Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Do you call everyone that disagrees with you names? Is this 9th grade again?

It certainly seems like it since you children are the ones who find gay people showing intimacy to be gross & icky. Tell you what; I'll stop callling you homophobic if you stop being a homophobe. Deal? Until you do you cannot complain when people call you out for what you are.

The people who get my financial aid payment every month for the rest of my life are pretty certain.

Okay, if you say so.

That was a well known star wars joke, snowflake.

And you whipped it out of nowhere; with no context or prior reference so it looks like a personal attack. Not being a snowflake; reading the phrase in a context that makes sense. Oh, and the "It was a joke" excuse is a classic refuge for those making personal attacks who get called out on it. I think most people would have read it in a hostile tone; particularly considering your condescending & arrogant demeanour in this thread.

That's like getting mad if I didn't give you the link to the site that says the Earth is round. I must assume you know something or I would have to post a library.

Flawed comparison; the Earth being round is scientifically confirmed - it's indisputable. Gay sex being the primary source of new HIV cases is not.

I have no idea why your so mad at pretty much everything

Sweetheart, you're reading an emotion into something that simply isn't there. You're not worth that level of energy.

but if you keep it up I will end this discussion.

Oh no! Anything but that!

I have posted that data at least a dozen times in 3 threads, exactly how many times am I required to demonstrate the sun is hot?

Don't ask me, call the CDC and ask them. It is their data.

I see now why people say you don't understand that correlation does not equal causation. The chart clearly says HIV cases arise more often in men who have sex with men; not that their having sex with men is the cause. It's like showing everyone a chart showing that people with a salary of $500,000 a year are more likely to have two washing machines than those who earn less - and then arguing that the second washing machine is the cause of their $500,000 p.a. salary.

Your acting like a petulant child.

You should get a job working in the cinema; you're great at projection.

I am done with you for now.

Promise?

 

[viole]

Debating someone defending homosexuality is like trying to get a ham away from a dire wolf with rabbis. It is not something you feel like doing twice. However I make an exception in your case.

The reason, I believe, is that people see what you say as discrimination. And discrimination against other human beings has the tendency to actvate emotional responses.

My arguments against homosexual sexual behavior are purely secular.

And my critique to that is that you should specify. Even if your arguments had some utilitarian merit, they still do not defeat homosexuality per se, but only male homosexuality, at best. And only the medical issues they might generate today.

and
Christians are being disobedient are not representative of Christianity. You judge a teacher by the students that correctly apply his teaching, not the students who defy his teaching.

Oh please. Don't tell me that those few poor Christians in Sweden are not Christians, either. You are basically telling me that Sweden is, de facto, a Christian free area.

I have had to respond to about a dozen arbitrary subgroups of homosexuals. If I allow one sub category I have to allow them all and the debate becomes unmanageable. Regardless, as I said subgroups mainly only modulate how unjustified a thing is. On a scale of 1 - 100 for instance M on M sex may be at a 90 where as F on F maybe at 40. Also a large percentage try it both ways.

Yet, I still not see any "secular problems", as you would call them, with consistent female homosexuality.

That was an abortive attempt. I rate behaviors not necessarily people. Alzheimer is not an intentional act, it is not moral in nature, but it is bad. Homosexual sexual behavior is an intentional act, is moral in nature, yet you call it good. You may want to seriously investigate any bias you may have in this context.

I don't have any bias. i just think that it is not our business to judge what consentient adults do in their bedrooms. In other words, I do not think that what consentient adults do in their rooms has any moral tag whatsoever.

And there are no things moral in nature. Nature is amoral. We define what is moral or not. More you than me. So, you should maybe re-evaluate your biases.

Do homosexual women refer to themselves as gay? Wait a minute, I heard there are now 71 gender identities. I withdraw my question.

Who cares how they call themselves? But if you care, would that be OK for you if homosexual men stop calling themselves gay?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

The reason, I believe, is that people see what you say as discrimination. And discrimination against other human beings has the tendency to activate emotional responses.

I am not going to be as ungracious as to suggest I know your wrong, however I know of very few things which I have greater confidence in. IMO you have it exactly backwards. A great proportion of the opinions people hold are simply preferences. They merely decide what they wish was true, then they simply assume it therefor must be true, then they start ignoring inconvenient facts and cherry picking convenient evidence (or in many cases simply invent it). There are many things that suggest this it true.

1. People with an emotional position are impervious to facts, evidence, and arguments.
2. In fact landmark studies showed that when people hold emotional positions are confronted with actual evidence that they are wrong they become even more entrenched.
3. They cannot simply let an argument go. I have put most of my arguments up against all the scrutiny I can. I spend thousands of hours questioning them myself. They are usually based of principles that have been proven true over millennia. I case make an argument to my own satisfaction, see if the other person is willing to follow reason and evidence or not, then I can continue or end my debate with them because I am not emotional about my position.
4. Those with emotional positions also take any disagreement as a personal attack. This usually comes in a form called virtue signaling.

I can keep going but I know very well the signs of a person with an emotional position. Homosexual debates almost always have every one of those signs. There is a peace than comes with well reasoned arguments, that those who defend homosexuality almost never display.

And my critique to that is that you should specify. Even if your arguments had some utilitarian merit, they still do not defeat homosexuality per se, but only male homosexuality, at best. And only the medical issues they might generate today.

This is just a modulation issue. Of course some groups cause greater destruction than others. However every significant subgroup of homosexuality I can think of still causes more destruction than it's benefits can justify. I simply can't examine the millions of splinter groups people can think up.

Oh please. Don't tell me that those few poor Christians in Sweden are not Christians, either. You are basically telling me that Sweden is, de facto, a Christian free area.

Oh come off it Viole. I expect better than this from you. I went back and checked. Your response had nothing to do with what you responded to. I did not say anything about who was or was not a Christian. I stated that those who are defying Christianity are not represented of the fail. If the bible says do not steal then my stealing is not representative of the bible.

Yet, I still not see any "secular problems", as you would call them, with consistent female homosexuality.

