I told you, there is a cure for homosexuality.

It’s not science in anyway, shape or form. Might as well use astrology as your reasoning.
Philosophy is based upon methodical rationalization.

 

Are you saying that nurture isn't a factor?

 

Thinking anything without proof makes nothing ligitimate.

 

Don’t get upset with me because you made a dumb comparison. Own your mistake like a man and move on.

 

How I wish that was true. Given the flood of pseudo-intellectual gibberish posing as philosphy over the last several decades I can’t agree. I you’d instead asserted ‘The aim of philosophy is methodical rationalization’ I’d agree.

 

Excuse me butting in on that one. It all depends on what you mean by ‘thinking anything’. If you’re implying something like making a truth assertion, yes. If however ‘thinking anything’ includes a form of speculation or tentative thesis legitimacy isn’t the central issue. Then we have that ancient question of what (apart from standard linguistic analysis) does constitute proof in a particular setting/claim/context.

 

Evidently you can’t be bothered illuminating what it was.

 

It's written there plain as day...

 

Nurture is THE factor.

 

Ah...so what you're saying is you could be gay if someone talked you into it???

 

Here we have the central problem when attempting to discuss scripture with true believers, their unjustified belief the entire Bible is the innerant Word of God. No point in arguing with anyone holding such views.

 

Robert E Allen said: ↑
Nurture is THE factor.
QUOTE="ECA, post: 1070706714, member: 77614"]Ah...so what you're saying is you could be gay if someone talked you into it???[/QUOTE]
I can’t see any necessary connection between these two posts. What am I missing?
Reminds me of an otherwise straight male I encountered in his mid thirties who wanted to ‘experiment’ with me as ‘Always wondered what it would be like’. As he was a committed Catholic prone to haunting the confessional I talked him out of it.

 

There you go , your argument holds no water so you start disparaging people.
There is no legitimate dispute about the authorship of the book of Romans.

If the bible isn't the inerrant word of God then there is nothing wrong with murder, slavery well there is no such thing as right and wrong and therefore no basis for the legitimacy of any laws.

 

Indeed, I cannot be bothered to translate plain English into plain English. Sue me.

 

What does being gay have to do with whether or not someone is a follower of the teachings of Jesus ?

You are basically claiming that anyone who sin's is not a "Christian" - and this is preposterous nonsense.

 

Just so long as you are willing to ignore context and the disjoint with other things Paul wrote.

 

It also pushes aside the doctrine of original sin. Claims are made the suffering of Christ on the cross redeemed all sin but somehow looking around this planet that doesn’t make sense either.

 

Its just amazing how little some who claim to be Christians know about Christianity

 

Who told you this rubbish. Prohibitions against murder and most all of the other 10 commands existed long before Abraham and Moses. Apparently they were not moronic enough to believe your proclamation.

Then there is the fact that the majority of Christianity does not believe the Bible is inerrant. It is a recognized fact among serious Theologians and Biblical scholars that the Bible has been changed, edited, contains interpolation/artistic license and whole books were removed.

 

According to what science?

 

Here is one dissenting opinion on this passage, there are others.

Source

 

It's not rubbish. If there is no God there is no moral law. Therefore no basis for telling people what to do and what not to do. Is just BS msde up rules by people who have no right whatsoever to make rules.
There is certainly no natural law against killing or stealing in fact natural law says survival of the fittest. If we are just animals why shouldn't we live like animals?

If there is no God our constitution is wrong andvwe have no inalienable right to life liberty and property.
If there is no God then holding society together for humanist reasons is just tyranny.

 

How do you account for the prohibition on murder pre-Bible then?

 

Original sin makes perfect sense and is obvious to anyone who examines their own life honestly. Problem is people are too afraid to confront the reality of whom they really are.
If you've ever lied that makes you by definition a liar.
Who here thinks of themselves as a liar?

Jesus said if a man looks lustfully at a woman he has committed adultery.

Who here considers themselves guilty of adultery?

The biggest problem people have is that they are biased to believe that they are a good person. The fact of the matter is we are liars, cheaters, adulterers and thieves.
The world would be a much better place if we were half as good as we think we are.

Original sin? Yup it's obvious and self evident. Too bad we are too delusional to see it , if we saw it we might be compelled to do something about it.

 

It is rubbish - demonstrably so. There is no God in the Chinese constitution - and murder is prohibited. There is no God in the constitution of many western democracies and murder is prohibited. Morals do not need God to exist and there is no law until humans make that law.

Our constitution specifically forbids the making of law on the basis of "God Says" - as do the founding principles. The founding principles with respect to law are not based on "Gods law" - "Gods Law" is the law of nature.

The unique thing about the founding principles at the time was the idea that the legitimate authority of Gov't came from "consent of the governed" rather than "Divine right/God" as was the case in the past. The whole point of the enlightement thinkers - Classical Liberalism - was to come up with a justification for authority and law - other than "God says so"/ Divine Right. This was the very purpose of the exercise.

The use of the term Creator is not invoked to make law - it invoked to put individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of the State. It is to restrict Gov't from making law - not as justification for implementing Gods laws. You are confusing these two things.

Even if we were to make law on the basis of "God says so" ... what would those laws be ? Who's God do we choose and how will we know the thoughts of that God.

On this basis alone the idea that laws should be made on the basis of "God says so" is nonsense. There is no way to prove what God thinks.

"Oh .. Lets use the supposed writings of God" ... Great - which ones .. the Qu'ran (look at the wonderful things that has brought), the Bhagavad gita ?

If we use the Bible .. what part do we use .. who gets to decide .. and whose interpretation ? Do we take women out of the city walls and stone them for adultery or do we "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ? Which proclamation is God --- will the real God stand up ?

In one part of the Bible God is a xenophobic genocidal maniac... an irrational flip flopping God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics. This God makes a rule that states children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents (Good rule). This God then turns around and orders the wholesale slaughter of children and babies - because of the sins of their parents.

So do we follow the irrational flip flopping xenophobic genocidal maniac God - and even then we are hooped because of contradiction... or do we follow the God of Jesus who was all .. love neighbor as self, Judge not, Forgive, and so on ? and who gets to decide ?