Based on the definitions you provided, it seems that we entirely agree about what omni-benevolent means. The definitions aren’t lacking, as you suggested, the word simply doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. That doesn’t mean your point is incorrect, but it does mean your point cannot be defended by appealing to the more agreed upon idea that god is benevolent. That said, I agree that it’s silly for me to argue about the nature of a god which I don’t believe in. As I said in my essay, I’d really rather not.
The fact that you are Christian does not make anything that I’ve said illogical, and this is really my main issue with you at this point. You really seem to think that your mere beliefs are somehow the foundation of logic itself, and that’s just not how rationality works. I wish you’d look away from your beliefs for just a second to try and see the world from my point of view - as I’ve tried to do for you - just for the sake of a healthy conversation. You seem to have plenty of time to be writing these essays, so it’s hard to feel like you’re not just evading the real questions I brought up in my essay.
As I said before, and I will say again as needed. Feel free to list a specific question that you wish a specific answer for.
In your various posts and response to post and response to response to response to post they have come up about about 100 different issues, and I can’t necessarily keep them all straight in my head as to which ones you consider the most important and the most urgent to respond to.
So feel free to list the question you responded to specifically.
You haven't responded to any of the points of my essay. If you don't remember them, I'd ask you to go read it again.
In particular, I'm interested in how you reconcile your belief that power should not be concentrated in any one place with the blatantly dictator-like behavior of the god you choose to worship. And I'm interested in whether you believe I am an evil person, despite my better qualities, simply because I love people who your god has said (without providing good reason) that I'm not supposed to love.
There was really only two main points to the whole essay, and those two were it. Like I said, you didn’t respond to anything I wrote yet. This Omni-benevolent thing was a tangent you went on based on a misunderstanding you thought I had, not a response to the actual essay. I’d like a response to the essay.
Again, I saw a dozen points, in your essay and all of the conversations we had around it. And, again, if you want a specific answer, I am perfectly willing to give it.
My post ‘The Evils of Sodomy’ should come out June 11, and my post ‘Dictators and other Trivia’ should come out, as I said, sometime next week, probably Saturday, or maybe the Tuesday after that. I publish serious essays Tue, Thur, Sat. Fiction Mon, Wed, Fri. And I take Sundays off :)
>>The fact that you are Christian does not make anything that I’ve said illogical,
Ok, so I cogitated on this before my nap, and after my nap, and I still can't make head nor tails of it. Why would my being a Christian make anything you've said illogical. I mean, you may or may not have said lots of illogical things, and you may or may not be able to defend them logically... but why would my, in particular, being or not being a Christian make any difference at all to whether what you say is logical?
I was responding to this: "Thus if you come up to a Christian and say, 'I think that your god did a bad thing here' you are speaking illogically in at least three different ways. One of which is that you are saying that a meter is not a meter long."
But it is not illogical to say God did a bad thing. It's an opinion, but it's not illogical. Who exactly I'm coming up to saying that doesn't make any difference (as it sounds like we agree on now). You happen to believe that the god you believe in can do no wrong, but that too is only an opinion which one is perfectly valid in disagreeing with.
Addressing your response below, it is not inherently the case that God is the foundation for morality and logic - that is only your belief. The fact that you believe that is what I am calling disturbing. Because you believe in this god, and you believe that that god is the foundation of morality and logic, then you are forever able to claim that whatever you believe in - based on what you believe that god has told you to believe in - is always correct, but you don't even have any way to prove that anything you believe in is true. Thus, you believe that this figment of your belief is the foundation of logic itself, making it impossible to have a logical conversation with you.
1) There is a God who is the source and foundation for all morality. If there is, then it is silly to ask if He can ‘do wrong’. If He did it, it was, by definition, right.
2) There is no such God. In which case it is silly to ask if He can ‘do wrong’. Because of not existing, He can do nothing. Neither right or wrong.
So, in both cases, asking ‘Can the God who is the source of all morality, logic, beauty, etc etc etc do wrong?” Is a silly question.
>>You really seem to think that your mere beliefs are somehow the foundation of logic itself
Wow, that would be impressive.
No, God is the foundation for morality, and logic, etc... but not my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. While I am dependent upon Him, He is utterly independent of me.
I assume though that you never even wonder whether god might not exist, so if you are always in the “God is the source” camp, how do you ever analyze the world around you? Or do you never feel it’s a worthy pursuit to question your beliefs and assumptions? Based on the principles of philosophy and the patterns of history, it seems particularly important to always be questioning why we believe certain things and whether those things are true, but it seems like you don’t do that. Particularly given how much pain and death and suffering has been caused by people who believe what you believe, I can’t understand how you’re comfortable never questioning if some of your understandings about the world are wrong, no matter where you think those understandings came from.
