World Vision apostasy, or: never, ever, give your money to Christian organizations...

[Bill the Cat]

It's an arbitrary divine command if there isn't a reason for it besides the divine command.

Do you say these things in your head before you type them?

[Epoetker]

If a behavior has no serious negative effect outside of violating a divine edict in your particular world view, it is immoral to prohibit others from that behavior when you are in a position of power.

Define "serious negative effect," because I have the sneaking suspicion that 'loss of social capital and cohesion' wouldn't be included in that one.

You keep saying things like "as a Christian", "Christian belief", and "Christian practice". These things don't actually exist when it comes to behavioral tenets. You, and others like you, are creating arbitrary social divisions.

All social divisions are arbitrary to children innocent of where their explorations are likely to take them. These distinctions tend to become decidedly spontaneous and non-arbitrary as people grow up and experiment with various social divisions, though of course when reality conflicts with the Narrative, deny reality, right?

What you are really saying is "as a Bill the Catian", "Bill the Catian belief", and "Bill the Catian practice". The real divisions are categorical or individual.

The only beliefs I've seen Bill fight hard for are Christian beliefs. I know of not one case where he has given a solely Bill the Catian perspective.

[Bill the Cat]

Fixed your quote tag Epo.

[Psychic Missile]

First Psychic, these prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors are not arbitrary but have been ingrained in western civilization for a millennia or more. Second, as Christians we are not limited to your narrow view of harm. Third, if there is no goal or teleology for human sexuality then there is no sexual behavior that couldn't be justified if done right - like bestiality.

Your first point is an appeal to tradition. Arbitrary harms based on special knowledge only you have access to does not render secular harms absent. How do you think sex with a being that cannot consent is justifiable?

Where have I suggested we prohibit their behavior?

Are you in favor of World Vision rescinding their policy to not employ individuals in a same-sex marriage? Are you in favor of same sex marriage being legal?

If a Christian has a consistent worldview, there is no separating the two.

Who is to judge if a worldview is consistent? Another Christian? Everyone thinks their own world view consistent.

They are not arbitrary to us. They are divinely commanded.

What God commands or doesn't command is arbitrarily decided by each individual Christian. I'm sure you know of plenty of people who call themselves Christian who claim the Bible says something you don't think it says.

Not even close. Individuals do not make the rules when they serve someone else in a higher position of authority. The division comes from the edicts of the highest authority on what is considered acceptable practice and what is considered not acceptable.

The individual decides what the authority wants. That authority cannot let everyone else know whether or not the individual is following their edicts.

Define "serious negative effect," because I have the sneaking suspicion that 'loss of social capital and cohesion' wouldn't be included in that one.

Where does the loss of social capital and cohesion come from, in your own words?

All social divisions are arbitrary to children innocent of where their explorations are likely to take them. These distinctions tend to become decidedly spontaneous and non-arbitrary as people grow up and experiment with various social divisions, though of course when reality conflicts with the Narrative, deny reality, right?

I don't understand what you're saying here.

The only beliefs I've seen Bill fight hard for are Christian beliefs. I know of not one case where he has given a solely Bill the Catian perspective.

Bill the Cat decides what Christian beliefs are, as do you. What happens when you come into conflict?

[seer]

Your first point is an appeal to tradition. Arbitrary harms based on special knowledge only you have access to does not render secular harms absent. How do you think sex with a being that cannot consent is justifiable?

So what if it an appeal to tradition, tradition often works. A two parent (male female) family with biological children is the best model we know of. And as far as special "knowledge" all three of the monotheistic religions reject homosexual behavior. And we all have access to those religious texts. And I have no idea what your last point is about.

[Zymologist]

Your first point is an appeal to tradition. Arbitrary harms based on special knowledge only you have access to does not render secular harms absent. How do you think sex with a being that cannot consent is justifiable?

Why do you think killing and eating a being that cannot consent is justifiable? Just curious, in light of your question.

[Sparko]

Why do you think killing and eating a being that cannot consent is justifiable? Just curious, in light of your question.

or enslaving them as beasts of burden. Seems "consent" only comes into play when the liberals want to ignore the problem with their philosophy of "love"

[Psychic Missile]

So what if it an appeal to tradition, tradition often works. A two parent (male female) family with biological children is the best model we know of. And as far as special "knowledge" all three of the monotheistic religions reject homosexual behavior. And we all have access to those religious texts. And I have no idea what your last point is about.

Just because a tradition exists doesn't mean it should exist. That's why the appeal to tradition is a fallacy. There are Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not think their religion prohibits homosexuality. The claim that any specific individual knows what their god wants is special knowledge that cannot be accessed by anyone else. My last point is in regard to your bestiality remark.

Why do you think killing and eating a being that cannot consent is justifiable? Just curious, in light of your question.

I don't see how they're comparable.

[Zymologist]

I don't see how they're comparable.

So having sex with an animal is immoral, because consent is impossible; but killing the animal and eating its meat is perfectly acceptable? This seems glaringly inconsistent to me.

[Bill the Cat]

Are you in favor of World Vision rescinding their policy to not employ individuals in a same-sex marriage? Are you in favor of same sex marriage being legal?

Those have nothing to do with "prohibit(ing) others from that behavior". Neither of these prohibitions stop 2 people from engaging in homosexual sex, cohabitation, or whatever. So those are red herrings.

Who is to judge if a worldview is consistent? Another Christian? Everyone thinks their own world view consistent.

The traditions and historic doctrines of the church.

What God commands or doesn't command is arbitrarily decided by each individual Christian.

That's a load of crap and you know it.

I'm sure you know of plenty of people who call themselves Christian who claim the Bible says something you don't think it says.

And typically, exposing their stupidity on the subject is child's play.

The individual decides what the authority wants. That authority cannot let everyone else know whether or not the individual is following their edicts.

