POI wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 4:43 pm
POI Bingo! God weighed in of the topic of 'gay sex', or a man lying with another man. This is "might makes right", which, as I have already explained, is no different than 'authority makes right."
I've already
explained the difference between authority and might (power). If you claim they are equivalent, then produce your evidence.
The conclusion fails, as Frank T. has already explained, in the first of the two provided videos I offered.
Likewise I've also countered it.
(U) Where did I state "goodness"?
POI Please do not try to bow out, using a very minor technicality.
Equivocation is not a very minor technicality. And especially if you claim that I said those things.
As stated, a few times now, if God should happen to have stated "a man lying with another man is fine", then it would somehow be deemed fine, merely because God assigns what is "right, correct, good", based upon his own "nature". This conclusion fails, as already explained.
And I've addressed this as well multiple times.
(U) This is a circular definition.
POI Call it what you wish. This is God's rationale, under the theist's umbrella. (i.e.) God's "might" makes something "right".
Here's what you stated on what is "right":
POI wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:49 pm"Right" - Whatever God says is considered 'right', because he possesses the 'might'.
You charge me with circular logic yet your entire argument is based on a circular definition.
POI I'll just offer the conclusion here...
Option 1) Something is right because God says so, (might makes right, arbitrary)
Option 2) Something is right because of other reasons, (no more need for a God)
Option 3) Something is right because it's God's nature, (might makes right, arbitrary)
To summarize my position, what makes something right is authority, not necessarily might or power. Since God is ultimately the highest authority, then what God dictates is right.
Out here in the real world, our decisions/conclusions are usually determined using option 2), which does not necessitate the need for a God at all.
This doesn't work either because it means all morals are then subjective.
So, when the Bible tells its readers that "gay sex is bad", we have to truly ask ourselves WHY? The second you give reason(s), outside of option 1) or 3), you have also adopted the "secular" method, which is illogical as you are a theist.
I'll let readers decide who is the one being illogical that I can't use religious sources and argumentation and I can't use secular sources and argumentation.
(U) As I've argued, homosexuality as defined in the modern sense was not how it was viewed in the past.
POI Well, we are still speaking about the exact same thing. "Gay sex' equals a man having 'physical relations' with another man.
No, we are not speaking of the same thing. As I've stated:
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:57 am
The widespread concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity is a relatively recent development, with the word itself being coined in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality
There are not even words in the ancient languages which translate to the modern-day "homosexual" and "heterosexual" which were only coined in 1869 CE.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/17 ... ent-world/
Like the issue with slavery, a major problem with the issue of homosexuality is our modern terms do not correlate with how people in ancient society viewed homosexuality.
The modern conception of sexuality relies on a strict categorisation of sexual appetites and personal desires – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. In the ancient world, however, these words did not exist and the concepts they represent were not necessarily analogous to our modern understanding of sexuality.
In truth, the projection of utopian ideals of sexual acceptance – particularly in the case of same-sex relationships – onto ancient cultures does not truly capture the complexity and social nuance that surrounded the complex issues of sexuality and desire in the past, and continues to cause controversy in the modern day. The application of modern labels onto sexual attitudes in the past – labels still hotly contested by scholars today – creates the issue of forcing a modern understanding of sexuality onto people who did not necessarily conceptualise sexual identity in the same way we do.
https://garstangmuseum.wordpress.com/20 ... ent-world/
Sexual orientation is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world. The usual supposition of writers during the Hellenistic period were that homosexual behavior was the result of insatiable lust seeking novel and more challenging forms of self-gratification.
https://tinyurl.com/msauj3ww
POI No. I've already been down this winding road with other Christian apologists. The theist argues we all have sinful thoughts, whether it be about heterosexual adultery, gay sex, or other, but (thinking vs. acting/doing) are two different things.
I'm not talking about thinking or lustful thoughts. I'm talking about the distinction between male and male sex and gay sex.
I'm instead saying it's highly likely the one(s) who authored these verses were homophobes. "Gay sex is icky", therefore it is wrong. Why? Because God thinks so.
And I'm arguing the modern concept of homosexuality (and homophobia) did not really exist in the past.