This debate isn’t fun for me anymore. Honestly, it’s frightening. If the title of your next essay on this is “The Evils of Sodomy” I can’t imagine it’s going to bring us any closer to an agreement, and if you’re just gonna write another hateful and ignorant thing that just makes you feel better about yourself and your beliefs, I don’t really see why I should even read that. I’m tired. Like, existentially. This isn’t just some online debate, this larger issue is a serious thing going on in the world right now and people like you are making it distressing and terrifying for people like me to just live. I was hoping we could get to a place where, despite some disagreements, if you and I met in the world we might still be able to be friends. I don’t feel like you’re even interested in that, so I don’t wanna fight you on this anymore. If you think I might genuinely find something positive and interesting in your work, let me know. If not, I think maybe it’s just time for us to go our separate ways.
I think that you are beginning to realize why I wrote the 'omni-benevolent' article. If God is the source of morality, then it doesn't even make sense to try to 'judge God'.
Now, as far as your participation in the debate, that is up to you. When I write, I don't tend to write to my interlocutor. After all, I don't know you from Adam (pun fully intended). I tend to write from the point of what has been stated, and go into the logical and theological conclusions and bunny trails. I am greatly enjoying our discussion, and finding it giving me LOTS to write about.
You might remember that Christianity is a missionary faith. It is always exciting to us when we find new people and new ideas to confront for Christ. There is a whole world out there who reject Christ, and for whom the gospel is meant.
I also liked your idea of posting fiction to be critiqued. I write a lot of fiction. But it, too, is meant to promote Christ.
So, the choice is yours. I'm still open and eager to keep going. I have at least two, and probably a lot more posts that I'm eager to write on these subjects.
Do you understand my hesitation though? Do you realize that everything you’ve said seems to try and justify the violence that has been done and continues to be done by “missionaries”? You haven’t responded to any of my points about the genocides that have been committed in the name of god. Do you understand that I get the sense you would support someone who wanted to kill me? Do you understand why that makes me less interested in talking to you? Yes, I understand your point about why you think it doesn’t make sense to judge god, but do you understand my point that it is dangerous to submit ourselves to ideas (regardless of their source) without question?
Well... you ask a difficult question. It is hard for me to imagine being without any fundamental moral understanding... to be at the point where I thought that my idea of morality, which I invented ten minutes ago, is somehow that by which everyone should live.
And my personality is such that I love it, I absolutely love it, when someone disagrees with me and is willing to engage long form. I love that. So I would still be going strong a couple of years from now (health willing) as the discussion moved from subject to subject.
And I am rather old, and have studied history and Scripture for so many years, that much of what you say doesn't really affect me. Religion causing wars? Yup. Because religion (as defined in some ways) concerns the most important beliefs of a people. So all that means is 'serious differences in belief causes wars'; to which one would say, "Well, would you expect light and trivial differences to cause wars??!"
So, if I were you (which I definitely am not) I would be eager to continue the conversation. But, then, I'm not you.
I have a very strong moral understanding which I’ve developed through reading a lot ancient philosophy - philosophy much older than your scriptures. I’m talking about Seneca, Lao Tzu, the I-Ching. The New Testament especially is really quite modern by comparison. The original Christians are much more guilty of just making up their beliefs “10 minutes ago” than I am.
Even so, I’m not trying to force anyone else to abide by my beliefs. I think it’s interesting you keep projecting that onto me when that’s quite blatantly what you’re doing with your missionary focus. I just don’t want people to try and kill me. I’m obviously willing to engage for ridiculously long amounts of time, I think I’ve more than proven that by now. But you keep avoiding what I’m really saying. I said genocide, and you shrugged it off with a comment about war. But I’m not talking about war. Yes, religions war is understandable for the reasons you mention. But genocide? That’s not two groups fighting. That’s one group using their power (which has been concentrated into their singular religious source) to violently eliminate a different group of peaceful people. The holocaust is the easiest, obvious example. What I’m saying is that, if the situation came up again, it sounds to me like you’d cheer Neo-Hitler on as he kidnapped me out of my house and threw me in a gas chamber. Is that true?
Well, there’s a lot to respond to in this comment. As far as your idea that what you have studied is older than the scriptures I would remind you that the first words in the old Testament are in the beginning. As well the first words in the book of Jon are in the beginning.
And are you claiming that you agree with the philosophy of those people? Did somehow you can find a unified philosophy in those writers and you can say ha ha here it is it’s called this and we all believe that? Or are you saying that you’ve kind of it together with some people that wrote along time ago?
Now as far as Hitler is concerned, I would actually have been on the opposite side of that conflict. I don’t know if you’ve read any of the Christian writers who were alive at the time and participated in saving Jews.