When the authority has written it down, or had someone write it for the authority, then they can. The individual is not allowed to pick and choose, or even decide, what the authority really wants, especially if that choice runs contrary to what the authority specifically said it doesn't want.

[Sparko]

When the authority has written it down, or had someone write it for the authority, then they can. The individual is not allowed to pick and choose, or even decide, what the authority really wants, especially if that choice runs contrary to what the authority specifically said it doesn't want.

Remember that you are talking to someone who probably thinks the US Constitution is just a barely a guideline and needs to be revoked or changed depending on what people like him think it should say today.

[seer]

Just because a tradition exists doesn't mean it should exist. That's why the appeal to tradition is a fallacy. There are Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not think their religion prohibits homosexuality. The claim that any specific individual knows what their god wants is special knowledge that cannot be accessed by anyone else. My last point is in regard to your bestiality remark.

But so what Psychic? So overthrow a 1,000 years or so of western moral history and replace it with what? Why isn't this new standard just as arbitrary? And of course human to animal sex could be justified - why does consent make a difference? We don't ask consent from the cow before we kill and eat it. And there is no better model for marriage than two parent (male female) family with biological children...

[Epoetker]

Where does the loss of social capital and cohesion come from, in your own words?

If the people you have to live and interact with on a daily basis share no common experiences and desires, the level of interpersonal trust necessary for a complex society breaks down, as does the society. In other words, '"Diversity" is good for building a shallow, secular society of atomized people who are polite to each other, but it does not foster community.'

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Get in the habit of actually following my links sometimes.

Bill the Cat decides what Christian beliefs are, as do you. What happens when you come into conflict?

Bill decides how he can best put his Christian beliefs into practice based on his ability and place in life. If we were to come into conflict, I would probably win, because I'm a fighter by nature. And yet for about 99.99% of my interactions that I can remember I've seen absolutely nothing to fight about, because I can recognize the common view and experience of life that being a Christian has entailed for him, and those who have that experience and view tend to mysteriously avoid a whole lot of petty legalistic conflicts that living in secular legalistic mode will inevitably bring you once your Christian social capital breaks down.

[Psychic Missile]

So having sex with an animal is immoral, because consent is impossible; but killing the animal and eating its meat is perfectly acceptable? This seems glaringly inconsistent to me.

If you want to make a topic about diet and morality I'd be happy to participate, but I think this is totally off topic.

Those have nothing to do with "prohibit(ing) others from that behavior". Neither of these prohibitions stop 2 people from engaging in homosexual sex, cohabitation, or whatever. So those are red herrings.

I think you understand my sentiment. They all come from the same place. I'd rather not argue semantics.

The traditions and historic doctrines of the church.

Which church?

That's a load of crap and you know it.

No it isn't. There is widespread doctrinal disagreement among Christians.

And typically, exposing their stupidity on the subject is child's play.

A member of any denomination could make this claim.

[quote[When the authority has written it down, or had someone write it for the authority, then they can. The individual is not allowed to pick and choose, or even decide, what the authority really wants, especially if that choice runs contrary to what the authority specifically said it doesn't want.[/QUOTE]

Let's look at a single part of the Bible: Exodus 20:13. This is most commonly translated as "Thou shalt not kill" via KJB. Disagreements can include:

Are OT tenets applicable?
Are Exodus tenets applicable?
Is this commandment applicable?
What does it mean to kill?
Is killing in self defense okay?
Is killing in a war okay?

These are rhetorical. As you can see, one of the most straightforward of lines can be controversial. It becomes even more complex when you take into account other parts of the Bible. This is discounting whether or not what the Bible says even matters when it comes to what a believer thinks God wants. There is nothing but picking and choosing.

Remember that you are talking to someone who probably thinks the US Constitution is just a barely a guideline and needs to be revoked or changed depending on what people like him think it should say today.

FYI I think the Constitution should be strictly adhered to. I just don't think it has any actual legal consequence in US law.

But so what Psychic? So overthrow a 1,000 years or so of western moral history and replace it with what? Why isn't this new standard just as arbitrary? And of course human to animal sex could be justified - why does consent make a difference? We don't ask consent from the cow before we kill and eat it. And there is no better model for marriage than two parent (male female) family with biological children...

Traditions should be replaced if they are found to be faulty and a better solution is available. The new standard is not arbitrary because it is backed by secular reasoning/philosophy and with plenty of data to determine consequences. I question the male and female and biological qualifiers you gave.

If the people you have to live and interact with on a daily basis share no common experiences and desires, the level of interpersonal trust necessary for a complex society breaks down, as does the society. In other words, '"Diversity" is good for building a shallow, secular society of atomized people who are polite to each other, but it does not foster community.'

If those people live and interact together on a daily basis, then they should share common experiences and desires.

Get in the habit of actually following my links sometimes.

I'd rather hear your argument in your own words.

Bill decides how he can best put his Christian beliefs into practice based on his ability and place in life. If we were to come into conflict, I would probably win, because I'm a fighter by nature. And yet for about 99.99% of my interactions that I can remember I've seen absolutely nothing to fight about, because I can recognize the common view and experience of life that being a Christian has entailed for him, and those who have that experience and view tend to mysteriously avoid a whole lot of petty legalistic conflicts that living in secular legalistic mode will inevitably bring you once your Christian social capital breaks down.

So you're saying that doctrinal disagreements don't matter in light of major commonalities? That doesn't seem to be reflected in society. It seems like there's just a chain of in groups and out groups that gets smaller and smaller.

[Zymologist]

If you want to make a topic about diet and morality I'd be happy to participate, but I think this is totally off topic.

It doesn't seem at all off-topic to me, given what you said regarding the animal's consent, but ok. I don't care enough to make another thread about it anyway.