reason.
Likewise, you write, “I believe existence simply ending is the most likely result, given what we currently understand about the universe.”
What fact or facts that we hold as part of our current understanding of the universe logically leads to the conclusion that it is “most likely” that there is nothing beyond death? What is the connection between, say, the number of stars in the sky and the finality of death?
You write as if you’ve done some fairly rigorous thinking to reach conclusions about the probability of certain metaphysical claims. Can you give us any reason to lend any credibility at all to your beliefs that God almost certainly doesn’t exist and that death is most likely final?
In the absence of a persuasive reason to reach those conclusions, it seems to me that your beliefs are simply to be taken on faith.
Just how did you manage to choose the religious beliefs, when the majority of humanity has got it so wrong? The question is at least as valid for the atheist as it is for the Christian: after all, Christians believe that other religions are wrong about theology but largely right about ethics, but the atheist — part of a much smaller minority — must believe that all religious adherents are pretty much absolutely wrong about absolutely everything.
Bubba, Quoting BrianC on another blog:
“I don’t have “beliefs” in the same way that you do. I simply accept the provisional consensus amongst the relevant experts with regard to the major disciplines of cosmology, astronomy, biology, physics, geology and archeology. Practically all of which contradicts the theistic view, and emphatically knocks on the head the semi-literalist position which you represent. This is why 90%+ of the most learned scientists on the planet are atheists, and the other 10% are what you would call wishy washy liberals:-)”
I think that covers the existence of god, and lack of afterlife, though you might want to read “The God Delusion” for more succinct arguments on why God isn’t likely.
Neil said: I deleted that link because of its blasphemy. If anyone wants to find it just Google “silly atheistic straw man arguments.”
That you link to Dawkins as your main source speaks volumes. I imagine that well-reasoned atheists find him to be an embarrassment. Here are a few helpful reviews of his book – http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/book-reviews-of-richard-dawkins-god.html
As for your characterisation that atheists “must believe that all religious adherents are pretty much absolutely wrong about absolutely everything”. You’re continuing to misconstrue what atheism means. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a religious belief. I’ll try again:
atheism “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.”
So, this is exactly the same view you take of other religions and beliefs. It says nothing about morals or ethics, as I’ve tried to explain before.
You don’t believe in the god of Islam, neither do I.
You don’t believe in the god(s) of the Hindus, neither do I.
You don’t believe in the gods of the greeks, neither do I.
You don’t believe in the norse gods, neither do I.
Hindus and Muslims don’t believe in the god of the bible, neither do I.
See, everyone is “atheist” concerning all gods but the one(s) they believe in. It really is simply a matter of going “one god further” than you.
More people disbelieve in any particular god than believe in it. I’m with the majority of people on earth in not believing in your deity.
Neil said: Didn’t we already annihilate that argument on this thread? Saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one, it is the opposite. I’m sure that reasoning gets you virtual high-fives on Dawkins’ site but it proves nothing.
Appeals to “majority rules” mean nothing when it comes to matters of truth. According to your logic, there must be some kind of God, since atheists are such a minority. We are just trying to figure out his exact properties.
No neil, you didn’t “annihilate” that argument. Bubba made a fallacious comparison, which you’ve repeated on another site.
Neil said: Yes, we did. Once again, saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one God. It is the opposite. You try to imply they are just a little different. It is a cute argument, but totally wrong.
“The God Delusion” is not a philosophy book. If it was, member of the general public wouldn’t have understood the arguments. If it caused people to think about their cherished beliefs, and perhaps research further, then I think it had served it purpose.
Stating that “the majority of people believe in God, and you’re just working out the details” is disingenuous.
Neil said: Sigh. It is only disingenuous if you misunderstand my point. That isn’t our argument, Havok. It is the logical consequence of your argument. Your point was that the majority of people don’t agree on precisely what God is, so therefore atheism is true. My point was that with fallacious reasoning like that then there must be a God. After all, the majority of people think there is one.