And as far as the death penalty yes I believe that I’ve already stated that I support the death penalty for male and male sexual activity that is witnessed by two other people. So if you believe you fall into that camp, then yes I would support the death penalty for those actions.
However, I’m not sure how you relate that to genocide which at least according to the dictionary definition involves the destruction of an entire people group. And God is actually completely and totally authorised to command the destruction of a people group, and has done so a couple times in scripture. in the old Testament mostly.
I’m wondering if you’re even willing to state my actual belief. It would seem hard for you to be able to change my belief when you cannot even actually say it.
Just to be very clear, I don’t believe that such a thing as “gay“ exists, and so I don’t believe that it deserves the death penalty. I do believe that male on male sexual activity exists, and if properly witnessed by two witnesses I do believe it deserves the death penalty .
I’m not sure how you would go about even thinking about eliminating that belief.
Then is there anything I could say to make you question your belief that “gay” or “homosexual” is not a thing that exists? Because, to be clear, you are simply wrong. That’s not a matter of belief or opinion, it’s just fact. There are people with sexual orientations that make them attracted to people of the their gender, and not to people of the opposite gender. “Conversion therapy” has tried to change their behavior, but it always fails because it’s not just an activity some people like that they can stop at any time, it’s a inherent part of who we are. Gay people are a group of people who exist. There’s no changing that, unless of course you decide to kill us all, which is what Hitler did, and which it sounds like you would advocate for as well. To be clear - that’s genocide. If you advocate for killing anyone who “engages in homosexual behavior” then you are advocating for genocide.
Now that one you could definitely work on. However, the first thing that you would have to do is to understand what I am saying. Because I’m not in the slightest denying that there are people who are sexually attracted to the same sex. I’m not denying that there are people who have sex with members of the same sex.
However, that is not at all what is usually meant by gay or homosexual in its broadest sense. There are lots of ways that those words are used they don’t correspond at all with that particular definition.
If someone calls someone else a gay activist for example, they are not saying that they’re an activist for preserving oak trees who happens to be attracted to members of the same sex.
Ok great, let’s work on that. First of all, homosexual definitely and exclusively means someone who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That’s the only way I’ve ever heard it used, and if you hear people using it differently then they’re using it wrong. Also, in its original modern form, gay is simply an exact synonym of homosexual. “Gay” has broadened a little to occasionally include people with other non-heterosexual orientations, but ultimately it still means the same. In the context of the activist, I suppose the connotation there would more likely be that the activist advocates for the rights of gay people rather than actually being gay/homosexual themselves, but either way the meaning of the word is really the same. Given that you fully understand there are people who, through no choice of their own, are attracted to people of their own gender, it seems nonsensical to me that you’d say you don’t believe gay/homosexual people exist. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that. Furthermore, I have no idea how you could find it moral to kill anyone simply for being a member of that attracted-to-the-same-gender group of individuals.
It seems to me that you contradict yourself. For example, when you say the rights of gay people. First of all you were indicating that they are a class of people which does go beyond merely saying that they are same-sex attracted. But secondly, you’re saying they’re a class of people who need in someway certain rights. What rights would that be?
I think as soon as you try to answer that question you will show that what you mean by gay is not merely same-sex attracted. What do you mean by gay? There is someone who thinks it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity with someone else that is same-sex attracted.
In any other area, this would obviously not be the case. Someone could want to murder a Japanese people. But if they called themselves by a certain name and defined themselves as part of a class and said that that class needed to have certain rights, I think they would be going a little beyond merely the desire to kill Japanese people. They would in someway indicate that they should be able to act on their desire.
So do you wish to add the desire to act on the attraction as part of your definition of gay? If someone is attracted to someone of the same sex and they wish to call themselves gay do you think that should be part of the definition that they think they should be allowed to do so?
Let us say that I am attracted to all sorts of women who aren’t my wife. Well, I don’t believe that I should have the right to have sex with any of those women. I believe it would be fundamentally wrong for me to have sex with any of those women.
Let me see if I can put it another way. All of us every day are attempted to do lots of wrong things. We might be tempted to lie, we might be tempted to cheat we might be tempted to commit adultery all sorts of things. I don’t believe that it is appropriate to lump society into groups according to what sexual sin they think most about committing. Or even the sexual sin that is the most politically correct that they would like to commit.