I am sure you can find a left handed, red haired, 6'4", 200lb, Asian, male homosexual that did not cause any damage. I am judging a type of behavior not a person. If you do not agree that Aids, spousal abuse, infidelity, sexual abuse, or promiscuity is a secular "problem" then there is no common ground to resolve anything upon.

I don't have any bias. i just think that it is not our business to judge what consentient adults do in their bedrooms. In other words, I do not think that what consentient adults do in their rooms has any moral tag whatsoever.

The first thing a biased person would say is that they do not have any. I admit I am biased because it is an unavoidable fact. I however attempt to overcome, allow for, and minimize my biases.

And there are no things moral in nature. Nature is amoral. We define what is moral or not. More you than me. So, you should maybe re-evaluate your biases.

Well I am glad to have a non-theist who admits that natural laws nor atoms contain moral properties. Most non-theists want to affirm the existence of objective morality while denying it's only possible foundation and source, and everyone (including you) lives as if objective moral values and duties exist, but only if God exists do they exist.

Now, if you going to remain an honest and consistent secularist and deny objective morality even exists then on what basis can we call homosexuality or anything else right, wrong, good, or bad? Only if God exists (and you have no way to know) does actual moral good and evil exist, only if he exists do we have any foundation upon which to morally condemn or praise anything. So with God we may debate this moral issue, without him we have a meaningful moral debate of any type. Denying God is to affirm nihilism.

Who cares how they call themselves? But if you care, would that be OK for you if homosexual men stop calling themselves gay?

You liberals are quite entertaining. If I use the wrong gender identity out of the 70+ that have been conjured out of thin air recently but which do not correspond to any objective fact of the matter then I would be crucified, if I ask what the proper term is to refer to gay women I am told who cares. I withdraw my question and will use whatever term I feel like at the moment.

Our discussion seems to be circling the drain. Let me back up and try to get it back on a meaningful track.

Pick your poison.

1. Without appealing to the transcendent (God or the supernatural) name any act what so ever (even a theoretical one) that would be objectively wrong or right, morally speaking. If you can't (and believe me you can't) then why do all people (including you and even psychopaths) act as if objective moral values and duties exist? How do we justify risking millions of our sons lives to stop the next Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot for example?

2. Which claim can you show is untrue? The benefits of homosexual sexual behavior do not justify the costs, or the benefits of homosexual sex do justify it's costs?

3. If no moral objective truth exists and you think X is justifiable while I think it isn't, then who is right? How did you determine that?

Secularism seems to lack any foundation to either morally condemn or morally praise anything what so ever.
Yet your demanding a behavior be sanctioned by law, at the point of a gun, which causes unimaginable high rates of damage and costs. If I was demanding the same, I would have far better arguments for it than homosexuals have been able to muster thus far.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is going to get very complicated on you in a hurry. So I will take the easy way out to begin with, but I am not sure this is the place for this debate.

My arguments against homosexuality are secular.

1. Homosexual sexual behavior does not contain any benefits which can justify it's costs.
2. Heterosexual sexual behavior does contain benefits which justify it's costs.

Unless I need more than this I usually just site the CDCs data that states that in the US the 4% of us that are homosexual create 60% of all new aids cases. I do not need to adjust that for the numbers but if I do then the rates are even unimaginably higher per person for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I also usually mention that just those aids cases alone cost us all billions and billions.

That is it, I do not need the bible and I need only that data to show that on any reasonable secular moral standard homosexual sexual behavior is unjustifiable. The threads about homosexuality I have been in have the worst arguments in defense of it than any other subject matter I have ever debated. I can swamp you in data if needed and if experience serves I can defeat every attempt to counter my two simplistic arguments above. If you will go to the homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Why do Christians care? thread and then to post #840, you will see I know every argument you will make and I explain why none of them work.

But if you actually want to discuss covenants, the law, grace, moral theory, objective morality versus absolute morality, epistemology, and ontology, etc..... Plus the Hebrew priestly class, the Levite's covenants, what laws apply to who and when, then I can definitely do that. However I hope you know your stuff because it is complicated and I can't give you all of what I have learned over several decades of research, in a debate setting.

So, pick your poison.

interesting line of thought. How do you know the cost is not justified? What is the criteria for something being justified? It may be justified to the people who are homosexual. Do you suggest that we reduce all human behavior to cost versus some subjective justification model?

 

[Milton Platt]

Whereas Christians often tell people they will go to Hell for not 'believing jesus is their lord and savior'; what if the Bible was the other way around, and those accepting a human sacrifice as Kosher, are defiling the Law, and thus are the one's who shall be sent to the Pit (Hell)....

So is it fair to mislead the masses? To not explain the Laws to them? So they can at least try to understand why they've been charged in the first place? Especially when they think they're on a honey trail to Heaven...

It is inherently unjust to incarcerate anyone for what they believe. It is sometimes just to incarcerate people for what they do.

 

[viole]

I am not going to be as ungracious as to suggest I know your wrong, however I know of very few things which I have greater confidence in. IMO you have it exactly backwards. A great proportion of the opinions people hold are simply preferences. They merely decide what they wish was true, then they simply assume it therefor must be true, then they start ignoring inconvenient facts and cherry picking convenient evidence (or in many cases simply invent it). There are many things that suggest this it true.

1. People with an emotional position are impervious to facts, evidence, and arguments.
2. In fact landmark studies showed that when people hold emotional positions are confronted with actual evidence that they are wrong they become even more entrenched.
3. They cannot simply let an argument go. I have put most of my arguments up against all the scrutiny I can. I spend thousands of hours questioning them myself. They are usually based of principles that have been proven true over millennia. I case make an argument to my own satisfaction, see if the other person is willing to follow reason and evidence or not, then I can continue or end my debate with them because I am not emotional about my position.
4. Those with emotional positions also take any disagreement as a personal attack. This usually comes in a form called virtue signaling.

I can keep going but I know very well the signs of a person with an emotional position. Homosexual debates almost always have every one of those signs. There is a peace than comes with well reasoned arguments, that those who defend homosexuality almost never display.

Well, it just happens that I am very unemotional when it comes to debate on a public forum. You will never see me (intentionally) offending or reporting anyone, even if they say I am a complete idiot. Alas, I don't know how it feels to live in countries that openly discriminate, or try to discriminate, people because of their sexual orientation. Spoiled girl, I guess.

