CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
LBTPIG: good idea for new acronym?
The human (sex) rights movement has made gigantic strides lately. Now, gays are free at last, free to marry the person they love (if it isn't a child).
I think it's obvious things aren't stopping here!
What about those polygamous people, they're not hurting anyone. And they just want to be happy. Those two statements make up the canonical proof, that some new kind of marriage should be legalized - according to PC.
Same goes for incest. Doesn't "hurt" anyone, if people are consenting, e.t.c.
But there's a problem with all this. The sex rights movement will need to update its acronym, LGBT, to represent also polygamy, and incest.
So, it should be something like: LGBTPI. But that's kind of hard to pronounce, so I don't think it will catch.
If we change the letters order, that will make an easier acronym: LBTPIG
which stands for "Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Polygamous Incestuous Gay".
You're the bigot for not accepting incestuous relationships. Love is love. You in this statement compared homosexuality to incest. That is the subject of this fucking debate.
Homosexuality is not inherently harmful if people use safe sex practices, but pedophilia is harmful because it exploits children. Sex with animals is rape because animals cannot consent and incest can result in children with major medical problems.
Polygamy does hurt someone. It hurts the children and the wives, if the relationship has children and multiple wives. The multiple wives will eventually, if not immediately fight for the man's love, which puts a burden on the man and causes stress for all parties of polygamous marriages. Stress causes many medical, emotional and psychological problems, so its hurting them. The wives will scorn the children of the other wife/wives in the relationship which will hurt the children psychologically and sometimes even physically. The wives may develop inferiority complexes while the male may likely develop a superiority complex. Of course, these things don't have to happen, but they tend to when looking at other polygamous engagements. And I only spoke about polygamy with one man and multiple women, I acknowledge this.
Heterosexual incest creates children that have genetic, physical and mental complication. I don't think I have to elaborate on that any further, but I can if I need to. Homosexual incest...I actually don't see the problem with. Bestiality and Paedophilia are harmful for obvious reasons that I can explain if asked. Regarding the question, BLTPIG would be a better acronym but regarding the description, I do not agree with the acronym.
You make a lot of assumptions that aren't particularly valid.
Some people are happy and comfortably polyamorous; these individuals could participate in a polygamist, polyandrist, or bidirectional polyamorous relationship without the issues that you note; your issues are really limited to individuals who are naturally monogamous AND involved in a polyamorous relationship. This is roughly equivalent to a homosexual who enters a heterosexual relationship- of course they won't be happy, and they made that choice! I acknowledge that a lot of polygamy has these problems, but most polygamy is not so much a choice made by all parties but rather a part of culture and religion. Polygamy hurts nobody- forcing oneself into a mold that one doesn't fit does.
Heterosexual incest need not create children at all. Suppose no children are desired, or adoption is opted for? Suppose that a vasectomy or tubal ligation is in the mix?
Polyamory as opposed to monogamy certainly is an important factor in ones sexuality. Incest, not necessarily, except for the small proportion of individuals that have specifically fetishized it.
Sexuality in the LBGT context is and should remain exclusively related to sexual orientation and sexual orientation only, with regard to preference for a particular gender or both. Any expansion with things like Polygamy would lessen the recognition sought for by the gay community and with Incest Pedophilia and Bestiality and Necrophilia...they really have little connection either, since gender preference is not the issue..
Sexual orientation and gender identity, that is what the LGBT organisations stand for.
That is not a dispute to my statement; you should have used clarify there.
And you're right that such things have little do do with sexual orientation or gender identity, but that wasn't what I was stating. I was disputing your assertion that polygamy has nothing to do with sexuality- because it does, and the assertion that it does not is ridiculous.
I never made an assertion that it should be grouped in with the LBGT crowd.
''I was disputing your assertion that polygamy has nothing to do with sexuality- because it does, and the assertion that it does not is ridiculous.''
I clarified what I meant by sexuality, what is ridiculous is attributing any connection between Polygamy and LGBT movement.
I am not clarifying your argument btw because I am disputing everything you say in the continuous argument. There is no way I could agree with anything someone like you would state. Polygamy has absolutely nothing to with LGBT the subject of this argument. You should not have even mentioned it.
"Polyamory as opposed to monogamy certainly is an important factor in ones sexuality. Incest, not necessarily, except for the small proportion of individuals that have specifically fetishized it."
This is neither unwise, nor obviously false. Wisdom has little to do with it, as it's more or less obviously true. I shouldn't have even mentioned it? I didn't! Point of fact, I chimed into it in reply to your statement, which was in reply to others who brought it up.
What about animals and children? If one is going to exclude them, then one is going to have to differentiate between them. The only way one can do that is to say that animals and children are not reasonable enough to give consent. However, that then raises the question as to who is. Is a mentally disabled person? Is an old lady? Could someone not determine that anyone contrary to this person's beliefs is illogical and, therefore, unreasonable and cannot give consent (i.e. eugenics)? One either has to allow all forms of sexual expression or limit it by morality, which can only be done in an objective manner, which can only be established by an objective God, which means that no one but married heterosexual relationship can have sexual relations.
All they have to do is profess belief in their own god and say that he is the reference point for morality, they now have an objective morality to live under that includes whatever sexual perversions they desire.
You and I both know that the majority of religions exclude all sexuality outside of heterosexual married couples. They can profess belief in their own god; however, they will know that what they "believe" is not true.
There are groups of fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy and at least one that I have read about that regularly practiced incest, they had such a strong belief that this was right that they thought the birth defects from inbreeding was God testing their faith. I'm not saying they are right, only that they actually believed what they said.
I never said they would make their own god, only profess belief. Just look at Dana, she really, really, believes that the Christian god permits homosexual intercourse, she isn't right, but she is using this altered god as her point of moral reference.
Thanks for supporting me, doesn't matter if it's on the other side.
There are several distinct points in your argument, and I'll have to comments them one at a time:
1. Regarding consent: I agree that you're basically right, but the logic is a little bit more complicated. You mentioned mentally disabled, and also old people. But there is a legal mechanism, that can prevent their marriage: they can be acknowledged as legally incompetent. I think mentally disabled people are implicitly legally incompetent, and they must have a legal guardian. With an old person, this can be ruled by the court, if their marriage is used by someone for ill purposes.
2. However, there are possibilities for attacking the age of consent law. One of them is to start promoting the thesis, that teens reach social maturity at a lower age, and then make relevant law changes. Next, they could start arguing that if a person is socially mature, it is a violation of his rights, to restrict him from all the rights that other socially mature people have, including the right to have sex. Since the gay rights movement has a whole army of lawyers, it will not be impossible to pull this off.
Now regarding marriage.
There are several levels to this.
First of all, religion is not necessary, for one to make a decision in favor of being monogamous and heterosexual.
For example, I personally tend to be faithful in relationships, and I almost always think each one will never end (there were some exceptions, since I am not without sin).
I also find male homosexuality sick and disgusting, but at the same time don't hate those people just for being homosexual.
So, I am naturally monogamous and heterosexual.
However, I really find marriage not a suitable option for me.
There are three reasons:
1. I can be sure of myself, but I cannot be sure of my wife. If she is unfaithful, then that's basically the end for me. I want to have the right to end the relationships. For that reason, I do not want to commit myself with vows, to anyone.
2. I do not want to impose any obligation on the person I love. If she, for some reason, no longer wants to be with me, I will respect that, and let her go. Marriage means a restriction on that right.
3. Usually, when you marry somebody, you marry their family. And their family marries you. And your families marry each other. Of course, this is sarcasm, I do not mean it literally. The point is: there will be a whole lot of people, poking their nose into your relationship, and thinking that they are doing it rightfully. I would definitely want to avoid that.
Now, regarding your theistic argument:
One either has to allow all forms of sexual expression or limit it by morality, which can only be done in an objective manner, which can only be established by an objective God, which means that no one but married heterosexual relationship can have sexual relations.
Although I consider myself a Christian, I do not think appealing to the Bible in its entirety, can be a good argument. Why?
1. There are many places in the Bible, when polygamous relations are mentioned, as being absolutely normal.
2. The Bible contradicts itself in many places. I think that if you respect God, you cannot believe in contradicting statements, which are made in his regard. God cannot contradict himself. Therefore, if you really believe, you have no other option, but to assume that there are parts of the Bible, that do not represent the word of God. After all, the Bible was written by men.
So, basically, only your faith can guide you, when you decide what can be regarded as Godly, in the Bible.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
'I and my father are one' implies that one is equal to or indivisible from the other, that there is no differentiation. The other verse states that one is higher than the other, thus there is a degree of separation. These two verse are thus conflicting. There are many more obvious contradictions if you want further examples, I chose that one because it is fairly subtle.
Can one part of a being not be greater than another? One verse simply infers that they are of the same being, while the other infers that one is above the other. There is no contradiction in the Bible.
Are he and his father part of something or the same thing? My head is not the same as my arm.
And, I don't know if your head is greater than your arm. Can your head lift large objects? They aren't exactly comparable. Your head can't do everything your arm can do.
He and his father are one in the same in that they are aspects of the same God, according to the Christian mythos.
His father is greater than he because, at the time of the statement, he was limited by being in a human body, whereas his father was not.
There are plenty of inconsistencies, but this isn't one.
Also, your head can in fact lift large objects; where do you think the nerve impulses that trigger contraction of the arm muscles come from? If an arm is cut off, the brain can use the other one, but the cut off arm can do nothing. I would say the brain is greater.
His father is greater than he because, at the time of the statement, he was limited by being in a human body, whereas his father was not.
How can they be in 2 different places if they are one?
Also, your head can in fact lift large objects; where do you think the nerve impulses that trigger contraction of the arm muscles come from? If an arm is cut off, the brain can use the other one, but the cut off arm can do nothing. I would say the brain is greater.
Head not brain. Sorry, your argument doesn't apply. Plus it demonstrates that my argument that the head and arm are not one is correct.
God is often described as being everywhere; if that were the case, they wouldn't be in 2 different places, there would just be an overlap of their locations roughly the size of a human body. Spiritually, they are one.
Last time I checked, the brain was part of the head. When people speak of the head, they aren't talking about the face, hair, and skull while excluding the brain; that's ridiculous. And the argument certainly applies here- not perfectly; no metaphor is perfect. And you're right that the head and the arm are not the same thing; they are distinctly different parts, they are still part of the same body. That's exactly the point.
You do make some good points sometimes, but no dice today Cartman :)
God is often described as being everywhere; if that were the case, they wouldn't be in 2 different places, there would just be an overlap of their locations roughly the size of a human body. Spiritually, they are one.
You have to pull the God is everywhere argument to refute my wording? You are avoiding the heart of my argument.
Last time I checked, the brain was part of the head.
They are not the same thing. You started off great, but had to switch wording to lie to everyone. Doesn't that bother you?
they are still part of the same body
Are the head and arm one?
You do make some good points sometimes, but no dice today Cartman :)
I am asking questions. I am trying to figure out if it is a contradiction. No one can answer my questions, but shoot down my "argument" without addressing it. I was trying to explain why this can be considered a contradiction.
Well, what are people supposed to say in response to your argument? Oh, these hypothetical beings are the same because of this or that- and then they're just 'pulling' some kind of argument. We're dealing with hypotheticals here whenever we're talking about god and jesus and their ilk. If were going to discuss them as hypotheticals under the temporary assumption that they exist, dont we have to at least acknowledge or agree upon some assume properties for the sake of argument?
And is it really necessary to nit-pick the whole brain/head deal? The two terms are often used interchangeably. When someone refers to something being in his or her head, they're really referencing their brain. When lolzors mentioned the 'head greater than the arm' bit it's not exactly a stretch to say he was primarily referring to the brain. Doesn't it bother you to nit-pick to that extent?
Are the head and arm one? In the sense that they are parts of one body; just as according to the trinity in the christian mythos, the father, the son, and the holy spirit are parts of the same god. Spiritually, they are one, as I said.
Surely there are less shaky contradictions that can be pointed out? Those make for more interesting debates, all around..
And is it really necessary to nit-pick the whole brain/head deal?
You started it, not my fault.
Are the head and arm one? In the sense that they are parts of one body; just as according to the trinity in the christian mythos, the father, the son, and the holy spirit are parts of the same god. Spiritually, they are one, as I said.
This is the heart of the argument. Are you saying the arm is spiritually one with the head?
Surely there are less shaky contradictions that can be pointed out? Those make for more interesting debates, all around..
No, having to change the concept of one to being part of the same thing is a pretty good point.
You're right, I did start the nit-picking. My bad, withdrawn.
As for the arm being spiritually one with the head? Well, if one presupposes the existence of souls, spirits, or what have you, isn't it typically one soul to a body? Wouldn't that make all parts of the body spiritually one?
And I suppose I see your point re: pointing this out, but I still think this particular one is still a real stretch to label a contradiction. No offense meant.
As for the arm being spiritually one with the head? Well, if one presupposes the existence of souls, spirits, or what have you, isn't it typically one soul to a body? Wouldn't that make all parts of the body spiritually one?
What about transplants? Body parts are temporary in comparison to the soul, so maybe not.
I don't like the idea of special rules for the supernatural because it's circular. Take away all spiritual and supernatural ideas. Does it make sense to say the arm and head are one? How about the arm and leg? If it makes sense to say those are one, then my argument is worthless, and it is just a difference of interpretation.
And I suppose I see your point re: pointing this out, but I still think this particular one is still a real stretch to label a contradiction. No offense meant.
I thought that, too. I was just asking to point out where the contradiction lies. I asked a simple question and couldn't get a simple answer. This leads me to believe I have stumbled upon a bigger contradiction than I originally thought.
The arm and head are one in that they are members of the same body; the comparison is that the father, son, and holy spirit are one in that they are members of the same god. If we're just talking physically, then no- the head and arm are not one in that respect. But the verse that started this argument isn't asserting that they are one in a literal sense either.
That same passage could also be interpreted in the sense of 'we are one;' this would indicate being of an accord, on the same level, same purpose, etc. But that's a distinctly different direction.
I'll concede that, to a certain line of thought, the verses in questions could be looked at as a contradiction- but it's a shaky one, and requires not only a literal interpretation, but careful selection and exclusion of the different definitions of the words in question.
I love how the Bible that people try to use as some great reference material is very ambiguous.
I'll concede that, to a certain line of thought, the verses in questions could be looked at as a contradiction- but it's a shaky one, and requires not only a literal interpretation, but careful selection and exclusion of the different definitions of the words in question.
No, it takes careful selection and exclusion of words to make Jesus and God one.
I guess this is just another example of how Christians interpret the Bible in a way that suits them, I agree that it is not a contradiction.
I think the key point is that it's ambiguous; to label it a contradiction takes as much selection and exclusion as it does to interpret it as them literally being one.
I think maybe that ambiguity is actually a key thing to Christians; they say that their bible has answers for pretty much any situation you can think of, so long as you 'meditate and pray' on it. Obviously that entails some creative interpretation and the ambiguity facilitates that, even if it's problematic from the standpoint of objective analysis.
Remember, we're not generally dealing with objective rationality with this crowd :)
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
and
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
and
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
2 Kings 24:8 -- "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."
2 Chronicles 36:9 -- "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord."
How is this a contradiction? There is not even a hint of a contradiction here.
Matthew 5:16 -- "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 6:3-4 -- "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Right before Matthew 6:3-4 one will find this: "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them". The latter verse is simply telling people not to do good for others to see, but to do it for God; the former verse is in the chapter before. Look at context. So, in conjunction, there is no contradiction. We are to do good works, not for ourselves, but for God. There is no issue here.
Psalm 145:9 -- "The Lord is good to all, / and his mercy is over all that he has made."
Jeremiah 13:14 -- "And I will dash them one against another, fathers and sons together, declares the Lord. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.’"
Mercy and goodness is not necessarily at all times and in every situation. God is good and merciful to all in the mere fact that He does not destroy us immediately once we sin, He gives us food, He gives us family, He does not let all of the world to break us, etc. He does many thing out of mercy and out of grace. However, that being said, God will, eventually, show His wrath towards the wickedness of the world, in time, since He is a just God. So, there is no contradiction here either.
I am not interested in your interpretations...or your empty laughable denial. The contradictions remain despite your inability to recognize them.
As for your merciful God, He is recorded as a killer of women and children, a God that approves of incest and pedophilia. A dealer in genocide and mass murder. Whatever you say to try to justify it with only serves to make Christianity look even more disgusting and repellent. I look forward to the days when the Churches are set on fire and the Priests are nailed to Trees, I only hope I live long enough to witness it.
I am not interested in your interpretations...or your empty laughable denial. The contradictions remain despite your inability to recognize them.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.
As for your merciful God, He is recorded as a killer of women and children,
Evil deserves justice. He was merciful to them in that He allowed them life and all the goodness of it for a time leading up to this justice.
a God that approves of incest and pedophilia.
This is incorrect.
A dealer in genocide and mass murder.
Genocide and mass murder both fall under the definition of "murder." Murder is the unjust killing of someone. God cannot do that which is unjust. His does that which is just, by destroying evil. Hence, God's killing is good.
Whatever you say to try to justify it with only serves to make Christianity look even more disgusting and repellent.
How so?
I look forward to the days when the Churches are set on fire and the Priests are nailed to Trees, I only hope I live long enough to witness it.
I look forward to the days immediately following. Though I desire peace and want no pain, the Great Tribulation is on its way. Christians will be persecuted and oppressed. They will be killed in masses and left to die. The ruler of this world, Satan, will reign with an iron fist, making himself appear just, as an angel of light. Christians will be hanged on trees. Churches will be burned down. But the gates of hell will not overcome the church, nor will they lead away the elect. Christ will come in all of His glory and the elect who live will be joined with Him, the already passed shall rise from their graves, and all of the saints will be taken by Christ to live forever, as the old earth and heaven shall pass away, and the new earth and new heaven shall be united to New Jerusalem, God being united to man for all of eternity! Praise be to God!
God doesn't kill people based on preference of color. He kills them based on doing evil.
You just attempted to justify the hypothetical rape of babies. "clap"clap"
God wouldn't justify rape, but if He did, then it would be just. Look at this practically. If you don't want to look at it practically, then carry on the impracticality to your conclusion, which would be ignoring how you feel about rape.
According to you God is just, so if he did, it would be just. It doesn't what rules of his he breaks, according to your logic, whatever he does is just
God wouldn't justify rape, but if He did, then it would be just.
You are still attempting to justify rape of babies
According to you God is just, so if he did, it would be just. It doesn't what rules of his he breaks, according to your logic, whatever he does is just
Whatever He does it just, but in promise, God has only said that He would destroy the wicked.
You are still attempting to justify rape of babies
No I'm not. How am I doing so? We're looking at this in hypotheticals, not reality.
Please elaborate
When doing hypotheticals, you must take out everything that is practical. If you apply a hypothetical to practicality (for the most part), it is a logical fallacy. I could do a hypothetical of me flying through space on a flying unicorn, and then say that it is impossible because I can't breath in space; the issue with this is that you're looking at hypotheticals already, which means that you could think hypothetical, more so, of being able to breath in space. Thus, to apply a practical outlook on morality, of rape being evil, and then using a hypothetical to say that God justifies rape is fallacious. If you are going to look at morality in practicality, which is that rape is immoral, then look at God in practical light, which is that God hates rape. Be logically consistent, meaning to stay in the practical or to stay in the hypothetical. Do not keep switching back and forth. In practically, God hates rape, and it is unjust to rape. In hypotheticals, which means you must leave out moral intuition, since if you do not do so, then you are begging the question, if God were to justify rape, then it would be moral to do so.
When people dissect the bible, they always seem to forget one key thing and point out inconsistencies between different books within the bible.
The thing they forget, or never bother to learn in the first place, is that the individual books of the bible are not 'chapters' of the same book. They are different books, bound within the same volume. Different authors, different accounts. Different interpretations. All ostensibly divinely inspired, but there is a difference between divinely inspired and it being the 'word of god' as many christians tout. It's not. If the christian god exists, the individual books of the bible are each, individually, works written by men who may or may not have been inspired by said god. The agenda of the early church, specifically the canon, decided which books would be included and which would not be. If there is any truth to the whole god thing, I'd be willing to bet that some legitimately inspired books were omitted, and some bullshit was included.
The only two you cited from the same book were from the book of Matthew, and that is also not a contradiction; it appears that way taken out of context, but the former entry is referring to setting an example for others; the latter is more specific, and is geared towards the idea of giving for the sake of giving, rather than doing it to show off ones own wealth.
With a few exceptions (that are almost entirely due to ambiguities in the translation from the original hebrew the torah was recorded in), each individual book is internally consistent. The entire volume is not, but some inconsistencies are to be expected when there are different authors writing at different times. No two people have the same subjective experience, after all.
There is plenty to criticize about Christianity, but going the route of pointing out inconsistencies between this book and that book is not the way to go about it; it's a fundamentally flawed approach. Going that route is only going to antagonize the christians. If that's your goal- you're a dick, plain and simple. If your goal is, rather, one of general enlightenment and reason, there are better ways to go about it that way actually reach someone rather than piss them off and/or put them on the defensive.
I am not interested in making friends with Christians or any religious people for that matter. I am not interested in reconciliation or building bridges or enlightening the religious, I am only interested in destroying their faith and revealing their dysfunction to others. Who cares if you think I am a dick or not? Your opinion does not matter in the slightest, you are nothing to me. There is only pure honest hatred on my part and when you detest something as I do with total conviction you can change something, for the better. You have the focus. The determination to make the world better.
I will not be told what to post or not to post by the likes of you.
Pointing out scriptural inconsistency is but one weapon, I have others with which to kill religion with. They are all valid.
I want the religious to be angry and adversarial with my statements, I want a conflict to arise that will involve the whole world, I want to see the religious blow people up and kill in the name of God and persecute homosexuals and women etc...I want them to do all these things so that we have every reason and excuse to end them. I want the world to see what the religious really are, the unthinking robots they are...and people like you really should get out of the way for your own sake.
I don't want to reach out to them, they do so much to harm others, they would burn you or torture you if they could, for the good of your immortal soul and for the good of the souls of others. They kill and maim and persecute and misinform every day. There can be no mercy and no peace, until all the Holy books are as ashes...all the Churches Mosques and Temples, burnt out rubble.
If you don't like that, I could not care less.
Incidentally you fail to understand that inconsistencies in the Bible mean one thing...it is fallible...it is thus contributory evidence that the Bible is not and never was the absolute word of God, should he exist or not. As others seem to think it is.
PS I have made you an enemy since you are a clearly a left wing Christian apologist of some type, such people can only be my enemies. I cant stand people like you. Your kind in effect excuse them and imply they have a right to believe what they believe, totally unacceptable.
Don't bother responding to this because I have nothing more to say to you and there is nothing you can say that will move me, I will ignore your comments from now on, on this thread.
I will not debate with those that resort to petty name calling.
You need to seriously calm down. Your attitude is as unstable and dangerous as that which you decry so harshly. Petty name calling, for saying someone who is intentionally antagonizing someone is a dick, and a hypothetical statement to that effect even? Bit of a stretch that.
If that's really how you feel, enemies is just fine by me. You are clearly a left wing anti-religious extremist- look at what you're proposing, it's every bit as crazy as a religious extremist! Seriously, you want to encourage terrorism so that governments make the choice to wipe the religious out? You're a worse hypocrite than any religious person ever was! Such people can only be my enemies- and nothing good ever came from hatred, and you won't be the exception to that. I sincerely hope you are a troll and don't genuinely feel this way, because this attitude is the stuff the worst Tyrants the world has seen were made of.
I'll leave it at that; any further attempt at debate with you is pointless.
If the object of your desire cannot give legal consent to sex then you might well have a legal duty not to attempt to have sex with it...regardless of what the Bible says.
Having sex with your sister children and animals and vulnerable people etc.. is illegal and is outlawed because it is inherently exploitative, it is rape or incest in the case of humans.
If you don't understand why animals and children should not be excluded then you do not understand the concepts of exploitation or rape, since obviously unrelated homosexuals above the age of consent who freely engage in sexual activity are not being raped or being incestuous.
One does not have to allow all forms of sexual expression or revert to religious puritanical bigotry and persecution in order to maintain a healthy moral society.
Mutual consent between individuals able to make that decision freely without fear or coercion.
That is the dividing line between sexual right and wrong.
That means homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals can all stand on one side of the line together.
The incestuous, the pedophiles, the necrophiliacs, the bestiality enthusiasts...on the other. Should they act on their desires.
If the object of your desire cannot give legal consent to sex then you might well have a legal duty not to attempt to have sex with it...regardless of what the Bible says.
Who determines whether something can give consent or not? What if a dog comes up behind a girl, penetrates, and goes at it, while the girl enjoys it?
Having sex with your sister children and animals and vulnerable people etc.. is illegal and is outlawed because it is inherently exploitative, it is rape or incest in the case of humans.
How is having sex with any of those things exploitative? Why is incest wrong? How is it rape?
One does not have to allow all forms of sexual expression or revert to religious puritanical bigotry and persecution in order to maintain a healthy moral society.
Yes, you do. You can't understand this until you are a Christian.
Mutual consent between individuals able to make that decision freely without fear or coercion.
Who determines consent? Why coercion? Is peer pressure an excuse?
That means homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals can all stand on one side of the line together.
You have yet to give a good argument for the positive of this.
Consent cannot be given by those who are judged to lack the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
Such as Children and Animals and those with diminished responsibility eg Someone with late stage Alzheimer's disease.
Incest is inherently exploitative...most victims of incest will not tell a happy tale.
The reason it is wrong to have sex with a child is because the child by definition of being a child is still developing and it is a scientific fact that sexual activity with children is psychologically harmful as well as potentially physically harmful. Certainly early pregnancy is potentially harmful and not in the interests of the child.
I am concerned this is not obvious. Perhaps the story of Lot has led you to believe incest and pedophilia is acceptable.
Christianity will never grip the world again as it did...it is dying now and not soon enough,
Consent cannot be given by those who are judged to lack the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
Who makes this decision, the decision for whom to be considered as having the mental capacity to make an informed decision? It sounds a lot like a eugenics movement.
Incest is inherently exploitative...most victims of incest will not tell a happy tale.
Can a brother and sister not have sexual desires for one another and end up having sex when they are 40? How is this exploitative?
The reason it is wrong to have sex with a child is because the child by definition of being a child is still developing and it is a scientific fact that sexual activity with children is psychologically harmful as well as potentially physically harmful. Certainly early pregnancy is potentially harmful and not in the interests of the child.
What does this matter? If there is no God, then why does this matter in any way?
No it doesn't. Clarity of mind noted. But if we all happen to agree with you, or must of us do. Then for practical intents and ultimately legal purposes it is wrong or eventually will be. If democracy is unfettered.
Democracy is only illogical if it is dysfunctional. Socrates may have said that I don't know.
What makes a thing correct is a complex thing. It is mostly what we agree upon as a society is wrong, social codes of conduct, our rules and regulations in law. But it is also about what we might aspire to be.
Since as a civilization we also progress.
We aim to be tolerant we aim to be concerned with our own affairs and have respect for the human dignity of others to live their lives as they see fit without discrimination and prejudice.
Those who offend must and will be punished if they choose to set a belief higher than the rule of law, which in the eyes of the law is unforgivable.
What makes a thing correct is a complex thing. It is mostly what we agree upon as a society is wrong, social codes of conduct, our rules and regulations in law. But it is also about what we might aspire to be.
So it is subjective. There is no morally objective code. So, I can murder you and it is not wrong, as long as I don't think it to be wrong. I can have sex with whomever I so choose, as long as its not immoral for me. Hence, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, etc are all acceptable.
There is no absolute objective moral code. There is only common behaviors for a particular species.
Humans exhibit a societal order, like many other species.
This way of life involves cooperation and mutuality, caring for each other and sharing resources, in the manner of humans and wolves and other social species.
What is naturally abhorrent to most humans bar psychopathic personalities and the insane, is a result largely of genomic expression.
Your view of morality is subjective to your species and culture in the main.
For the wicked nothing is unacceptable, regardless of culture or species.
For the good what is acceptable is what is honest, fair, just and ethical in the circumstances.
Relative to cultural values and species instinct.
So sorry...there is no absolute moral compass to cling to.
You have to light your own light in the abyssal darkness...