Gay/homosexual people are a class of people defined by the shared characteristic that they all feel attracted to members of their own gender. Whether or not they choose to act on their feelings of attraction makes no difference as to whether or not they’re gay, but it does make a difference as to whether or not they are ever able to be happy. That’s not to say everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy. Obviously, whether they want to or not, people should not cause each other harm. No one should need some god or some law to tell them that in order to come to that conclusion. No one should need god or a law to tell them not to murder. That’s obviously harmful, both to the person being killed and the people who love them. No one should need god or a law to tell them not to betray their spouse. That’s obviously harmful to the spouse. But, without god, or people making laws based on the supposed word of their god, there is no reason at all to think that acting on gay attraction is harmful. Who is hurt by that? I’ve been intimate with a man. We kissed in public. The only people who even gave it a second thought were our friends who were happy for us. If it weren’t for people like you holding so tight to a couple lines in an old book, no one would ever care at all, because gay people loving each other doesn’t cause anybody any harm. It’s just love. It’s a beautiful thing. But you want to see us dead for it. That’s why we need rights, the right to merely openly exist being one of them. Gay people are a class of people who need legal protection to be able to exist with any kind of inner peace (which necessarily involves being open about our romantic feelings) and not have to worry about people like you trying to kill us for no good reason.
OK so here you provide more reasons why I don’t use the term you state that they are people who can never be happy unless…
Imagine if we attempted to use that same definition for all other classes of people. Can you name another class of people for whom the majority of people think that they can never be happy unless they…?
The same, for example, goes for people in interracial relationships. They’re in love. At a certain time, they would be killed for acting on that love. They weren’t harming anyone, but people were bigoted and hateful and so they called it a sin. Laws needed to be passed to protect those people. The exact same thing is happening with gay people, regardless of exactly what you want to call it. We are a group of people not causing any harm. Other than “My God said so” you have no reason to think there is anything wrong with gay people loving each other. Still, people like you want to kill us, so laws need to be passed in order to protect us from your violence. If you were allowed to have people killed with no reason other than your religious views, that would be power being way too concentrated into your single source, and we both agreed that was bad.
I’m sorry are you saying that there’s a certain class of people who are what you might call interracially attracted, and can never be happy when married to a person of their own race?
No. The class thing is less relevant. I’m just saying there are people who harmlessly fall in love with other people of their same gender and - similarly to those who fall in love with people of different races - they should be able to act on that love without fearing for their lives. Neither you nor anyone else can offer a good reason to prove that’s not the case.
Ok, so, was out of town for a day or so, out on my phone. Hard to find these comments on the phone :(
So, this part of the conversation, I believe, began with you attempting to tell me why I should use the words 'gay' and/or 'homosexual'. Given the amount of added meaning that you have poured into those terms, do you now understand why I don't use them?
Indeed not only is there too much information in the term, there is too little. Is someone 'gay' if they merely have had sexual desire for a member of the same sex, or do they need to have acted on it?
The parts of the conversation dealing with why such sexual activity is problematic, indeed evil, I will be dealing with in my 'The Evils of Sodomy' post. Here I was only attempting to explain why I don't say 'gay' typically.
It didn’t begin about terms. It began because you said gay people didn’t exist, a sentence which technically, by definition, meant you believed that people who were naturally inclined to be attracted to members of their own gender did not actually exist, which was wrong. It seems like you just said something you didn’t mean and caused a bunch of confusion. There is no reason not to use the terms. Their definitions, as I’ve explained, are very simple and direct. The overall subject is a complicated one. The words themselves are simple.
From what I can tell, there is nothing I can say in this conversation that would make you even question your belief that - due to my harmless affections for other people of my gender - you would be glad to see me killed. That being the case, I’m done with this conversation.
When I say that gay people don’t exist I mean that the term gay refers to something that does not exist. And as I have rather explained at length that is because the term gay gets used to me a whole bunch of things in addition to mirror sexual attraction. It is those extra bunches of things that I do not believe exist.
In the (rather long) comment thread to this post, Addam brought up the question of 'genocide'. Now there is some question as to the definition he was using at the time but, just to be very clear, the actual Christian cannot rule out 'genocide' (ie the physical destruction of an entire people group) by God as a 'good' thing. After all, our children routinely colour pictures of Noah's ark.
Let us be very clear on what God did at the time of Noah. He wiped out, by drowning, every single people group on the fact of the planet except for one particular family. All of them. Man, woman, and child. Goats and Cows. Pigs and chickens. Obliterated.
And if someone were to go to the New Testament and seek for a kinder, gentler God; let us remember that Christ told stories about how God the Father wiped out whole cities when their rulers refused to attend a wedding.
If you are going to use your own conception of morality in order to accuse God of crimes, you will have a lot of ammunition. The question of the floor is, do we get to use our own morality? Are we the sources of moral understanding?
Based on the definitions you provided, it seems that we entirely agree about what omni-benevolent means. The definitions aren’t lacking, as you suggested, the word simply doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. That doesn’t mean your point is incorrect, but it does mean your point cannot be defended by appealing to the more agreed upon idea that god is benevolent. That said, I agree that it’s silly for me to argue about the nature of a god which I don’t believe in. As I said in my essay, I’d really rather not.
