Does gender matter?

[phyllo]

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

'Harm' is a common component when defining 'wrong'.

Physical and psychological harm would be understandable by all humans rather than a particular religious group.

Not everyone may agree that any specific harm shown, falls into the category of 'harm' but there would have to be some agreement that there are harmful consequences in order to label the behavior as 'wrong'.

If you can't produce a list of harms, then you have nothing harmful.

...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

Who told you that?

[Immanuel Can]

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

'Harm' is a common component when defining 'wrong'.

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional insitututions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

If you can't produce a list of harms, then you have nothing harmful.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

Who told you that?

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

[Alexiev]

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional institutions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil? Wicked, wicked IC!

Is Evolutionary science evil because it questions the Book of Genesis? That seems to mirror the reasoning of many internet atheists, who think Christianity is evil because it persuades people away from the (their?) truth.

Maybe Galileo should have been punished for positing a heliocentric universe. Perhaps any books questioning IC's version of Christianity should be burned.

By the way, who was right in their disputes: James the Just, Jesus' brother who actually knew Him, or Paul, who appears to care little about Jesus the man and the preacher, and is concerned only with the redeeming Christ?

[seeds]

You never demonstrated any harm that comes from homosexuality or non-binary gender.

Yeah, I can demonstrate that.

Go ahead. Since that's an important point of interest in the discussion.

It's an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22) and an offense against the natural order (Rom. 1:26-27).

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

I don't have much to say about what the two of you are arguing about, for I tend to agree with what I heard a male comedian once say about male-on-male homosexuality, which was something to the effect of: "...guys being so gross that it's a wonder why girls are attracted to them..."

No, I just try not to miss an opportunity to point out IC's hypocrisy in quoting the Bible when considering that it was just a few weeks ago (in the "Christianity" thread) that he accused me and Belinda of "...outsourcing our brains..." to AI after Belinda quoted something she gleaned from ChatGPT, and me quoting something I gleaned from Microsoft's Copilot.

As polished and as articulate as he seems to be in the presentation of his posts, he nevertheless displays some glaring glitches when it comes to the issue of self-awareness.

(Oh dear, apparently, I've not only contracted a severe case of TDS, WDS, and ADS, but I guess we can add ICDS to that list. Oh, and let's not leave off VADS. This site is bad for one's mental health. )
_______

[phyllo]

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

'Harm' is a common component when defining 'wrong'.

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional insitututions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

If you can't produce a list of harms, then you have nothing harmful.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

Who told you that?

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

Oh I see, you expect me to accept your entire religious framework. And you won't go into any harms except in the context of "sins".

In that case, I will pass.

Gambling leaves a lot of people bankrupt or in debt and gossiping often destroys trust and reputations. I would consider those to be harms. Are the harms outweighed by benefits to the gambler or gossip? It would evaluate it as more harm than benefit. Your mileage may vary.

[Gary Childress]

It's pointless arguing with someone who insists the only one harmed by an act is God and that alone makes it wrong. Apparently we mortals pack quite a punch against the divine. Poor God, having to watch people have homosexual intercourse. Maybe God is a trauma victim? God probably worries more about two people of the same sex having a good time than he does watching all the carnage happening in "religious wars. It's like Hollywood, show a leg being blown off and "parental guidance" is suggested. Show two people have great sex and it becomes forbidden to minors.

[Immanuel Can]

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional institutions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil?

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

[Gary Childress]

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional institutions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil?

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

And what if it's actually wrong? What if God isn't perturbed by two men having consensual sex together that harms no one. Then what?

[Immanuel Can]

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil?

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

And what if it's actually wrong? What if God isn't perturbed by two men having consensual sex together that harms no one. Then what?

Then the Bible didn't tell the truth about what God thinks of that act. But I think it does.

[Age]

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

'Harm' is a common component when defining 'wrong'.

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional insitututions.

How do they 'harm', exactly?

Not that you will answer, and clarify.

And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

But, they do 'harm'.

How are you defining the word, 'harm', here, exactly?

If you can't produce a list of harms, then you have nothing harmful.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil.

And, as I explained, to you, claiming God has a penis and a beard alienates 'you' from 'I', God.

Which, by its very nature, is evil, and thus the work of the devil, itself, 'you'.

As 'I' keep pointing out, showing, and proving, here, in this forum.

And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

Who told you that?

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

Only the devil, itself, feels a need to 'convince' others, of things. Like you do, here, "immanuel can", the, at times, devil, itself.

[Gary Childress]

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

And what if it's actually wrong? What if God isn't perturbed by two men having consensual sex together that harms no one. Then what?

Then the Bible didn't tell the truth about what God thinks of that act. But I think it does.

The Bible is the collected writing of mortal humans before the scientific method was developed. The texts were sorted through by mortals living under Roman rule. Some texts weren't included because mortals thought they didn't sound correct. Centuries of transcription has caused errors by mortals to crop up even from the original approved texts.

We now know that the Adam and eve story isn't literally correct. We now know that there was no "great flood" that consumed the entire Earth killing everyone except for one man, his family, and two of each and every type of living being on the entire planet.

I would not be surprised at all if there are many more errors in the Bible. So I'm going to say you are mentally ill.

End of discussion for me. I don't believe in Marduk or Allah either.

[Immanuel Can]

And what if it's actually wrong? What if God isn't perturbed by two men having consensual sex together that harms no one. Then what?

Then the Bible didn't tell the truth about what God thinks of that act. But I think it does.

End of discussion for me.

Your choice.

[Immanuel Can]

'Harm' is a common component when defining 'wrong'.

But only "a component." Not the totality. There are things that definitely harm but are actually good...like surgeries and correctional insitututions. And there are things that fail to harm in any overt way, perhaps, but are still bad, like, say, gambling or gossiping.

If you can't produce a list of harms, then you have nothing harmful.

Well, I've explained the meaning of real "harm". Anything which alienates man from God is, by its very nature, evil. And it does the very worst possible harm to its practitioner and to its victims...it interferes with the relationship with the ultimate Good.

But whether the act you're particularly concerned with produces additional harms, I have not denied. I have merely declined to plunge into the vile details of the consequences of that 'lifestyle,' as some call it. But if you know what goes on, then you know that all sorts of other harms are involved.

Who told you that?

You will? Well, then, I apologize. You recognize that all sin is inherently harmful, in the above sense? Then I underestimated your openness to being convinced.

But you now know what real "harm" is, and why all sins participate in it.

Oh I see, you expect me to accept your entire religious framework. And you won't go into any harms except in the context of "sins".

No, I don't "expect" you to do anything. I merely tell you what the Bible says about it, and how I believe it really is, and you choose what you want to do with that.

In that case, I will pass.

Which you can do. And it will change nothing.

[Alexiev]

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil?

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

I disagree. Agape suggests you should care about whether your methods of persuasion are effective -- not merely about whether your positions are correct. Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove. Is your goal to save souls? Or is it to proclaim your truth?

Proclaiming the truth in a manner that persuades nobody hardly seems like "the most moral act one could perform." Wouldn't effective persuasion be more morally laudable?

[Immanuel Can]

So if your incessant preaching alienates people from God, does that mean your behavior is harmful, and thus evil?

That depends. If what I'm telling people is actually right, then it's the most moral act one could perform.

I disagree.

You can disagree. That's allowed. You'll still be wrong.

Agape suggests...

I love it when people who don't know Christian language try to use it to argue the opposite of what it requires.