But that isn’t my argument. I was just pointing out what I saw as the logical flaw of yours.
The different entities which are referred to as “God” by differing religions have vastly different desires, requirements and attributes, sometimes mutually exclusive.
The only thing you have in common is you use the word “God”.
Theology seems to result in a nebulous conception of “God”. A non-interventionist “thing” which is the essence of good and started the whole ball rolling. The whole “First cause” from the cosmological argument, which bears no resemblance to a god of any religion.
Neil said: Agreed. The first cause and other arguments (morality, truth, logic, etc.) show that the evidence strongly points to a God. Step two is the question of if/how that God revealed himself to us. To say that He bears no resemblance to a God of any religion is false.
When there is a lot of evidence which backs up a position – ie. Evolution through natural selection, then following the consensus of experts is reasonable.
In the absence of both evidence and consensus of experts, it is reasonable to not hold any position.
Neil said: Lots of evidence for natural selection? Micro, yes. Macro, no. If macro was true we’d have an endless supply of fossil evidence, among other things. We don’t.
We have no fossil evidence of macro evolution. Reason: It didn’t happen. There is an endless supply of creation occuring just the way the Bible says it does, though. It is amazing and blows me away to see how it all matches up.
Neil said: Your point was that the majority of people don’t agree on precisely what God is, so therefore atheism is true.
No, my argument is that the majority of people don’t agree on what god is so atheism (“I don’t know”) is a reasonable position. I’m not saying there is no possibility of any god existing, we simply have insufficient grounds to believe in any particular one believed currently.
You’re the one misinterpreting that argument.
Neil said: But why would a majority of people have to agree? Christianity specifically says that the majority won’t believe. Once again, the Bible is right.
Neil said: To say that He bears no resemblance to a God of any religion is false.
So, how exactly does the non-interventionist, non-personal “god”, which is the result of much theological thinking resemble the very interventionist and very personal God of Christianity?
Neil said: I thought you were referring the creator God part. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Neil said: Lots of evidence for natural selection? Micro, yes. Macro, no. If macro was true we’d have an endless supply of fossil evidence, among other things. We don’t.
Elisa said: We have no fossil evidence of macro evolution. Reason: It didn’t happen. There is an endless supply of creation occuring just the way the Bible says it does, though. It is amazing and blows me away to see how it all matches up.
Ok, lets go through this again:
- Speciation has been observed
- Many so called “transitional” fossils have been found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Simply ignoring or denying the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
Neil said: That’s funny, because some of your leaders have conceded the fossil issue. Stephen Gould did so. He was the creative one who endorsed the puncuated equilibrium fantasy. Now that was un-scientific.
Neil said: But why would a majority of people have to agree? Christianity specifically says that the majority won’t believe. Once again, the Bible is right.
It would seem many if not most Religions contain these sorts of “immune responses”. It’s probably the best way to ensure the religion is continued. How about I write a book about the invisible pink unicorn, and include the same style of argument? My IPU book is right.
Neil said: Havok, are you misunderstanding on purpose? I’m merely pointing out the logical conclusions to your arguments and how they fail.
Neil said: That’s funny, because some of your leaders have conceded the fossil issue. Stephen Gould did so. He was the creative one who endorsed the puncuated equilibrium fantasy. Now that was un-scientific.
“According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition and a “transitional form” is a recognition of a form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology. It states that most sexually reproducing populations will show little change for most of their geological history, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Doesn’t seem like a “fantasy” to me. It may not fit the data, but it is still science.
Seriously, a very small amount of reading would suffice here Neil.
Neil said: Come on, Havok. There is NO evidence for punctuated equilibrium. It is a desperate “science of the gaps” solution and an embarrassment to your position. Talk about blind faith.
Neil said: Come on, Havok. There is NO evidence for punctuated equilibrium. It is a desperate “science of the gaps” solution and an embarrassment to your position. Talk about blind faith.