The fact that you are Christian does not make anything that I’ve said illogical, and this is really my main issue with you at this point. You really seem to think that your mere beliefs are somehow the foundation of logic itself, and that’s just not how rationality works. I wish you’d look away from your beliefs for just a second to try and see the world from my point of view - as I’ve tried to do for you - just for the sake of a healthy conversation. You seem to have plenty of time to be writing these essays, so it’s hard to feel like you’re not just evading the real questions I brought up in my essay.
As I said before, and I will say again as needed. Feel free to list a specific question that you wish a specific answer for.
In your various posts and response to post and response to response to response to post they have come up about about 100 different issues, and I can’t necessarily keep them all straight in my head as to which ones you consider the most important and the most urgent to respond to.
So feel free to list the question you responded to specifically.
You haven't responded to any of the points of my essay. If you don't remember them, I'd ask you to go read it again.
In particular, I'm interested in how you reconcile your belief that power should not be concentrated in any one place with the blatantly dictator-like behavior of the god you choose to worship. And I'm interested in whether you believe I am an evil person, despite my better qualities, simply because I love people who your god has said (without providing good reason) that I'm not supposed to love.
Oh, that point! Sure I’ll respond to that. I’ll probably have that out by next Saturday.
As I said before, whenever you have a specific point you want me to specifically respond to, feel free to list it.
However if you talk about a dozen things, then I might well respond to any of the dozen.
There was really only two main points to the whole essay, and those two were it. Like I said, you didn’t respond to anything I wrote yet. This Omni-benevolent thing was a tangent you went on based on a misunderstanding you thought I had, not a response to the actual essay. I’d like a response to the essay.
Yeah, working on that.
Again, I saw a dozen points, in your essay and all of the conversations we had around it. And, again, if you want a specific answer, I am perfectly willing to give it.
My post ‘The Evils of Sodomy’ should come out June 11, and my post ‘Dictators and other Trivia’ should come out, as I said, sometime next week, probably Saturday, or maybe the Tuesday after that. I publish serious essays Tue, Thur, Sat. Fiction Mon, Wed, Fri. And I take Sundays off :)
>>The fact that you are Christian does not make anything that I’ve said illogical,
Ok, so I cogitated on this before my nap, and after my nap, and I still can't make head nor tails of it. Why would my being a Christian make anything you've said illogical. I mean, you may or may not have said lots of illogical things, and you may or may not be able to defend them logically... but why would my, in particular, being or not being a Christian make any difference at all to whether what you say is logical?
Unless you were talking about me, perhaps?
I was responding to this: "Thus if you come up to a Christian and say, 'I think that your god did a bad thing here' you are speaking illogically in at least three different ways. One of which is that you are saying that a meter is not a meter long."
But it is not illogical to say God did a bad thing. It's an opinion, but it's not illogical. Who exactly I'm coming up to saying that doesn't make any difference (as it sounds like we agree on now). You happen to believe that the god you believe in can do no wrong, but that too is only an opinion which one is perfectly valid in disagreeing with.
Addressing your response below, it is not inherently the case that God is the foundation for morality and logic - that is only your belief. The fact that you believe that is what I am calling disturbing. Because you believe in this god, and you believe that that god is the foundation of morality and logic, then you are forever able to claim that whatever you believe in - based on what you believe that god has told you to believe in - is always correct, but you don't even have any way to prove that anything you believe in is true. Thus, you believe that this figment of your belief is the foundation of logic itself, making it impossible to have a logical conversation with you.
There are only two choices:
1) There is a God who is the source and foundation for all morality. If there is, then it is silly to ask if He can ‘do wrong’. If He did it, it was, by definition, right.
2) There is no such God. In which case it is silly to ask if He can ‘do wrong’. Because of not existing, He can do nothing. Neither right or wrong.
So, in both cases, asking ‘Can the God who is the source of all morality, logic, beauty, etc etc etc do wrong?” Is a silly question.
>>You really seem to think that your mere beliefs are somehow the foundation of logic itself
Wow, that would be impressive.
No, God is the foundation for morality, and logic, etc... but not my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. While I am dependent upon Him, He is utterly independent of me.
I assume though that you never even wonder whether god might not exist, so if you are always in the “God is the source” camp, how do you ever analyze the world around you? Or do you never feel it’s a worthy pursuit to question your beliefs and assumptions? Based on the principles of philosophy and the patterns of history, it seems particularly important to always be questioning why we believe certain things and whether those things are true, but it seems like you don’t do that. Particularly given how much pain and death and suffering has been caused by people who believe what you believe, I can’t understand how you’re comfortable never questioning if some of your understandings about the world are wrong, no matter where you think those understandings came from.
