UndecidedFrog

UF I don't have time to address your whole post this morning so just a little note, the Project10, to market 10% homosexuality, has been largely disproven. If you do some research you will see the modern reports down near 3% homosexuality.

Candice,

I think you are misinformed. Project 10 is not marketing anything of the kind. They are a resource for the LGBT community that provides counseling services and health referrals. The only advocacy activity they do is:

We also act as advocates for our service-users, to help them achieve their goals, including: finding affordable housing, finding employment, changing their name and sex designation on official identity papers, accessing sex-change surgery, being granted refugee status, staying out of prison, filing complaints documenting discrimination they’ve suffered, and more.

I very much doubt this is any campaign to spread anything about homosexuals being 10% of the population. I think they got their name from that notion, but from their own website and their mission statement, they have nothing to do with furthering that notion, as you have claimed.

Their self-definition:

Project 10 works to promote the personal, social, sexual and mental well being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersexed and questioning youth and adults 14-25.

Their self-defined mission:

Project 10 works to promote the personal, social, sexual and mental well being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersexed and questioning youth and adults 14-25.

Through advocacy and education, using a harm reduction approach, Project 10 aims to facilitate the empowerment of youth at individual, community, and institutional levels with a particular emphasis on supporting individuals and groups who experience multiple and intersecting oppressions.

Services are free of charge, confidential and anonymous, and are offered in English and French.

There is no marketing of anything in those descriptions. From their website, they provide mainly counseling services and health referrals as well as support groups.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I've already mentioned, and if necessary can back up my statement, that your view of the type of slavery the Bible condoned was different than the kind of slavery practised in the USA or Britain during the 1700-1900's and in other parts of the world, such as Egypt during the Jewish captivity.

No matter how you attempt to portray biblical slavery as not slavery similar to the experience of Africans in the 1700s, you will not convince me that it is not ownership of humans. Biblical slavery is ownership of humans, and with such ownership comes the right to trade them as chattal for other goods and services in the open market.

I was around in South Africa. I've seen what was done there and I know it is wrong. I would have no grounds for recognizing it as anything other than my own preference/opinion/feelings if God had not stamped the difference between right and wrong in the minds and conscience of man or if He did not confirm it in His word.

Are you saying that the christians who supported Apartheid in South Africa in that era, did not have their god stamp them likewise? Why do you think so, if this is the case?

I disagree. It is either correct or it is incorrect. It can't be both correct and incorrect at the same time and concerning the same relationship. That goes against the very laws of logic that we need in order to make sense of anything.

Here is a definition for you of the word correct:

"to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from"

How can something that is correct be wrong?

LOL, you do not allow for differing interpretations of what is correct from what is not?

How then must you view the christians who supported African slavery in the 1700s? Were they not following their god?

How then must you view the christians in South Africa who supported Apartheid? Were they not following their god?

How then must you view the christians who support the prohibition of homosexual marriage today? Are they not following their god?

Perhaps you should consider that all christians follow their particular interpretation of what they think is their god's position on a matter. As evidenced from objective review of the past events, we know these interpretations to change over time.

The view/interpretation of what is correct is dependent on culture, society and time.

Different cultures, societies at different times will interpret/view one thing correct, while another will view it as incorrect, and vice versa.

Examples: Prohibition of interracial marriage; Slavery, Apartheid; the Final Solution; the prohibition of homosexual marriage.

What was interpreted to be correct at one time is viewed as wrong now. Take any of the examples I provided.

Given this experience, how can any say that what they now interpret as correct is actually correct for all time? I don't think they can with any honesty.

Again, you blur the definition of 'correct' to suit your points. It is either correct or it is not.

Again, you fail to recognize the difference between ones interpretation of what is correct from anothers interpretation.

You equate your interpretation of what is correct to be correct. That may not be the case. And as history has proven oftentimes, ones interpretation of what is correct has been shown to be incorrect.

Marriage has been redefined when the gay-rights movement pushed for the acceptance of homosexual preference and orientation. Before this the main (the only that I am aware of) definition of marriage was between man and woman. People go to extreme effort to make their views acceptable to the society they live in as a whole. You do not support the idea of marriage that has been thought of as its primary definition for most of recorded history.

I support marriage between two consenting adults who want to join their lives together in a committed relationship. You may attempt to redefine what I support or what I do not support as much as you want. It doesn't change what I support.

Whether you can understand it or not, it does not detract from the fact that different societies have different laws. I have provided many examples of this. Do you disagree with this fact? Do you think these societies enact laws they know to be wrong? Or is it more likely the case that these different societies have different opinions and values regarding different issues?

Is everything right or wrong? Is everything black or white? -UF

I believe I understand it better than you do for you have no concept of 'best' because best is the ideal and unless you understand 'the best' you don't know the ideal.