This is just a modulation issue. Of course some groups cause greater destruction than others. However every significant subgroup of homosexuality I can think of still causes more destruction than it's benefits can justify. I simply can't examine the millions of splinter groups people can think up.

Modulation issue? By the same logic we should frown on heterosexuality because of some of its harmonics.

Oh come off it Viole. I expect better than this from you. I went back and checked. Your response had nothing to do with what you responded to. I did not say anything about who was or was not a Christian. I stated that those who are defying Christianity are not represented of the fail. If the bible says do not steal then my stealing is not representative of the bible.

Cool. Point taken. I will inform my ex pastor straight away that she is still a Christian.

I am sure you can find a left handed, red haired, 6'4", 200lb, Asian, male homosexual that did not cause any damage. I am judging a type of behavior not a person. If you do not agree that Aids, spousal abuse, infidelity, sexual abuse, or promiscuity is a secular "problem" then there is no common ground to resolve anything upon.

Again, you are listing negative effects that apply, four out of five at least, to heterosexuality, too. Come back to me when you can show me a rally against marriage of people who are promiscuous or have been infidel. Or divorced because they cheated on their husband/wife and want to marry again.

What I want to see is a multitude of people protesting against marriage of infidel people. Or, if we take Paul at face value, protesting again marriage of not Christians and Christians.

Why are they missing in action? Why do I not see those rallies in the CNN? Why are there no lobby trying to stop that? Why is it not that part of the marriage debate about family values? Why do you pick out homosexuals only?

The first thing a biased person would say is that they do not have any. I admit I am biased because it is an unavoidable fact. I however attempt to overcome, allow for, and minimize my biases.

Well, I try that too. That is why I like to treat these things as rationally as possible.

Well I am glad to have a non-theist who admits that natural laws nor atoms contain moral properties. Most non-theists want to affirm the existence of objective morality while denying it's only possible foundation and source, and everyone (including you) lives as if objective moral values and duties exist, but only if God exists do they exist.

What do you expect? I am a naturalist. Morality is "just" the output of a computing machine. So, there is no objective morality from my point of view. Or from the point of view of that machine. In the same way there is no objective headache. That does not entail that I have no sense of what is moral (and painful).

And what this machine in its skull computes is: it is wrong to discriminate people because of their sexual orientation they did not choose. Unless you believe you can choose your sexual orientation. Which would make you, de-facto, a bisexual.

Now, if you going to remain an honest and consistent secularist and deny objective morality even exists then on what basis can we call homosexuality or anything else right, wrong, good, or bad? Only if God exists (and you have no way to know) does actual moral good and evil exist, only if he exists do we have any foundation upon which to morally condemn or praise anything. So with God we may debate this moral issue, without him we have a meaningful moral debate of any type. Denying God is to affirm nihilism.

That is an argument for the belief in God, not for His actual existence. At best. So, it is an utilitarian defense. What Nietzsche meant when he said that God is dead, is not obviously that the old Man died; he meant that the belief is dead, that and we must find a way out of this, somehow.

Alas, it fails immediately even if we restrict to beliefs. My Hindu friend tells me that dividing humanity in castes is a moral duty deriving from god. So, in order to prove him wrong you will have to prove the existence of YOUR God by using morally independent means, if you do not want to beg the question. And if you had those, why do you need the moral argument?

But if you think that you will turn into Hannibal the cannibal if you lose your faith tomorrow, then keep believing, by all means.

You liberals are quite entertaining. If I use the wrong gender identity out of the 70+ that have been conjured out of thin air recently but which do not correspond to any objective fact of the matter then I would be crucified, if I ask what the proper term is to refer to gay women I am told who cares. I withdraw my question and will use whatever term I feel like at the moment.

Liberal? My friends think I am a conservative.

Our discussion seems to be circling the drain. Let me back up and try to get it back on a meaningful track.

Pick your poison.

1. Without appealing to the transcendent (God or the supernatural) name any act what so ever (even a theoretical one) that would be objectively wrong or right, morally speaking. If you can't (and believe me you can't) then why do all people (including you and even psychopaths) act as if objective moral values and duties exist? How do we justify risking millions of our sons lives to stop the next Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot for example?

What God? The Hindu one I was taliking about before? Or the children stoning one? Or the one who says women should shut up in churches?

2. Which claim can you show is untrue? The benefits of homosexual sexual behavior do not justify the costs, or the benefits of homosexual sex do justify it's costs?

What benefits? What costs? The latest meeting at Davos about world economy did not mention that. I am not aware of homosexuality behaviour being a driver of things like inflation, or interest rates and such. They are much more worried about your new alpha homo "sapiens" in the oval office than any army of gay people organizing mass orgies.

3. If no moral objective truth exists and you think X is justifiable while I think it isn't, then who is right? How did you determine that?

I cannot say. i do not have access to the mechanisms of my brain. Obviously.

Secularism seems to lack any foundation to either morally condemn or morally praise anything what so ever.
Yet your demanding a behavior be sanctioned by law, at the point of a gun, which causes unimaginable high rates of damage and costs. If I was demanding the same, I would have far better arguments for it than homosexuals have been able to muster thus far.

Will see. Now your turn. Suppose you are found guilty of some crime and you are giving the choice to choose the place of your exile. You can only choose between Sweden (very secular) and Iran ( very unsecular).

Where would you go?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

interesting line of thought. How do you know the cost is not justified? What is the criteria for something being justified? It may be justified to the people who are homosexual. Do you suggest that we reduce all human behavior to cost versus some subjective justification model?

As I suggested this is going to get very complex very fast so let's take it slow and in the proper order. Their exists two possible moral world views. We need to stay on the same page, so we must adopt one of these two world views and then resolve all the issues you mention within that world view.

1. If God exists (in this case I am referring to the biblical God) then their exists objective moral values and facts. The best definition for this type of morality came from the Romans.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

We need to differentiate the type of morality defined above from the type of morality defined below or we are going to get confused. So from now on lets call Malum in se' "morality" and Malum Prohibitum "ethics".

