Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

If you hear God you are insane.

Please do everyone a favor and check yourself into a mental institution the moment you start hearing that God is talking to you.
At that point you will be in danger to your loved ones and society at large.

Do not harm people and other animals, gays included.

The Philosophy of af_newbie

Do not harm people and other animals.

Except:
1) Children of religious people. They are sure to be dangerously influenced by their parents beliefs and should be forcibly taken from their homes and placed in orphanages. Maybe if the parents publicly renounce their faith and swear never to speak of it we can simply put observation devices in all the rooms of their homes instead.

don't preach this BS to children.
That would constitute a child abuse.

2) Anyone not smart, wealthy or powerful enough to avoid involuntarily sterilization or behavioral modification. The world is overpopulated and the way to slow that down is to let natural selection weed out the powerless with a little help of course. Chemical's that reduce sex drive, toxins that trigger or exacerbate homosexuality, pollution that leads to sterilization all things to be quietly flooded into the environment. Survival of the fittest in action.

Nature is cruel, but it works
...
Human population doubles every '70/growth rate' years.  If nature can find a way to slow it down, the better our chances of survival

3) When not harming people or animals is impractical. Each individual gets to decide what "practical" means. We need to eat and survive after all and it's a dog eat dog world out there.

we have evolved enough to make that determination (when to follow or breach our moral standards) ourselves

But don't harm people and other animals that's important (except when it's not) and utterly self evident.


Feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized any of your positions.

[CoinCube]

You said the bible is a moral code divinely inspired, the bible clearly states you should kill homosexuals, don't use excuses now, don't be a pussy, come on do it, god will save you.

What do you hope to accomplish by asking BADecker the same question over and over again?

I have probably read only a small fraction of BADeckers post and I have seen him answer this question of yours several times already. Here is one example.

Incidentally, the stuff in the Old Testament was for the nation of Ancient Israel. Present-day Israel isn't the same nation as Ancient Israel. So God's old commands to execute homosexuals aren't even for the Jews of today.

He has clearly stated that the punishments outlined in the opening books of the Bible were instructions for ancient Israel. Every Christian I have ever met shares this belief it's not rare and there are solid reasons for taking this position some of which I highlighted immediately upthread.

[CoinCube]

Are you sure?  Are you saying Jews today don't follow Torah?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism

PS. You guys should just admit that you would not kill gays just because they are gays, i.e. you would not follow what the Bible/Torah recommends and we can move on.

Even the most conservative Jews the ultra-orthodox acknowledge that Torah must be understood as rules given to them by God in ancient times. Rules which must be reconciled to a modern reality.

No Jews perform animal sacrifices in a temple for example.

I have already started that I don't think we should kill gay people. I said it several times actually. I have never met anyone who thinks we should execute gay people.

I think we should study what causes a disruption of the reproductively functional sex drive and once we understand it learn how to cure it.  That is easily achievable with our current level of technological development.

[CoinCube]

1. I said that if you teach your Bronze Age Biblical stories and moral code you are harming your children.  You can do whatever you want, they are your children.

That's not what you said. You said teaching religion to ones children is child abuse which is a crime and has a legal definition and legal consequences.

You are now arguing that teaching religion to your children is a bad idea. That in your opinion it is not in the children's best interest. That is very different then your earlier claims of criminality and child abuse.

You cannot do whatever you want to your children. That is an obviously incorrect statement. We have certain crimes that parents are legally not allowed to inflict on their children. Those crimes are called child abuse.

Just so we are clear and understand each other's position. You do not feel that teaching religion to ones children is child abuse? Child abuse is a crime leads to the removal of children from the parents home and has a legal definition.

Child Abuse
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Child+Abuse
Physical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child.
Child Abuse has been defined as an act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in the death, serious physical or emotional harm, Sexual Abuse, or exploitation of a child, or which places the child in an imminent risk of serious harm (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g).

[CoinCube]

Yes, it constitutes a child abuse.   But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that neglect.

You are playing word games. The legal status is determined by the word which is a crime by definition.

Try it with others crime and see how silly it sounds.

Yes, it constitutes rape.   But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that rape.
Yes, it constitutes theft.   But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that theft.
Yes, it constitutes murder.   But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that murder.

We have lots of other words to describe things we don't like that are not crimes. Bad parenting for example or shameful action.

[BADecker]

You said the bible is a moral code divinely inspired, the bible clearly states you should kill homosexuals, don't use excuses now, don't be a pussy, come on do it, god will save you.

Oh come on! Show me the place in the Bible where the name "BADecker" is even found. It isn't in the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. And it isn't in the English translations. The Bible was written for the homosexuals of the day to execute themselves. But since they were disobedient enough to be homosexuals, everybody knew that they wouldn't do it themselves. So the Ancient Israel people needed to step in and help them.

Consider. The Old Testament laws of the Bible were given to Ancient Israel. They were not given to the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, Babylonians, Siberians, or anyone else. They were given to Ancient Israel.