And here I thought we were discussing “transitional” fossils. Since you didn’t comment on that part, I take it you now accept that “transitional” fossils have been found, which along with observed speciation, shows that macro-evolution occurs, as predicted by the theory of evolution.
Misrepresenting Gould, and attempting to discredit him for working on “punctuated equilibrium” does not work in your favour.
I’m not a biologist, so I don’t know the current thinking regarding “punctuated equilibrium”, or the changing rate of evolution (which it is basically an extreme example of).
You’re caliming to know something about it, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the current state of knowledge in that regard is? Or are you simply making statements from ignorance?
Regardless of whether it has been discredited through lack of supporting evidence or not, “punctuated equilibrium” is still valid science.
Neil said: Valid science? You’re kidding, right? The link itself identifies how fanciful it is and how your hero, Dawkins, disagrees with it (which, accordingly to your logic on religious disagreements must be another example of why macro-evolution isn’t true). Punctuated equilibrium is obviously a desperate attempt to keep the theory alive despite the problem with the fossil evidence.
Stephen J. Gould said, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Comments are welcome on this thread provided they are back on the original topic.
So in summary then I’m an atheist who believes in god? And because I’m am atheist this means that I do not in fact have a worldview. My friends are gonna spin out when I tell them. God knows I am… or does he?
Neil,
I think it was me that started Havok down this road of aetheistic Hindu’s and such. I asked for an explanation and thanks to his (her?) reply and subsequent notes, I understand the meaning. My bad if I stirred up something that should have been settled. I’ll accept 40 lashes on Wednesday if that suits.
Havok,
I took a college level philosophy course when I was in high school, I must’ve heard Pascal’s wager back then. I know the course was enough to mess up my head for a long time.
Bottom line, I can’t prove God exists and you (or anyone else) can’t prove he doesn’t. As Heinlein said, soon enough, we’ll both know for sure.
You asked “Aren’t you worried you chose the wrong God and beliefs?” – No, I’m not. It’s a chance I’m willing to make (too bad Pascal didn’t {although my memory says that he may have philosophozed himself back like I eventually did})
How did you manage to choose the right god and beliefs, when the majority of humanity has got it so wrong? – Can’t answer that. Call it luck, call it Providence (a term I like), call it grace (another good one). Call it anything you like, just call me with the trumpet and I’ll be happy.
Actually, the Scriptures say that all creations calls witness to His existence, so the Hindus, Muslims and yes, even the athesists have no excuse. I think it’s something about the narrow gate and straight way that complicates things for so many.
And regarding your comment that death is the end, I say how sad for humanity and what a waste. If all we have is what is here, what’s the purpose? There are many times that I would have just given up. Don’t get me wrong, I have a great life. But it’s only because of what He has done for me. I’ve seen His hand in my life, picking me up when life knocked me down, so many times that there’s no way I can question His existence. If you’re interested, email me and I’ll tell you more. Follow the link from my name in the comments to my blog, view my profile and you can get my email address.
Even if you don’t email me, continue to follow Neil’s posts. As long as you admit the possibility of God, He can speak to you and Neil is as good as anyone to be a conduit. Sure, he’s a fundie and like the rest of us fundies (many of whom respond here), he gets a little touchy sometimes, but that’s only because we care. Like one person said, we’re like beggars telling other beggars where to find a loaf of bread. If we didn’t try to convince you our faith was right, I’d wonder about our faith to begin with.
Neil,
Thanks for letting Havok play havoc (HA! I waited for that Chance!) with your blog. And thanks for sticking to the Truth. Your post has meant a lot to me this past year and I look forward to next year as well.
Quickly, so as not to derail the thread again:-
Neil:
Disagrements and incorrect hypothesis are strengths of the scientific process.
Macro-evolution has been observed. No need to consult the fossil record for that.