Or

2. If God does not exist then their remains no foundation for any objective moral values or duties. The best definition for this kind of 'morality" again comes from the Latin.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

First your going to have to pick from either 1. or 2. above. I will then address your points within which ever context you select.

 

[1robin]

Well, it just happens that I am very unemotional when it comes to debate on a public forum. You will never see me (intentionally) offending or reporting anyone, even if they say I am a complete idiot. Alas, I don't know how it feels to live in countries that openly discriminate, or try to discriminate, people because of their sexual orientation. Spoiled girl, I guess.

Goodness, did you have an entire evening to kill?

I was talking about those who argue from emotion, in general. I have not yet made up my mind if your among them. The only reason I decided to debate you on this issue is because you are one of the more rational posters on here.

Modulation issue? By the same logic we should frown on heterosexuality because of some of its harmonics.

Nice play on words, but it is hard to see what your actually saying. I have all kinds of problems with some heterosexual behavior. I am an equal opportunity condemner, however we were discussing homosexuality not heterosexuality.

Cool. Point taken. I will inform my ex pastor straight away that she is still a Christian.

Apparently she made more than the one mistake I mentioned, if she lost you to the howling void of secularism.

BTW the point you made about your countries clergy indicates the truth of another claim I often make. Even in a very Christian nation like the US Christianity gets naturally watered down by secular undercurrents going on from time to time. Good doctrine (like good worldviews and morals) can be corrupted by bad doctrine (worldviews or morals) It is kind of the reverse of what took place during the great European and American awakenings or revivals.

Again, you are listing negative effects that apply, four out of five at least, to heterosexuality, too. Come back to me when you can show me a rally against marriage of people who are promiscuous or have been infidel. Or divorced because they cheated on their husband/wife and want to marry again.

You are way too smart to keep misunderstanding what I say. I did not say that heterosexuality lacks costs. However the rates at which those costs occur per sexual act is vastly higher for homosexuality than heterosexuality. And then you have to factor in the benefits of perpetuating the human race in the case for heterosexuality. One of the main reasons I gave up on homosexuality debates is no one can properly keep my arguments straight. This happens so regularly that I could tell you the very next mistake your going to make concerning what I said in this paragraph alone.

What I want to see is a multitude of people protesting against marriage of infidel people. Or, if we take Paul at face value, protesting again marriage of not Christians and Christians.

You didn't switch gears, you yanked out the gear box all together. You want to debate homosexuality, heterosexuality, or the application of biblical morality?

Why are they missing in action? Why do I not see those rallies in the CNN? Why are there no lobby trying to stop that? Why is it not that part of the marriage debate about family values? Why do you pick out homosexuals only?

I made secular arguments. Making biblical arguments is far easier. Do you want to switch to that instead?

Well, I try that too. That is why I like to treat these things as rationally as possible.

Your the best candidate I know of (on your side) to pull it off. However I am still waiting for a rational counter argument to mine.

What do you expect? I am a naturalist. Morality is "just" the output of a computing machine. So, there is no objective morality from my point of view. Or from the point of view of that machine. In the same way there is no objective headache. That does not entail that I have no sense of what is moral (and painful).

First name the machine, then tell me what it spit out, tell me how you know either, then explain why anyone should care what an arbitrary machine spits out if they do not agree with what you say it did.

And what this machine in its skull computes is: it is wrong to discriminate people because of their sexual orientation they did not choose. Unless you believe you can choose your sexual orientation. Which would make you, de-facto, a bisexual.

No it isn't, that is what you prefer to think your particular machine should spit out. My machine says that we should condemn behaviors that cannot justify their costs by their gains. Since there is no objective and transcendent machine in your world view then what my machine, Hitler's machine, Stalin's machine, or your machines cough forth are equally valid.

That is an argument for the belief in God, not for His actual existence. At best. So, it is an utilitarian defense. What Nietzsche meant when he said that God is dead, is not obviously that the old Man died; he meant that the belief is dead, that and we must find a way out of this, somehow.

It was neither. It is what would be true if my God exist and what must be true if he does not exist.

Alas, it fails immediately even if we restrict to beliefs. My Hindu friend tells me that dividing humanity in castes is a moral duty deriving from god. So, in order to prove him wrong you will have to prove the existence of YOUR God by using morally independent means, if you do not want to beg the question. And if you had those, why do you need the moral argument?

I have often used the caste system as an argument against Hinduism, however every Hindu I debate refuses to admit Hinduism includes a caste system. That and either have between 1 or 300,000,000 God's depending on who you ask.

But if you think that you will turn into Hannibal the cannibal if you lose your faith tomorrow, then keep believing, by all means.

What?

Liberal? My friends think I am a conservative.

Well, you quack like a duck.

What God? The Hindu one I was taliking about before? Or the children stoning one? Or the one who says women should shut up in churches?

It does not matter in this context, any of them would blow up your worldview. However I was talking about the stoning children one.

What benefits? What costs? The latest meeting at Davos about world economy did not mention that. I am not aware of homosexuality behaviour being a driver of things like inflation, or interest rates and such. They are much more worried about your new alpha homo "sapiens" in the oval office than any army of gay people organizing mass orgies.

If your talking about strictly monetary costs then it is in the mega billions for medical costs alone.

I cannot say. i do not have access to the mechanisms of my brain. Obviously.

Then how is it your choosing to post what you claim are rational counter claims to my own? Determinism cannot be rational. Rationality requires intent.

Will see. Now your turn. Suppose you are found guilty of some crime and you are giving the choice to choose the place of your exile. You can only choose between Sweden (very secular) and Iran ( very unsecular).

Ok, Sweden. That only proves that one small subgroup of secularism (in a nation built on Christianity) was more preferable than one extreme subgroup of a false religion. Actually I need more information, many places in Iran are preferable to many places in Sweden. I did not say all of secularism is always worse than all of theism, deism, pantheism, etc..... That was like my asking you if you would rather live in the 1950s US or Stalin's Russia? Your answer would demonstrate nothing.


I am a little proud of my bolded statements above.