I find you have not answered any of my questions.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I am mistaken because you think so and because your thinking is based on your feelings and preference. If my feeling were based on the exact opposite feelings because of mere preference (which they are not - I have more than just preference that I judge morality on) then who is right? Are you always right?

You are mistaken, because from my experience with people, the majority do not feel that homosexuality is wrong, as you attempted to claim.

Again, you are confusing categories. I do not thing the human body is unnatural or that our bodies are different. I consider certain acts such as sodomy unnatural and what people do as unnatural. Is sodomy natural? Is it natural to use something used to expel waste for pleasure? Does the act produce progeny? You see, even in a naturalistic world-view homosexual behaviour does not produce the desired results of evolution (if there were ever such a thing), the promotion of the species.

So you think that acts of sodomy are unnatural? Do these acts occur in nature? If they do, then they are natural.

It is indeed natural for loving couples to explore each others' bodies. Even in heterosexual relationships these acts of sodomy occur. Waste-pleasure relationship is the same as the Eating-pleasure relationship. It is a mistake to consider that acts that do not produce progeny are unnatural. Consider couples who cannot produce progeny, do you think to forbid them to marry? Do you think to impose laws to forbid couples who are fertility-challenged from having sex?

Again, I would like to remind you that you confuse pleasure with happiness and what is right as whatever one wishes to make it rather than a right to do something as a privilege. If homosexuality is a right, then why isn't polygamy, or bestiality, or incest between two consenting adults or even between anyone who agrees with anyone else to do something, no matter what that may be? If someone decided to let someone else kill them, and they consented in writing then by your definition that should be a 'right' too.

In the society in which I live, these things are unlawful as determined by my society. I don't necessarily agree with these laws, but, understanding that I need to live in society, I accept them as laws. My personal view is that homosexuality between two consenting adults does not harm anyone anymore than heterosexuality between two consenting adults. Polygamy is the marrying of multiple wives. From my perspective, if women view this as an attractive lifestyle for them, let them decide for themselves if they are adults. We would have to do some tinkering with the legal benefits associated with marriage to equilibrate between polygamy versus 2 party marriages. Bestiality is sex with animals. I don't think animals have the ability to consent. Incest is sex with a near relative. Aside from the increased potential genetic consequences of consanguinous progeny, if this is between two consenting adults, I have no issue with it, much like how the daughters of Lot bore their father's children.

If someone, suffering with the pain of end-stage cancer, I have no problems allowing another to kill them, if they consent to it.

Is it the exception or the rule? Is it the norm or the aberration?

Where do you draw the line to determine what is outside of norm? Is it 2 standard deviations?

If so, homosexuality is well within 2 standard deviations. Homosexuality accounts for about 10% of the general population.

The DSM does not view homosexuality as an aberration.

No, I don't believe I do misunderstand you. It is both your definition and your societies definition that you are basing your judgment on. The problem I have mentioned many times is that you have nothing concrete to compare right or wrong to because you don't have a solid basis for an ideal. Something that constantly shifts cannot determine right and wrong.

The bible is not as concrete as you think, as evidenced by your equivocation on the various biblical laws that you now consider as not applicable. In addition, you now consider that slavery (the ownership of a human by another) to be morally wrong, yet the bible permits it, and even have some laws on how you may beat your slaves. I consider this as evidence of shifting. I consider this as evidence that proves that biblical morality is not a solid base.

I see the fluctuation and I agree based on God's standards that the right decision was made to allow mixed marriages. On what basis do you agree, someones preference?

You agree today based on your god's standards that interracial marriage is allowed. However, just several decades ago, many christians agreed based on their god's standards that interracial marriages should be prohibited. So much for solid, non-shifting bases of morality.

I base allowing mixed marriages on the priniciple of non-hypocrisy. Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying someone outside of my race? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying outside of their race.

Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying my chosen partner? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying their chosen partner.

Do I want someone to own me as a slave? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of others being owned as slaves.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Again the question comes up as to who is right? How can two societies that have contrary definitions on what is good both be right in their definition? It goes against the very definition of good. What you are saying is that those in power, no matter how they get there have the ability to impose rules and therefore whatever they impose is good and right for that society, even if it opposes the good and right of another society. Under such circumstances you have no moral basis to object to Hitler and his extermination of 12 million undesirables because by such reasoning what that society did was good and right by the definition of their leader(s).

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your response.

Who is right is determined by the people in power. One society determines that littering carries a $50 fine. Another determines littering carries a $250 fine. Who is right? They are both right, limited to their respective societies at the respective time.

If one society permits cannabalism, it is right for that society at that time.

If one society permits slavery, it is right for that society at that time.

What is good, but the subjective interpretation of what is right, which differs from one person to the next?

