This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Sequel: What does The Christian Bible actually say about same-sex relationships?

#171OrangeWizardPosted 7/18/2014 1:50:01 PM

Well you see now you're making my point for me. If your position is "LGBT people are sinners" they won't be there for you to talk to in the first place. You are not giving them a chance at all.


What do you mean "for you to talk to in the first place"? When was "talking with LGBT people" ever a relevant thing in for this discussion?
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#172OrangeWizardPosted 7/18/2014 2:06:43 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

That's not a fall back.


It was something you were willing to discuss a few exchanges ago, but not now, plus you're trying to exclusively discuss that, instead of even entertaining discussion about anything else. Thus, it's a fall-back. I might even say it's moving the goalposts.

you know what find an example of a person being executed for same-sex intercourse in The Bible. Can you do that?


Not explicitly, but I recall Sodom and Gomorrah, where a mob of people were trying to rape some angels. Of course they also did a whole bunch of other stuff.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#173OrangeWizardPosted 7/18/2014 2:17:30 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

Nope.

My complete answer if you piece together the quote war is Romans 2 establishes the existence of a conscience in human beings.


Which you stated was missing or silent for 7 million people.


My personal experience is filled with instances which support the claim that I have a conscience. I.e. "touch sin, feel guilt." My answer relies on Scripture.


However, you deny that you could be one of those 7 million, on the basis that you claim to have accurately felt the conscience. But how do you know that you really felt the conscience, and not a brain tumor, or anything else?


Or if it will make you happy I can say I'm not mathematically certain of anything except maybe my own existence (oh and everything I know about mathematics).


It will. However, this puts you at odds with all the absolute claims you've made.


Also, your "mental health" spiel is invalid because of the following. Delusional person is not delusional if their delusion is true. Paranoid person is not paranoid if people really are out to get him. Etc.

That's just another thing that you need to validate in order for your claim to be true. How do you know that your delusion is true?


Furthermore, your "brain jar" business is meaningless because, again, bad analogy. The conscience has certain characteristics and functions


EXCLUSIVE characteristics and functions? Because if they aren't exclusive, then you're open to getting tricked.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#174OrangeWizardPosted 7/18/2014 2:18:03 PM

It would be like you asking me "can you multiply numbers in your head?" and me then multiplying numbers in my head and returning the answer "yes I can multiply numbers in my head."


So how could we go about validating that you really can multiply numbers in your head?
We'd sit you down and test you, of course. There's that "darn good reason".

No test like that exists for the conscience.


Basically what I'm saying is that your last post was bad because here in the real world people are only committed after being proven mentally deficient. It is not the case that everyone is committed and then only allowed freedom if they have been proven mentally sufficient.


I'm not trying to commit you. I'm just telling you that claiming to know unverifiable things is arrogant. In retrospect, it could also be a sign of ignorance, for one might not know that a thing is unverifiable.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#175Morgasaurus(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2014 2:59:41 PM
Bump for now.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#176Morgasaurus(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2014 10:04:56 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
I wasn't aware we were talking about reformed sinners. I wasn't aware that you've been talking about ex-homosexuals this entire time. If I had been, I would have said ex-murderer, or rather, I wouldn't have made the analogy between two people whom I view as current sinners.

So are you talking about CURRENT homosexuals and whether or not they should be in the congregation, or EX-homosexuals, and whether or not they should be in the congregation?

Because I have no qualms against ex-sinners being in the congregation, be they ex-homosexual or ex-con.

There is no such thing as ex-gay. This is what you're not getting. This is why the substitution is invalid. This is why all traditional Christians have a double-standard. A gay man seeks love (as in love with a significant other) with another man. And a gay woman another woman. They are born with this desire. No, it's not even a desire. It's a need.

No person is born with a need to steal, lie, or murder. People do those things to cut corners or just out of pure hatred. Gay people are not cutting corners. In fact the opposite is true. It would be cutting a corner if (for example) a gay man just attempted to settle for a relationship with a female. Several friends of mine tried that. It never ends well. The reason I never did that is because I knew I would either have to keep this a secret from them or hurt them neither of which are good options.