 

[viole]

No it isn't, that is what you prefer to think your particular machine should spit out. My machine says that we should condemn behaviors that cannot justify their costs by their gains. Since there is no objective and transcendent machine in your world view then what my machine, Hitler's machine, Stalin's machine, or your machines cough forth are equally valid.

Almost. What that trascendent machine, whatever that means, would cough forth, would also be equally valid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Almost. What that trascendent machine, whatever that means, would cough forth, would also be equally valid.

Ciao

- viole

Hey, where did the rest of what I posted go?

Not quite. Hitler, you, Stalin, and I are finite and faulty beings. God is a spaceless, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being which holds absolute sovereignty over every other piece of furniture in our or any other universe which may exist. The only relevant commonality between us and God is that we are all moral agents. God is morally perfect where as men in general are morally insane.

Regardless, morality does not flow from God's commands. It flows from God's nature.

So God's commands are founded in objective moral truth, objective moral truths are founded in God's eternal nature, and God's eternal nature is the greatest possible objective and transcendent moral foundation possible. Abandon it and it is easy to see why we go so far astray.

Your not even attempting to seriously counter my claims, your merely taking drive by pop shots in my direction at this point.

 

[viole]

Hey, where did the rest of what I posted go?

Sorry, our posts tend to spread like the probability wave of an electron. I need to collapse it when I see a crucial point. A point that might make the rest obsolete. I might address some other points individually, starrting with the quacking duck

Not quite. Hitler, you, Stalin, and I are finite and faulty beings. God is a spaceless, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being which holds absolute sovereignty over every other piece of furniture in our or any other universe which may exist. The only relevant commonality between us and God is that we are all moral agents. God is morally perfect where as men in general are morally insane.

Regardless, morality does not flow from God's commands. It flows from God's nature.

So God's commands are founded in objective moral truth, objective moral truths are founded in God's eternal nature, and God's eternal nature is the greatest possible objective and transcendent moral foundation possible. Abandon it and it is easy to see why we go so far astray.

Your not even attempting to seriously counter my claims, your merely taking drive by pop shots in my direction at this point.

What is relevant here is that you seem to define the objectivity of morality in terms of God's nature. Morality is objective if and only if God exists (and morality transpires from His Nature). And that is why it cannot be used as argument in favor of God without getting circular. It is like saying God exists because His Nature exists. But I am digressing.

What I meant before is that I cannot guarantee to accept God, or His Nature,as moral authority, even in the unlikely event that a god exists, and I tell you why.

If God exists and His nature emanates objective morality, then I cannot exclude a priori that one of these objective truths is "torturing children to death and eating them is OK".

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

duplicate

 

[viole]

Well, you quack like a duck.

Well, that is relative.

Are you a racist? Or do you think that the color of skin is irrelevant, and blacks and whites should enjoy the same rights?

In case of the latter, you would have been called a liberal quacking duck in South Africa a few decades ago, too. Not to talk of places like Alabama. Just to name a few.

Fact is: I come from a country where abortion, rejection of death penalty, gay marriages, strong socially secure system with high taxation, sexual freedom and education, prohibition to teach creationism at school, birth control, welfare and health insurance for everyone, etc. are shared by everybody. Liberals and conservatives alike. At least they do not seem to change significantly depending on the color of our political leaders.So, they cannot be used to differentiate the two, really, independently from your degree of agreement. There are some Muslims who think we are wrong, but are not so relevant, yet.

I mean, the head of the Christian church in Sweden is a declared lesbian with a legal partnership with another (female) member of our clergy. The two have a child and the union has been blessed by the religious authorities. She also suggested to remove Christian simbols and logos (e.g. crosses) from some churches so that believers in other gods could join in common prayer. She also proposed to set a sign indicating where the Mecca is so that Muslims can pray properly. That might indeed look slightly liberal, to someone not used to that

Therefore, I am aware that I would be considered an extreme liberal if I were in Uganda, Iran, medieval Italy or other countries

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Sorry, our posts tend to spread like the probability wave of an electron. I need to collapse it when I see a crucial point. A point that might make the rest obsolete. I might address some other points individually, starrting with the quacking duck

I was joking, respond to things as you have time.

What is relevant here is that you seem to define the objectivity of morality in terms of God's nature. Morality is objective if and only if God exists (and it transpires from His Nature). And that is why it cannot be used as argument in favor of God without getting circular. It is like saying God exists because His Nature exists. But I am digressing.

Your digressing all right. You must pay strict attention to the language I use (even though I make many mistakes) because I have learned over decades which words most closely match what I am trying to say. Non-theists love to argue about semantic technicalities so I have learned to word things certain ways to avoid that.

I was not using my claims about morality to prove that God exists. That can be done very easily but that was not what I was doing. I was making if then statements.

A. If (my) God exists then objective moral values and duties exist.

Or

B. If no God exists then no objective moral value or duty can possibly exist.

Only by assuming that A is true does there exist any objective moral standards by which to debate whether an action is good or evil. But this is no fun, so instead I usually assume that B is true and even though that would mean no actual moral values and duties would exist, I pretend that they do just to keep the conversation going. So while I believe God exists and while only if he exists do actual morals exist, I pretend he doesn't exist and pretend that objective morality do exist just to enable a discussion. I must then find some pretend morality to examine. The morality I have chosen is one in which almost everyone would agree with. That societal harm should be justified by sufficient societal gain where possible. Now which one of those things are you rejecting and why?

What I meant is that I cannot guarantee to accept God, or His Nature,as moral authority, even in the unlikely event that a god exists and I tell you why.

If God exists and His nature emanates objective morality, then I cannot exclude a priori that one of these objective truths is "torturing children to death and eating them is OK".

Ciao

- viole

1. I am not trying to convince you that God exists in this discussion.
2. If God does exist and if he said torturing little children and eating them was morally good, then it would be. For example If Allah exists I would hate him and most of his moral commands, however if he exists what he demands would be right. Whatever God is would determine what is good and evil because there is no higher standard that holds sovereignty over him. We certainly do not hold sovereignty over him or moral ontology.
3. However what your talking about is that me and you would probably not like a God like that and would probably not obey him. Fortunately my God does not require us to do that.

What is going on with you, you usually give me some tough things to think about? It seems your not really into the discussion or something.

