Is homosexuality harmful?

[Audacity]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

[RickD]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

[abelcainsbrother]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

[Kurieuo]

Substitute "spiritual" with "psyche" if you prefer. Unless you don't believe in a psyche. In fact, are "we" really having this conversation? Is there even a conversation being had if a real "you" and a real "I" don't exist...

Why would I want to redefine a word you use so I could agree with your statement? No, your statement has to stand or fall on the words you use.

Audacity, for someone who doesn't think they really exist and make real choices, you seem awfully passionate and set to disagree at all cost. I won't entertain such foolishness further, since it's evident you aren't interested in reason or discussion. I'd again request you self-examine why you're really here.

Note: in fact after read STs post to you, and in reflection upon some complaints made, I won't have you at this board if you will continue to cause aggitation rather than befriend.

I'm sorry if someone has taken offense at a reasonable comment I've made about their post. However, if I've made an unreasonable comment to anyone here on any topic I would appreciate knowing about it. I've always tried to be honest and constructive in everything I've posted, and without being mean or antagonistic about it. That someone may be agitated by what I say is unfortunate, but it's certainly not my aim. My suspicion is that what I've said might have been simply too challenging to their position or beliefs. But if that's one of the caveats of posting here: Don't challenge anyone too much, then I'm certainly not the only guilty poster here. I couldn't count the number of times I've jumped on by members over a particular point I've made, and jumped on at the same time. However, I recognize this is part of interesting discussions, and wouldn't think of complaining about it.

Audacity, self-inspect why many like Jac (and there are others, but you mentioned him) might react to you in such a way. The root cause, as I see matters, are with the approach and manner you takes towards others in your post. Like you're talking down to others who are Christian here, such of course ends up in unpleasantries back that are also unbecoming.

To be clear as to the complaints, there is a report function on the board where members can reports posts. Your posts have been reported on numerous occasions throughout your time here before your time away, and now you're back. One of the latest reports says your posts are always "smarmy and obtuse" and challenges us mods to do something. Looking over your posts, and reactions to them, this report seems to me justified.

So then, what should we do as mods? Like you say, you haven't been overtly insulting, and yet, there is much agitation being caused in the manner (and I don't believe it's just because you're challenging Christians, but rather your manner). We have had numerous calls to tighten up and stick to the board purpose, which was one reason for the updated guidelines with the new Moderator Policy as the end.

Understand, this is a Christian board, so then when a non-Christian comes and starts poking their stick, and/or being condescending and smart i.e., "smarmy", then if Christian members react we do often overlook such, since the root cause for their frustration wasn't them. We want this board to be pleasant for Christians, and that really means us mods need to keep Atheists or non-Christians in check, especially those who might enjoy antagonising or frustrating Christians.

Furthermore, my own replies to you have been direct to any arguments and questions you've asked, if you want to go after the fallacies like ad hominems, well there are avoidance and diversion fallacies that many Atheists tend to commit. They love to poke in, with their questionings and like, try and bait Christians. And then when given multiple responses, they think because they don't personally find the responses satisfying that such frees them from any burden of even answering questions back. It's a matter of challenge, and continue challenging, cheap shots, baiting, but then when the spotlight is put on them they often shirk any burden to answer questions back or justify their own positions beyond merely asserting them, and such is well, it's tiring. And, it does lead to unbecoming remarks from Christians who tire of such games.

I consider myself rather thick-skinned in such exchanges, more-so if I can tell the other person at least is putting in half as much as I often do into a discussion. But, at the end of the day we want this to be a pleasant Christian board with friends (on all sides) that respect each other as friends, and aren't out like say with Facebook or YouTube comments to troll, antagonise or attack another or a group of people that they disagree with. This means putting in some skin and opening up, rather than just poking sticks.

So then, in light of all this, you are skating on thin ice, but that can become much thicker I believe in just changing the manner, being a bit more personal and friendly, and taking care to show some respect and sensitivity towards others. Not everyone here, are intellects or care to debate, there are many who for some reason or another, just like the place and being among other Christians who can help with a question here or there, or even just feel encouraged in life by people in an online community they've come to respect.