But in the case that someone identifies as an LGBT person, and it is known and verified to the congregation, that, to me, is enough to excommunicate them.

They do not need to be having same-sex intercourse.

That's just it. Someone identifying as gay means they have the need I described above. It doesn't necessarily mean they have actually acted against your interpretation of Scripture at all. Their need does not go away no matter how much praying-away-the-gay they try or no matter how much "psychologists" try to make them vomit while watching gay porn.

Does the T refer to "People who feel that they're a X trapped in a Y's body", or hermaphrodites, people who were born with both sex organs?

A transgender person is someone who physically has genitalia associated with one gender but identifies as another gender in terms of their personality. They may or may not seek to transition including but not limited to wearing other clothing, changing their name, using hormones, or having surgery.

But they're both executing people, right?

So it's not the mere act of executing people that equals bad fruit, it's the "authority" behind the execution? Would that be accurate? If it's done with the improper authority, it's bad, but if it's done with the proper authority, it's good?

That's just it. In order for God to "execute" someone He would have to not only end their earthly existence but also entirely obliterate their will from all of existence entirely. From His point of view ending someones earthly existence isn't even really an execution.

I don't want to go on a death penalty tangent here. I'm very ambivalent on that issue. Either no human (or human construct such as the law) has the authority to execute another human or certainly it wouldn't be right to execute anyone who is guilty of a "victimless" sin such as heresy, same-sex intercourse, or prostitution regardless of "authority."

You make money by quoting what other people say? Man, what a job. :p

Well that's only the beginning of my papers. The rest of it is building on what they say which usually involves qualitative or quantitative data analysis.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#177Morgasaurus(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2014 10:04:58 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
That's not logic. That's a premise. That's a claim, actually, because premises are followed up by conclusions. I never said anything about the "invalidity of a claim". Your statement has nothing to do with logic.

I was talking about valid logic being valid in all universes, not claims being true or false.

Yes but whether or not the statement "it is possible for a gay Christian to inevitably conclude after sufficient prayer and reflection that a same-sex relationship is objectively unrighteous" is true or false is precisely the crux of what we're discussing. Positing an existence with an example of the statement being true doesn't say anything about its validity in the real world.

What do you mean "for you to talk to in the first place"? When was "talking with LGBT people" ever a relevant thing in for this discussion?

I think this is an artifact of an earlier point. An LGBT person is born that way and that characteristic will not change. Traditional Christians only take issue with whether or not they act on their needs. Conducting a congregation in such a way that you are not even welcoming to Christians or would-be Christians that identify as LGB or T is not good at all. That's my point.

Which you stated was missing or silent for 7 million people.

When I said that I was mainly referring to people who are severely mentally ill. I don't know precisely what proportion of the population that is. 1% was just a ball-park. It's probably not even close to that. All I was trying to do was NOT be insensitive to people (who know people) who may legitimately not be able to determine right from wrong due to mental deficiency.

It will. However, this puts you at odds with all the absolute claims you've made.

"I know that X" is not in any way equivalent to "I am mathematically certain of X." Is that what this is all about?

No test like that exists for the conscience.

It's called the PCL-R. Although I would contend that it isn't very precise and can be fooled by a clever enough psychopath. Also, I would contend that even psychopaths have a conscience. It's just that they've grown used to not listening to it either because of repeated behavior or upbringing. I've said that several times already though.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#178OrangeWizardPosted 7/28/2014 9:20:26 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

There is no such thing as ex-gay.

You've activated my trap card. I love to beat this particular drum.

1) How do you know? (Bonus points if you can answer this without running into the problem of induction)

2) You're calling every self-professed ex-homosexual a liar. Are you okay with this?


A gay man seeks love (as in love with a significant other) with another man. And a gay woman another woman. They are born with this desire. No, it's not even a desire. It's a need.


What happens if they don't fulfill this "need"? Do they disintegrate? How long before they suffer the ill effects from this "need"?


No person is born with a need to steal, lie, or murder.

How do you know this?