After thought - I do not think emanate is the best term, I think foundation would be more accurate.

 

[1robin]

Well, that is relative.

No, it was a joke.

Are you a racist? Or do you think that the color of skin is irrelevant, and blacks and whites should enjoy the same rights?

I am going to assume I know where your going with this and add a few relevant points.

1. Race is not a choice. Even if (and it's a big if) homosexual orientation is not a choice, sexual behavior is.
2. There is no rational foundation for racial equality without God. Natural law (evolution) has never created 2 equal things. It only creates bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, taller or shorter, heavier or lighter, more intelligent or less intelligent, more moral or less moral, things.
3. If you want to affirm racial equality you must ground it in something that transcends nature. Abstract objects (like numbers) or ideas like infinity do not stand in causal relationships but disembodied minds do. You need God to actually have a basis for equality among most of our cherished values.

In case of the latter, you would have been called a liberal quacking duck in South Africa a few decades ago, too. Not to talk of places like Alabama. Just to name a few.

I live in Alabama and the only racism I have encountered since high school has been reverse racism.

Fact is: I come from a country where abortion, rejection of death penalty, gay marriages, strong socially secure system with high taxation, sexual freedom and education, prohibition to teach creationism at school, birth control, welfare and health insurance for everyone, etc. are shared by everybody. Liberals and conservatives alike. At least they do not seem to change significantly depending on the color of our political leaders.So, they cannot be used to differentiate the two, really, independently from your degree of agreement. There are some Muslims who think we are wrong, but are not so relevant, yet.

Look, I was just joking around. I was comparing tactics you employ with the tactics the modern US secular left employs to cover up for the fact that they do not have rational defenses for the positions they hold. Since I was not being exacting I was not careful to provide precise language or what I was drawing analogies with. Just forget about the liberal conservative stuff.

BTW you live in a nation, on a continent, and within a hemisphere which was built of Christianity. Just like the US where you live is built upon Christian foundations but has suffered secular erosion for decades. It is kind of a hybrid that is too complex to even discuss meaningfully. Plus the character of your particular area has a lot to do with it's untapped natural resources.

I mean, the head of the Christian church in Sweden is a declared lesbian with a legal partnership with another (female) member of our clergy. The two have a child and the union has been blessed by the religious authorities. She also decided to remove Christian simbols and logos (e.g. crosses) from some churches so that believers in other gods could join in common prayer. That might indeed look slightly liberal, to someone not used to that

Well since you didn't get what I was saying let's look at it another way.

If God says the following among countless other statements about homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-28
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

then are ministers who marry homosexuals following the bible or contradicting it?

To head off the thing I am sure your going to post next. Keep in mind that God's moral nature does not change, what is wrong is always wrong and vice versa. However as humanity changes God's commands may change. So while homosexuality is as wrong today as it was 3000 years ago, no one outside Israel ever and no one period is required to kill homosexuals since Christ ascended. The issue is what is right or wrong according to God, not what God demands we do about it, at least in our discussion.

It just occurred to me to ask, how did my two secular arguments lead to a debate about Biblical exegesis?

But I am aware that I would be considered an extreme liberal if I were in Uganda, Iran, medieval Italy or other countries

Ciao

- viole

Boy, you got locked on the liberal thing and won't let go. When I mention something I usually mean a specific concept. If it is an important point I try and carefully craft my description for clarity, if it was a joke or not important I am sometimes sloppy. My use of the term liberal was with the modern leftist movement in the US. It was a joke so I was not precise and detailed in my language use. You are using countless and easily discernible tactics employed by the modern US, leftist, secular movement.

 

[viole]

I was joking, respond to things as you have time.

Your digressing all right. You must pay strict attention to the language I use (even though I make many mistakes) because I have learned over decades which words most closely match what I am trying to say. Non-theists love to argue about semantic technicalities so I have learned to word things certain ways to avoid that.

I was not using my claims about morality to prove that God exists. That can be done very easily but that was not what I was doing. I was making if then statements.

A. If (my) God exists then objective moral values and duties exist.

Or

B. If no God exists then no objective moral value or duty can possibly exist.

Only by assuming that A is true does there exist any objective moral standards by which to debate whether an action is good or evil. But this is no fun, so instead I usually assume that B is true and even though that would mean no actual moral values and duties would exist, I pretend that they do just to keep the conversation going. So while I believe God exists and while only if he exists do actual morals exist, I pretend he doesn't exist and pretend that objective morality do exist just to enable a discussion. I must then find some pretend morality to examine. The morality I have chosen is one in which almost everyone would agree with. That societal harm should be justified by sufficient societal gain where possible. Now which one of those things are you rejecting and why?



1. I am not trying to convince you that God exists in this discussion.
2. If God does exist and if he said torturing little children and eating them was morally good, then it would be. For example If Allah exists I would hate him and most of his moral commands, however if he exists what he demands would be right. Whatever God is would determine what is good and evil because there is no higher standard that holds sovereignty over him. We certainly do not hold sovereignty over him or moral ontology.
3. However what your talking about is that me and you would probably not like a God like that and would probably not obey him. Fortunately my God does not require us to do that.

What is going on with you, you usually give me some tough things to think about? It seems your not really into the discussion or something.

After thought - I do not think emanate is the best term, I think foundation would be more accurate.

Well, I thought that you were trying to prove God because of the existence of objective morality. Not that if God exists, then objective morality exists.

So, your critique seems to be addressed to those atheists who dismiss God by assuming the existence of objective morality. Which would not be applicable in my case since I cannot make sense of objective morality, being a naturalist and all.

However, I don't think that such a critique would be justified, even if objective morality existed. And this is because your inference God-> objective morality, even if true, does not entail the inverse : Objective morality -> God. And that is why I challenged you with that latter inference. For if objective morality could exist without a God, then moral realists do not defeat themselves by being atheists.

Therefore, a moral realist can still be an atheist, until you have shown that the statement "the existence of objective morality proves God" obtains.

How do you intend to proceed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, it was a joke.

I am going to assume I know where your going with this and add a few relevant points.