Neil said: We’ll have to revisit that (or you can blog on it yourself). When lots of your own experts concede the fossil problem you won’t get away by citing such a tiny amount of questionable evidence. “Nothing to see here folks, just move along and accept what the Darwinists tell you . . .”
Duane:
Atheism doesn’t provide a worldview. An atheist will have a world view.
Randy:
It’s been fun, though Havoc was not my intent
On Topic:
Assuming God doesn’t exist (as I do), is there any harm in homosexual behaviour?
Is it spiritual harm (sin), which you assume exists, the issue?
As I see it, the only problem you folk can have with homosexuality comes from references within the bible describing it as sinful/deviant.
Neil said: Not so. There are a host of other problems (mainly medical – http://americansfortruth.com/news/truly-scaaary-%e2%80%98gay%e2%80%99-health-quotes-2nd-annual-halloween-edition.html – the libs want to tell 2 yr. olds on up how wonderful and normal the behavior is but forget to tell them the drawbacks).
But most Christians I know take a live-and-let-live approach. As long as the pro-gay crowd isn’t trying to violate our 1st Amendment rights or shove the gay agenda down the throats of us and our kids then they can do what they like. They can get married today. Whole industries are set up to help them set up house. Apostate churches will marry them. They just don’t need gov’t recognition, because the main reason gov’t gets involved in the marriage equation at all is that heterosexual unions, by nature and design, bring about the next generation. You’d think gays wouldn’t want the gov’t to have to sanction their relationships.
Assuming God doesn’t exist (as you do), is there any sexual behavior you see as universally immoral? Animals/humans, parents/children, polygamy, etc.? Take your time in responding because you’ll need to provide a foundation for morality first. You can’t just skip that part and go by societal norms, because some societies might approve of the actions and as we’ve seen in the U.S., societal norms can change. And you can’t use the “perpetuation of the species” angle, because you would first have to prove that is a universal moral good.
Havok, if you assume God doesn’t exist, what can you use for a basis of right/wrong? Someone in another blog post said there was reference material, but never gave any specifics. How can you know that the reference material is right?
As a Christian, the Bible is my reference book (and so much more). Whenever there is a question about anything, I go back and look at God’s written Word. When the Word doesn’t explain completely, I spend time talking the the Living Word. Generally, He points me to the written Word, showing me that He has already answered the question.
I’ve also found that by knowing Him, I’m better able to interpret His Word. I find that He has placed His answers throughout His Word if I will only look.
I should also say I use His word in a negative way. I think Neil is probably glad that there are those of us who continue to keep him on the straight path. I always check anything anyone says against the Word. if they disagree with the Word, I know the Truth and can correct their errors.
Neil, I won’t get into the basis of morality. A search for “evolutionary basis for morality”, or similar, should get you started.
Where I am (Australia) gay civil unions are not recognized as equal to hetero marriages in many ways, not least of which the rights of one party upon the death of the other. This imbalance what gay marriage issue seeks to redress.
Neil said: That’s an example of where we can find some agreement, I think. I’m sympathetic to the hospital visitation and estate issues, for example. Estate taxes are ghoulish (bad things happen when the gov’t profits from your death). They should be abolished. I think if those were the real issues then some good progress could be made that could help the gay folks without forcing schoolkids to be told how good and normal the lifestyle is. But in my experience they don’t want tolerance, they want affirmation.
Randy, I use my moral sense. You believe this comes from God, yet there is a lot of good scientific research being done which is showing an evolutionary basis for our moral sense.
Neil said: I am highly skeptical that the research will prove our “moral sense” as you call it, but keep in mind that even if it did then it would just be proving a phantom morality. What you can never do is provide a philosophical basis for “real” morality in a molecules-to-man scenario. Never.
Since I addressed your queries, I’d still appreciate an answer to this piece:
Assuming God doesn’t exist (as you do), is there any sexual behavior you see as universally immoral? Animals/humans, parents/children, polygamy, etc.? Take your time in responding because you’ll need to provide a foundation for morality first. You can’t just skip that part and go by societal norms, because some societies might approve of the actions and as we’ve seen in the U.S., societal norms can change. And you can’t use the “perpetuation of the species” angle, because you would first have to prove that is a universal moral good.
I don’t buy the estate tax argument. in the US, estate tax only applies when the estate exceeds $1million. Even then, proper planning can avoid estate taxes.
For reference on the $1m see http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164871,00.html.
As for hospital visitation and medical rights decisions, this too can be done with a simple form.
“Assuming God doesn’t exist (as you do), is there any sexual behavior you see as universally immoral?”
As a fellow atheist I can answer emphatically NO.
There are no sexual acts, which in and of themselves, are immoral. Consequences to ANY sexual act may be either moral or immoral (does it affect others negatively, does it serve to increase happiness or decrease suffering). The basis for this decision is the same that we use for all other moral decisions — we use our biologically derived “framework” given to us by evolutionary processes. This framework acts altruistically to benefit the species, or is based on utilitarianism (which serves the greater good and causes the least amount of suffering). This ethical decision making is hardly unique to humans. Altruist behavior is observed in many other species. Humans may be unique, however, in that we have the ability to think abstractly and act under a utilitarian ethic. We also have the ability to feel empathy for others which affects our ethical decision making (as we can imagine the consequences of our actions on others).
Neil said: I appreciate the honesty but not the logic. Thanks for being on record as admitting your worldview could not describe any sex acts as immoral. And thanks for proving my point once again that every attempt at “proving” a philosophical explanation for morality in a molecules-to-man worldview has to sneak morality in the back door.
Here’s where you did it: “This framework acts altruistically to benefit the species, or is based on utilitarianism (which serves the greater good and causes the least amount of suffering).”
But you need to prove why benefiting a species is a moral good. Species die all the time. In your view thousands died before humans showed up. How was that moral or immoral?
You reference a “greater good” and minimizing suffering but can’t explain the source of those either, either.
“As for hospital visitation and medical rights decisions, this too can be done with a simple form.”
I agree!! That simple form is called a marriage certificate.
Neil said: Yes, and they can get one as soon as they get married (Marriage = a union of a man and a woman).
“And thanks for proving my point once again that every attempt at “proving” a philosophical explanation for morality in a molecules-to-man worldview has to sneak morality in the back door.”
Huh? Death is neither moral or immoral. However, given that we all have a biologically derived impetus to survive we act accordingly. Your argument breaks down rather quickly. Thanks for trying though.
Neil said: You said, “This framework acts altruistically to benefit the species . . .” which I inferred was perpetuating the species. You just noted a biologically derived impetus to survive so I think I inferred correctly. If I was wrong then I’m not sure what else you meant by “benefit,” but feel free to clarify.
People might benefit by doing all sorts of things that most consider immoral.
Here’s more on the philosophical problem of evolving morals – http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5458
Neil said: What you can never do is provide a philosophical basis for “real” morality in a molecules-to-man scenario. Never.
What do you mean by “real” morality? Can you provide any evidence for it’s existence?
Neil said: Perhaps not with your limited and biased standards of what evidence is. I think it is always immoral to kill people just because they are atheists. Can I prove that empirically? Perhaps not.
Just read Dawkins and watch how many moral claims he makes. I’ll concede that his thinking is not particularly clear. Perhaps every claim he makes about right and wrong (and all the comments from atheists who think it is wrong to teach ID, wrong to teach religion to children, wrong to say homosexuality is a sin, wrong to say abortion is evil, etc.) is just bad evolutional wiring.
But there do seem to be some universal morals. I’m not aware of any cultures where torturing babies for fun isn’t considered immoral. And as C.S. Lewis noted, in no culture are people who run away from battle considered heroes.
My standards of evidence are “biased” towards objectivity and away from subjectivity. If we allow subjectivity to dictate what is real, the guy in the mental hospital who thinks he is Napoleon is actually Napoleon. All Gods which have ever been imagined are real. Astrology predicts the future etc.
Neil said: and all the comments from atheists who think it is wrong to teach ID,wrong to teach religion to children, wrong to say homosexuality is a sin, wrong to say abortion is evil
- [OT] It is incorrect to teach ID as science – it is not a scientific theory. Teach it in philosophy or religious instruction if you have to teach it.
- [OT] I think it is wrong to teach religion to children as Truth, when no evidence of such exists. Comparative religious studies would be good however.
Neil said: Lots of evidence exists – first cause, morality, fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, universal laws of logic and more. You just ignore it and create a biased worldview where only empirical data is allowed, even though you can’t prove empirically why that should be true. We’re going in circles here, so we might want to wind this one down or just wait for another thread.
And how would you convince me that I should I care if you think something is wrong? Nothing personal, but your own worldview says there are no universal morals.
- Homosexuality is a sin to you because of your moral framework.
Neil said: But you say it is wrong (i.e., immoral) to say that homosexuality is wrong.
- [OT] Abortion isn’t evil. It is however a moral and ethical quagmire.
Neil said: Abortion is psychologically complex, to be sure, but not morally complex. If it isn’t evil then crushing and dismembering human beings outside the womb isn’t immoral, either. There is absolutely nothing in a materialistic worldview to distinguish between the two, morally speaking. It is merely a matter of the age and location of a living human being.
And how can you even say it is a moral quagmire?
Neil said: I’m not aware of any cultures where torturing babies for fun isn’t considered immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
The sacrifice of children has been done for “moral” reasons – the God or Gods being appeased have demanded it. The attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham was a moral act because Yahweh demanded it.
Is it considered moral today – no.
I think this shows that your supposed “universal morality” doesn’t exist, as morals have changed over time, even though the lessons in the Bible haven’t.
Neil said: I think you misunderstood my point. Child sacrifice is wrong, but as evil as it is they at least had a warped purpose. My example was just torturing them for fun – not for religious reasons, to appease false gods, etc.
The funny thing is that not only are you wrong about universal morals, you don’t even realize the logical conclusion if you are right. You actually seem to think that would be a good thing to have morals based on whoever is in power or majority rules.
And, of course, the endless moral claims by atheists make no sense whatsoever inside their worldview.
One quick point on the evidence question. Every religion claims the same ground as you do. All have claims of some supernatural interference, with the same sort of evidence (personal testimony, historical documents etc), and the same lack of empirical evidence to back up those claims. Every claim you make to support your beliefs (prophecies fulfilled, first cause, miracles, etc) can be made by members of other religions to support their beliefs.
Neil said: Hi Havok, I agree with some of that. But you may have noticed that I haven’t appealed to personal testimony. I have also approached this in a two-step manner: 1) There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God and 2) Once we’ve established that, the evidence is overwhelming for the God of the Bible (Yes, I know you disagree on both counts and only consider empirical evidence).
In the absence of any empirical evidence in support of any of the claims of the various religions, I can’t see how any rational decision can be made.
Since we’re going round in circles, I’ll leave it there.
As for claims of a “universal morality”. As BrianC stated on another blog:
“The meaning and morality (both with lower case m’s), that give our lives purpose must be hammered out by ourselves. More complicated than hooking up to some pre-prepared menu of do’s and don’ts, but it really is where the evidence takes the ruthlessly rational thinker.”
If the evidence leads in one direction, anything else is ultimately wishful thinking.
Neil said: I’ll concede that BrianC can be wrong on two blogs at once
. If he is truly a ruthlessly rational thinker he’ll end up with a different set of views. Universal morals exist, but even if they didn’t the end result of “individual morals” would be “morality” defined by those in power and/or the majority. As the Book of Judges mentioned several times, “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Bad things happen when we go that route, and there is tons of evidence for that.
Thanks for the dialogue, and catch you on another thread.