I hope the above puts some more perspective on matters, I wasn't going to post Christmas day but saw it wouldn't be good to let my reply wait. Hope you have enjoy Christmas with your kids (I think I recall somewhere you saying you had some).

[Audacity]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

[jenna]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

i would like to know how you come to the conclusion that we have no ability to choose between possible courses of action? do you really think we are all robots?

[Audacity]

Audacity, self-inspect why many like Jac (and there are others, but you mentioned him) might react to you in such a way.

I did, and invite you to look at his statements in context.


From: Is homosexuality harmful?
The point is that Audacity, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a first grader trying to lecture on Calculus. He's committing the naturalistic fallacy while we're talking about natural law. Pointing out patterns in "nature" has absolutely nothing to do with a thing's nature. In other words, he doesn't know what the word "natural" means in the phrase "natural law." He foolishly and ignorantly thinks it has something to do with the first and second definitions of "nature" rather with reference to a thing's essence, intrinsic qualities, capacities, perfections, etc.


From: The Delusion of "Free Will"
For those following this inanity, the previous comments about why the will so wills gives us another chance to clarify something important. I said ealier, and I'll say again, the problem with "free will" isn't choosing A vs choosing B. That's the easiest part to solve. The problem is with intentionality. What Audacity is simply too obtuse to see--and this is why I laughed, and continue to laugh, at his ridiculous statement that it is good to keep an open mind while simultaneously denying existence open minds or the goodness or badness of anything--is that intentionality itself is what determines A vs B. And I use that word "determines" in the proper sense.

Note that none of his ad homs have anything to do the way I've said something, but my lack of ability to properly assess and explain the issue, in his eyes. I'll leave it to you to characterize such a demeaning temper.

To be clear as to the complaints, there is a report function on the board where members can reports posts. Your posts have been reported on numerous occasions throughout your time here before your time away, and now you're back. One of the latest reports says your posts are always "smarmy and obtuse" and challenges us mods to do something. Looking over your posts, and reactions to them, this report seems to me justified.

So then, what should we do as mods? Like you say, you haven't been overtly insulting, and yet, there is much agitation being caused in the manner (and I don't believe it's just because you're challenging Christians, but rather your manner). We have had numerous calls to tighten up and stick to the board purpose, which was one reason for the updated guidelines with the new Moderator Policy as the end.

Understand, this is a Christian board, so then when a non-Christian comes and starts poking their stick, and/or being condescending and smart i.e., "smarmy", then if Christian members react we do often overlook such, since the root cause for their frustration wasn't them. We want this board to be pleasant for Christians, and that really means us mods need to keep Atheists or non-Christians in check, especially those who might enjoy antagonising or frustrating Christians.

Furthermore, my own replies to you have been direct to any arguments and questions you've asked, if you want to go after the fallacies like ad hominems, well there are avoidance and diversion fallacies that many Atheists tend to commit. They love to poke in, with their questionings and like, try and bait Christians. And then when given multiple responses, they think because they don't personally find the responses satisfying that such frees them from any burden of even answering questions back. It's a matter of challenge, and continue challenging, cheap shots, baiting, but then when the spotlight is put on them they often shirk any burden to answer questions back or justify their own positions beyond merely asserting them, and such is well, it's tiring. And, it does lead to unbecoming remarks from Christians who tire of such games.

I consider myself rather thick-skinned in such exchanges, more-so if I can tell the other person at least is putting in half as much as I often do into a discussion. But, at the end of the day we want this to be a pleasant Christian board with friends (on all sides) that respect each other as friends, and aren't out like say with Facebook or YouTube comments to troll, antagonise or attack another or a group of people that they disagree with. This means putting in some skin and opening up, rather than just poking sticks.

So then, in light of all this, you are skating on thin ice, but that can become much thicker I believe in just changing the manner, being a bit more personal and friendly, and taking care to show some respect and sensitivity towards others. Not everyone here, are intellects or care to debate, there are many who for some reason or another, just like the place and being among other Christians who can help with a question here or there, or even just feel encouraged in life by people in an online community they've come to respect.