1. Race is not a choice. Even if (and it's a big if) homosexual orientation is not a choice, sexual behavior is.
2. There is no rational foundation for racial equality without God. Natural law (evolution) has never created 2 equal things. It only creates bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, taller or shorter, heavier or lighter, more intelligent or less intelligent, more moral or less moral, things.
3. If you want to affirm racial equality you must ground it in something that transcends nature. Abstract objects (like numbers) or ideas like infinity do not stand in causal relationships but disembodied minds do. You need God to actually have a basis for equality among most of our cherished values.

I live in Alabama and the only racism I have encountered since high school has been reverse racism.

That is not relevant. It is not relevant because it does not defeat my claim that you would be considered a liberal depending on who you talk to, even if you were a conservative, in your country.

Same with me, you think i am a liberal by applying American standards. But I am not if I apply North European standards. For instance, I am not a fan of unchecked immigration. The same with the creeping islamization.

Look, I was just joking around. I was comparing tactics you employ with the tactics the modern US secular left employs to cover up for the fact that they do not have rational defenses for the positions they hold. Since I was not being exacting I was not careful to provide precise language or what I was drawing analogies with. Just forget about the liberal conservative stuff.

Forget what? I think I have already forgotten it.

BTW you live in a nation, on a continent, and within a hemisphere which was built of Christianity. Just like the US where you live is built upon Christian foundations but has suffered secular erosion for decades. It is kind of a hybrid that is too complex to even discuss meaningfully. Plus the character of your particular area has a lot to do with it's untapped natural resources.

i could make the point that my country is based on paganism who got eroded by Christianity. So, I am not sure what your point is.

And how are natural resources relevant? A bit of natural resources is enough to renounce the message of the almighty and an eternity in bliss? Oh well, make sure you keep people poor if you want t keep alive that very very compelling belief. By the way, I think you are confusing us with Norway. They got the big oil, not us. Lucky sods.

Well since you didn't get what I was saying let's look at it another way.

If God says the following among countless other statements about homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-28
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

then are ministers who marry homosexuals following the bible or contradicting it?

To head off the thing I am sure your going to post next. Keep in mind that God's moral nature does not change, what is wrong is always wrong and vice versa. However as humanity changes God's commands may change. So while homosexuality is as wrong today as it was 3000 years ago, no one outside Israel ever and no one period is required to kill homosexuals since Christ ascended. The issue is what is right or wrong according to God, not what God demands we do about it, at least in our discussion.

It just occurred to me to ask, how did my two secular arguments lead to a debate about Biblical exegesis?

Boy, you got locked on the liberal thing and won't let go. When I mention something I usually mean a specific concept. If it is an important point I try and carefully craft my description for clarity, if it was a joke or not important I am sometimes sloppy. My use of the term liberal was with the modern leftist movement in the US. It was a joke so I was not precise and detailed in my language use. You are using countless and easily discernible tactics employed by the modern US, leftist, secular movement.

They contradict it. There is no doubt about it. But you do not need to be a lesbian minister to do that. All you need is to disbelief Adam and Eve and talking snakes. For, how should I decide what parts of the Bible are metaphoric and which ones are not?

This lesbian pastor talks all the time about new covenants and stuff like that. And that some moral suboptimal teachings were required in the past, but not today. Like the stoning of people who work on Saturday, stoning of rebellious children, slavery, etc. which I never heard before

So, now poor Europe consists of Atheists, Muslims, a few other believers in some other gods, scientologists, copiists, jediists, people who don't care, Bible contradicting "Christians", and, last but not least, a couple of people believing literally in the Bible.

That is a heck of an erosion.

Ciao

- vole

 

[1robin]

Well, I thought that you were trying to prove God because of the existence of objective morality. Not that if God exists, then objective morality exists.

Either I was condemning homosexual behavior or you were defending it. However to do so meaningfully I was pointing out that only if God exists is there any frame of reference to claim it is justifiable or not. However knowing you deny God's existence I was happy to assume God does not exist (and even though it wouldn't), I was going to assume morality existed anyway just to keep the discussion going.

I was simply pointing out that there are only two possibilities concerning the ontology of morality. I wasn't trying to show objective morality exists (that requires a different argument) nor was I trying to show God exist (for the same reasons.

So, your critique seems to be addressed to those atheists who dismiss God by assuming the existence of objective morality. Which would not be applicable in my case since I cannot make sense of objective morality, being a naturalist and all.

Not exactly, I only know of one atheist scholar today that suggests objective morality exists even though God does not, but when pressed Sam Harris admitted he simply assumes it exists.

Regardless if anyone is going to discuss the rightness or wrongness of anything then we either need objective morality or the far inferior societal moral preference. I was proposing that if we are stuff only with moral preference it would be an intuitive given that some behavior that causes millions of deaths and costs billions of dollars out to have massive benefits if those who practice it are going to force the 96% of us who don't to accept it at the point of a gun.

However, I don't think that such a critique would be justified, even if objective morality existed. And this is because your inference God-> objective morality, even if true, does not entail the inverse : Objective morality -> God. And that is why I challenged you with that latter inference. For if objective morality could exist without a God, then moral realists do not defeat themselves by being atheists.

That is what I am emphatically denying. Objective morality never has, can, or will exist unless God does. However societies must assume some moral standards to evaluate certain things.

Therefore, a moral realist can still be an atheist, until you have shown that the statement "the existence of objective morality proves God" obtains.

That is like saying a person who claims to be a married bachelor actually is one.

How do you intend to proceed?

Ciao

- viole

I am willing to assume God does not exist, I am willing to assume that objective morality does not exist, however we must assume something exists to have a debate. I propose that we assume that massively destructive behaviors should not be protected by law unless they have sufficient corresponding benefits to justify the costs. If we can't even do that then the sad history of mankind is a complete sham.

 

[viole]

Either I was condemning homosexual behavior or you were defending it. However to do so meaningfully I was pointing out that only if God exists is there any frame of reference to claim it is justifiable or not. However knowing you deny God's existence I was happy to assume God does not exist (and even though it wouldn't), I was going to assume morality existed anyway just to keep the discussion going.