And who were the Bible laws directed at? I mean, the Ancient Israel people weren't supposed to go to China and kill all the homosexual Chinese. Nor the homosexual Babylonians. Nor the Siberians. Nor the Egyptians; God even told the Israel people to never go back to Egypt again. So, who were the laws to be enforced on? Why the Ancient Israel people, of course.

And, as noted briefly above, who were to be doing the executions of the Ancient Israel homosexuals? Wasn't it the Ancient Israel people who were to do it? And guess what nation the Ancient Israel homosexual people  were from. Weren't they people of Ancient Israel? So, they disobeyed God in two ways. They became homosexuals, and they didn't carry out God's command to execute homosexuals of Ancient Israel.

Thank God that He left some faithful people in Ancient Israel who carried out God's commands.

Show us the spot in the New Testament where Christians are ordered to kill homosexuals. You can't. There isn't one.

How in the world dumb are you? And you talk about winning and losing! IF you want to win, you gotta get your head out of the sand and into the game... at least a little.

[BADecker]

Did the same God inspired both New and Old Testament?

How many people could have ever competed with Bruce Lee successfully in martial arts?

Einstein and Hawking were very smart, scientifically.

Most people can't even come close to bench pressing like the best.

In fact, there are great men in every field.

But usually there are a few people who approach the best of the best.

Nobody approaches God. Even Satan thought he could create something like God did. So he created destruction. But God is even destroying destruction, thereby using Satan's creation better than Satan could. The culmination of the destruction of destruction will be upon us following the judgment, when the evil people and angels, including Satan, will be thrown into the lake of fire.

There is only one God. Other beings might be so named by people. But there is only one God.

[BADecker]

Then this one and only God demands from you to kill gay people (Leviticus 20:13) .  If you don't, you are not following what he recommends.

You are a phony.  At least Muslims have the guts to follow up on their nonsense.

You don't know what you believe and why?  You follow the New Testament but not the Old Testament?  Why are you rejecting God?

You believe because you were indoctrinated.  You don't think for yourself.

Are you following what Talmud, Torah and Quran teaches?  The same God inspired those books as well, no?

I think both you and your God are confused.

Well, I apologize. I didn't realize how mentally weak you are. I just replied to Astargath, above, that even the name "BADecker" isn't found in the Bible. So how do you know that God is commanding me to do anything like kill gay people? Or are you trying to say that He is commanding gay people to kill themselves?

You don't seem to understand much of anything. At least Astargath makes a little sense now and again.

But, what can anybody expect, other than all those mentally debilitating diseases passed on among you gay folk.

[BADecker]

Not just you, all the people he supposedly created.  You were created by God weren't you?

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Are you saying you are ignoring what your God recommended ALL people supposed to do?

If you think it is ok, just say it.  Why is it difficult for you to say that God fucked up with this particular rule?  Are you afraid to say that Leviticus 20:13 is morally wrong?

So, who did God give the law to? Didn't He give it to the people of Ancient Israel? Wasn't ancient Israel finally completely destroyed with the downfall of Jerusalem in 70AD? God didn't command all people to do those laws. He commanded the people of ancient Israel to do those laws.

For example. Go to the temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt. Read some of the hieroglyphics on the walls, etc. Were these written for you? Of course not. Can you attempt to follow them if you want? Of course.

Notice Deuteronomy 4:8 where Moses says to the people of Ancient Israel:

And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

Notice what he says: "And what other nation... ?" So, why do you try to extend those laws to other nations?

Now, if I want to adopt those laws as my own because they are so good, why can't I do it? But God didn't command me to do this. Or do you have evidence that He did? Show me where my name or other identifying feature says that I must adopt those laws. Also, show me where I have ever said that I have adopted those laws.

If I am required to obey those laws, however, then you are, too. So get out there and suicide yourself... or turn from your sin so that you don't have to execute yourself.

[BADecker]

So Bible is not for us?  Was the New Testament addressed to Americans or early Christians in the Roman Empire?

Finally, we are getting somewhere.  Bible (New&Old Testament) is an ancient, outdated text that should not be followed in the modern world.

I did not see BADecker name anywhere in the New Testament.

The N.T. is addressed to Christians, of which I am one. Just because the Bible is addressed to certain people, doesn't mean that what it says about other people won't take place. Notice the words of Leviticus 20:13 that you quoted above: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Do those words tell you to do the executions? Do they tell me to do them? Who do they suggest should do them?

The instruction regarding who should do the executing is set in the first 5 verses of Leviticus 20:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.

Notice who is to do it: "The members of the community... ." But if they fail: "If the members of the community close their eyes ... I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him... ." This instruction is carried on through the whole chapter of Leviticus 20 with regard to any of the laws that follow.

Notice, again who is to do it. The people of Ancient Israel. But who is to do it if these laws are adopted by other nations because they are such good laws? The executioners that the governments of those nations select to do it.

In other words, all your and Astartath's blabber to suggest that the Bible orders anybody to execute homosexuals in these N.T. times, is just a bunch of BS. All you are trying to do is justify yourselves. Justify yourselves? Yes! Justify yourselves because God, Himself, will judge and condemn you when necessary. And it won't be fun for you when that happens.

[BADecker]

The N.T. is addressed to Christians, of which I am one. Just because the Bible is addressed to certain people, doesn't mean that what it says about other people won't take place. Notice the words of Leviticus 20:13 that you quoted above: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Do those words tell you to do the executions? Do they tell me to do them? Who do they suggest should do them?

The instruction regarding who should do the executing is set in the first 5 verses of Leviticus 20:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.

Notice who is to do it: "The members of the community... ." But if they fail: "If the members of the community close their eyes ... I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him... ." This instruction is carried on through the whole chapter of Leviticus 20 with regard to any of the laws that follow.

Notice, again who is to do it. The people of Ancient Israel. But who is to do it if these laws are adopted by other nations because they are such good laws? The executioners that the governments of those nations select to do it.

In other words, all your and Astartath's blabber to suggest that the Bible orders anybody to execute homosexuals in these N.T. times, is just a bunch of BS. All you are trying to do is justify yourselves. Justify yourselves? Yes! Justify yourselves because God, Himself, will judge and condemn you when necessary. And it won't be fun for you when that happens.

I think I understand your position.  You feel that God was addressing ancient Jews when he spoke those words that is why you don't feel you need to follow those recommendations.

You don't quite have it yet. For example. If you and I and Joe are in a boat, and the boat is sinking, and I say to Joe, "Put your life jacket on because we will be in the water shortly," who did I give the command to? You or Joe? Didn't I give the command to Joe, but not to you? But you heard the command and can take warning (or not), because the boat is going to sink out from under you, as well. Do you somehow think that you will not be in the water when the boat sinks, just because the life jacket command was not given directly to you?

Same with the laws in the O.T. They were not given to you. But you have seen them. The results of disobedience are happening to you, even though they might happen is slightly different ways for all people.

As a Christian aka follower of the Jesus Christ, you follow the New Testament, not the Old Testament because the Old Testament was not addressed to Christians, the New Testament was.  I would agree with that logic, Judaism and Christianity are different.  Jews of the old Bible crucified Jesus because they disagreed with him.

So I'm guessing you don't follow the 10 commandments as they were addressed to ancient Jews?

One commandment in the Ten Commandments is, "You shall not steal." A 10-C person might follow the commandment because he is following the commandment. I don't steal NOT because I know that the commandment exists. Rather, I am not stealing for another reason than obeying the commandment. What might that reason be? The Pentecostals explain that reason all the time.

My bad, I was raised Roman Catholic, and both the Old and the New Testament were used to teach us about what God wanted us to do.

Many churches do not clarify the distinction between the O.T. and the N.T.  And that is not good, because the Testaments are not expressed in the same way. But they both express the same thing  from different standpoints.

The O.T. standpoint is from before Jesus came to take the punishment for sins. The N.T. standpoint is from after Jesus came and took the punishment for sins. In fact, technically speaking, the Gospel writings (first 4 books of the N.T.) contain both O.T. info and N.T. info. How? The O.T. info is taught by Jesus before He died on the cross and arose. Virtually none of the things Jesus says after He has risen is the same as what He said before He died. He is not stating different things. He is merely stating them from different standpoint directions.

It seems to me that you have developed a personal version of Christianity based on what makes sense to you.  Nothing wrong with that, still it is based on many supernatural, magic tricks but if it works for you, go for it, fill your boots (with this nonsense).

BTW here is the list of some the nonsense in the New Testament (core text for your belief): virgin conception by an angel, raising from the death, life after dead, miracles of Jesus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus), heaven, hell, angels, souls, demons etc.

It seems that you are ignoring the major point in life. This point is that neither you nor science has any information that overcomes Bible info.

What do I mean? I mean, nobody can make life or create a universe. Scientists don't know how any of it came about; their ideas are all guesswork; if they knew, they could make some life or create a universe.

In other words, everything that you believe in regarding life and how the universe came about, is all essentially impossible. Since we are living in something that is impossible for it to exist, isn't it time that you start to seek the God you think is impossible, to find out how these impossible things can exist?

So which Christian church do you belong to?  No 10 commandments?  That must be some very progressive church.

Who says anything about no Ten Commandments? Haven't I been explaining about the Ten Commandments right along with the whole Old Testament? All you want to do is confuse things by saying this.

Like Jesus after His resurrection, Saint Paul explains that we are to live by the Spirit if we are Christians. A Christian receives the Spirit of God, and doesn't follow the 10 by looking at them and following. Rather, the Holy Spirit directs the life of Christians in ways that they do the things of the Law, without literally following the Law. They do it all through love. And this love follows the pattern of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The fact that many Christians are mixed up in the way that they obey God, doesn't take away from the fact that they are Christians. Here is what I mean.

"Christ" is the Greek word for the Jewish word "Messiah." Both, O.T and N.T. express the Messiah/Christ. The difference was that the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the masses of O.T. believers, because the payment for sins had not been made, yet. Jesus had not died on the cross to pay for sins. After Jesus paid the penalty, there was no more reason to keep the Holy Spirit away from believers.

Do you think that this is crazy? Take a look at the whole universe. Such a small amount of it can be explained by anybody, that the whole universe is crazy in the same way. The universe is impossible. Yet it is here.

Scientists who are waking up to a whole view of the universe are starting to talk about God from a scientific standpoint. They don't call Him God, but they are recognizing that some great and (at least partially) intelligent force penetrates everything that exists.

This God is the One Who expresses Himself through the Bible. Why does He do so? Because scientists are too dumb to figure Him out except in very limited ways. And without figuring Him out and believing in Jesus salvation, there will only be destruction when the end of the universe comes.

Consider. Scientists have found massive black holes in several parts of the universe. They see the BH light that supposedly was sent out thousands or millions or billions of years ago. But the thing that nobody knows is if the universe was not destroyed long ago by a gigantic BH. And the electromagnetic wave front of that BH is coming right behind the speed of light, and is almost on top of us. In other words, the destruction is propagated almost at the speed of light, and we will not see it until it is right on top of us.

We are ignorant. The Bible expresses that the judgment is near, through the prophesies that it expresses. The whole starry sky that we see at night might be entirely gone. The only reason we see the stars is that the destruction is moving near the speed of light, following the light from the stars.

You better double-think the things that you are believing in. They are not known to be true. It will probably be hard for you to do this, because you can't seem to hold more than about two points in your head at any one time.

[BADecker]

Who says anything about no Ten Commandments? Haven't I been explaining about the Ten Commandments right along with the whole Old Testament? All you want to do is confuse things by saying this.

Like Jesus after His resurrection, Saint Paul explains that we are to live by the Spirit if we are Christians. A Christian receives the Spirit of God, and doesn't follow the 10 by looking at them and following. Rather, the Holy Spirit directs the life of Christians in ways that they do the things of the Law, without literally following the Law. They do it all through love. And this love follows the pattern of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The fact that many Christians are mixed up in the way that they obey God, doesn't take away from the fact that they are Christians. Here is what I mean.

"Christ" is the Greek word for the Jewish word "Messiah." Both, O.T and N.T. express the Messiah/Christ. The difference was that the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the masses of O.T. believers, because the payment for sins had not been made, yet. Jesus had not died on the cross to pay for sins. After Jesus paid the penalty, there was no more reason to keep the Holy Spirit away from believers.

Do you think that this is crazy? Take a look at the whole universe. Such a small amount of it can be explained by anybody, that the whole universe is crazy in the same way. The universe is impossible. Yet it is here.

Scientists who are waking up to a whole view of the universe are starting to talk about God from a scientific standpoint. They don't call Him God, but they are recognizing that some great and (at least partially) intelligent force penetrates everything that exists.

This God is the One Who expresses Himself through the Bible. Why does He do so? Because scientists are too dumb to figure Him out except in very limited ways. And without figuring Him out and believing in Jesus salvation, there will only be destruction when the end of the universe comes.

Consider. Scientists have found massive black holes in several parts of the universe. They see the BH light that supposedly was sent out thousands or millions or billions of years ago. But the thing that nobody knows is if the universe was not destroyed long ago by a gigantic BH. And the electromagnetic wave front of that BH is coming right behind the speed of light, and is almost on top of us. In other words, the destruction is propagated almost at the speed of light, and we will not see it until it is right on top of us.

We are ignorant. The Bible expresses that the judgment is near, through the prophesies that it expresses. The whole starry sky that we see at night might be entirely gone. The only reason we see the stars is that the destruction is moving near the speed of light, following the light from the stars.

You better double-think the things that you are believing in. They are not known to be true. It will probably be hard for you to do this, because you can't seem to hold more than about two points in your head at any one time.

Your logic is inconsistent.  You reject some rules and accept the others.  All rules in the Old Testament were inspired by God and were specifically provided for the Jewish people. (Actually, it was the Jewish leaders who hired some scribes to write the scriptures, but those are the implementation details.)

You accept the 10 commandments but not Leviticus 20:13.  But that is ok, do your cherry picking.

It doesn't matter in a grand scheme of things, your belief is based on nonsense (zombie myth), with cherry picking or without it.

I just hope you start thinking what you believe and why?  I know it is hard for you to abandon your carefully constructed bubble, it is uncomfortable and scary.  I was brainwashed as a child so I know what you are going through.  I have family members who are just like you.

They cling to their belief as it is a matter of life and death.  They think me, my wife and my kids are possessed by the devil, LOL.

PS. If Leviticus 20:13 is an immoral rule, the God (Jewish leader) who recommended it was immoral.

Here you are, bringing up a different subject. What's the matter? Can't figure any response to the things I said?

And why do you think that I do or don't accept some of the O.T. laws but not others? As I have been telling you, the O.T. laws apply to people to whom they are meant for, one way or another. They are not immoral.

How do you know what people think about you and your family? How many of them tell you what they think? But since you don't believe the laws they tell you about, why would you believe what they say they think about your family?

Actually, it is you who have become brainwashed. Listen to your family. you have the chance to be saved. Stop throwing your very self "under the bus."

[Astargath]

Who says anything about no Ten Commandments? Haven't I been explaining about the Ten Commandments right along with the whole Old Testament? All you want to do is confuse things by saying this.

Like Jesus after His resurrection, Saint Paul explains that we are to live by the Spirit if we are Christians. A Christian receives the Spirit of God, and doesn't follow the 10 by looking at them and following. Rather, the Holy Spirit directs the life of Christians in ways that they do the things of the Law, without literally following the Law. They do it all through love. And this love follows the pattern of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The fact that many Christians are mixed up in the way that they obey God, doesn't take away from the fact that they are Christians. Here is what I mean.

"Christ" is the Greek word for the Jewish word "Messiah." Both, O.T and N.T. express the Messiah/Christ. The difference was that the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the masses of O.T. believers, because the payment for sins had not been made, yet. Jesus had not died on the cross to pay for sins. After Jesus paid the penalty, there was no more reason to keep the Holy Spirit away from believers.

Do you think that this is crazy? Take a look at the whole universe. Such a small amount of it can be explained by anybody, that the whole universe is crazy in the same way. The universe is impossible. Yet it is here.

Scientists who are waking up to a whole view of the universe are starting to talk about God from a scientific standpoint. They don't call Him God, but they are recognizing that some great and (at least partially) intelligent force penetrates everything that exists.

This God is the One Who expresses Himself through the Bible. Why does He do so? Because scientists are too dumb to figure Him out except in very limited ways. And without figuring Him out and believing in Jesus salvation, there will only be destruction when the end of the universe comes.

Consider. Scientists have found massive black holes in several parts of the universe. They see the BH light that supposedly was sent out thousands or millions or billions of years ago. But the thing that nobody knows is if the universe was not destroyed long ago by a gigantic BH. And the electromagnetic wave front of that BH is coming right behind the speed of light, and is almost on top of us. In other words, the destruction is propagated almost at the speed of light, and we will not see it until it is right on top of us.

We are ignorant. The Bible expresses that the judgment is near, through the prophesies that it expresses. The whole starry sky that we see at night might be entirely gone. The only reason we see the stars is that the destruction is moving near the speed of light, following the light from the stars.

You better double-think the things that you are believing in. They are not known to be true. It will probably be hard for you to do this, because you can't seem to hold more than about two points in your head at any one time.

Your logic is inconsistent.  You reject some rules and accept the others.  All rules in the Old Testament were inspired by God and were specifically provided for the Jewish people. (Actually, it was the Jewish leaders who hired some scribes to write the scriptures, but those are the implementation details.)

You accept the 10 commandments but not Leviticus 20:13.  But that is ok, do your cherry picking.

It doesn't matter in a grand scheme of things, your belief is based on nonsense (zombie myth), with cherry picking or without it.

I just hope you start thinking what you believe and why?  I know it is hard for you to abandon your carefully constructed bubble, it is uncomfortable and scary.  I was brainwashed as a child so I know what you are going through.  I have family members who are just like you.

They cling to their belief as it is a matter of life and death.  They think me, my wife and my kids are possessed by the devil, LOL.

PS. If Leviticus 20:13 is an immoral rule, the God (Jewish leader) who recommended it was immoral.

Here you are, bringing up a different subject. What's the matter? Can't figure any response to the things I said?

And why do you think that I do or don't accept some of the O.T. laws but not others? As I have been telling you, the O.T. laws apply to people to whom they are meant for, one way or another. They are not immoral.

How do you know what people think about you and your family? How many of them tell you what they think? But since you don't believe the laws they tell you about, why would you believe what they say they think about your family?

Actually, it is you who have become brainwashed. Listen to your family. you have the chance to be saved. Stop throwing your very self "under the bus."

If OT laws are not immoral, the Leviticus 20:13 is in the OT, so by your logic it is not immoral.

So killing gays is ok then?  Yes or no?

He doesn't even know. His arguments are like a 5 year old, hurr durr my name is not in the bible therefore I don't have to do it. There are plenty of ridiculous laws and punishments in the new testament too. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

So far badecker hasn't been able to argue why homosexuality is wrong or why should we kill them, he simply says, god said it, therefore must be right. A man who would do anything a book says is mentally ill.

[CoinCube]

If OT laws are not immoral, the Leviticus 20:13 is in the OT, so by your logic it is not immoral.

So killing gays is ok then?  Yes or no?

BADecker stated that the laws in Leviticus were given and apply to ancient Israel.

Let's see what the Orthodox Jews say about this topic.

HOMOSEXUALITY IN ORTHODOX JUDAISM
http://lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf

THE CONTEXT AND REASONS FOR THE TORAH VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The Torah calls homosexuality a Toaiva-abomination. What does it mean? Usually, the Rabbis do not explain the meaning of Torah words. And the meaning of abomination seems reasonably clear -- it is abhorrent to God. But in this case, the Talmud does offer a specific explanation. Based on a play on the Hebrew words, the Talmud  says that in the act of homosexuality, the person is "straying" What does this mean?

The commentaries on the Talmud say that by abandoning heterosexual sexual relations, the person is straying from one of his prime goals in life -- to procreate and populate the earth (Genesis 1:28). We will amplify this theme below, but this explanation does not seem to be the "abhorrence" that the word "TOAIVA" implies in the simple meaning. Thus, the classic explanation of why homosexuality is prohibited in the Torah is because of "straying" i.e. failure to populate the earth. The Chinuch explains that any "wasting of seed" on homosexual relations is preventing procreation and inhabiting the earth, the prime directive of man. This "prime directive" is echoed by Isaiah in describing the purpose of Creation -- "to be inhabited."

This explanation does not point to the "unholiness" of the homosexual relationship, but, rather, the violation of man's purpose on earth. We may be able to understand the Torah view of homosexuality better if we compare it to other sins in the Torah that are also called Toaiva- abomination. There are numerous other references to deeds that are described as Toaiva- abomination. By examining each one, we may be able to ascertain what they all have in common.

Desiring and taking idols of the nations that the Jews conquer is considered a Toaiva- abomination. Eating non-kosher foods is also called a Toaiva-abomination. There is a general statement that ALL the customs of the Canaanite nations are considered to be Toaiva-abomination. Then there is a general warning not to learn or copy the Toaiva-abominations of all the Cannanite nations. This is followed by some examples (noted above), including child sacrifice to their gods, using a seer or "magician" to contact the dead or predict the future. Then God says that it is BECAUSE these nations did all these acts of Toaiva- abomination that God is letting the Jewish people inherit the land.

What do all these acts have in common? They are pagan customs of the societies whose values are antithetical to Judaism. God emphatically warns the Jewish people not to learn these customs or follow these values. Based on this, homosexuality, also called Toaiva-abomination, can be understood to be a societal value and sin that is alien to Judaism and Jewish values, and should not be "learned" from the societies where the Jews have lived or have conquered.

The other Torah, Talmudic and Midrashic references to homosexuality also elucidate the overall Torah view towards homosexuality. Although not expressed explicitly in the Torah, the Rabbis understood that, according to Rav, Potiphar bought the Hebrew Joseph specifically for homosexual purposes. This is significant, as it implies that homosexuality was prevalent in Egypt at that time. Thus, when the Torah later on commands not to imitate the ways of the Egyptians (and Canaanites), this could also include the common practice of homosexuality that was found in these societies.

...

In the society of Sodom, the Torah clearly says that the townspeople demanded that the strangers be given to them for homosexual purposes (the verb "knowing" in the Torah is frequently associated with the sexual act - - see Genesis 4:1). This was apparently common practice in that society, and hence the origin of the term sodomy. This is one of the main reasons that the city was destroyed very soon thereafter.

All of these Torah examples have one thing in common: homosexual activity is common in these foreign societies and is abhorred by God, and all of these societies were eventually destroyed. Thus, once again, shows that Jews may not engage in such activity, and imitate the mores of these foreign societies.

 

The overarching argument appears to be one of willful self destruction.

That if a society chooses to embrace Toaiva-abomination be it child sacrifice, beastiality, occultism, or yes homosexuality that society will sooner or later be "distroyed by God".

It would cease to exist presumably by not fully understood cause and effect mechanisms that undermine something necessary for society to survive.

Now if you believe the Bible is arbitrary man made rules you reject that argument. The multiculturalist for example argue that all cultures and practices are equally valuable. One does wonder how they would deal with child sacrifice if all the societies practicing it had not already been destroyed.

Regardless we live in a secular society where homosexuality is accepted and celebrated with frequent parades.

Will that acceptance cause growing problems and gnaw away at the foundations of our society over time? The answer to that probably depends on whether you think the Bible is the word of God or arbitrary rules.

[CoinCube]

The question is not to whom the OT laws where given.

The question is whether the OT laws are immoral.

There are two options you have with regards to the authors of OT:

1. The OT laws are moral, then the authors (God) were moral and killing of gays is a moral action.
2. The OT laws are immoral, then the authors (God) were immoral and killing of gays is an immoral action.

So you, CoinCube, think that the authors of OT were immoral because you stated that you would not kill gays.

I want to hear what BADecker thinks.  I want him to see that the laws given by God are immoral, hence God of the Bible is immoral.

Either God is immoral or God did not inspire the Bible.

Or God is moral and killing of gays is a moral action.

Which one is it?

Your options are oversimplified and obscure the real dichotomy here.

The real dichotomy is as follows.

1. The OT laws are moral, then the authors (God) were moral in legislating homosexual acts to be a capital offence and subsequently for societies to bring capital charges against the gays who despite knowing it was a capital offence chose to engage in them.

