POI wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:36 am
(U) As I've noted, since our intuitions are fallen, our intuition can be flawed, whether we believe male on male sex is either right or wrong. So, though intuition can be guide, it cannot be the ultimate guide on what is objectively right or wrong.
POI How exactly might one know if their intuitions are fallen/flawed, verses not?
The only reliable way to know if something is objectively right or wrong is from an authoritative source. If our intuitions are contrary to it, then our intuition is incorrect.
Also, you still have not answered my repeated simple question. Do your intuitions tell you ALL male-on-male anal sex is an abomination? Yes or no?
I have no intuitive opinion on it. Further, do you not agree we cannot trust our intuitions?
POI wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:22 pm
POI Then we should not trust our
intuitions, as it applies to having a gut feeling about what is (right and wrong)?
(U) There is no ability to reproduce in such a case, so no, it is not using my logic.
POI The vagina has more than one use, just like the anus. So no, your logic does not stand. Hence, "it's still obvious" the anus was also designed for the penis to go up inside of it.
Everything has more than one purpose, but just because there is a hole somewhere does not mean it is obvious anything should go into that hole.
POI My argument is most certainly not irrelevant. You brought up the "design" of the vagina. I'm shedding further light on the "design", or lack-there-of... What kind of designer would create a female's junk to share the same exact path with their sewage system, (prone to infection and death)? I'd instead say it's obvious you either have a crappy designer, or, no designer at all.
This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.
In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all.
(U) As I've mentioned, there are no qualifications mentioned in the Old Testament, so why should your qualifications make it acceptable?
POI We've been over this... If one is the age of consent, the act is not violent, and the couple is monogamous, why would male-on-male anal sex still be an abomination? Is it merely because God says so? And/or does he have reason(s) why it is still bad?
Yes,
we've covered this before.
I've offered religious and secular reasons why it is considered wrong. You've offered no Biblical counter-arguments and only offered secular counter-arguments.
It is only the Bible that is labeling it an abomination, so without a Biblical counter-argument, you have not answered why there could be cases where it would not be an abomination. And actually, I can think of a Biblical counter-argument where there could be qualifications for it, but I'll leave it up to you and others to research that out.
(U) From an Old Testament perspective, there is no statement all anal sex is wrong. There are many sexual practices the Bible does not mention. What is right or wrong for all those cases? It's up to one's personal reasoning and conscience to decide.
POI That sounds very subjective, for someone who claims morals are objective. What is THE answer? Is all human anal sex an abomination or not? In order to make any headway here, we need to know. You are the one who is trying to water down what the Bible says about the topic of 'homosexuality'.
Nobody is claiming all morals are objective. Morals can either be subjective or objective.
Not sure what you mean by trying to "water down". All I'm showing is what the Bible says and does not say.
(U) Like I said, I'm not using intuition to determine what the Bible says nor how to decide what is right or wrong. Intuition is a guide, but since it is fallen, it cannot be a reliable guide in all situations.
If the Bible is reliable and authoritative, then it has the authority to claim what is right and wrong.
POI Your answer is bewildering... You state "objective morals" are gathered from our intuitive senses. But this is apparently not actually the case at all. You then throw out an (if/then) proposition, for which either one of us can do towards any hypothetical scenario.
Where did I state "objective morals are gathered from our intuitive senses"?
Thus, I ask anew.... How might one actually assess the rightness or wrongness of a claim given from the Bible, or any other claimed authoritative holy book for that matter?
If the Bible is authoritative, then it determines what is right and wrong for the jurisdiction of all those that accept its authority. So, the fundamental issue is why should the Bible be considered authoritative? And this is what the entire thread is about.
And before someone again charges me with a circular argument on ethics. Again, I'm not using the ethics presented in the Bible as an argument for the authority of the Bible. The arguments for the authority of the Bible has been discussed for first 335 pages of this thread before I even started on the discussion of ethics.
The issue of ethics is one might not like the ethics presented. But that does not mean God does not exist or the Bible is false if one does not like the ethics.
(U) Now your turn, if we can't trust our intuition, then how can we determine what is right or wrong?
POI The same way we assess if someone or something is tall or short, fat or skinny, expensive or cheap, etc etc etc... I tried to elaborate using economics, but you will not have it. Whether we are speaking about a moral assessment, or an amoral assessment, it really makes no difference. (i.e.) It's objective if Sam has $100.00 more dollars than Sally, because we can count what they have and assess an objective number value for each person. But, by using WHAT standard are we to then determine if Sam is rich or poor? The second you place such words, like "rich", "poor", "bad", "good", "fat", "skinny", etc etc etc, you can start by asking, 'according to who?' Okay, I'm asking your asserted Bible-God?...
I've already argued your examples of "economics" is not relevant. The fundamental issue of ethics is how things
ought to be, not how things actually are. Saying Sam has $100 more than Sally is a statement of how things are, not how things ought to be. The entire field of economics is describing how things are and does not address how things ought to be.
...I'm evaluating some assertions from the Bible-God and his asserted 'authoritative nature', and pointing out how they do not make logical sense against some of his given rules/commands/etc. This holds true with the last two topics, (slavery and this one).
I've given my concluding arguments on both already:
*
Slavery summary argument
*
Summary argument on homosexuality
Feel free to give your summary arguments why they do not make logical sense.
I now want to know WHY the Bible God thinks ALL male-on-male anal sex is an actual abomination???? Is it merely an arbitrary rule which makes no logical sense at all, or, are there actual reason(s) for him thinking so? If so, what are those reason(s) to think ALL male-on-male anal sex is an abomination?
If you're looking for Biblical arguments to allow gays to engage in sex without being condemned, as I've mentioned, there are Biblical arguments that do exist. But I'll leave it to you (and others) to present those.
Only an inept designer, or an intentionally destructive designer, would create the three observations I have mentioned, thus far.