Well, since yourself admitted that if there is a god whose nature is founded upon the imperative that eating children for lunch is OK, then it is really OK, i am not sure what is justifiable to start with. Ergo, your critique of homosexuality could be a waste of time, for we cannot exclude a priori that there is a God whose nature is founded on accepting homosexuality.

I agree that your God is not that god. But in order to justify the existence of your God, you are bound to use extra moral evidence. I don't know, miracles and stuff. But if you had clear cut evidence of that, why do you need more controversial and philosophical arguments?

Not exactly, I only know of one atheist scholar today that suggests objective morality exists even though God does not, but when pressed Sam Harris admitted he simply assumes it exists.

Apparently there are many. I know quite a few, even if they are not scholars. I debate them much more harshly than I do with you. Believe me.

But I debate their belief in objective morality. Not the possibility that they defeat themselves by believing that. I have no logical warrant to do that. If you have one, let me know, so that I can bury them

Regardless if anyone is going to discuss the rightness or wrongness of anything then we either need objective morality or the far inferior societal moral preference. I was proposing that if we are stuff only with moral preference it would be an intuitive given that some behavior that causes millions of deaths and costs billions of dollars out to have massive benefits if those who practice it are going to force the 96% of us who don't to accept it at the point of a gun.

Again, as long as we do not have independent evidence of what god exists, any discussion about right or wrong is pointless.

That is what I am emphatically denying. Objective morality never has, can, or will exist unless God does. However societies must assume some moral standards to evaluate certain things.

Cool. That is what I need to bury those pesky atheistic moral realists.

But how?

I am willing to assume God does not exist, I am willing to assume that objective morality does not exist, however we must assume something exists to have a debate. I propose that we assume that massively destructive behaviors should not be protected by law unless they have sufficient corresponding benefits to justify the costs. If we can't even do that then the sad history of mankind is a complete sham.

No, we don't. Because your utilitaristic views, even if right, are not logically warranted. They beg the question that "behaviour leading to costs" is wrong. Again, there could be a god that instead of approving children based diet, approves costs because of behavior.

And no, we do not need to assume that something exists. We would beg the question and come to unwarranted conclusions. It is like debating a believer that inists that we should at least believe in kryptonite in order to start a meaningful debate about Superman.

At present, you seem to be incapable of proving either the existence of objective morality or god without getting into a vicious and logically unwarranted circle.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

That is not relevant. It is not relevant because it does not defeat my claim that you would be considered a liberal depending on who you talk to, even if you were a conservative, in your country.

Same with me, you think i am a liberal by applying American standards. But I am not if I apply North European standards. For instance, I am not a fan of unchecked immigration. The same with the creeping islamization.

This is growing beyond our control. Let's skip the liberal conservative off ramp and try to stay on the actual issues we were debating.

Forget what? I think I have already forgotten it.

I don't remember.

i could make the point that my country is based on paganism who got eroded by Christianity. So, I am not sure what your point is.

That is exactly why I said it's too complex to use for anything. My point is that your country is not some secular shining light on a hill that was formed in a vacuum.

And how are natural resources relevant? A bit of natural resources is enough to renounce the message of the almighty and an eternity in bliss? Oh well, make sure you keep people poor if you want t keep alive that very very compelling belief. By the way, I think you are confusing us with Norway. They got the big oil, not us. Lucky sods.

You seemed to be saying that whatever is good about your country was because of secular ideas. However your country is composed of all kinds of layers that influenced it including arbitrary ones like how many plants died millions of year ago in your region. I probably am confusing Sweden with Norway because those countries are not ones I run across in most of the historical research I have done. Regardless the points I made would still apply, but would only be modulated.

I do not remember why geography even came up, so maybe it should go the way the liberal thing has, let's just move on.

They contradict it. There is no doubt about it.

Then you must agree with my former conclusion, that Christians who marry homosexuals are not following Christ in doing so.

But you do not need to be a lesbian minister to do that. All you need is to disbelief Adam and Eve and talking snakes. For, how should I decide what parts of the Bible are metaphoric and which ones are not?

The race, age, height, sexual orientation or weight, etc..... of the minister or believer who contradicts the bible is irrelevant.

As far as how you interpret the bible, in the majority of cases it is obvious. However whenever you are unsure you can fall back on the techniques tested and perfected for over 3000 years. The bible is the most scrutinized, studied, and investigated book in human history. You are literally drowning in more helpful information than you could possibly ever get to. If you want I can describe how I go about resolving what tricky verses mean when I need to. It is not that complicated.

According to good old G. K. Chesterton. Christianity has never been tried and found wanting, but it has many times been found hard and left untried.

Besides how could anyone justify taking "Homosexuality is an abomination" as an allegory or analogy?

This lesbian pastor talks all the time about new covenants and stuff like that. And that some moral suboptimal teachings were required in the past, but not today. Like the stoning of people who work on Saturday, stoning of rebellious children, slavery, etc. which I never heard before

Unless you have spent enough time to actually understand covenants, progressive revelation, the ontology of morality give God, the purposes God has at this time or that for mankind hearing little snippets about them here or there will only confuse you. You do not need to get to the bottom of most of the bible's mysteries to be saved, but you do have to do so to understand how to harmonize the bible into a perfectly consistent whole.

Pick one of the subjects below and I will give you enough information to shed some light on the issue.

1. The roll of Israel post Abraham and pre - Christ.
2. The covenant of the law.
3. The covenant of grace.
4. The textual traditions and integrity.
5. Levitical law, Mosaic law, the deca law, the spiritual law.
6. Salvation in the OT versus salvation in the NT.

So, now poor Europe consists of Atheists, Muslims, a few other believers in some other gods, scientologists, copiists, jediists, people who don't care, Bible contradicting "Christians", and, last but not least, a couple of people believing literally in the Bible.

That is a heck of an erosion.

Ciao

- vole

It would be if that is what was true or what I said. I did not suggest anything about their only being a few Christians who practice correct core Christian doctrines. I imagine there are many millions who do. However the percentage of Christians correctly practicing biblical doctrines has decreased (among other reasons) because of the modern secular revolutions. Secularism dilutes even dominant theological populations, it can be a good thing at times, but it is a bad thing in many cases.