I hope the above puts some more perspective on matters, I wasn't going to post Christmas day but saw it wouldn't be good to let my reply wait. Hope you have enjoy Christmas with your kids (I think I recall somewhere you saying you had some).

Thank you for taking the time to explain the complaints and your position, as well as how I could better get along here.
The fact that I may disagree with others and explain why, is in absolutely no way meant to insult, antagonize, frustrate, or disrespect them. I guess I'm just not used to Christians who are so easily offended. As for those who don't care to debate I can only suggest that they don't, and maybe not even read the posts of those so engaged. *shrug*

[Audacity]

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

i would like to know how you come to the conclusion that we have no ability to choose between possible courses of action? do you really think we are all robots?

From a post I made in the thread The Delusion of "Free Will" in the Philosophy Forum

"In brief, how I came to the conclusion that there's no such a thing as free will, is that I see only one way in which events come into being: causation. They are caused. Now this can happen through either a cause/effect process, or utter randomness. If it's the former than the outcome (the final effect, if you will) can only be what the series of cause/effect [leading up to it] determine. To be any different then something in the series would have to be different. If I take a walk and end up at home it's only because every movement I took led me to home. If I end up at my neighbor's house then something in my walk would have to have been different: But there wasn't, so I had to end up at home. One might say that I simply choose to take those movements that led to home, but the question then is, what caused me to choose as I did? Something had to make me choose to go left rather than right, or else I did so because the action was utterly random in nature, a cause that also invalidates a free will: a will that could freely choose to do this rather than that. Now, if the cause of our actions is utterly random in nature then we are at the mercy of them. We would be just as likely to walk into a church as a saloon, or a swimming pool. So discarding utter randomness as the cause of our actions we're left deterministic cause/effect. What ever led up to our doing X could not have led up to anything different. To do Y instead would require something different in the chain of cause/effect events, but because there wasn't anything different, doing X is inevitable."

As for acting like robots, as unpalatable as this may be to contemplate, it's essentially true.

The same must also apply to God. If it doesn't then I'm interested in the process by which he does what he does. "The mind of God is unknowable" is unacceptable.

[jenna]

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

i would like to know how you come to the conclusion that we have no ability to choose between possible courses of action? do you really think we are all robots?

From a post I made in the thread The Delusion of "Free Will" in the Philosophy Forum

"In brief, how I came to the conclusion that there's no such a thing as free will, is that I see only one way in which events come into being: causation. They are caused. Now this can happen through either a cause/effect process, or utter randomness. If it's the former than the outcome (the final effect, if you will) can only be what the series of cause/effect [leading up to it] determine. To be any different then something in the series would have to be different. If I take a walk and end up at home it's only because every movement I took led me to home. If I end up at my neighbor's house then something in my walk would have to have been different: But there wasn't, so I had to end up at home. One might say that I simply choose to take those movements that led to home, but the question then is, what caused me to choose as I did? Something had to make me choose to go left rather than right, or else I did so because the action was utterly random in nature, a cause that also invalidates a free will: a will that could freely choose to do this rather than that. Now, if the cause of our actions is utterly random in nature then we are at the mercy of them. We would be just as likely to walk into a church as a saloon, or a swimming pool. So discarding utter randomness as the cause of our actions we're left deterministic cause/effect. What ever led up to our doing X could not have led up to anything different. To do Y instead would require something different in the chain of cause/effect events, but because there wasn't anything different, doing X is inevitable."

As for acting like robots, as unpalatable as this may be to contemplate, it's essentially true.

The same must also apply to God. If it doesn't then I'm interested in the process by which he does what he does. "The mind of God is unknowable" is unacceptable.

there are alot of problems with this view. First, you are talking about events coming into being. Not choices humans make in the course of our life. While many are caused by unavoidable circumstances, there are much more events that are individual choices. Just say we are going home after work. Take me for example. I always go home after work. But just say one night I suddenly decide to not go home, to go to a bar, or to the store, or anywhere but home. I have a choice here. I just decided, "you know what, I dont want to be there tonight". This was a random act, out of the normal things I do. We also make choices every day, which are not effected by the cause/effect events, things like what to wear that day, or what to have for dinner, etc.