What is law but the codified morality of each society. If one society allows its laws to permit genocide (a la Hitler), that is the moral of that particular society, and reflects what is acceptable and good to the people who abide by it. Remember, Hitler could not possibly commit every act of murder by himself. He relied on the support of his minions and the active and tacit approval of his citizenry (predominantly christian) to implement the final solution. If the majority in the society in which he lived viewed such action as bad, they would revolt against him (and some did).

Why 'should' (notice the moral distinctive) what you consider right apply to what another people considers right? If Hitler said it was right then it was right for that society under your definition.

'Should' is loaded. It is better to see it for the facts that are there. Why was Hitler successful in his final solution?

Why would I attempt to impose my subjective good on others who may feel differently? I would not. However, knowing that most of us do not live as hermits, isolated from society, there is some compromise. We voice our subjective differences to determine what the cumulative laws of our society will be. In my particular society, I vote for various representatives, and several issues via direct referendum. No god/s are required in this process.

Generally, I hope that we have evolved enough to recognize the importance of what Confucius recognized in 500 BCE: Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. If we all approached treating others this way, I think we would be very happy.

The pursuit of happiness defined by whom? Who gets to say what should be permissible unless there is a definite standard that defines what happiness is? Again, I think you are equating/confusing pleasure to happiness.

Each individual determines what happiness is for himself/herself.

The particular society in which an individual lives, determines what is permissible and what is not in their laws.

No, there is no definite standard of what happiness means. No, there is no definite standard of what laws are proper.

Different societies have different laws. People usually tend to gravitate to the societies that have laws that coincide with their perspective of what is permissible. Example: Since Proposition 8, many homosexual couples looking to marry have migrated to NY from CA.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

It entirely depends on what you take as acceptable definitions of each word.

For me, atheism is the lack of belief in any god/s.

For me, antitheism is the opposition to beliefs in any god/s.

From my perspective, they are different.

However, from past conversations with christians, I understand that some of them equate the two, similar to the thinking that if you are not for us, you are against us, a 0/1 paradigm.

Yet the bible claims:

Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

My purpose is not to convince you. You will believe whatever you "choose" to believe. I am just providing my perspective, for those who might be interested.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

And what of the two do you fall under?

Dear Isaiah,

It does not matter which I am, for whichever I am, it does not affect the definitions of the words.

However, since you are so interested in my status, I consider myself an atheist.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Just because it is an insult doesn't mean it isn't true. If I am acting like an idiot, and someone tells me that I am acting like an idiot, while it would be insulting, it is still the truth.

That's very interesting.

To clarify, is it okay for me to tell someone he's acting like an idiot as long as I genuinely believe that is the case, since I'm telling the truth, or is it only safe when I'm telling that to a non-Christian and I know that there will be a moderator willing to look the other way?

Dear Exaeus,

Yes, it is an interesting phenomena, that is oft repeated on these forums.

For some evidence of this, you may want to take a peek into the pinned notice "To the Believers" in the Outer Court.

Apparently, only some people understand that the claim of "acting like an idiot" is an insult. We do not know the intent of the person who made the claim. Only he can say whether it was meant as an insult (and therefore against the TOS) or not.

Some moderators are more impartial than others. In any case, I find christian behavior much more interesting when compared to their professed beliefs.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Well, through all this -

Have any atheists actually made a convincing argument that atheism is not antitheism?

It entirely depends on what you take as acceptable definitions of each word.

For me, atheism is the lack of belief in any god/s.

For me, antitheism is the opposition to beliefs in any god/s.

From my perspective, they are different.

However, from past conversations with christians, I understand that some of them equate the two, similar to the thinking that if you are not for us, you are against us, a 0/1 paradigm.

Yet the bible claims:

Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

My purpose is not to convince you. You will believe whatever you "choose" to believe. I am just providing my perspective, for those who might be interested.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Actually OES said that you were acting like an idiot, not one. Second of all. He was pointing out the completely illogical response you put forth. You have made better arguments that that, and this one was grasping at straws.

Hi Isaiah,

Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult?

Just because it is an insult doesn't mean it isn't true. If I am acting like an idiot, and someone tells me that I am acting like an idiot, while it would be insulting, it is still the truth.

shiloh,

Thank you for agreeing that it is indeed an insult.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Wow no pressure on friendships!!! It is hard to divide the acting from the being but in this regard... I do not believe it to be an insult-

For I have read OES and have many times admired his strength in logic and knowledge of God's Word! He was, with all of what He is, to reason with you the identities in which He believes would establish faith within you and by believing turn you from death toward life! Your apparent dodge of this only substantiated his belief! His frustration is you cannot see you are manipulated by forces you have grew up in and those forces are in direct influences of lies and distortions of reality and truth. We fight more with the spiritual darkness that holds you than with you UF! You have with me many times joked off important issues cause it leads you to a place where you must concede there is more to The God subject than just fantasy! You don't seem to understand the people we are UF! We believe and live that belief. For to us it is life as it should be lived and within a Spiritual presence of Being that can answer our private requests... so much so that we are furthered into our faith and we are made certain of the reality of eternal torments that are coming! The more we give of ourselves to you the more we become concerned for that which you joke away! I certainly will have no pleasure in your finding out after death when choice through faith is gone! I can tell you none of us want to belittle you, degrade you or any other harmful thing. What you experience from us is extreme concern for your wellbeing! Love, Your Friend, Steven

Steven,

Thank you for your answer. I shall now know how to categorize your responses in the future.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Lighter note Froggy we love ya see!!!! I know of noone else who has their own emoticon! Love, Steven

Hi Steven,

If you love me enough, you will tell the truth when I ask you:

Do you consider this an insult?: You are acting like an idiot.

I shall learn much from your answer.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Actually OES said that you were acting like an idiot, not one. Second of all. He was pointing out the completely illogical response you put forth. You have made better arguments that that, and this one was grasping at straws.

Hi Isaiah,

Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult?

I am thinking I am beginning to understand what apologetic mental gymnastics is all about.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I'm done with you, kid.

Thank you for admitting defeat.

To sort out the reasonable from the others, who fling ad hominems and run away.

Wonderful Dialog.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I know, right?

Can someone please explain to me what pretending to be an idiot is supposed accomplish?

What's the rational here?

Some christian reminded me of a little piece of wisdom in another thread, whose corollary also applies:

Rule #1: Do not personally attack the christian.

Rule #2: Claim victory and walk away when the christian insults you.

Thank you for providing me with another fine example of your special christian attitude towards me, OES.

I always appreciate such fine examples of christian attitude wherever and whenever I encounter it.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Do you really understand the one message of the the cross. It is the crux of everything we believe

Yes, I really understand the message of the cross, and how you believe it to be the crux of everything you believe.

Then why are you here?

LOL, allow me to quote a worthy forum moderator on your question:

For added consideration....

7. Constantly demanding to know from Unbelievers about their intent at being here is also not a very friendly approach...those that have obviously come here to mock and play games do not stay for long anyway, and those that stay happily distance themselves from these fellow Unbelievers. We should recognise this and learn to differentiate.

If you believe I am here to mock and play games, you can lobby to have me banned.

I did not respond to the rest as you are just playing word games.

You don't have to respond to anything you do not feel comfortable discussing.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

You're worried Jesus' blood, spilled two thousand years ago, is going to gross you out?

Hi OES,

No, I am not worried about blood being spilt 2000 years ago. What would gross me out is if anyone spilt any blood in front of me.

You do understand that we don't wash in His physical blood, right? Your squeamishness is notably disproportionate considering the spiritualized nature of the blood in question.

No, I have no idea what you mean by spiritualized nature of blood. I have seen blood before. There is nothing spiritual about its nature.

And it's supposed to remind you of those animal sacrifices, because the punishment for sin is death, which is the spilling of blood because the life is in the blood. Hebrews talks about Jesus' sacrifice was the end to all sacrifices. What He did is the reason such gross things that can't possibly atone for sin are done away with.

I think animal sacrifices are barbaric. What was Jesus' sacrifice? How can a god die? I think immortality is one of the characteristic definitions of what it means to be a god. If a god cannot die, then what exactly was sacrificed?

I find it interesting that since Christ's crucifixion the world seems to have realized this. Animal sacrifices have largely stopped, when it used to be practiced by pretty much every culture.

Animal sacrifices are still practiced in Santaria, and some pagan religions.

But if the consequences of sin are death, and the gift of God is eternal life through the vicarious death of His Son on the cross where He spilled His blood for you, I'm not overly sympathetic to your position of rejecting the gift over hyper-squeamishness.

You don't have to be sympathetic to my squeamishness over spilling blood. Just as I don't have to accept the notion of vicarious redemption. Isn't that just another way of describing scapegoating?

If I died for someone and they complained that I couldn't help that in saving them they were spashed with some of my blood, I’d be unimpressed with the ingratitude.

Oh, in that case, then please feel free to not die for them.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Please explain.

Describe for me what you are understanding.

Nebula,

OK, I can do that:

Let us take shiloh357's quote: "The rules you always tend make up whenever you need to manipulate the English language after your points have been successfully refuted and you cannot muster up the courage, integrity or the manhood to admit your mistakes."

From that, I understand the following:

1) He claims that I have made up rules

2) He claims that I manipulate the English language

3) He claims my points have been successfully refuted

4) He claims I cannot muster up courage

5) He claims I cannot muster up integrity

6) He claims I cannot muster up the manhood to admit my alleged mistakes

Have I got my understanding correct?

What I see is that you a slick at turning any unfavorable critique of your behavior as having dirt thrown on you, giving yourself the appearance of being the bright and shiny persecuted victim.

I guess you do not have the same understanding as I have from the above.

Thank you for your answer and your explanation. It is useful for me to understand your perspective.

You do not consider any of the above 6 points as "dirt thrown" at me.

This is very illuminating.

If Shiloh's words to you made you feel demeaned, then you must have a weak sense of character. I was called much worse things in my growing years. If being called "arrogant" puts you in self-defense mode, then how can you handle real rejection?

Thank you for sharing your opinion of my weak character. Certainly, if you do not consider the above 6 points as any dirt thrown at me, any claims of my weak character is not additional dirt. LOL.

I think I will know where to categorize your perspective.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Dear Fellow I Would Like To Thank You

For Expressing Your Joy In Collecting Vistas Of Christian Behavior

And For Your Bravery In Sharing These Snippets

With Those Who Love You

Dear Joe,

You are very welcome.

BTW, it takes no bravery to share with those who love me.

It take bravery to share with those who don't love me, as apparent from their behavior.

Ah!

Beloved Jesus Shed His Holy Blood

So He Can Clean You Up

Should You Desire

Fellowship

Listen

I do not want anyone to shed any blood to clean me up. The idea grosses me out. It reminds me of the animal sacrifices of certain religions.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Hi UF,

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue our discussion for a few days - working, but I would like to clarify a term I used. When I said 'argue' I meant it in the sense of what happens in a debate when two sides lay down their case. It is called presenting an argument. Of the two definitions provided I had in mind the second, although sometimes the second can lead to the first.

Argument:

• An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
• A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Peter,

No problems, respond when you can.

I prefer not to use the word argue to describe a sharing of perspective, no matter how divergent they may be. The word often comes along with other connotations of acrimony (typically angry or heated) associated with the word argument. I dislike heat and anger.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Is it morally wrong to stone people who work on the sabbath? -UF

Applied to a specific people for a specific time - OT Israel. They entered into an agreement with God in which they agreed to be His people and live by His commands and decrees. We, as Christians, live under the New Covenant.

So what you are saying is that the god of the bible changed what he considered right and wrong for different societies (jews, christians) and different times.

Is it evil to wear clothing of mixed fabrics? -UF

I don't know the answer but again contend it may apply to OT Israel. Can you give the book and verse?

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Is it evil to have mixed race marriages? -UF

No. When the Israel of old entered into an agreement with God they made the commitment to live according to His decrees and commands. They were instructed not to enter into relationships with other nations because these relationships would corrupt and defile them. In the New Covenant a Christian is free to marry people from other nations and races, but the stipulation is that we should not marry an unbeliever because we operate by two different standards.

Can you see how some (pre-1967) people who supported anti-miscegenation laws in the US used the above verse from Leviticus 19:19 to justify their position? Who is to say that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect? Who is to say that their cherry-picked list is incorrect and your cherry-picked list is correct?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

PART 3

The question is not whether or not we treat a person with dignity and respect, that should be a given since we are all made in the image and likeness of God, but whether what they do is actually right or whether it is morally wrong/evil. If it is wrong then it is not morally wrong to speak out against it -is it? Just because a society supports something does not necessarily qualify it as good - does it? Would you agree or do you think that the Holocaust can be justified also? -Me

Is it morally wrong to own slaves? -UF

It depends what you mean by the word slave?

I consider slavery as human ownership. The owner of a slave has the right to trade the slave as chattal. The owner of the slave has all the rights that the bible confers to the owner of the slave, including the ownership of their progeny, the right to beat them to a certain degree (so that they can get up next morning), etc.

I am familiar with the apolgetic arguments of redefining the biblical slave as not being similar to the slavery experienced by Africans in the 1800s. I don't buy those arguments for they are unconvincing.

Part 2

Imagine a theocracy that adheres to the bible as its laws. I see slave ownership rampant. I see parents selling their daughters in marriage to their rapists for a few shekels of silver. I see the public stoning of people who work on the sabbath. If you are arguing that your moral standards are based on the christian god as revealed in the bible, you would need to explain why most christians no longer support these things. -UF

I have no problem doing that for the most part. Some of these laws are misunderstood on your part, some of these laws were applied to a people - Old Testament Israel in the covenant they entered into with God, and some of these laws that you mentioned below apply to all people in all eras. It depends on the situation, the context, the customs of those times, the agreements that were made, what the words meant to whom they were addressed and so on.

And the excuses you provide to absolve yourself from following these laws are also applicable to modern society.

I can safely say that none of us are living in the era of old testament Israel. Therefore none of the laws in the bible apply.

If you want to cherry-pick which laws you consider are still applicable, you will need to fashion some explanation akin to the apologetic gymnastics to convince others this is kosher.

I don't think I have misread or misunderstood the meaning of those laws. They are right from the bible. Yes, those laws applied to the context and the culture of those times, and we live in the current time, in a vastly different culture. Thus those laws, and all other laws written in the bible (a collection of books written almost 1900 years ago or older) have no context to present modern times.

So I will answer how I justify what I believe when you satifactorily answer how you can justify why you no longer believe what is dictated by the bible that supports the above. -UF

As I said, the text and context, customs of the times, meaning of the words, etc., determines whom it applies to and if there are time restrictions.

I find your answer too facile and arbitrary cherry-picking.

I believe same-sex marriages should be permitted because it promotes happiness between homosexual couples who want to commit to each other in the same way heterosexual couples do. I see this happiness does not infringe anybody else's rights. I do not see how homosexual marriages harming anyone.

If some people do not want homosexual marriage, then they should not marry a homosexual.

However, they should not prohibit others who do want this.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

The very fact that we are having a discussion/argument/moral disagreement on the issue speaks volumes, no matter what you want to call it. Since you are working under the assumption that society determines what is right and wrong what is the objective criteria that is used? If there is not a moral law that applies to every society in every age then why do you call it right or wrong? It is just one preference over-riding another usually by those in power - might makes right. On those grounds you have no 'right' to object to Hitler's Holocaust, Muslim's flying planes into buildings or the biggest holocaust of all time - abortion.

Hi Peter,

I do not wish to argue with you (or anyone). We can discuss, and even disagree on our different perspectives, as long as we refrain from ad hominems attacks.

I don't think there is an objective criteria that can properly be used to determine what is right from wrong. From observing different societies I see that they have different laws (codified morality). Even from observing the same society over time, I see their laws change over time. If you agree that these observations are correct, how can you arrive at an objective cirteria that is used for all societies?

Additionally, from observations, I have seen typically, those with power determine the laws that are passed or not passed. In some cases, those with power are given power by the people who elect them into offices of power. In other cases, those in power usurped the power with the backing of a strong military, such as certain dictatorships you have mentioned. And yet in other cases, those in power have gained their power by asserting (and having others believing) their divine right to power, either divine monarchy or theocracy. In all cases, these people in power determine the law of the land in the societies they rule.

Generally, modern societies have evolved (forgive the term, I do not mean any biology here) to a point such that they recognize that the pursuit of happiness, as long as that pursuit does not damage or infringe on others rights, are to be permitted. Of course there are many exceptions to this generality. One such example is the prohibition of same-sex marriage in the state of California, as stated in Proposition 8, which was backed by contributions of about $20million from the LDS church.

In order for you to show me why your opinion is anything other than an opinion I need to see how/why you, your group, your society actually has an objective measure/reference/standard/ideal for what is best. You can't measure what is good without knowing what is best or the ideal good. You have shown me that you agree with the preference of your society and nothing more unless you can do so. When you are dealing with the issues of right and wrong I hope you have something substantial that can back up your view.

Sorry, my opinion is just my opinion. I am not attempting to change your mind about this. All I hope to do is share with you my perspective. If in the sharing, you come to understand how I see things, even though you might not agree with it, that's great. I do not view homosexual marriage as a bad thing at all. I do not require the bible to tell me what is right from what is wrong. If I did that, I would consider slavery OK, and the rape of my daughter to be OK as long as the rapist pays me some money and marries her. I would also consider that my children, should they dishonor me by talking back, be subject to death by stoning, and any woman, not being a virgin at the time of their marriage be subject to the same death. I would also consider that homosexuals, people who work during the sabbath, and people who wear clothing of mixed fabrics to be subject to death by stoning. Do you consider the bible a good source of morality as mentioned in the examples I provided?

My opinion that homosexual marriage as a good thing is based on the idea that marriage on the whole is a good thing. It represents a loving commitment of two consenting adults to each other to join their lives together in a union. This strengthens a society where its members are united not only to the society, but to each other as well. I have nothing substantial to back up this opinion. As I have said before, it is just an opinion, my opinion, and I do not expect you to accept or adopt it.

You are luck that you live in a democracy and not under a dictator. In those societies one or a few determine what is 'right and wrong' for the majority. You have no say. Right is what the dictator makes it, and apparently right in your society is what some legislative branch of government, made up of men who are supposed to consider the will of the people, make it.

I know I am lucky. I have had first hand experience of living in a military dictatorship, and I thank my parents every day that they had the wisdom and the means to escape that and immigrate (with me and my siblings) to the west. I do consider myself very fortunate to live in the USA where we have an elected legislature that make laws that are supposed to be representative of the will of their constituents. However, I think they have failed in the case of Proposition 8.

Regarding same-sex marriage, I think that many people, deep down know it is wrong just judging from their reactions when the act or behaviour is described. It is an unnatural function in an unnatural region of the body to go poking around in. It does not lead to the propagation of the 'species', the very thing that anyone who denies God would have to believe in as being beneficial for no progeny equals no species in a naturalistic framework.

You are mistaken. I think quite the reverse. Deep down, I do not consider same-sex marriage as unnatural or repulsive. I have attended several same-sex marriage ceremonies, and I do not feel any different during those ceremonies than I do at opposite sex marriage ceremonies. However, rubber chicken and overcooked vegetables do not generally excite me.

Please tell me why you consider any part of the human body as unnatural? I find that statement rather strange. I consider that all parts of the human body as natural, in that they all exist in nature. Do you think homosexuals have different body parts than heterosexuals?

Not all marriages lead to children. If this were the case, societies would not allow old people to marry, or people who cannot conceive children for one reason or another, or people who do not want to have children. I pity the members of such a society with such laws. It certainly goes against the general principle of obstructing the pursuit of happiness, even if that pursuit does not impinge on others rights.

In nature, homosexual behavior has been observed in other species.

From the biblical mandate marriage is between a man and a woman resulting in offspring; a family.

I have already provided ample examples above of why following the bible is a bad idea in determining what is right from what is wrong.

My mother was born in South Africa and I was born in Zambia. I've lived in South Africa for over a year and also spent many extended holidays there. I know what they did with Aparthied was wrong. Your definition of right and wrong fluctuates depending in which society or which era you live, but I have a major problem with such a view. How do you know that it is your society that have evolved to the point of taking the higher moral ground on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage or how do you know that the view your society holds of right and wrong is actually the correct view? Because it is a 'preference' that you support? What about countries that still see these issues as wrong? Are they actually wrong or are you the ones that are wrong? The second problem I have is with the logic involved in one person calling something right and another calling it wrong. How can both views be right just because of separate societies? It is a contradiction in terms.

You misunderstand. It is not my definition of what is right and wrong that fluctuates. It is society's definition of what is right and wrong that fluctuates depending on which particular society and/or which era we are talking about. This is easily observable. I provided the Loving v. Virginia US Supreme court case as an example of how the same society (USA) changed its views on what is right and what is wrong. Before 1967, some states viewed mixed race marriages as wrong, and had anti-miscegenation laws in the books to prevent such. In 1967, the US Supreme Court determined that these laws were unconstitutional and wrong. Don't you see the change? Don't you see the fluctuation?

In the Apartheid era in South Africa, there were many laws that limited the rights of blacks, as compared to the whites. Today, in South Africa, those laws have been stricken. Do you see the change? Do you see the fluctuation?

In the pre-1800 USA, slavery was permitted (as in the bible as well). That changed with the Emancipation Proclamation and the resultant civil war.

I can tell you that in each of the examples above, my definition of what is right and wrong had no part in the respective society's definition. I wasn't around in the USA in the pre-1800s, or in 1967, or in South Africa during the Apartheid era.

I do not know that New York has the correct or incorrect view in allowing same-sex marriage. However, I see New York being more compassionate to homosexuals in allowing them to marry in their state than in California where it is prohibited. I see NY following the general principle of allowing its citizens to pursue happiness so long as that pursuit does not impinge on others rights. I see CA unduly influenced by a certain church's funds in prohibiting same-sex marriages. I live in CA, and I have chosen to work to overturn Proposition 8. I would like CA to follow the same general principle that NY has followed.

Correctness is a dangerous word. What may be correct for some may be very incorrect for others. Used in a certain way, this concept of correctness, right/wrong, is a very useful tool to claim power that may lead to a dictatorship. Imagine how you may enforce the correctness of belief in the christian god, and the incorrectness for the hindu next door to believe in the hiindu gods. Can you see how a christian dictator will impose their will on the poor hindus in their society? You may even think this is a good idea. Imagine if the circumstances were reversed.

I do not see homosexual as a preference. I see it as a sexual orientation that cannot be chosen, just as I am convinced that I have not chosen to be heterosexual. I support same-sex marriages because I support marriage in general.

Whether you can understand it or not, it does not detract from the fact that different societies have different laws. I have provided many examples of this. Do you disagree with this fact? Do you think these societies enact laws they know to be wrong? Or is it more likely the case that these different societies have different opinions and values regarding different issues?

Is everything right or wrong? Is everything black or white?

Yes, we see laws changing which raises the question of how do we determine right and wrong with a shifting standard? Laws are subject to change depending on who rules the roost. I don't know what you mean by 'objectively' in that last sentence. Do you mean objectively in the sense that we measure change or that we finally arrive at an objective/universal standard for right and wrong? By universal I mean it in the sense of one that would apply to all peoples of all times because we have found the ideal.

I use the term objectively in the sense that we can all see and measure independently to arrive at the same finding of fact. In this case, we can all objectively observe changes in laws in the same society over time. I do not see any evidence that there is a universal standard. In fact, from the evidence we can all objectively see, it points to the reverse. There doesn't seem to be any universal standard that applies to all societies at all times.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

The rules you always tend make up whenever you need to manipulate the English language after your points have been successfully refuted and you cannot muster up the courage, integrity or the manhood to admit your mistakes.

Nebula,

You fail to see any arrogance or belittling in the quote above? I think I am beginning to understand you now. Thanks for answering my question. I had hope that you would be fair, but I see I am mistaken.

I have a question for you, UF - in the book of Acts when Paul prophesied to a sorcerer he's become blind, and the man became blind, or when Jesus called the pharisees whitewashed tombs, would you have said to them something like, "Thank you for being such a fine example of Christian behavior. "?

LOL, what hypothetical situations you have found for me.

Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

If Paul called me child of the devil, enemy of all righteousness, servant of satan, citizen of the dark kingdom, etc. I would thank him for his opinion of me, and note it down in my database of christian behavior.

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

I would ask Jesus why he thinks I am a hypocrit, and why he thinks dead men's bones and uncleanliness fill me. Well, OK, certain parts of me are unclean, but they are part of my digestive tract. If he does not answer, then I will thank him for his opinion of me, and note it down as well.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

These responses here are adult versions of, "Na-nee, na-nee, boo-boo. Stick your head in doo-doo." (Stuff children do to make themselves feel more superior in their own eyes by belittling someone else.)

nebula,

If you want solid examples of arrogance and belittling of others, you should look at the postings directed at me that elicited my responses you quoted.

I would like to know your perspective on those. Please share.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

You are on a Christian web site debating the existiance of god.

Am I? That is certainly news to me.

The fact that you are here debating the existiance shows you are trying to disprove his existiance.

Is it? Am I really debating anything? There is a large difference between discussion and debating. Why would I attempt to disprove what has not yet been proven? That is irrational.

Here you come in and "warn" another person we are speaking to to not take what we say at face value.

You are mistaken. I came in to inform a person how christians view truth as their god, so that he may fully understand the terms christians use as "submitting to truth". Am I incorrect that christians view truth as their god? Have I told a lie? If I have told the truth, the truth will stand, and there is no harm done.

That is interfering. I have had to move threads as you have also interfered. You have not answered why you are on a Christian site trying to disprove god. Either you have an agenda to disprove god as you believe that religion is the core problem of society (which I know you believe) or yor are afraid it's true and yor are trying to reassure yourself that it's not or you simply researching some form of paper. The point is this why are you so against the idea of God that you must seek out Christians to debate with?

This thread is posted in the Outer Court and open for comment by atheists. I comment on threads that interest me. I am very sorry that you view that as interfering. However, if I read the TOS correctly, I am acting well within what is allowed. Using your mod privileges, you are free to move threads into the inner court if you want to stop my "interference".

I have not answered why I am on a christian forum trying to disprove god, because I am not doing that. I am discussing with others my perspective on many different issues. However, you will find that I have never even remotely attempted to disprove any god. There is no need to disprove what has not been proven in the first place.

FYI, you are mistaken. I do not believe that religion is the core problem of society. Religion is certainly a contributing cause, but definitely not the core problem.

I am not against the idea or concept of god/s, and I do not debate anything, I discuss with those that wish to discuss. If you dislike discussions with me, simply do not reply to my posts. It is a very simple solution.

As for me I know without a shadow of a doubt that the god I serve is the one true God. I know this because of the message of the cross. The message of the cross is this. God so loved the world lost in a debt of sin it could never pay that he paid that debt by giving his son for us on the cross. He wants something that no other religion offers a personal relationship with the creator God of heaven. As for converting people we are to preach the word and answer questions and that is what I meant.

I do not doubt your belief in your god.

Well, if you don't write what you mean the first time around, is it any wonder why I misunderstand you? I take it that you do not mean that you convert people, and agree that only the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost can do that?

As for what you will tell god.... Well that is almost word for word what I have heard every atheist say. The issue is this you want god on your terms. He wants you on his.

Well, that is interesting to note, that other atheists feel similarly.

Perhaps you can explain to me why your god wants me to believe that he exists without sufficient credible evidence to convince me that he does? What does belief without sufficient credible evidence prove?

I submit to you that you are rejecting god not because you don't have proof but because there is something about the message of the cross you do not like. Something about the possibility of not being in control of your destiny. I cannot believe you simply disbelieve as one disbelieved in as you say "the flying spegetti monster" if that was the case you would not be here trying to convinces us otherwise.

LOL, I submit to you that you are mistaken on several fronts:

1) I do not like or dislike any message of the cross.

2) I am perfectly comfortable about the status of my destiny, and the relative level of control I have over it.

3) I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog