"Why Blacks Should Be Homophobic" interesting blog by G Craig Lewis

[LaylieCalmMind]

@JimmyDiggs
This is the last I'm going to directly respond to you on these topics in this conversation. I'm not going to attempt to change your mind beyond this. You'll hold whatever views you wish to have that's fine I respect your freedom. I only wish to respond now to defend my views against false claims.


You keep insisting there must be an absolute moral standard without explaining why the world needs one to function. You claim that people can't possibly define morality... Here's my final response to that.

Stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, these are absolute religious moralities... We don't need an absolute morality when we can have one that is thought out, reasoned, and discussed, it's intelligent design of morality. You say this can't work, but it has already worked! We designed our current morality, the one that most people of the 21st century accept. Look at what moralities we hold, we believe that slavery is wrong, we believe in equality of women, we believe in personal freedoms of speech and religion/thought, we believe in being kind to animals... These are moralities that have developed over time due to reasoning, discussion, legal theory, and political/moral philosophy. They did not come to be because of religion, they have little to no basis supporting them (but quite a bit against them!) in the Bible or the Quran. You claim that we require an absolute moral standard but modern society proves you wrong. So yes, nothing is objective right or wrong, only subjectively, but I'm fine with that. Because we're still going to send people to prison for murdering others, and I'm still going to show love to everyone, and be loved back by those close to me. It doesn't make a difference.


You've been very selective in the statistics you've used to support your point. Let's look at a few facts that I can point out.

- While atheists are about 10% of the US population, they are about .21% of the Federal prison population.
- Divorce rates among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than atheists/agnostics.
- Norway, one of the least religious nations on Earth, has over a 70% atheist population. The Global Peace Index rates them as the most peaceful nation in the world, and they're ranked first in the world in life expectancy, education, and standard of living. The same trends apply to most of the other least religious nations, such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland.

But am I claiming that the non-religious are more moral or better than the religious? Absolutely not. Everyone is an individual and has an individual level of significance placed on their morality, and should be seen as equal, and only judged off their own actions. I'm pointing out these facts to show you that the non-religious are not less moral or worse than the religious, and nothing more than that.


And... That's all I have to say to you about morality, make of this what you will, you have absolute freedom of speech and thought. And by the way, if I sound hostile or angry at you in any of the above, I did not intend to come across that way. Nothing but respect to you I'm just defending my stances at this point

 

[jimmydiggs]

@JimmyDiggs
This is the last I'm going to directly respond to you on these topics in this conversation.

Fine by me.

I'm not going to attempt to change your mind beyond this.

If you have been trying it hasn't gone well; as thus far I have only further seen the blunders of Dictionary Atheism.

You'll hold whatever views you wish to have that's fine I respect your freedom.

For me it isn't really a matter of what I wish. There are a lot of things I wish were or weren't in the bible, but aren't or are. As far as belief in a deity of some kind, the same goes for that. I didn't come to Christianity because I wanted to. Christianity means a restriction on what I can do. Within the Judeo-Christian philosphical foundation there are a number of things, such as Philsophy of Morality that conlcude I am actually accountable for what I do as a violation of the moral law is an actual violation. Whereas under the Atheistic worldview with a non-existant morality, the condemnations based on morality are really only expressed non-binding ideas and opinions. So atheism is certainly much more attractive to the teenage boy mind-set; as it results in a moral free-for-all. If you catch my drift.

I only wish to respond now to defend my views against false claims.

Are they really false, or only perceivably false?

You keep insisting there must be an absolute moral standard without explaining why the world needs one to function.

I have tried to explain this several times in response to your points. We can not condemn something on a moral basis if said basis doesn't even exist. To condemn someone for doing what we think is wrong is only an expression of opinion, and is non-binding. That as why I require an Objective Moral law that exists externally to the human mind to be able to condemn homosexuality, while you the athiest, require it to condemn my condemnation of the homosexual activities. All you can do without said Objective Moral Law is to say, "I think your condemnation of homosexual activity is morally wrong." Which often includes semantical word games.

You claim that people can't possibly define morality... Here's my final response to that.

I have explained this in previous posts, maybe not the most clearly. Here's a scenario that might make it easier ot understand.

You want people to be able to define morality, correct? Well, have at it.

There are only two people in the world, Susan and Billy. Billy says rape is really fun, and makes him feel great. Susan says it is morally wrong to rape. Billy says it is morally wrong to let a girl go un-raped. There is no Objective Moral standard. All that matters is who is doing the defining.

Each have attemped to define morality. Who is actually right and who is actually wrong?

Stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, these are absolute religious moralities... We don't need an absolute morality when we can have one that is thought out, reasoned, and discussed, it's intelligent design of morality.

Richard Dawkins said something similar which can be found at the link provided below. What he is doing though and what you are as well is condeming an act on a philosophical moral basis, that you don't even believe exists. It is completely self-defeating. Without an Objective Moral Law (different from moral absolutism) that makes something actually morally wrong, all you have is subjective opinion which is non-binding and changes upon whim. All you can say as an atheist is, "I think stoning people for adultery, be-heading for apostasy, and such are morally wrong." Which again often leads us into a giant semantical word game.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Absolute Morality <--- click for dawkins

You say this can't work, but it has already worked!

Watch what happens to a society when it goes through natural or any kind of disaster or devastation. See how many people change their definitions of morality then.

We designed our current morality, the one that most people of the 21st century accept.

Us choosing morality is the exact definition of subjective. What is morally true for you, may not be morally true for me. So when we use opinions such as what has happened with much of 21st century secular ethics, all we are doing is semantical word games at best.

Look at what moralities we hold, we believe that slavery is wrong, we believe in equality of women, we believe in personal freedoms of speech and religion/thought, we believe in being kind to animals...

Are these things actually morally correct? If I keep slaves, chain multiple wives up in the kitchen, and tape everyones mouth in my household, what have I violated? Certainly not a moral law, just a moral Opinion.

These are moralities that have developed over time due to reasoning, discussion, legal theory, and political/moral philosophy. They did not come to be because of religion, they have little to no basis supporting them (but quite a bit against them!) in the Bible or the Quran.

Actually, you might want to look into the history of Western Philosophy of Morality and various legal theories. Currently the greatest influence is what is known as Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism is greatly influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview because Christian philosophy asserts that human life has an intrinsic value. This is something that has greatly influenced western thought on multiple subjects since Christianity spread through europe. To have intrinsic value, an Objective moral standard is required. Which in turn requires a God.

YouTube - Ravi Zacharias on Atheism, Suffering and Absolutes 2/2 <--- skip to 4:00

When denying God in an attempt to build our own Subjective morality we are also accepting the implications. When you reject Moral Objectivism, and accept Atheism. You ultimately are accepting that humans have no intrinsic value. The only value is that which is assigned by us at best, and is illusory at worst.

You claim that we require an absolute moral standard but modern society proves you wrong.

We require an Objective Moral standard to be able to actually remain philosophically consistant when we condemn an act. So when you condemn a religion for beheading for apostasy, yet reject that there is actually right and wrong as a thing, but is rather an idea... You have completely defeated your own intentions.

YouTube - Is God Dead? Ravi Zacharias Sermon Jam <--- click

So yes, nothing is objective right or wrong, only subjectively, but I'm fine with that.

So you are fine with only moral opinions?

Because we're still going to send people to prison for murdering others, and I'm still going to show love to everyone, and be loved back by those close to me. It doesn't make a difference.

Again, you are attempting to apply a philosophy you don't even believe exists. This further exemplifies the inconsistancy of Atheism.

Atheism cannot account for morality.
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <--- click for more

You've been very selective in the statistics you've used to support your point. Let's look at a few facts that I can point out.

It would appear you missed the question that came after the picture. The question was...

What if the following chart were reversed? Would that make anything in it less moral?

Either you purposely skipped the question, or didn't see it. The question was based off your assertion that we as humans can define morality. So if humans don't agree that things such as: Honesty, Kindness, Family Life, Being loved, Friendship, Courtesy, Concern for others, Forgiveness, Politeness, Friendliness, Patience, Generosity are morally upstanding, but rather endorses the opposite, does that invalidate these ideas? Does the majority endorsing the opposite of Honesty, make Honesty immoral?

- While atheists are about 10% of the US population, they are about .21% of the Federal prison population.

How are we defining Christian? If we define it by the bible, the vast majority of the United States would fail the test. The United States has a culture of religion, and not a religion of culture. We use our cultural values to define our religious views, instead of letting our religious views define our cultural values.

- Divorce rates among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than atheists/agnostics.[/qoute]
What we have in the United States isn't Christianity, but rather a system of clubs based around something that they think is nice.

YouTube - Matt Chandler - I Don't Believe You're A Christian <--- click

If I stand in a garage and start shouting, "I'm a car, I'm a car" does it make me a car?

YouTube - Sermon Jam 6 - Never Go Back; Demons (very good) <--- click

- Norway, one of the least religious nations on Earth, has over a 70% atheist population. The Global Peace Index rates them as the most peaceful nation in the world, and they're ranked first in the world in life expectancy, education, and standard of living. The same trends apply to most of the other least religious nations, such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland.

I don't know that I said atheists can't do moral things. I stated, and will repeat again... Atheism philosophically can't ask questions like, "Is lfe expactancy, proper education, and a comfortable standard of living moral?" Under Atheism these things may be desired, but are amoral. They are neither moral nor immoral.

But am I claiming that the non-religious are more moral or better than the religious? Absolutely not.

With that previous statement about death for apostasy, yeah, you tried but you didn't. Why not? You attempting to say someone is in violation of something you don't believe even exists.

Everyone is an individual and has an individual level of significance placed on their morality, and should be seen as equal, and only judged off their own actions.

Should be seen as equal? Sure, but are they actually equal? You are asserting an intrinsic human value based on a system you don't believe is actually valid.

I'm pointing out these facts to show you that the non-religious are not less moral or worse than the religious, and nothing more than that.

How can you gauge someone by a system that you consider to be non-existant?

And... That's all I have to say to you about morality, make of this what you will, you have absolute freedom of speech and thought.

Actually, under Atheism there is no such thing as freedom of speech and thought as it is only chemical reaction.

And by the way, if I sound hostile or angry at you in any of the above, I did not intend to come across that way. Nothing but respect to you I'm just defending my stances at this point

Wouldn't be bothered if you said I was a psychopath who plans on abusing my children by teaching them biblical Christianity. It's actually what I expect to hear.


Is respect actually moral?



The reason why Objective morality is a neccesity when discussiong question of morality such as homosexuality, is we can not condemn anything by something we do not believe even exists.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

We're at a point where we're going to repeat the same arguments over and over again at each other. I feel my arguments refute yours and you feel the same way vice-versa. I'm sure you think this as well but I think that everything you've just written I've already answered. The feelings are mutual. So this is going to go nowhere. So I'm simply refusing to argue about it any more, it's just really not what I want to spend my time on here. This is how a lot of interactions end, this is the way I think, that's the way you think, neither of us is changing, that's all there is to it.

So that's how this ends too. Best of luck to you in everything. I'm sorry that I have to cut it short like this, it's just that these discussions are not something I feel good about having in this environment.

 

[Descyple]

Greetings everyone!

I do not mean for my post to interrupt the on-going discussion in this thread between Laylie and Jimmy. I apologize to you two if it seems that way. Please carry on your dialogue.

I understand the relevance of this topic and the deep-seated and diverse opinions of everyone on this site. For the record, I do not affirm nor support homosexual behavior based upon my apprehension of what appears to me to be God's universal condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures. However my intention here is not to provide my views on homosexuality (I've already done so in a previous thread) but what I would like to do to contribute to this important subject is to recommend two very educational debates that would be very helpful for both sides of the debate, especially since these debates deal with many of the precise points raised in this thread. For example the important question:

1. Does the Bible condemn abusive homosexuality only, or homosexuality in its entirety?

The speakers in these debates deal with this issue (and others) in a very precise manner, making the debates very helpful and useful.

The links for the debates are below (I apologize, but I do not know if these debates are available for free on the internet, but the purchase prices are very in-expensive).

"The Gay- Marriage Debate" (took place in 2008) - This debate is between Bible scholar James White (who defends the negative view of homosexuality) and homosexual Pastor Dee Bradshaw (who defends the affirmative view of homosexuality). Within the debate, the title is more specifically referred to as "Does the Bible Allow Gay Marriage?" The video download is $5, audio-only download is $3.
Note: James White also debated to other pro-homosexuals (Barry Lynn and John Shelby Spong). I have not yet listened to those debates, but I wanted to mention they too are available on White's site.

Alpha and Omega Ministries


"Dialogue Over the Bible and Homosexuality" (took place sometime in the 1980's) - This debate is between Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen (who defends the negative view of homosexuality) and Christian author Paul Johnson (who defends the affirmative view of homosexuality). This audio-only debate is $4.

Covenant Media Foundation - Dialog Over the Bible and Homosexualtity


These two debates have been very educational for me to learn of the thoughts and ideas presented by both sides, and therefore I would very much like to recommend them as relevant resources for furthering the debate regarding homosexuality and the Bible. And although all four participants in these debates are professing Christians, I would still recommend the debates to the non-Christians here on CC who are also interested in this subject.

I wish you all the best in your continued studies and research regarding this important topic.