[abelcainsbrother]

Audacity wrote:

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

Really? Every time you decide to come onto this forum you prove you have the capacity to act decisively on your desires. Now you may not believe the bible but according to it you were created in the image of God and so this is why you have a will to come to this forum. I don't understand how you choose to make up your own reality based on imagination instead of reason,but hey you have the will to choose to do it. Did you get this kind of thinking from Jerry Coyne? Because I saw a teaching he did that seems very similar to this view you have.
You Don't Have Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw

[Audacity]

From a post I made in the thread The Delusion of "Free Will" in the Philosophy Forum

"In brief, how I came to the conclusion that there's no such a thing as free will, is that I see only one way in which events come into being: causation. They are caused. Now this can happen through either a cause/effect process, or utter randomness. If it's the former than the outcome (the final effect, if you will) can only be what the series of cause/effect [leading up to it] determine. To be any different then something in the series would have to be different. If I take a walk and end up at home it's only because every movement I took led me to home. If I end up at my neighbor's house then something in my walk would have to have been different: But there wasn't, so I had to end up at home. One might say that I simply choose to take those movements that led to home, but the question then is, what caused me to choose as I did? Something had to make me choose to go left rather than right, or else I did so because the action was utterly random in nature, a cause that also invalidates a free will: a will that could freely choose to do this rather than that. Now, if the cause of our actions is utterly random in nature then we are at the mercy of them. We would be just as likely to walk into a church as a saloon, or a swimming pool. So discarding utter randomness as the cause of our actions we're left deterministic cause/effect. What ever led up to our doing X could not have led up to anything different. To do Y instead would require something different in the chain of cause/effect events, but because there wasn't anything different, doing X is inevitable."

As for acting like robots, as unpalatable as this may be to contemplate, it's essentially true.

The same must also apply to God. If it doesn't then I'm interested in the process by which he does what he does. "The mind of God is unknowable" is unacceptable.

there are alot of problems with this view. First, you are talking about events coming into being. Not choices humans make in the course of our life.

But choice and choosing are just as much events as anything else. So one has to ask how any such choice came into being. There has to be a cause behind one's decision to act decisively one way rather than another.

While many are caused by unavoidable circumstances, there are much more events that are individual choices. Just say we are going home after work. Take me for example. I always go home after work. But just say one night I suddenly decide to not go home, to go to a bar, or to the store, or anywhere but home. I have a choice here. I just decided, "you know what, I dont want to be there tonight".

And what caused you to choose one way rather than another? Whatever it was prevented you from acting any other way. Thing is, there's no such a thing as choice, the ability to truly do other than what you do. All the cause/effect events that led up to the moment "doing" required that you would do what you did and nothing else.

This was a random act, out of the normal things I do.

Random in the sense of odd, unusual, or unexpected, of course, but this has nothing to do with the free will issue.

I'm afraid We also make choices every day, which are not effected by the cause/effect events, things like what to wear that day, or what to have for dinner, etc.

So why did you select the spaghetti, French bread, and Chianti over the bowl of Cheerios? For absolutely no reason whatsoever? Or was there a reason? Whatever that reason was was caused, and what caused it were those cause/effect events that made it what it was rather than something else. For you to have acted differently something in the chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of doing would have to have been different. But they weren't, so you had to make the spaghetti dinner rather than the bowl of Cheerios.

[Audacity]

Maybe He had to. He had no choice, right?

Actually, when one gets right down to why god does what he does, this is quite true. His actions are no less determined than those of the stars or ourselves. Thing is, we all play in the arena of illusion and have no choice to do any differently.

But this kind of presupposition comes from assuming God has no will, like we do.According to the bible we were created in God's image and we have a will,so why wouldn't God have a will?

Oh, just like us he has a will. The will being the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. What neither we nor he has is a free will, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

Really? Every time you decide to come onto this forum you prove you have the capacity to act decisively on your desires.

Yup. I exercise my will.

Now you may not believe the bible but according to it you were created in the image of God and so this is why you have a will to come to this forum.

Okay, but hardly a relevant or persuasive point.

I don't understand how you choose to make up your own reality based on imagination instead of reason,but hey you have the will to choose to do it.

Just like you, I don't choose anything. I do as the cause/effect events leading up to my doing direct me.

Did you get this kind of thinking from Jerry Coyne? Because I saw a teaching he did that seems very similar to this view you have.
You Don't Have Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw

Not at all. In fact, other than his name ringing a bell, I'm not familiar with him at all. (Just to note: I did watch your linked video of the Coyne lecture. Nothing new, but I do think it's a good presentation. Thanks for sharing.) With the help of several sources I pretty much came to the conclusion on my own; thinking through the implications of the various aspects of the issue.

[Philip]

Audacity: With the help of several sources I pretty much came to the conclusion on my own; thinking through the implications of the various aspects of the issue.

NO you didn't - not according to your own logic - as you would have had no choice in what conclusion to make. And the assertions which you settled upon - those were the only assertions certain people could have made. And those with opposing assertions, those were the only ones they could have settled upon. And so as we are not in sync upon our views and assertions, as there are as many points of view as to be uncountable upon any certain issue, then there is no definitive truths, only opinions based, not upon CHOICES, but opinions that would be inescapable for a give person. Oops, that is, unless they changed their opinion or assertions, as those would apparently also not be a choice. So as there is not grand arbitrator to such determinism you assert, then any opinion floated is basically irrelevant and meaningless. Did you figure out that all by yourself as well? I did - but it's the only conclusion I could draw - and I didn't decide it.

[Audacity]

Audacity: With the help of several sources I pretty much came to the conclusion on my own; thinking through the implications of the various aspects of the issue.

NO you didn't - not according to your own logic - as you would have had no choice in what conclusion to make.

Just because I don't choose what I think doesn't mean I don't think at all.

And the assertions which you settled upon - those were the only assertions certain people could have made.

Don't know what particular assertions you have in mind, but what certain people are you talking about who are capable of having only them?

And those with opposing assertions, those were the only ones they could have settled upon. And so as we are not in sync upon our views and assertions, as there are as many points of view as to be uncountable upon any certain issue, then there is no definitive truths, only opinions based, not upon CHOICES, but opinions that would be inescapable for a give person.

Boy, you lost me back at turn number 1.

Oops, that is, unless they changed their opinion or assertions, as those would apparently also not be a choice. So as there is not grand arbitrator to such determinism you assert, then any opinion floated is basically irrelevant and meaningless. Did you figure out that all by yourself as well? I did - but it's the only conclusion I could draw - and I didn't decide it.

In as much as this isn't making any sense, I'm darn certain I would have never figured out what you're saying at all.

I'm pretty sure you know what you mean, but you'll have to express it more clearly if you wish to continue. *shrug*

[Philip]

Example of nonsense:

Just like you, I don't choose anything. I do as the cause/effect events leading up to my doing direct me.

You have a drawer with five differently colored pairs of socks in them. You can choose and change amidst choices of what color pair to wear. You can choose five different ways, wearing a different pair every time. But you can't wear a purple pair, because they do not exist - as that is but the difference betwixt choices and OPTIONS. As purple socks do not exist because the manufacturer chose to not make purple ones. That you can either wear 5 different colored pairs, per whatever color pair you can freely choose, or you have 25 combinations of mismatched ones you can choose between, shows you can make choices and that they are undetermined. Determinism you assert would prohibit this ability. And IF such determinism existed at all, it might well be that you would have no way of determining that this was so, as your brain would only interpret that you are making choices. Or not. You couldn't know, IF true. You have no way of knowing anything at all. Not about the choices, not about what is determined. You only know what you THINK you know. Which only encourages endless speculations over nonsense.