This debate isn’t fun for me anymore. Honestly, it’s frightening. If the title of your next essay on this is “The Evils of Sodomy” I can’t imagine it’s going to bring us any closer to an agreement, and if you’re just gonna write another hateful and ignorant thing that just makes you feel better about yourself and your beliefs, I don’t really see why I should even read that. I’m tired. Like, existentially. This isn’t just some online debate, this larger issue is a serious thing going on in the world right now and people like you are making it distressing and terrifying for people like me to just live. I was hoping we could get to a place where, despite some disagreements, if you and I met in the world we might still be able to be friends. I don’t feel like you’re even interested in that, so I don’t wanna fight you on this anymore. If you think I might genuinely find something positive and interesting in your work, let me know. If not, I think maybe it’s just time for us to go our separate ways.
I think that you are beginning to realize why I wrote the 'omni-benevolent' article. If God is the source of morality, then it doesn't even make sense to try to 'judge God'.
Now, as far as your participation in the debate, that is up to you. When I write, I don't tend to write to my interlocutor. After all, I don't know you from Adam (pun fully intended). I tend to write from the point of what has been stated, and go into the logical and theological conclusions and bunny trails. I am greatly enjoying our discussion, and finding it giving me LOTS to write about.
You might remember that Christianity is a missionary faith. It is always exciting to us when we find new people and new ideas to confront for Christ. There is a whole world out there who reject Christ, and for whom the gospel is meant.
I also liked your idea of posting fiction to be critiqued. I write a lot of fiction. But it, too, is meant to promote Christ.
So, the choice is yours. I'm still open and eager to keep going. I have at least two, and probably a lot more posts that I'm eager to write on these subjects.
Do you understand my hesitation though? Do you realize that everything you’ve said seems to try and justify the violence that has been done and continues to be done by “missionaries”? You haven’t responded to any of my points about the genocides that have been committed in the name of god. Do you understand that I get the sense you would support someone who wanted to kill me? Do you understand why that makes me less interested in talking to you? Yes, I understand your point about why you think it doesn’t make sense to judge god, but do you understand my point that it is dangerous to submit ourselves to ideas (regardless of their source) without question?
Well... you ask a difficult question. It is hard for me to imagine being without any fundamental moral understanding... to be at the point where I thought that my idea of morality, which I invented ten minutes ago, is somehow that by which everyone should live.
And my personality is such that I love it, I absolutely love it, when someone disagrees with me and is willing to engage long form. I love that. So I would still be going strong a couple of years from now (health willing) as the discussion moved from subject to subject.
And I am rather old, and have studied history and Scripture for so many years, that much of what you say doesn't really affect me. Religion causing wars? Yup. Because religion (as defined in some ways) concerns the most important beliefs of a people. So all that means is 'serious differences in belief causes wars'; to which one would say, "Well, would you expect light and trivial differences to cause wars??!"
So, if I were you (which I definitely am not) I would be eager to continue the conversation. But, then, I'm not you.
I have a very strong moral understanding which I’ve developed through reading a lot ancient philosophy - philosophy much older than your scriptures. I’m talking about Seneca, Lao Tzu, the I-Ching. The New Testament especially is really quite modern by comparison. The original Christians are much more guilty of just making up their beliefs “10 minutes ago” than I am.
Even so, I’m not trying to force anyone else to abide by my beliefs. I think it’s interesting you keep projecting that onto me when that’s quite blatantly what you’re doing with your missionary focus. I just don’t want people to try and kill me. I’m obviously willing to engage for ridiculously long amounts of time, I think I’ve more than proven that by now. But you keep avoiding what I’m really saying. I said genocide, and you shrugged it off with a comment about war. But I’m not talking about war. Yes, religions war is understandable for the reasons you mention. But genocide? That’s not two groups fighting. That’s one group using their power (which has been concentrated into their singular religious source) to violently eliminate a different group of peaceful people. The holocaust is the easiest, obvious example. What I’m saying is that, if the situation came up again, it sounds to me like you’d cheer Neo-Hitler on as he kidnapped me out of my house and threw me in a gas chamber. Is that true?
Well, there’s a lot to respond to in this comment. As far as your idea that what you have studied is older than the scriptures I would remind you that the first words in the old Testament are in the beginning. As well the first words in the book of Jon are in the beginning.
And are you claiming that you agree with the philosophy of those people? Did somehow you can find a unified philosophy in those writers and you can say ha ha here it is it’s called this and we all believe that? Or are you saying that you’ve kind of it together with some people that wrote along time ago?
Now as far as Hitler is concerned, I would actually have been on the opposite side of that conflict. I don’t know if you’ve read any of the Christian writers who were alive at the time and participated in saving Jews.
And as far as the death penalty yes I believe that I’ve already stated that I support the death penalty for male and male sexual activity that is witnessed by two other people. So if you believe you fall into that camp, then yes I would support the death penalty for those actions.
However, I’m not sure how you relate that to genocide which at least according to the dictionary definition involves the destruction of an entire people group. And God is actually completely and totally authorised to command the destruction of a people group, and has done so a couple times in scripture. in the old Testament mostly.
Just to clarify, there is nothing I could say in this conversation that would make you even question your belief that I deserve to die for being gay?
I’m wondering if you’re even willing to state my actual belief. It would seem hard for you to be able to change my belief when you cannot even actually say it.
Just to be very clear, I don’t believe that such a thing as “gay“ exists, and so I don’t believe that it deserves the death penalty. I do believe that male on male sexual activity exists, and if properly witnessed by two witnesses I do believe it deserves the death penalty .
I’m not sure how you would go about even thinking about eliminating that belief.
Then is there anything I could say to make you question your belief that “gay” or “homosexual” is not a thing that exists? Because, to be clear, you are simply wrong. That’s not a matter of belief or opinion, it’s just fact. There are people with sexual orientations that make them attracted to people of the their gender, and not to people of the opposite gender. “Conversion therapy” has tried to change their behavior, but it always fails because it’s not just an activity some people like that they can stop at any time, it’s a inherent part of who we are. Gay people are a group of people who exist. There’s no changing that, unless of course you decide to kill us all, which is what Hitler did, and which it sounds like you would advocate for as well. To be clear - that’s genocide. If you advocate for killing anyone who “engages in homosexual behavior” then you are advocating for genocide.
Now that one you could definitely work on. However, the first thing that you would have to do is to understand what I am saying. Because I’m not in the slightest denying that there are people who are sexually attracted to the same sex. I’m not denying that there are people who have sex with members of the same sex.
However, that is not at all what is usually meant by gay or homosexual in its broadest sense. There are lots of ways that those words are used they don’t correspond at all with that particular definition.
If someone calls someone else a gay activist for example, they are not saying that they’re an activist for preserving oak trees who happens to be attracted to members of the same sex.
Ok great, let’s work on that. First of all, homosexual definitely and exclusively means someone who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That’s the only way I’ve ever heard it used, and if you hear people using it differently then they’re using it wrong. Also, in its original modern form, gay is simply an exact synonym of homosexual. “Gay” has broadened a little to occasionally include people with other non-heterosexual orientations, but ultimately it still means the same. In the context of the activist, I suppose the connotation there would more likely be that the activist advocates for the rights of gay people rather than actually being gay/homosexual themselves, but either way the meaning of the word is really the same. Given that you fully understand there are people who, through no choice of their own, are attracted to people of their own gender, it seems nonsensical to me that you’d say you don’t believe gay/homosexual people exist. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that. Furthermore, I have no idea how you could find it moral to kill anyone simply for being a member of that attracted-to-the-same-gender group of individuals.
It seems to me that you contradict yourself. For example, when you say the rights of gay people. First of all you were indicating that they are a class of people which does go beyond merely saying that they are same-sex attracted. But secondly, you’re saying they’re a class of people who need in someway certain rights. What rights would that be?
I think as soon as you try to answer that question you will show that what you mean by gay is not merely same-sex attracted. What do you mean by gay? There is someone who thinks it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity with someone else that is same-sex attracted.
In any other area, this would obviously not be the case. Someone could want to murder a Japanese people. But if they called themselves by a certain name and defined themselves as part of a class and said that that class needed to have certain rights, I think they would be going a little beyond merely the desire to kill Japanese people. They would in someway indicate that they should be able to act on their desire.
So do you wish to add the desire to act on the attraction as part of your definition of gay? If someone is attracted to someone of the same sex and they wish to call themselves gay do you think that should be part of the definition that they think they should be allowed to do so?
Let us say that I am attracted to all sorts of women who aren’t my wife. Well, I don’t believe that I should have the right to have sex with any of those women. I believe it would be fundamentally wrong for me to have sex with any of those women.
Let me see if I can put it another way. All of us every day are attempted to do lots of wrong things. We might be tempted to lie, we might be tempted to cheat we might be tempted to commit adultery all sorts of things. I don’t believe that it is appropriate to lump society into groups according to what sexual sin they think most about committing. Or even the sexual sin that is the most politically correct that they would like to commit.
