Homosexuality as a sin against both worldviews

[cholland]

Am I missing something, or is homosexuality not only an affront against most of the major religions, but also against natural selection? How does an evolutionist justify the insertion of a homosexual gene in the natural selection process, considering it is its enemy?

From my point of view, homosexuality is a sin not only according to the Christian Bible, but also against the evolutionary worldview. You EITHER hold one of the two and are inconsistent:
1. I'm a Christian, but decided to cherry pick the Bible and/or disobey it.
2. I'm an evolutionist, but decided somehow homosexuality is not an attack on the natural selection process.

OR you hold one of the two and are consistent:
1. I'm a Christian and homosexuality is an offense against God.
2. I'm an evolutionist and homosexuality is an offense against the natural selection process.

The only worldview I see that can justify homosexuality is nihilism. But of course, they can justify rape, murder, etc. as well.

[cholland]

I won't hold my breath.

They are self evident. Contradictions are absurd. I knew that before knowing anything about Aristotle.

Now you're starting to sound like a Christian.

I'm saying you can't begin with "God does not exist" and then ask someone to prove his existence. Similar to you can't begin with "The Laws of Thought do not exist" and then ask someone to prove them.

You are wrong here too. There are things that I thought didn't exist and was proven wrong.

I'm guessing by something you can see and touch? I'm going start with "The Laws of Thought do not exist." Please proceed to prove me wrong.

You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words).

Well that's your problem: God is not the same thing as God's words, and incidentently, God's words not necessarily the same thing as what is written in the Bible.

Ok then. Can you prove to me the Laws of Thought without using any form of communication of them?

[Bust Nak]

Now you're starting to sound like a Christian.

Right, because Christianity have the monopoly on truths.

I'm guessing by something you can see and touch? I'm going start with "The Laws of Thought do not exist." Please proceed to prove me wrong.

What's wrong with my previous attempt by pointing out the absurdity of contradictions?

Ok then. Can you prove to me the Laws of Thought without using any form of communication of them?

No, proofs are in themselve forms of communications.

[Flail]

Ok, Goat. This whole discourse you have been assuming the laws of thought without basis. By even communicating, attempting to distinguish between true and false, using words, etc. the laws of thought must be true. But you have yet to show me how they are true without using the laws themselves.

IN THE SAME WAY, I assume God and his words (or actually Jarte did), and make an argument from there. Enter Goat "And other than a book written by man, how does anybody know what 'God' likes or dislikes?"

SO, if you are to demand us to show you something immaterial, eternal, and true that we assume, I am asking you to do the same.

Laws of Thought:God::Goat:Jarte

If you cannot, I see no problem with making our assumptions as well. I can't make it more simple than that.

I am doing more than that. I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists,,.. and now you are making a claim about the generic 'immaterial, eternal and true'. >> Let's break that down, and I challenge you to show that 'eternal' has any truth to it what so ever. To heck with the 'immaterial and true'. Just show me that 'eternal' has any meaning outside of the imagination.

Again, you shift the burden of proof.

Let's start over. By even communicating, you are ASSUMING the Laws of Thought are true. No proof. Just faith.

When you make statements like "I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists", you are demanding proof for something that can only prove itself. Much like the Laws of Thought.

SOOOOO...if you want to go down the road of "proving God exists", all I can tell you is he proves himself. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, I ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself "Goat, how can I CONSISTENTLY ask someone to prove something that can only prove itself while I do the same in what I believe to be true (i.e. the Laws of Thought)? Aren't I being hypocritical?"

No shifting the burden of proof here...just trying to be consistent. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I'll but it as I am a little confused. Are you saying that there is equal circumstantial evidence for any particular God as for thoughts? Which God do you refer to here and how did you get to 'Him' without a grand presupposition in the first instance. And, since I am typing my thoughts, don't we have circumstantial evidence from that that I am thinking?

Perhaps I am missing your point.