2. The OT laws are immoral, then the authors (God) was wrong. Homosexuality is not harmful to society. It should not be a crime and it is definitely immoral to outlaw homosexuality and even more immoral to declare it a capital crime.

Neither of these possibilities require a religious person to go out and kill gay people.

If you believe option #1 is reality then you should logically advocate against the entire Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer movement politically and if those efforts fail prepare yourself for your civilization to gradually fail as that is what God pretty much said would happen in the Bible at least according to Rabbi Nachum Amsel above.

If you believe option #2 is reality then things are fine. The Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer movement is part of a great liberation movement. Other outdated Biblical prohibitions like incest should also be done away with. It is no ones business what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Many other archaic prohibitions like pedophilia also need to be closely examined. Who are we as a society to say that some mature young people can't consent to something. That is archaic traditionalism from puritanical times.

Ultimately people need to decide for themselves what is true.

[CoinCube]

Hmm, so you think that the OT laws are moral (i.e. God is moral) but you personally would not kill gay people (i.e. let the society at large decide)?  Is that your position?

Yes

The farther you diverge from the traditional monogamous family unit the more damage you do to society.

A major reason why incest, adultery, sexual promiscuity outside marriage, and homosexuality are all bad even when they are consensual is that they disrupt the formation of the traditional family unit.

Traditional monogamy in marriage is the chaining of the very destructive biological reproductive drive into a pathway that is both reproductively functional and non-disruptive to society. Everything that disrupts that process i.e. the entire "sexual revolution" undermines the foundation of society and in extreme case is ultimately fatal to the culture.

Societies live and die by what they permit and what they prohibit. These decisions of law must be made collectively. Trying to imposing a personal moral value via violence against another when that behavior is condoned and legal is not a solution and never will be.

In my own case I have also yet to decided if the Torah and the Bible were written by God through inspired men or written by men inspired by the ideal of God. The latter case opens the possibility of error which I have not discounted. I am still studying the texts.

In my opinion, the OT laws were moral at the time they were written.

Today, the OT laws are demonstrably immoral, ...

Morality changes over time,

I disagree with this moral relativism.

According to this logic morality is whatever the majority says is moral.

I believe morality has an objective reality outside of human opinion.

PS. The fact that morality or immorality changes over time is proof that the scriptures were not divinely inspired but are product of a human mind, frozen in time they were written. 

If morality is objective then it cannot change over time.

Laws based on universal moral principles can lose applicability over time and superior laws may become possible that achieve the original moral goal in a more effective or kinder manner.

The original moral principle, however, cannot change if morality is an objective reality.

[CoinCube]

Slavery is not moral because it causes harm to individuals.  So the Bible moral code cannot be objective.

If the morality is objective, how would you know that it was written somewhere?  And why on Earth would you think that the ancient Jewish leaders figured out what the objective morality suppose to be.

...

I don't think morality is objective because the environment, knowledge, customs change over time.  Everything in the universe is constantly changing. Cells in your body are replaced every 7 years, so technically you are a different person every 7 years.

Do you think having sex with a 9 year old is moral?  It was few centuries ago, in some cultures.

Moral objectivity can lead to ISIS style genocides.

PS.  Morality has to change as everything in the universe changes.  Nothing stays the same.  Life becomes more complex. Emergence is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16W7c0mb-rE

You are not being logically consistent in your arguments.

If you truly think morality is subjective then it shouldn't bother you that sex with 9 year olds occurred in ancient cultures. That's was moral by their standards so it should be totally ok with you. Different day different morals.

Similarly you should have nothing to say about the holocaust or the mass starvation and purges of China's cultural revolution. The majority of Germans and Chinese supported the Nazi and Communist regimes respectively and those regimes considered their actions not only moral but necessary for "victory".

If morality is subjective all you can say about these things is that you don't like them or don't agree with them. You can say that according to your own subjective standard that's not appropriate behavior but you cannot say your code is better then theirs. Both codes are meaningless social constructs totally arbitrary.

The reality is that you are actually applying an objective moral standard to your arguments. You are taking the position that your rule "Do not unnecessarily harm other people or animals." Is objectively true and thus it can be used to judge the conduct of others and our predecessors.

I agree with you. I think your rule is objectively true. I just don't think it is sufficient or complete.

Cells in the body do change but the underlying truth of cells the code that guides them in that reproduction usually does not. When it does change it normally manifests as cancer and kills us.

You have figured out something you feel is objectively true. Your casual dismissal of other possible objective truths from your predecessors many of whom spent their entire lives pondering that very issue is unwise.

ISIS style genocides occur despite moral objectivity. It occurs because of a subjective warping and misunderstanding of objective reality. I agree that such evils represent a reason to be cautious in our interpretation of reality. However, our limitations are not a reason to embrace subjectivity. Moral subjectivity facilitates far greater horrors as history has demonstrated.

Everything in the universe does change but it changes in an orderly fashion via a chain of cascading causal orderly interactions that ultimately trace back to a first cause. Emergence is indeed real. It's existence shaped and guided by that same overarching order. The fact that we have free choice in such a universe even if it is an illusion so perfect we cannot see through it is nothing short of miraculous.

[Astargath]

Slavery is not moral because it causes harm to individuals.  So the Bible moral code cannot be objective.

If the morality is objective, how would you know that it was written somewhere?  And why on Earth would you think that the ancient Jewish leaders figured out what the objective morality suppose to be.

...

I don't think morality is objective because the environment, knowledge, customs change over time.  Everything in the universe is constantly changing. Cells in your body are replaced every 7 years, so technically you are a different person every 7 years.

Do you think having sex with a 9 year old is moral?  It was few centuries ago, in some cultures.

Moral objectivity can lead to ISIS style genocides.

PS.  Morality has to change as everything in the universe changes.  Nothing stays the same.  Life becomes more complex. Emergence is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16W7c0mb-rE

You are not being logically consistent in your arguments.

If you truly think morality is subjective then it shouldn't bother you that sex with 9 year olds occurred in ancient cultures. That's was moral by their standards so it should be totally ok with you. Different day different morals.

Similarly you should have nothing to say about the holocaust or the mass starvation and purges of China's cultural revolution. The majority of Germans and Chinese supported the Nazi and Communist regimes respectively and those regimes considered their actions not only moral but necessary for "victory".

If morality is subjective all you can say about these things is that you don't like them or don't agree with them. You can say that according to your own subjective standard that's not appropriate behavior but you cannot say your code is better then theirs. Both codes are meaningless social constructs totally arbitrary.

The reality is that you are actually applying an objective moral standard to your arguments. You are taking the position that your rule "Do not unnecessarily harm other people or animals." Is objectively true and thus it can be used to judge the conduct of others and our predecessors.

I agree with you. I think your rule is objectively true. I just don't think it is sufficient or complete.

Cells in the body do change but the underlying truth of cells the code that guides them in that reproduction usually does not. When it does change it normally manifests as cancer and kills us.

You have figured out something you feel is objectively true. Your casual dismissal of other possible objective truths from your predecessors many of whom spent their entire lives pondering that very issue is unwise.

ISIS style genocides occur despite moral objectivity. It occurs because of a subjective warping and misunderstanding of objective reality. I agree that such evils represent a reason to be cautious in our interpretation of reality. However, our limitations are not a reason to embrace subjectivity. Moral subjectivity facilitates far greater horrors as history has demonstrated.

Everything in the universe does change but it changes in an orderly fashion via a chain of cascading causal orderly interactions that ultimately trace back to a first cause. Emergence is indeed real. It's existence shaped and guided by that same overarching order. The fact that we have free choice in such a universe even if it is an illusion so perfect we cannot see through it is nothing short of miraculous.

The problem, you knucklehead is that you are arguing that in ancient times god was there to help people, if we know those things were immoral now, god would have known then too and he would have done something about it not fucking help them with stupid laws that supported their immoral actions.

[CoinCube]

The problem, you knucklehead is that you are arguing that in ancient times god was there to help people, if we know those things were immoral now, god would have known then too and he would have done something about it not fucking help them with stupid laws that supported their immoral actions.

I think the real problem is that you are unwilling to look past the superficial.

The overall moral message of the Bible in regards to human sexuality seems to be a pretty simple one.

In the Bible any sexual activity outside of traditional marriage is immoral and prohibited period end of story.

Like the challenge of sleeping with married women -> Death Penalty
Farmer who gets frisky with his sheep -> Death Penalty
Man who prefers men to women -> Death Penalty
Rapist -> Death Penalty

Even unmarried consensual sex leads to either the death penalty or a forced marriage depending on the specific circumstances.

If you were serious about examining the morality of this you have to ask yourself not the specific question but the broad one. Is this strict prohibition of all sexual relations outside of marriage moral.

Setting aside the traditional religious answer yes because God declared it  this is not an easy question to answer. What if the functional alternative to such a restriction is cultural destruction and cessation. That appears to be the position of Rabbi Nachum Amsel above. Maybe it's simply not competitive.

The historical record supports this. Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct. It was the puritanical ones that survived.

We are currently running a real time experiment to find out if this holds true today. In Europe the loosening of the restraints on sexuality is quite advanced.

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide

In Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden the majority of births now occur outside marriage, with government assistance typically provided to single mothers.

Will European civilization continue or will it fall like so many decadent civilization throughout history have fallen when confronted with a culture that lacks this trait?

[CoinCube]

...
Moral objectivity does not exist.  You are wasting your time looking for it.

By applying ancient moral rules you are short circuting all the progress we have made as humanity.

Unsurprisingly we disagree once more at the foundation of things.

I am confident you are wrong. A majority of philosophers the people who spend more time then anyone analyzing this question also think you are wrong.


Moral Realism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism.

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[1] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[2] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[3] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[4]