Gay/homosexual people are a class of people defined by the shared characteristic that they all feel attracted to members of their own gender. Whether or not they choose to act on their feelings of attraction makes no difference as to whether or not they’re gay, but it does make a difference as to whether or not they are ever able to be happy. That’s not to say everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy. Obviously, whether they want to or not, people should not cause each other harm. No one should need some god or some law to tell them that in order to come to that conclusion. No one should need god or a law to tell them not to murder. That’s obviously harmful, both to the person being killed and the people who love them. No one should need god or a law to tell them not to betray their spouse. That’s obviously harmful to the spouse. But, without god, or people making laws based on the supposed word of their god, there is no reason at all to think that acting on gay attraction is harmful. Who is hurt by that? I’ve been intimate with a man. We kissed in public. The only people who even gave it a second thought were our friends who were happy for us. If it weren’t for people like you holding so tight to a couple lines in an old book, no one would ever care at all, because gay people loving each other doesn’t cause anybody any harm. It’s just love. It’s a beautiful thing. But you want to see us dead for it. That’s why we need rights, the right to merely openly exist being one of them. Gay people are a class of people who need legal protection to be able to exist with any kind of inner peace (which necessarily involves being open about our romantic feelings) and not have to worry about people like you trying to kill us for no good reason.
OK so here you provide more reasons why I don’t use the term you state that they are people who can never be happy unless…
Imagine if we attempted to use that same definition for all other classes of people. Can you name another class of people for whom the majority of people think that they can never be happy unless they…?
The same, for example, goes for people in interracial relationships. They’re in love. At a certain time, they would be killed for acting on that love. They weren’t harming anyone, but people were bigoted and hateful and so they called it a sin. Laws needed to be passed to protect those people. The exact same thing is happening with gay people, regardless of exactly what you want to call it. We are a group of people not causing any harm. Other than “My God said so” you have no reason to think there is anything wrong with gay people loving each other. Still, people like you want to kill us, so laws need to be passed in order to protect us from your violence. If you were allowed to have people killed with no reason other than your religious views, that would be power being way too concentrated into your single source, and we both agreed that was bad.
I’m sorry are you saying that there’s a certain class of people who are what you might call interracially attracted, and can never be happy when married to a person of their own race?
No. The class thing is less relevant. I’m just saying there are people who harmlessly fall in love with other people of their same gender and - similarly to those who fall in love with people of different races - they should be able to act on that love without fearing for their lives. Neither you nor anyone else can offer a good reason to prove that’s not the case.
Ok, so, was out of town for a day or so, out on my phone. Hard to find these comments on the phone :(
So, this part of the conversation, I believe, began with you attempting to tell me why I should use the words 'gay' and/or 'homosexual'. Given the amount of added meaning that you have poured into those terms, do you now understand why I don't use them?
Indeed not only is there too much information in the term, there is too little. Is someone 'gay' if they merely have had sexual desire for a member of the same sex, or do they need to have acted on it?
The parts of the conversation dealing with why such sexual activity is problematic, indeed evil, I will be dealing with in my 'The Evils of Sodomy' post. Here I was only attempting to explain why I don't say 'gay' typically.
It didn’t begin about terms. It began because you said gay people didn’t exist, a sentence which technically, by definition, meant you believed that people who were naturally inclined to be attracted to members of their own gender did not actually exist, which was wrong. It seems like you just said something you didn’t mean and caused a bunch of confusion. There is no reason not to use the terms. Their definitions, as I’ve explained, are very simple and direct. The overall subject is a complicated one. The words themselves are simple.
From what I can tell, there is nothing I can say in this conversation that would make you even question your belief that - due to my harmless affections for other people of my gender - you would be glad to see me killed. That being the case, I’m done with this conversation.
No, not at all.
When I say that gay people don’t exist I mean that the term gay refers to something that does not exist. And as I have rather explained at length that is because the term gay gets used to me a whole bunch of things in addition to mirror sexual attraction. It is those extra bunches of things that I do not believe exist.
In the (rather long) comment thread to this post, Addam brought up the question of 'genocide'. Now there is some question as to the definition he was using at the time but, just to be very clear, the actual Christian cannot rule out 'genocide' (ie the physical destruction of an entire people group) by God as a 'good' thing. After all, our children routinely colour pictures of Noah's ark.
Let us be very clear on what God did at the time of Noah. He wiped out, by drowning, every single people group on the fact of the planet except for one particular family. All of them. Man, woman, and child. Goats and Cows. Pigs and chickens. Obliterated.
And if someone were to go to the New Testament and seek for a kinder, gentler God; let us remember that Christ told stories about how God the Father wiped out whole cities when their rulers refused to attend a wedding.
If you are going to use your own conception of morality in order to accuse God of crimes, you will have a lot of ammunition. The question of the floor is, do we get to use our own morality? Are we the sources of moral understanding?
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/pizza-sushi-and-the-definition-of