Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 181
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Request
    This is a huge OP but it's essentially a big brain dump for various topics around the topic of religious approaches to homosexuality evidenced through politics and human behavior. If there are challenges to this please take it a section at a time rather than doing a gigantic post. I think we can deal with the issues at hand faster that way. If the central thesis is wrong then just grab that but state that you take it as read that you accept the facts but disagree with the conclusion. Thanks!

    Background
    I don't know if I can handle another thread but I'll throw it out there. In challenging religion, my favorite evidence-based approach is that of homosexuality. It has a long history and tons of evidence from various approaches different religions have taken as well as the struggles here in America, a modern society that still finds huge swathes of people against homosexuals having basic rights such as legal access to civil-union, equal health care benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. And the basis for this is their Christian religion. It's also been brought up even in the context of theism vs naturalism via in the thread God vs Natural Selection, which doesn't look like a place to resolve that issue w.r.t. homosexuality.


    So this thread is in the religion thread since religion influences both the science and politics on the issue. And I was beginning to derail my own thread with a full discussion on the issue with eye4magic. With that, moving on.

    Summary

    This OP attempts to lay out the case that the issues of homosexuality shows that religions and therefore by definition their deities are human inventions by:

    1. Proving that religion is a very strong force behind the anti-gay laws, if not the exclusive force.
    2. Demonstrate that homosexuality is natural in humans via evidence from the natural world as well as human behavior.
    3. Thus showing that anti-homosexual behavior is merely a product of human convention with a human source.

    There is a rebuttal from eye4magic which prompted this OT and this is my response back.

    The facts

    F1: Religion drives the politics behind anti-gay legistlation
    For those countries lucky enough not to live in a theocracy, it is through our legal system that homosexuality is currently fought: our laws decide what is permissible or not and for a long time homosexuality was illegal. Politics is how our legal system changes and thus our laws and politics are the battleground of the religious who want to suppress LGBT rights and those on the other side that wish to see LGBT couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

    In the modern Western world, we have only relatively recently made homosexuality legal (src): it has only been nationally 'legalized' since 2003 in the US and in the various European countries in the last 60 years or so. Despite this, and certainly here in America, there are active hate groups attempting to slow down and revert the progress in gay rights as well as buttressing against future with explicit legislation to supress further change. This is more of a religious discussion so the politics are a bit out of scope, it is brought up here because these groups are exclusively religious in origin. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies three hate groups (src): The Westboro Baptist Church, that needs no introduction and is definitely religion-based; the Family Research Council (spun off from the religious right group Focus on the Family) and The American Family Association whose founder proclaimed "I never dreamed I would see the day when sodomy would be called normal, and those who held to traditional values based on Christian teaching would be called bigots."

    Other Christian countries, at the prodding of American Christians, seem to think that making homosexual acts illegal again, up to and including the death penalty is a good idea (info). And Islamic countries that have morality police no less as part of their governance structure have been known to torture and kill homosexuals via hanging or stoning no less (info).

    It should also be noted that Mitt Romney's, the presumptive Republican candidate, a Mormon, has fully participated, via contributions, in the famous anti-prop 8 gay rights vote in California. Of course, Mr. Flip Flop has also passed some great pro-gay legislation so it remains to be seen what his position he will reveal over the course of the next few months.

    So I trust that we all in agreement that homosexuals have a really hard time around the world and that is specifically due to the drawing moral direction from religious texts. If not, then you are challenging the facts and not me. If further proof of this needs to be provided, I will, but I am moving forward, with the assumption this is true for at least two religions (Islam, a theocracy and Christianity).


    F2: The natural factor
    Animals exhibit homosexual behavior which provides evidence that it is not un-natural (src) behavior. It has been argued that animals really evidence bisexuality but neither are animals monogamists so it is impossible to make this claim given this constraint doesn't apply to animals. And in fact, in humans, it is monogamy which is a 'choice' given that most men, gay or straight, would prefer multiple sexual partners. If anything monogamy is what is un-natural, if natural were the yard stick we are measuring by.

    As a control, we need to find evidence of a group of men, who have no access to women or long term relationships and see where their natural sexual proclivities lead them. Luckily we have plenty of examples, of course, in the Catholic Church, where it doesn't need proving that such repressions have produced many a sexual scandal not least of which were against young children. But where the latter is interesting is not so much the children but that they were almost exclusively boys, as if there were some driving factor towards male children, given that there were equal access to both genders. Surely this, in of itself shows that homosexuality has a natural and certainly not a environmental cause; and especially true also given that other religious organizations who have had sexual scandals with children are usually with girls.

    Conclusion: homosexuality fits within an evolutionary framework even within strict religious settings.


    F3: The ich factor
    Being heterosexual, homosexual acts are unpleasant to think about but so are unpleasant acts with an ugly old woman. But that doesn't sound like a basis for killing old women either or saying that they automatically become sinful when they reach that age nor is having sex with them, should one would want to (rule 34), be deemed immoral.

    This disgust is a natural response towards thinking about sex with non-breeding stock so why distinguish between gays and women? And if we are going to distinguish, surely the laws should be the same against all humans that are undesirable breeding partners? For example, is it illegal to marry a person with Downs Syndrome? But more to the point, is it repulsive to even ask the question?

    Conclusion: it is natural to not want to breed with people with unpleasant characteristics but it is only with homosexuals where it is illegal


    F4: The hypocrisy factor
    Being gay doesn't preclude sex with women as evidenced by the surprisingly large number of gay anti-gay married with children Republicans have shown. It does show that gay men can indeed perform the functions necessary but they live unhappy lives in that regard and this is exhibited in their strong anti-gay agendas as well as their divorces when they come out, which prove both the social pressures at play as well as indicating that once all limiters are removed, natural predilections win out.

    We also see this in various revelations of prominent political hate groups, anti-gay activists and pray-away-the-gay therapists. Most memorable of which was George Rekers who was all three when was famously photographed with the male 'helper' he went on vacation with. Why he advertised in a gay website for this man and the man's revelation of naked massages only fueled speculation of Rekers' sexuality and we have not heard from him since other than in comedy sketches.

    So much so in fact, it is almost a universal truth that the most vehement anti-gay leaders eventually turn out to be gay themselves as this link to several dozen recent cases.

    Conclusion: being gay doesn't preclude being anti-gay; that it is the latter, obviously a choice, suppressing the former; which not shows that human nature eventually wins out but when it does it is once the social/religious pressures are released.

    F5: The science behind the hypocrisy
    A recent study shows this:

    Is Some Homophobia Self-Phobia?
    ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2012) — Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

    Obviously more studies are required but this is evidence that for the most extreme cases, the religious politics are being driven not so much by morality but perhaps by self hate.

    It's like fat people eating more to feel better about their weight, which they are also getting social pressure against.

    Conclusion: This might be a self-perpetuating problem at the level of the individual

    F6: Evolution
    Being anti-gay doesn't even make evolutionary sense because taking certain men out of the breeding pool only increases the choice for heterosexual men. Given the competition for resources, it surely makes more sense to encourage homosexuality not to suppress it. For example, I'm all for having more women available. I completely don't see a single downside for anyone.

    In fact, it seems to me, in suppressing homosexual behavior, it is the religious that are perpetuating the genes that may be behind causing it! By forcing that gene to breed other homosexuals.

    Conclusion: Being anti-gay is not natural and therefore a human convention



    Deities are Human Inventions Because their Morality is a Human Invention
    It should be noted that history gets a free pass and is only presented as evidence. No one can be blamed for not acting on information they didn't have. We have only properly fully accepted homosexuality as a social truth recently but that in itself is sufficiently to prove non-harm. Which is a great excuse for humans but not for deities, that do have access to such information.

    From the above religious anti-gay laws looks like what normal heterosexual men without the benefit of a modern understanding of humans, and having not watched Glee, that The Gay is seriously harmful. It is wholly non-evidence based with the only source literally not being even reason but Biblical Command from no less than God, the source of Objective Morality.

    We know from the facts above: from the old laws that we had to eventually repeal, from the current crop of anti-gay hate groups that are wholly on the conservative religious side (i.e. anti change and pro religion) and the fact that homosexuality is natural (F2 - F6 ) and suppressing it merely as a 'choice' is anti-fact and harmful (F4, F5); all this information points to a human origin for such morality.

    If such a simple problem takes so long to solve on a social level even given the evidence as well as no proof of harm to others (except in the case of the Catholic Church) then it is purely a human failing to say it is morally wrong. And if it is a human failing and a human law attributed to God then surely, it follows that God too is a human creation.


    Religion could be the cause
    Schadenfreude is one of the rewards in religious arguments for atheists; beginning with the hypocrisy of those leaders of anti-gay organizations turning out to be gay themselves. But it also ends sadly with the rape of male boys and horrifically, the torture of homosexuals in Islamic countries. Such ironies and hypocrisies are exacerbated by the repression of homosexuality itself.

    As a bonus addendum and commentary, I forward the case that it is religion causing homosexuality in the first place:

    From an evolutionary point of view, it is religions keeping the gay gene, if one exists, propagating from one generation of human to another. They do this by forcing such humans smart enough to hide their homosexuality from a hostile society to breed. Indeed, this is an argument that the religious see homosexuality as natural rather than a choice: essentially weeding out those that are openly homosexual and just keeping those that keep quiet.

    From a moral perspective, it is religions that are taking advantage and maybe even feeding, deliberately perhaps, the self-hate that drives the energy behind the motivations of the leaders. In which case, why is religion a moral leader if it takes advantage of the problem it not only created itself but actively rails against?

    From a social perspective, in acting so publicly and morally against actual facts, and indeed in a recent case even advocating hitting children to suppress their Gayness as well as practically saying it is a religious right to bully gay teens (despite knowing this to be a cause for their suicide), the religious right are defeating their own cause by showing highlighting the reason for being anti-gay is not fact, but doctrine; and doctrine from their religion and from their God.

    Certainly in the eyes of those such as myself that know they are already morally wrong on this issue, I say keep going! Proving my point that religion is morally wrong is why most atheists are so vocal in the first place: when theory meets practice and the result is death, one has to wonder what the source is.

    The cool thing about the modern world is that facts are freely available and for those families that try to suppress their children's interest in understanding the real world, they will eventually find out to their shock that their families and preachers and religious group has been lying to them. The backlash is already being felt. Carry on - the Road to Damascus is littered with life-changing revelations such as this and there's little going back.


    Counter: Don't blame the wrong source - eye4magic
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Yes, it's an easy target. Yes, it has become vulnerable. Yes, it's emotionally soothing and convenient to blame the big problems of society on something from the atheistic point of view. However, it's really much more fundamental. It's much more basic. It's much more personal. If we can't learn to take personal ownership, responsibility and accountability for how we respond to knowledge, it doesn't matter what label or institution we call it; it doesn't matter if it will have stained glass windows or metal bar windows, but it will not remove our dilmenas.
    Look what you did. You ate up 3 hours of my life but I believe this answers your questions regarding my position on religious morality and why it is false and is only Objectively Wrong it seems and harmful to our future as well as to itself with its intransigence in the face of overwhelming facts. And ultimately why deities are human inventions given their pronouncements are so very human in nature. After all, what is more human that human sexuality? It's not just a rant but fact baed.

    You are correct in the personal respnsibility assessment and at the end of the day it boils down to that. However, given religion is a moral guide, it must at least prove itself to be a good one and the anti-gay sentiments are embedded in every religion for no evidence that we can examine or facts we can reason from or even an approach we can verify.

    It's just a bald statement: God said don't do it so don't.

    I don't recall who on this board revealed that he had gay room-mates and that he saw nothing wrong with this but because he couldn't reconcile it with the Bible, he took it on as his own problem; that he doesn't understand the message from God properly. Andrew Sullivan, a noted gay commentator and writer reveals his deep conflict with the Catholic Church on this issue it is terrible to see facts and doctrine play out. Further these two support the very religion and moral framework and deity that is causing said pain; it's a masochistic.

    As a fellow human it is an incredibly sad state of affairs when self-hate seems to be the only direction to take on this matter and that is wholly due to the framework of religious morality that depends upon a objective moral framework from an infallible deity. And this story has been repeated multiple times in the facts above; from the self-hating politicians, church leaders and Pray-the-Gay away frauds such as Michelle Bachman's not gay husband.

    Perhaps it is time to find a more reliable source of morality?
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 6th, 2012 at 04:14 AM.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    The primary problem with your argument is that it's not a fact that religion is unilaterally against homosexuality. As an example, the Unitarian Universalist church is very gay-friendly and will marry gay couples. There are even more mainstream Christian congregations that are gay tolerant.

    Just because us flawed humans twist (or make up for ourselves) God's message at times does not mean that there is no God.

    It could even be that God has never uttered a word to the human race but exists regardless - as in God made the universe and then stepped back and religion is just us trying to cope with our lack of understanding of how it really went but God exists anyway.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2012 at 08:04 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The primary problem with your argument is that it's not a fact that religion is unilaterally against homosexuality. As an example, the Unitarian Universalist church is very gay-friendly and will marry gay couples. There are even more mainstream Christian congregations that are gay tolerant.
    I have acknowledged this with Andrew Sullivan. Actually, I remember his statement clearly on Bill Maher's show saying that the Catholic Church was the most pro-gay Church there is; when challenged, he meant his own Church and not Rome.

    Nevertheless, gay-friendly and gay tolerant are terms that betray the mode of thinking. By analogy, you are also saying they are black-tolerant or black-friendly.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just because us flawed humans twist God's message at times does not mean that there is no God.
    It does if the message is explicitly from God! The WBC and Muslims are more true to the word of God than mainstream Christians in this sense. The twisting seems to have to be done to turn lemons into lemonade; it's turning the bad into good. Which is fine if you don't claim that your deity is also infallible and perfectly good. Something has to give.

    It boils down to several claims: the Moral Argument that since we have morality there must be a God; and if there is a God then he must be the source of ultimate morality - Objective Morality: the idea that there are moral truth statements. If any one of the self-claimed moral statements turn out to be false then it cannot be moral can it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It could even be that God has never uttered a word to the human race but exists regardless - as in God made the universe and then stepped back and religion is just us trying to cope with our lack of understanding of how it really went but God exists anyway.
    Well, it is certainly said that Jesus has never said a single word about homosexuals. And in fact, only communed with men and was never married and certainly never had sex with a woman such that a child came of the union. So ... exactly what conclusions can be drawn from that ;-)?

    Maybe the Catholic Church just wants to keep all the gay to themselves :-). On a serious note here though, my wife used to own a restaurant frequented by priests from a local Christian University and she said they were as gay as they come.

    But that said, the ten commandments were the ones directly attributed to God. The others, I'm not sure other than I seriously doubt that God sat down and dictated laws for the 20 months it would have taken to scribble down Leviticus. And that the likelihood is that the morality therein is wholly human invention. Agreed?

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    I agree with your presentation, but I'll still comment, hopefully adding to your argument.

    Opponents of homosexually have often admitted that their protest is based on religious views. They even venture further by defending their position, citing that settlers founded America on Judeo-Christian values. What they fail to mention is the other reasons for founding America, which was escaping religious tyranny (well, at least those who settled in the north).

    I believe that the phobia of homosexuality erupts from a deeper instinct. It originates from the basic instinct to conform to the norm. It is called herding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd). Among herds, the instinct is to exclude those that are different because they would stand out, and that makes them an easy target for predators.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I agree with your presentation, but I'll still comment, hopefully adding to your argument.

    Opponents of homosexually have often admitted that their protest is based on religious views. They even venture further by defending their position, citing that settlers founded America on Judeo-Christian values. What they fail to mention is the other reasons for founding America, which was escaping religious tyranny (well, at least those who settled in the north).
    I'd say they pretty much only base it on religious values but they know not to do that any more. Instead, they come up with all the other reasons why they should be gay, the advantages of having a family, or how terribly hard it must be to make that decision. They have learned not to use religious reasons because they don't really hold if one isn't a believer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I believe that the phobia of homosexuality erupts from a deeper instinct. It originates from the basic instinct to conform to the norm. It is called herding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd). Among herds, the instinct is to exclude those that are different because they would stand out, and that makes them an easy target for predators.
    I think that makes sense, given our entire culture is anti-gay. Luckily things are changing somewhat and most people when they say something is gay, it's usually done in a ironic way.

    But if I were to start a religion, it would just consist of gay men and heterosexual women!

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nevertheless, gay-friendly and gay tolerant are terms that betray the mode of thinking. By analogy, you are also saying they are black-tolerant or black-friendly.
    What do you mean?

    If it helps clear things up, some churches are gay-hostile and some churches are gay-friendly. Since there is no uniform hostility against gays amongst religions, you cannot accurately say that religion is anti-gay


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It does if the message is explicitly from God! The WBC and Muslims are more true to the word of God than mainstream Christians in this sense. The twisting seems to have to be done to turn lemons into lemonade; it's turning the bad into good. Which is fine if you don't claim that your deity is also infallible and perfectly good. Something has to give.
    Or you can claim that your God is infallible and good but it's the religions that are imperfect. Either they are made up of whole-cloth but God still exists regardless or that they are truly inspired by God but since humans were involved in the formation there has been a corruption and simple human bigotry against gays was inserted amongst the Godly stuff.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It boils down to several claims: the Moral Argument that since we have morality there must be a God; and if there is a God then he must be the source of ultimate morality - Objective Morality: the idea that there are moral truth statements. If any one of the self-claimed moral statements turn out to be false then it cannot be moral can it?
    It can be that God is entirely pro-tolerance for gays and yet some religious people have inserted their bigotry into the religions and current bigots use that to justify their bigotry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But that said, the ten commandments were the ones directly attributed to God. The others, I'm not sure other than I seriously doubt that God sat down and dictated laws for the 20 months it would have taken to scribble down Leviticus. And that the likelihood is that the morality therein is wholly human invention. Agreed?
    If so, that does not mean that there is no God.

    It could be that we have a "clockmaker" God as in he just made the universe and then stepped back to watch it tick away with no direct interference in human affairs. If that is the case, then religion is entirely made up by people with absolutely no input from an actual deity. But that deity exists regardless. Or it could be that God does talk to people on an individual basis, perhaps even in way that's so subtle that the person doesn't even realize that it's God (like you get a feeling that it would be a good idea to do a certain something but don't realize that God was the one who lead you to that conclusion) and never actually participated in the world religions (they came from humans only).

    There are many possible scenarios for God existing without religion being completely genuine.

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Nowhere in the op did I see an actual argument presented for showing that religious views about homosexuality necessarily result in God being a human invention...nowhere. The thread's title is misleading, and using it as a "conclusion" of an argument is fallacious since obviously, it is not.

    You've argued against religious dogma and certain moral standards, but not against the existence of God.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What do you mean?
    If it helps clear things up, some churches are gay-hostile and some churches are gay-friendly. Since there is no uniform hostility against gays amongst religions, you cannot accurately say that religion is anti-gay
    I think it would be better to say that the Unitarian Churches are fully inclusive (assuming they really are). Specifying all the discriminatory groups isn't really necessary. Just as saying that restaurants are are now fully integrated is no longer necessary.

    They also don't believe in Trinitarianism nor the divinity of Christ and indeed treat him as a fully human prophet. Not sure on their reasoning on homosexuality specifically though. It's worth looking exploring further though.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Or you can claim that your God is infallible and good but it's the religions that are imperfect. Either they are made up of whole-cloth but God still exists regardless or that they are truly inspired by God but since humans were involved in the formation there has been a corruption and simple human bigotry against gays was inserted amongst the Godly stuff.

    It can be that God is entirely pro-tolerance for gays and yet some religious people have inserted their bigotry into the religions and current bigots use that to justify their bigotry.

    If so, that does not mean that there is no God.

    It could be that we have a "clockmaker" God as in he just made the universe and then stepped back to watch it tick away with no direct interference in human affairs. If that is the case, then religion is entirely made up by people with absolutely no input from an actual deity. But that deity exists regardless. Or it could be that God does talk to people on an individual basis, perhaps even in way that's so subtle that the person doesn't even realize that it's God (like you get a feeling that it would be a good idea to do a certain something but don't realize that God was the one who lead you to that conclusion) and never actually participated in the world religions (they came from humans only).

    There are many possible scenarios for God existing without religion being completely genuine.
    I agree with your scenarios but the problem with arguing from a religious perspective without knowing the facts, is that you're making stuff up on top of stuff that is already made up. And then you'll be defending points, that may be not even relevant and only contingent on your own conceptions in the first place.

    For example, if I were to challenge you on your points then are you saying that the Bible is not wholly true, even despite other claims; then you'll have to give up on infallibility claim and so on. Meanwhile, theists are wondering what you are talking about because its certainly not their religion nor what they have said.

    Even if I win a debate with you on these claims, it would only be against a false sense of the religion. I think your stronger point, the fact-based one is the Unitarian Church, which I have heard is basically atheism with the teachings of Jesus, as a man, without the deity. In fact it sounds pretty sensible: taking the teachings of a wise man and attempting to live by those teachings. I think they even ordain women. It sounds like a Western Buddhism, except that its with Jesus' teachings.

    It's a good call but doesn't really defeat the OP for all the other religions where it does apply.

    ---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Nowhere in the op did I see an actual argument presented for showing that religious views about homosexuality necessarily result in God being a human invention...nowhere. The thread's title is misleading, and using it as a "conclusion" of an argument is fallacious since obviously, it is not.
    There's a whole section, just after the presentation of the facts:



    Deities are Human Inventions Because their Morality is a Human Invention
    It should be noted that history gets a free pass and is only presented as evidence. No one can be blamed for not acting on information they didn't have. We have only properly fully accepted homosexuality as a social truth recently but that in itself is sufficiently to prove non-harm. Which is a great excuse for humans but not for deities, that do have access to such information.

    From the above religious anti-gay laws looks like what normal heterosexual men without the benefit of a modern understanding of humans, and having not watched Glee, that The Gay is seriously harmful. It is wholly non-evidence based with the only source literally not being even reason but Biblical Command from no less than God, the source of Objective Morality.

    We know from the facts above: from the old laws that we had to eventually repeal, from the current crop of anti-gay hate groups that are wholly on the conservative religious side (i.e. anti change and pro religion) and the fact that homosexuality is natural (F2 - F6 ) and suppressing it merely as a 'choice' is anti-fact and harmful (F4, F5); all this information points to a human origin for such morality.

    If such a simple problem takes so long to solve on a social level even given the evidence as well as no proof of harm to others (except in the case of the Catholic Church) then it is purely a human failing to say it is morally wrong. And if it is a human failing and a human law attributed to God then surely, it follows that God too is a human creation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    You've argued against religious dogma and certain moral standards, but not against the existence of God.
    If those moral standards are derived from God as the Moral Argument claims and further that Objective Morality proves the existence of God. Then either there is no OM, or the MA is false and God does exist.

    Or you can claim that homosexuality is indeed the sin against your deity and choose to disobey him, contrary to your moral intuitions. You can't have it all.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I agree with your scenarios but the problem with arguing from a religious perspective without knowing the facts, is that you're making stuff up on top of stuff that is already made up. And then you'll be defending points, that may be not even relevant and only contingent on your own conceptions in the first place.

    For example, if I were to challenge you on your points then are you saying that the Bible is not wholly true, even despite other claims; then you'll have to give up on infallibility claim and so on. Meanwhile, theists are wondering what you are talking about because its certainly not their religion nor what they have said.
    I only have to give up on the infallibility of the bible (which most theists won't have a problem with since most theists aren't Christians nor does being a Christian mean that one must accept that the bible is infallible) but not the fallibility of God

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Even if I win a debate with you on these claims, it would only be against a false sense of the religion. I think your stronger point, the fact-based one is the Unitarian Church, which I have heard is basically atheism with the teachings of Jesus, as a man, without the deity. In fact it sounds pretty sensible: taking the teachings of a wise man and attempting to live by those teachings. I think they even ordain women. It sounds like a Western Buddhism, except that its with Jesus' teachings.
    Regardless, theism does not require the belief that homosexuality is wrong. It is a certain interpretation of certain religious texts that forward that homosexuality is immoral, not the whole of theism.

    Theism doesn't even require that one belong to an organized religion.

    The bare-bones definition of theism is that one believes that an intelligence made the universe. Given that, one can accept any position on the morality of homosexuality and still be a theist.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I only have to give up on the infallibility of the bible (which most theists won't have a problem with since most theists aren't Christians nor does being a Christian mean that one must accept that the bible is infallible) but not the fallibility of God
    So which parts of the Bible are false, and which parts are truly God inspired? Can we just dispense with the whole thing, in which case, where does knowledge of God come from?

    And then what does one do with all the claims that are based on the Bible that is now not true either?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Regardless, theism does not require the belief that homosexuality is wrong. It is a certain interpretation of certain religious texts that forward that homosexuality is immoral, not the whole of theism.

    Theism doesn't even require that one belong to an organized religion.

    The bare-bones definition of theism is that one believes that an intelligence made the universe. Given that, you can accept any position on the morality of homosexuality and still be a theist.
    Sure, if theism doesn't make any claims in this area and neither has Jesus anyway then this does not show that theism is false. The target for this are those religions that claim the truthfulness of the Bible or that Objective Morality exists and that it says God exists.

    Just like the Unitarian Church may not make such claims on homosexuality (which is unproven yet - I have to read if they're just ignoring it) if theism doesn't have any either, it doesn't qualify. But I'm not sure if theism is a religion or really a belief system per se: what's an example of theistic religion?

  11. #11
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There's a whole section, just after the presentation of the facts:

    Deities are Human Inventions Because their Morality is a Human Invention
    It should be noted that history gets a free pass and is only presented as evidence. No one can be blamed for not acting on information they didn't have. We have only properly fully accepted homosexuality as a social truth recently but that in itself is sufficiently to prove non-harm. Which is a great excuse for humans but not for deities, that do have access to such information.

    From the above religious anti-gay laws looks like what normal heterosexual men without the benefit of a modern understanding of humans, and having not watched Glee, that The Gay is seriously harmful. It is wholly non-evidence based with the only source literally not being even reason but Biblical Command from no less than God, the source of Objective Morality.

    We know from the facts above: from the old laws that we had to eventually repeal, from the current crop of anti-gay hate groups that are wholly on the conservative religious side (i.e. anti change and pro religion) and the fact that homosexuality is natural (F2 - F6 ) and suppressing it merely as a 'choice' is anti-fact and harmful (F4, F5); all this information points to a human origin for such morality.

    If such a simple problem takes so long to solve on a social level even given the evidence as well as no proof of harm to others (except in the case of the Catholic Church) then it is purely a human failing to say it is morally wrong. And if it is a human failing and a human law attributed to God then surely, it follows that God too is a human creation.
    This doesn't seem coherent Sharmak. I'll draw out the premises and the conclusion and strip the verbosity so you can see what you have argued here. Perhaps that will help.

    This seems to be your argument:
    Morality is Subjective
    P1. Human beings chose to repeal "old laws".
    P2. Homosexuality is natural.
    P3. "Suppressing" homosexuality is harmful and "anti-factual."
    P5. Therefore (from P1-P3), morality is subjective.
    Then...
    God does not exist (is merely a human invention)
    P1. The acceptance of homosexuality takes too long.
    P2. There is no evidence that homosexuality is harmful.
    P3. Therefore (from P1-P2), human beings are incorrect to say that homosexuality is immoral.
    P4. Homosexuality being immoral is something that is only said to be so because it allegedly is said to be by God.
    P4. Therefore (P3-P4), God does not exist (aka is a human invention).
    Before I respond to these arguments, please verify or change your argument accordingly (if you see the problems with them).

    If those moral standards are derived from God as the Moral Argument claims and further that Objective Morality proves the existence of God. Then either there is no OM, or the MA is false and God does exist.
    This is your argument:
    P1. Moral standards are said to be from God as per the Moral Argument (and thus, makes morality objective).
    P2. Therefore either there is no objective morality or the Moral Argument is false.
    Before I respond to these arguments, please verify or change your argument accordingly (if you see the problems with them).

    Hopefully, you can see the many and serious problems with your argumentation by stripping away the verbosity and putting the arguments into a simply form like this. If not, I'll explain where they go wrong. I'll let you clarify and amend as needed first though.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So which parts of the Bible are false, and which parts are truly God inspired? Can we just dispense with the whole thing, in which case, where does knowledge of God come from?

    And then what does one do with all the claims that are based on the Bible that is now not true either?
    I don't see the relevance of the questions. Even if the bible is 100% made-up, it still doesn't mean that God is not infallible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, if theism doesn't make any claims in this area and neither has Jesus anyway then this does not show that theism is false. The target for this are those religions that claim the truthfulness of the Bible or that Objective Morality exists and that it says God exists.
    And let's say that we cannot accept any of their claims as valid. Then what?

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This doesn't seem coherent Sharmak.

    This seems to be your argument:
    P1. Human beings chose to repeal "ld laws".
    P2. Homosexuality is natural.
    P3. "Suppressing" homosexuality is harmful and "anti-factual."
    P5. Therefore (from P1-P2), morality is subjective.
    Then...
    P1. Is showing that (some) humans no longer believe homosexuality is immoral; or at least immoral enough to legislate against.
    P2. This is due to evidence that homosexuality is not un-natural (as previously claimed) or wrong.
    P3. Suppressing homosexuality doesn't make it go away thus showing it is not as a result of human learning or conditioning. It provides additional support that sexual orientation is a natural human faculty.
    P5. I'm not sure where I've said morality is subjective but that it's natural and can't be 'fixed'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    P1. The acceptance of homosexuality takes too long.
    P2. There is no evidence that homosexuality is harmful.
    P3. Therefore (from P1-P3), human beings are incorrect to refer say that homosexuality is immoral.
    P4. Homosexuality being immoral is something that is only said to be so because it allegedly is said to be by God.
    P4. Therefore (P3-P4, God does not exist (aka is a human invention).
    Before i respond to these arguments, please verify or change your argument accordingly (if you see the problems with them).
    P1. This is more of a criticism of religion being slow on the take and harmful; given that we all have access to the same information.
    P2. I am saying that the claim that homosexuality IS harmful/sinful and that the claim is not evidence based and contrary to evidence. It is dismantling the claims in the Bible.
    P3. Yes, or the Bible, which is directly inspired by God. Or by the Churches, or the Churches leadership who also speak on behalf of God or who are otherwise 'experts' on morality.
    P4. So since knowledge about homosexuality is new, I wouldn't expect us to think any different: it is only being revealed to us now through Glee (say) then the past crimes can be understood.

    However, since the morality put forward by Christianity since the dawn of time has been directly sourced from God and to this day practically all the Churches from the Roman Catholic Church on down claim it is sinful AND specifically due to God then it must be that God is morally wrong. If God is morally wrong then he's useless (or the claim of him being good is false).

    The main point though is that if God is morally right then he should have had access to this knowledge in the first place and explicitly prevented words about homosexuality being sin into the Bible in the first place. Since that didn't happen, the only source of this are the men that wrote it. So either they miswrote it or they wrote it: either way those words ended up in the Bible from a human source. If the source of those word were human therefore must the moral framework be human and therefore God a human invention.

    Something like that. Basically, it all boils down to if you believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin the therefore God doesn't exist, because he says it is a sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This is your argument:
    P1. Moral standards are said to be from God as per the Moral Argument (and thus, makes morality objective).
    P2. Therefore either there is no objective morality or the Moral Argument is false.
    Before i respond to these arguments, please verify or change your argument accordingly (if you see the problems with them).
    P2. If objective morality is proven to be false then the MA is false.
    That is, if we can find a moral statement linked OM that is false then OM must be false then MA is false and MA cannot be used to claim God exists; or God doesn't exist; or OM doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Hopefully, you can see the many and serious problems with your argumentation by stripping away the verbosity and putting the arguments into a simply form like this. If not, I'll explain where they go wrong. I'll let you clarify and amend as needed first though.
    I'm not really seeing the serious problems but I appreciate the opportunity to get to a decent argument.

    ---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see the relevance of the questions. Even if the bible is 100% made-up, it still doesn't mean that God is not infallible.
    Well, it does if the Bible is inspired by God.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And let's say that we cannot accept any of their claims as valid. Then what?
    As atheists we don't accept their claims anyway. But what we can do in revealing that their claims are not based on facts or evidence; and indeed contrary to facts and evidence then they need to stop presenting them. If they're going to fall back on their deity then we have to show their deity is false or they are as bigoted as their deity.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, it does if the Bible is inspired by God.
    But it's written by humans so that can introduce fallibility while the original source is infallibe.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But what we can do in revealing that their claims are not based on facts or evidence; and indeed contrary to facts and evidence then they need to stop presenting them. If they're going to fall back on their deity then we have to show their deity is false or they are as bigoted as their deity.
    Or we can just say that they are not accurately portraying the Deity's moral position.

    In other words it can go like this:

    Deity: Love everyone
    Bigot: The Deity says love everyone but homosexuals - you should hate them.
    Me: Hey Mr. Bigot, the Deity didn't say that.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's written by humans so that can introduce fallibility while the original source is infallibe.
    You keep forgetting that you're an atheist and thus skeptical of all religious claims ;-). As far I am aware, most Christians say the the Bible is the infallible word of God; Wikipedia has a good summary of the main points.

    However, inerrancy is different from whether every word should apply and most Christians will ignore most of the Leviticus regarding practically everything. How that filtering is done is usually explained in that homosexuality is a sin but that it is the sin itself that is bad and not the sinner. This fails the distinction with no difference test but it is the basis behind the pray-the-gay away initiatives.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Or we can just say that they are not accurately portraying the Deity's moral position.

    In other words it can go like this:

    Deity: Love everyone
    Bigot: The Deity says love everyone but homosexuals - you should hate them.
    Me: Hey Mr. Bigot, the Deity didn't say that.
    Well, no-one says to hate homosexuals per se, but that it is a sin and should be avoided at all costs. Just like promiscuity, stealing, murder, etc. They are moral wrongs that have been directed by God, to us, via whatever means as yet unknown but nevertheless to be obeyed.

    Quite how this has translated into what it has become is a little weird with laws, and harsh punishments, so I'm not really say God said to do that. That to me, seems an over-reaction and not a punishment in proportion to the crime, even if it is a sin. To be honest, I don't even really understand why its so bad even without God saying so.

    The OP is multifold:

    1. To present that religious people have no evidence to make any claim that homosexuality is wrong.
    2. To argue that the sin is wholly derived from the word of God directly.
    3. To argue that since God is wrong; either he is not God or doesn't really exist and humans made the whole thing up.

    It's as if the Bible insisted that the Earth was flat and ensured that it were fully part of the daily operations of the believers. And we suddenly find out that it isn't: so where are you left - it's a bit weird to continue thinking the Earth is flat so you have to question the source of this now embarrassing new knowledge. I suspect the same thing has happened to all the old Gods: their claims just no longer make sense.

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You keep forgetting that you're an atheist and thus skeptical of all religious claims ;-). As far I am aware, most Christians say the the Bible is the infallible word of God; Wikipedia has a good summary of the main points.

    However, inerrancy is different from whether every word should apply and most Christians will ignore most of the Leviticus regarding practically everything. How that filtering is done is usually explained in that homosexuality is a sin but that it is the sin itself that is bad and not the sinner. This fails the distinction with no difference test but it is the basis behind the pray-the-gay away initiatives.
    I don't see the relevance to proving that God is a human invention. Explain the logic from how we get from the biblical errancy issue to "God is a human invention". If you can, please lay it out step-by-step.

    From what I can see, your argument would go:

    1. The bible has errors
    2. The Christians generally claim that the bible does not have errors
    3. Therefore the Christians are incorrect in their claims that the bible has no errors
    4. Therefore Christians are mistaken concerning a major point of their faith
    5. Therefore Christianity cannot be completely true
    6. Therefore there's no God.
    7. Therefore God only exists in the human mind and is a human invention.

    Now, that's just an example and unless I correctly stated your argument (I doubt I did), don't use it and make your own logic chain.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, no-one says to hate homosexuals per se, but that it is a sin and should be avoided at all costs.
    You are missing the point. I'm just showing how God and can say one thing and a "follower" can say something different.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The OP is multifold:

    1. To present that religious people have no evidence to make any claim that homosexuality is wrong.
    2. To argue that the sin is wholly derived from the word of God directly.
    3. To argue that since God is wrong; either he is not God or doesn't really exist and humans made the whole thing up.
    The thread claims that God is a human invention so THAT'S what needs to be supported. And since it's possible that God exists and also has no problem with homosexuality, that particular point is not made.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's as if the Bible insisted that the Earth was flat and ensured that it were fully part of the daily operations of the believers. And we suddenly find out that it isn't: so where are you left - it's a bit weird to continue thinking the Earth is flat so you have to question the source of this now embarrassing new knowledge. I suspect the same thing has happened to all the old Gods: their claims just no longer make sense.
    All that shows is that the bible is in error. It does not show that God is a human invention.

    I've got to say that we seem to be arguing at cross purposes so let's get one thing straight. Yes or No. Is it your position that God is a human invention on this thread?

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see the relevance to proving that God is a human invention. Explain the logic from how we get from the biblical errancy issue to "God is a human invention". If you can, please lay it out step-by-step.

    From what I can see, your argument would go:

    1. The bible has errors
    2. The Christians generally claim that the bible does not have errors
    3. Therefore the Christians are incorrect in their claims that the bible has no errors
    4. Therefore Christians are mistaken concerning a major point of their faith
    5. Therefore Christianity cannot be completely true
    6. Therefore there's no God.
    7. Therefore God only exists in the human mind and is a human invention.

    Now, that's just an example and unless I correctly stated your argument (I doubt I did), don't use it and make your own logic chain.
    It's more like
    1. God's morality is infallible.
    2. There is a case where his morality has been shown to be false.
    3. Therefore there is no God.

    So you can disagree with 2 by saying "homosexuality is immoral, what's the problem"



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are missing the point. I'm just showing how God and can say one thing and a "follower" can say something different.
    Well, 30,000 different denominations should give you a clue there ;-).


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The thread claims that God is a human invention so THAT'S what needs to be supported. And since it's possible that God exists and also has no problem with homosexuality, that particular point is not made.
    He's a human invention because the only source of anti-homosexuality we have evidence for is humans. Theists argue that despite this, morality is still informed through the existence of God (the Moral Argument) - an argument from reason, not from physical evidence. Which is fine until something is found to be false.

    I think probably all the other sins pretty much make sense and to be honest, I don't know why Christians make such a big fuss of it here, in 2012. But nevertheless, the fuss is there and God is the source. Since we know this is wrong, then they are wrong about morality having a deistic source. And if there is no deistic source, surely we can question the existence of the deity since what else is he good for?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    All that shows is that the bible is in error. It does not show that God is a human invention.

    I've got to say that we seem to be arguing at cross purposes so let's get one thing straight. Yes or No. Is it your position that God is a human invention on this thread?
    Yep - that's the title of the thread. The fact that homosexuality can no way be considered a sin using evidence on the theistic side and the fact that theists hold this to be their God's command pretty much points to humans and not God for the source of this sin. And I believe this isn't just an 'error' but strikes into God's existence, who they also claim is the source of all morality.

  18. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's more like
    1. God's morality is infallible.
    2. There is a case where his morality has been shown to be false.
    3. Therefore there is no God.

    So you can disagree with 2 by saying "homosexuality is immoral, what's the problem"
    No, I disagree with 2 based on "It's not been supported that God is really against homosexuals and therefore has false morality".

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, 30,000 different denominations should give you a clue there ;-).
    What do you mean?

    FYI, if you want to wink, don't type the nose part. Just ";" plus ")" gets you


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    He's a human invention because the only source of anti-homosexuality we have evidence for is humans. Theists argue that despite this, morality is still informed through the existence of God (the Moral Argument) - an argument from reason, not from physical evidence. Which is fine until something is found to be false.

    I think probably all the other sins pretty much make sense and to be honest, I don't know why Christians make such a big fuss of it here, in 2012. But nevertheless, the fuss is there and God is the source. Since we know this is wrong, then they are wrong about morality having a deistic source. And if there is no deistic source, surely we can question the existence of the deity since what else is he good for?
    Questioning the existence of God is not the same thing as proving that God does not exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yep - that's the title of the thread. The fact that homosexuality can no way be considered a sin using evidence on the theistic side and the fact that theists hold this to be their God's command pretty much points to humans and not God for the source of this sin.
    That's not accurate. Since theists do not uniformly think that homosexuality is a sin, you cannot accurately say that theist hold that to be God's command.

    It's possible that God never relayed anything against homosexuality but some religious people of the past added such condemnation into religious texts due to their own bigotry and some theists today use that to justify their own bigotry. So those who say "homosexuality is a sin" are incorrect but that doesn't mean that there is no sin and it doesn't mean that there is no God.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2012 at 03:13 PM.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I disagree with 2 based on "It's not been supported that God is really against homosexuals and therefore has false morality".
    God isn't against homosexuals per se. He has stated that homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts to be specific, i.e. sodomy in legal terms, is immoral. Or in religious parlance, a sin, and doubly so because specifically what was commanded about what sexual acts are permitted.

    It's really Christians that are doing the hating; the liberal ones hate the sin, the conservative the man. Both agree it is morally wrong, in line with their deity.

    These distinctions are critical so that we can separate who to blame for what: God for the Objective Morality that includes homosexuality as a sin, and humans for doing a horrific job enforcing it and completely inconsistently from other sins such as tattooing one's skin or wearing clothes of different cloths or most egregiously of all - molesting little boys (and somehow that "participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man." as one apologist put it).

    So it's better to drop the hate. It confuses matters in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    mican: You are missing the point. I'm just showing how God and can say one thing and a "follower" can say something different.
    Sharmak: Well, 30,000 different denominations should give you a clue there ;-).

    What do you mean?
    I was agreeing with you that God can say one thing and the follower another: it's actually 30,000 things.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Questioning the existence of God is not the same thing as proving that God does not exist.
    Well, the answer to the question as to whether an infallible God makes a mistake in one of the few things he's good at (i.e. objective morality), is really perfectly good and does that mean he continues to exist in the under the same perfection? is "no", God doesn't exist. It is likely that only a human, without the facts we do today, would make such a mistake; an all knowing God would not make such a mistake (or it isn't a mistake, and homosexuality is indeed a sin).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SharmaK: The fact that homosexuality can no way be considered a sin using evidence on the theistic side and the fact that theists hold this to be their God's command pretty much points to humans and not God for the source of this sin.

    That's not accurate. Since theists do not uniformly think that homosexuality is a sin, you cannot accurately say that theist hold that to be God's command.
    They are just ignoring it the same way some of the other sins are being ignored; they will still call it a sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's possible that God never relayed anything against homosexuality but some religious people of the past added such condemnation into religious texts due to their own bigotry and some theists today use that to justify their own bigotry. So those who say "homosexuality is a sin" are incorrect but that doesn't mean that there is no sin and it doesn't mean that there is no God.
    Only if that were true in your universe of imagination of how it could have come about. Physical evidence indicates otherwise, i.e. writings that date back a millennia, preachings and teachings from the Church up to and including Catholic schools hold assemblies, urge children to sign pledge to oppose gay marriage.

    Again, let's just stick to facts here; they have their own professional apologetics brigade to invent new interpretations: Apok, where are you? I'm wondering whether you are going to try to justify as a sin, albeit a minor one; or play no true Christian

  20. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Views on Homosexuality as Proof that God is a Human Invention

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Got isn't against homosexuals per se. He has stated that homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts to be specific, i.e. sodomy in legal terms, is immoral. Or in religious parlance, a sin, and doubly so because specifically what was commanded about what sexual acts are permitted.
    Someone saying that God said it does not mean that God really said it.

    You have not supported that it's God's moral position that homosexuality is a sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I was agreeing with you that God can say one thing and the follower another: it's actually 30,000 things.
    Then it should be no stretch to accept the possibility that God does not say that homosexuality is a sin but some of his "followers" do say that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, the answer to the question as to whether an infallible God makes a mistake in one of the few things he's good at (i.e. objective morality), is really perfectly good and does that mean he continues to exist in the under the same perfection? is "no", God doesn't exist. It is likely that only a human, without the facts we do today, would make such a mistake; an all knowing God would not make such a mistake (or it isn't a mistake, and homosexuality is indeed a sin).
    And you have not supported that God has made such a mistake.

    Now, I know you don't forward that God even exists let alone made a particular mistake so what I mean is that it is not supported that God, by definition, has made that mistake. If it's possible for God to both exist and not make that particular mistake then it's supported that God has made that mistake.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    They are just ignoring it the same way some of the other sins are being ignored; they will still call it a sin.
    Support or retract that EVERY theist considers it a sin. And keep in mind that there are theists other than Christians.

    I'm not a Christian and if God came to me and convinced me that he exists, I would then be a theist. But I would not be required to be a Christian nor believe that sin even exists let alone believe that homosexuality is a sin. So given that, it's possible to be a theist who does not believe that homosexuality is a sin.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Only if that were true in your universe of imagination of how it could have come about. Physical evidence indicates otherwise, i.e. writings that date back a millennia, preachings and teachings from the Church up to and including Catholic schools hold assemblies, urge children to sign pledge to oppose gay marriage.
    Irrelevant. They can all be mistaken, including those who originally wrote the doctrine.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Again, let's just stick to facts here; they have their own professional apologetics brigade to invent new interpretations: Apok, where are you ?
    Actually the facts are that those people are irrelevant. IF it is part and parcel that being a theist means believing that homosexuality is a sin, then EVERY SINGLE THEIST would believe that. And showing me some theists who believe that it's a sin does not mean that they all do.

    So I ask you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT the notion that all theists believe that homosexuality is a sin. And I mean ALL of them so providing me isolate examples does not count.

 

 
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. God Is A Human Invention
    By SharmaK in forum Religion
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: March 12th, 2013, 09:16 AM
  2. God: God and Homosexuality
    By Tarja in forum Religion
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: June 6th, 2010, 08:54 PM
  3. Proof of God?
    By cat's meow in forum Religion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: June 5th, 2007, 08:36 AM
  4. Proof of God
    By sjjs in forum Religion
    Replies: 288
    Last Post: May 20th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •