Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[avxo]

Really? So youre saying that if we both have the same facts, I will come to the same conclusion you do because rationality is universal? And if I dont, im acting irrationally (according to you)
Dude....

No, I'm saying that if we both have the same set of facts, and that we both have a moral code based on reason, we will both find a decision to be moral or we will both find it to be immoral.

One example I can think of, happened in Iraq, just off the top of my head.
Man - is injured in crossfire, and will die if doesnt get attention.
One man weighs the options, says, if I run out in into the crossfire Im going to get shot and die, and the other dude is going to die as well. Said man chooses to stay put.
Other man seems the same thing, decides he can make it, and runs out, grabs said man, and returns unhurt.

So one man thinks he can make it, the other doesn't.

Situation is the same for both men, yet one saw running out into fire as irrational and the other did not.

No - the situation wasn't the same, by your own admission. One man said "I can make it" and one said "I can't make it."

One man saw running into fire with a poor chance of success as irrational. Another saw running into fire with a good chance of success as rational.

There's no problem that I can detect here.

Rationality is most certainly NOT universal, as what one person see's as rational somone else will see as totally irrational. Its just as subjective as morality. Maybe moreso.

Reason is universal. That two people can arrive at different conclusions doesn't change that fact. If we're both on a desert island and we only have food for 6 days and we die if we without food for 24 hours, then it's rational for you to want the food for yourself if you know a boat is coming in 7 days. Just as it's rational for me to want the food for myself.

This doesn't make logic irrational. We are both using logic, but not the same set of facts: you value your life more than mine and I value mine more than yours.

Youre trying to use your own sense of rationality as a universal to judge morality. That whole line of logic is flawed.

Logic is universal. Again, it you think that's not the case, you're welcome to offer a counter argument.

[avxo]

We have the same facts, and the same rationality but people have 2 different views on it. 

Another angle to this discussion is the phenomenon of Belief being more powerful than fact.

I suggest that we don't have the same set of facts. You may, for example, consider a just-fertilized ovum as a human being, and thus consider abortion to be murder. I don't consider that same ovum to be human.

If we disagree and we're both using logic it's either because one of us is wrong or because we don't both have the same facts.

[Shockwave]

Im so confused.

If we both have the same set of facts and use reason properly

Dudes are standing next to each other. Same facts. Same reason. Both guys know that running into the crossfire is suicide. Guy dieing in front of us, needs attention, bullets whizzing by on both sides. One chooses to run into a crossfire, deeming it to be perfectly rational, the other does not.

If rationality was universal, then you would be saying one of these guys was wrong. You argument, at least to me, seems circular. Everyone will come to the same conclusion with the same facts and if reaon is used, but my case is perfectly fine because 2 different guys came to 2 different conclusions when presented with the same set of facts and using their own sense of reason.

If rationality is universal, one person must be irrational. If its universal, this situation cannot be "fine".

[OzmO]

I suggest that we don't have the same set of facts. You may, for example, consider a just-fertilized ovum as a human being, and thus consider abortion to be murder. I don't consider that same ovum to be human.

If we disagree and we're both using logic it's either because one of us is wrong or because we don't both have the same facts.

the debate isn't necessarily there.  Its whether or not it should be legal. 

[Shockwave]

the debate isn't necessarily there.  Its whether or not it should be legal. 

Well, isnt law usually based on morality? Isnt that just going back to the same root of the argument?

[avxo]

Im so confused.

Dudes are standing next to each other. Same facts. Same reason. Both guys know that running into the crossfire is suicide. Guy dieing in front of us, needs attention, bullets whizzing by on both sides. One chooses to run into a crossfire, deeming it to be perfectly rational, the other does not.

Perhaps one guy knows the injured person better. Perhaps he was once saved from such a situation himself. Perhaps he considers it an honorable way to die. It is not the same situation.

If rationality was universal, then you would be saying one of these guys was wrong. You argument, at least to me, seems circular. Everyone will come to the same conclusion with the same facts and if reaon is used, but my case is perfectly fine because 2 different guys came to 2 different conclusions when presented with the same set of facts and using their own sense of reason.

I think you misunderstand your own example.

If rationality is universal, one person must be irrational. If its universal, this situation cannot be "fine".

Perhaps one person is irrational - the sort of situation you describe doesn't lend itself to rationality. Or perhaps he feels honor-bound to help a fallen comrade. Or any of a million other differentiators apply.

This is a bad example, and it will never work. You may want to try something else.

[Primemuscle]

You would have to try and convince me. I don't believe that abortion is a controversial issue if examined logically, although I agree that it is an excellent counterargument.

Not to be all contrary here, but since abortion is in fact a very controversial issue, are you suggesting that folks who argue and demonstate either for or against abortion are not logical or for that matter, rational?

[avxo]

the debate isn't necessarily there.  Its whether or not it should be legal.

I thought we were discussing morality. But OK, we can discuss legality. I think that abortion should be legal since (a) I don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being and (b) nobody should be forced to be an incubator and to live at the expense of or for the benefit of another.

Not to be all contrary here, but since abortion is in fact a very controversial issue, are you suggesting that folks who argue and demonstate either for or against abortion are not logical or for that matter, rational?

I am suggesting that under a rational morality abortion is either moral or immoral - it can't be both. I happen to think that it's moral, but perhaps I have it wrong and someone can convince me that it's immoral. As for the folks who argue and demonstrate, who knows whether they're logical or rational?

[Primemuscle]

Well, isnt law usually based on morality? Isnt that just going back to the same root of the argument?

Laws are absolutely based on morality. The fact that laws differ depending on where you are (capital punishment, for example), examples why not everyone's idea of what is moral and what is not is the same.

Note what Leviticus suggested regarding homosexuality in these two verses of concern:

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This was his idea of morality....seems a bit harsh by today's standards.

Just so you know, I oppose capital punishment.

[Primemuscle]

I thought we were discussing morality. But OK, we can discuss legality. I think that abortion should be legal since (a) I don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being and (b) nobody should be forced to be an incubator and to live at the expense of or for the benefit of another.


I am suggesting that under a rational morality abortion is either moral or immoral - it can't be both. I happen to think that it's moral, but perhaps I have it wrong and someone can convince me that it's immoral. As for the folks who argue and demonstrate, who knows whether they're logical or rational?

I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. However, I cannot agree that doing so is necessarily moral. It is still taking a life, just as it is with capital punishment.

Advances in medical science has complicated this issue from both sides. On the one side, infants who years ago would have been stillborn or died shortly after birth (as with extremely premature babies) often survive and flourish today. I was a premature baby about who the doctor said to my mother that I would not live. I am 67 years old with no apparent negative affects from having been born prematurely. On the other hand, because of advancements in medical science, infants are often saved only to endure a life of suffering as with conjoined twins who either cannot be separated or if they are one will die. How would you like to have to make that decision?

[avxo]

Laws are absolutely based on morality.

Are you really suggesting that all laws codify moral principles?

[avxo]

I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. However, I cannot agree that doing so is necessarily moral. It is still taking a life, just as it is with capital punishment.

Is it always taking a life, or only sometimes? And do you think that (the morality of abortion aside) it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?

Advances in medical science has complicated this issue from both sides. On the one side, infants who years ago would have been stillborn or died shortly after birth (as with extremely premature babies) often survive and flourish today. I was a premature baby about who the doctor said to my mother that I would not live. I am 67 years old with no apparent negative affects from having been born prematurely. On the other hand, because of advancements in medical science, infants are often saved only to endure a life of suffering as with conjoined twins who either cannot be separated or if they are one will die. How would you like to have to make that decision?

Oh, there's little doubt that advances in medical science make the issue more and more difficult to deal with. There was a time when pregnancy was (for all intents and purposes) the line in the sand, as preemies almost always didn't survive. And that's where reasonable men can differ - at where the line should be.

As for making difficult decisions - I wouldn't like to have to make any. But we all know that's not realistic, and if I had to, then I would. I would try to be rational, although I concede that can be difficult, if not impossible when there's emotional involvement and high stress.

On a sidenote: you're 67? That's awesome. Do you regularly hit the gym?

[Dos Equis]

The reason it is not difficult to do this is because so many folks quote and interpert the Bible to suit their own beliefs and feelings regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Ever witness a religious discussion between, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics where they quote the bible. It is as if they are discussing two very different books and each party believes their way is the only right way.

Not the same.  You're talking about people who have actually read the Bible having different opinions about what various things mean. 

That's different from someone who hasn't read it, but has opinions about whether portions are relevant vs. irrelevant. 

[MCWAY]

Believing that the world is flat is not a moral issue. Your example doesn't hold water.

Not anymore it isn't. Plus, the issue is rationality. At one point, people rationally thought the world was flat. To believe otherwise had you deemed ignorant, blasphemous, nonsensical, or some combination thereof.

[avxo]

Not anymore it isn't. Plus, the issue is rationality. At one point, people rationally thought the world was flat. To believe otherwise had you deemed ignorant, blasphemous, nonsensical, or some combination thereof.

Rationality doesn't guarantee that you will make the right decisions in the absence of relevant facts.

[Primemuscle]

Are you really suggesting that all laws codify moral principles?

What I am suggesting is that most laws have moral origins.

[Primemuscle]

Is it always taking a life, or only sometimes? And do you think that (the morality of abortion aside) it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?

If the fetus is alive when you kill it, it is taking a life....always. Whether there is any justification for ending this life or not must be made on a case by case basis.

On a sidenote: you're 67? That's awesome. Do you regularly hit the gym?

This is a bad time to ask me this question. Up until I found out I had prostate cancer, I was very regular about working out. That was last January. Since then, I have lost ambition to work out and I am not sure why. I will be having a Da Vinci prostatectomy on July 2, 2012. I expect to come through it fine although there is an expected period of recovery. It may be a month or more before going to the gym would be either wise or practical. I sure would not show up there wearing a catheter. From what the doctor tells me, that will be for ten days following the surgery.

A couple of weeks ago, I paid my annual membership dues. I am relatively thrifty and I definitely don't like wasting money. Therefore, I expect I will be hitting the gym very soon....maybe tomorrow.

On the plus side, I tend to be thin. Since not working out, I have lost about 25 lbs. My clothes fit about the same, so I probably have lost some muscle and gained some fat. I am not taking any measurements because I really don't want to have any negative thoughts at this juncture. Finding out my arms are as thin as I think they are would probably make me feel bad.

The last time I had surgery was when I was 38 years old. I had a hernia repaired. The doctor told my wife I had the body of a 20 year old. I assume that meant he thought I was in great shape. I recovered very quickly from that surgery....of course, that was almost 30 years ago.

[avxo]

If the fetus is alive when you kill it, it is taking a life....always. Whether there is any justification for ending this life or not must be made on a case by case basis.

BUt what does it mean for a fetus to be alive?

This is a bad time to ask me this question. Up until I found out I had prostate cancer, I was very regular about working out. That was last January. Since then, I have lost ambition to work out and I am not sure why. I will be having a Da Vinci prostatectomy on July 2, 2012. I expect to come through it fine although there is an expected period of recovery. It may be a month or more before going to the gym would be either wise or practical. I sure would not show up there wearing a catheter. From what the doctor tells me, that will be for ten days following the surgery.

Oh wow. I hope that the surgery goes smoothly and you recover fully so you can get back to pushing some weights!

The last time I had surgery was when I was 38 years old. I had a hernia repaired. The doctor told my wife I had the body of a 20 year old. I assume that meant he thought I was in great shape. I recovered very quickly from that surgery....of course, that was almost 30 years ago.

Everyone is jealous of getbiggers

[Primemuscle]

BUt what does it mean for a fetus to be alive?

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
 
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.

Despite my limited medical/scientific experience. I suggest to you that a fetus is alive because it meets all the criteria outlined in the previous two paragraphs.

[avxo]

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.

A fetus doesn't possess all those characteristics while in the womb.

[Primemuscle]

A fetus doesn't possess all those characteristics while in the womb.

Which of the previously described characteristics do you believe a fetus does not possess?

[Primemuscle]

Usually, folks argue whether life begins at birth because they believe that is when they believe the soul enters the body. Another argument that is often made is that because a fetus is dependent on the host to sustain life, it is a parasite and not a separate living organism. This raises the question as to when the "parasite" fetus can survive outside the womb. As medical science advances making it possible for the fetus to live and flourish outside its mother in some manner of artificial womb-like environment at a earlier and earlier point, the definition of life using this criteria is challenged.

Understand that I am not trying to make an argument either for or against abortion here. What I am doing is simply pointing out that the definition of what constitutes a living being is in flux.

[loco]

Man, has this thread gone way off topic!   

[Primemuscle]

Man, has this thread gone way off topic!   

So, what's your point? Kidding! You are right, it this thread progressed into a whole new area, much like real life conversations do.

Did you wish to bring it back to the topic of what the Bible really says about homosexuality? Going full circle, I still maintain what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is not relevant to today's cultures in all but the most historically stagnated societies.

Why not embrace our fellow man despite any differences we may have. Homosexuality is not a disease that spreads like a plague. There is nothing to fear. The world hugely overpopulated. There is no reason to worry about someone wasting their "seed" on sex outside male female procreation. I just don't get why some people continue to have a problem with homosexually.

[avxo]

Which of the previously described characteristics do you believe a fetus does not possess?

I don't think that you can cogently argue that the fetus maintain homeostasis and it certainly cannot reproduce.

As to the definition of life: You're right that it can be tricky. I think that the one that you gave applies just as well to a weed growing on your lawn and even amoebas.