It would be cutting a corner if (for example) a gay man just attempted to settle for a relationship with a female. Several friends of mine tried that. It never ends well.

It never ends well in any situation because you have anecdotal evidence from "several" friends who tried and failed? Is that what you're telling me?

That's just it. Someone identifying as gay means they have the need I described above. It doesn't necessarily mean they have actually acted against your interpretation of Scripture at all. Their need does not go away no matter how much praying-away-the-gay they try or no matter how much "psychologists" try to make them vomit while watching gay porn.

You're assuming that my interpretation of scripture is only concerned with having homosexual sex, and not actually identifying as a homosexual.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#179OrangeWizardPosted 7/28/2014 9:21:32 PM

That's just it. In order for God to "execute" someone He would have to not only end their earthly existence but also...


So, executions as humans do them aren't a big deal? In God's view, we're not "really" executing them? So why do you say that they bear bad fruit?

Are executions bad fruit or are they insignificant?

Either no human (or human construct such as the law) has the authority to execute another human or certainly it wouldn't be right to execute anyone who is guilty of a "victimless" sin such as heresy, same-sex intercourse, or prostitution regardless of "authority."


So, if there was a person whose thinking was in line with God's, like, say, a prophet, and he chose to execute someone, would this act be sanctioned, or condemned? How many times did God condemn Elijah for calling down fire from heaven upon people?

Or, for your alternative, if "it wouldn't be right to execute anyone who is guilty of a victimless sin such as heresy, same-sex intercourse, or prostitution", what about those executed for the "victimless sin" of same-sex intercourse in the times of the Mosaic Law? (Leviticus 20:13)

Assuming you actually agree with the common interpretation of the verse, that is.


Morgasaurus posted...

Positing an existence with an example of the statement being true doesn't say anything about its validity in the real world.


You stated that you don't have to participate in my hypothetical because your logic only has to hold up in THIS universe. You seem to disagree with the notion that logic transcends universes. You tried to undermine my hypothetical by saying that, just because something is logically true in a hypothetical, doesn't mean it is logically true in ours.

You attempted to worm out of calling the hypothetical person with the mutually exclusive viewpoint a liar. I can't let you do that, Star Fox.

Come out an say it. Is the hypothetical person who prayed the same as you, studied the same as you, but came to a mutually exclusive conclusion, is lying about his methods.

Or you could say that prayer doesn't work, or you could say that studying doesn't work, but that would undermine your own efforts, so you probably don't want to do that.

Speaking of worming out, I noticed you failed to acknowledge the entire tangent about a similar thought experiment involving a hypothetical traditionalist and homosexual, in which I called you out for trying to tamper with the hypothetical instead of just answering to it honestly. tsk tsk.

Conducting a congregation in such a way that you are not even welcoming to Christians or would-be Christians that identify as LGB or T is not good at all. That's my point.


Would conducting a congregation in such a way that you are welcoming to murderers, fresh from the kill, be a good thing? Yes I am doing the murder equation thing, because you have yet to convince me that they aren't analogous. I left out your "homosexuality is inborn" part of this paragraph because, as of this post, I've yet to see any proof of that statement.


When I said that I was mainly referring to people who are severely mentally ill. I don't know precisely what proportion of the population that is. 1% was just a ball-park. It's probably not even close to that. All I was trying to do was NOT be insensitive to people (who know people) who may legitimately not be able to determine right from wrong due to mental deficiency.


Do you think that people who have a serious mental illness are aware of it? If not, then how do you know that you aren't one of them?
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#180OrangeWizardPosted 7/28/2014 9:21:44 PM

"I know that X" is not in any way equivalent to "I am mathematically certain of X." Is that what this is all about?


Is this the part where you retroactively claim that everything you've said in this topic was only in your own opinion?


It's called the PCL-R. Although I would contend that it isn't very precise and can be fooled by a clever enough psychopath.

Well there you go.

Also, I would contend that even psychopaths have a conscience. It's just that they've grown used to not listening to it either because of repeated behavior or upbringing. I've said that several times already though.


Saying things repeatedly does not make them true.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards