The following constitutes a defense of my faith that began on facebook after I left a very p rideful and somewhat rude comment on a post regarding teaching children about homosexuality. I was upset at the topic of teaching children about sexuality and in retrospect, I don't think my rhetorical "zinger" was the right thing to do. But it led to a quite interesting defense of my faith. Please be aware of your own sensabilities as this does regard anal sex in many places. I have been a Catholic since 2018 - and the depth of my knowledge is lacking, but I did the best I could. The other two parties are two friends from highschool - friend #1 and friend #2. There is a brief appearance form some people I don't know who will be other #1 and other #2. Grammar mistakes and punctuation choices have been left intact.
Me:
Uncle bob likes putting his favorite toys in uncle Pete’s trash can. Uncle bob doesnt understand design. But that’s okay, we still love him, even if he likes the stinky trash can for his toys.
Friend #1:…..? Bro you’re better than that.
Me:
There's no hate here. But I hope you can admit there is a bit of a design flaw in the idea of anal sex.
Friend #1:
lol, there’s no design flaws if there is no design. If some entity actually did design humans, they fucked up so badly that they wouldn’t be worth worshipping in the first place. If some guy actually created us, and this is what they settled on, Fuck that guy.
People masturbate, oral, manual sex. It’s not a sin, or wrong or some way of sex is better than another morally. We’re just big apes. Sex is fun and people are weird. As long as it’s consensual, it’s all good bro.
Me:
Ahh you are indeed correct. I communicated poorly. I meant more a misunderstanding of design.
Friend #1:
Friend #1:
Ah gotcha. The best evidence against design is nature itself. Especially humans. We evolved to walk upright super fast and as a result have terrible knee problems, back problems, and childbirth is often a nightmare for women. We do very poorly with high carb diets, but agriculture is what allowed us the free time to develop complex societies. There’s a ton of things that are shitty for us because of how we evolved as a species. The best argument you can make against ‘intelligent design’ is literally to just vaguely point at a human body, lol. We’re all sorts of fucked up. If there truly is someone who designed us, that guy needs to be slapped.
But it’s all good, we’re a part of nature. It’s beautiful in a way how messed up we are, we’re just a really new species and have all sorts of “growing pains” that we’re going through. Granted some of those flaws might destroy the entire planet, but I hope not. The only things we can do for sure to help is to try our best to save our environment, encourage education and science and medicine, and stop our fighting about stupid things like race and religion and nationality. We can be better, and recognizing that and trying is the greatest thing humans have going for us.
Me:
OR we are the self imposed limitation of the incarnate God - made in his image, but merely a vapor of an impression.
God did not create in us a copy of himself, nor heaven on earth, no - and it seems like that is a hard thing for you to resolve. But the limitless God can foray into a pool of limits and that's what this is.
The question our world and our species faces: Can we resist the obvious and direct path to eternal life of the soul in the presence of the origin of everything that was and ever shall be? And can we help other people to find that path? It's staring you in the face my man.
The other things you are worried about and seem to mention just seem so insignificant to me when compared with that.
Other #1:
Dude, there's absolutely hate in what you said. Fuck off.
Me:
Hey Other #1, I apologize. I do think Anal sex is antagonistic to the good, the true, and the beautiful; but I harbor no ill will against people who do it or who have crafted their life around it. I felt compelled to respond to this because I thought of explaining homosexuality to my own children. I was worried my ANALogy might be erroneous so I thought it would also be good to expose it to see if anyone had some corrections.
Friend #2:
i think the point of this picture is that, kids that young dont think about sex. ur kind of explanation is unnecessary, and is only meant to provoke adults in conversations such as this.
Me:
That’s a good point. But as a parent you start to think a lot about when and how you speak the truth to your children. This is an exercise in that.
Friend #1:
It’s not an exercise in that. Kids don’t give a single shot about what we’re talking about. They only know what their parents teach them. And if they are taught that it’s ok to be who they are, they will grow up with that. If they are taught that their dad’s version of a sky daddy tells them they are bad just because of that same sky daddy made them… well they’re going to be pretty fucked up.
But I mean, just reading your reply, I can’t even come close to to agreeing. What is more likely and makes the most sense? That we are animals who evolved the ability to have the conversations but are still so dumb that we fuck it up all the time and that’s probably the cause of most our misfortune? Or what you said, that we’re made in a specific God’s image but not really perfect, just a shitty version of it, but still by god, because butt stuff is bad, but like mostly ok, just a kind-bogglingly bad way of creating an organism?
I don’t know Matt, I just hope for your kid’s sake that if any of them are gay, they get the love and understanding side of Jesus’ message most, rather than the judgmental and shaming side. If god exists, he is the one that fucking made people that way after all.
Friend #1:
Matt, the real point here that I’m making (even it comes across convoluted, I’m not perfect at this), is that Love, Forgiveness, and Understanding are the same word. The most important is the first, love. And the hardest to grasp is Understanding. Truly understanding someone with a different view. If you truly understand someone, you love them, and forgive them for their wrongs.
Even if you think being gay is a choice and something wrong, you absolutely cannot love or forgive gay people truly without understanding them. And even if you are religious and consider a myriad of things sinful, being gay is like, the smallest thing. Everyone I know has committed far greater sins, even the gay people. Being gay is just a single aspect of their being. And it harms literally nobody. If you want to get religious, focus on the harmful things we all do, not the one that hurts no one just because it’s easy for you to focus on.
Friend #1:
Other #1, you have a beautiful relationship and life and are probably a better part of this world than I’ll ever be. Being gay is something so insanely stupid to focus on for people like Matt who ostensibly want to make the world better.
I’m as straight as it gets, I love girls. Hell, a lot of gay stuff actually grosses me out. But guess how much that factors into my personality or how I judge another person? Zero. The fact that this conversation needs to be had is disgusting and horrible. Jesus talked about love about 1000x more than he talked about gay people. But it’s a very easy target, and that’s why you’re focused on. It’s gross, it’s wrong, but apparently it’s a really big deal to a lot of “really straight” people.
Me:
Why does love, understanding, and forgiveness as the same word mean anything to you Brent? Why is it good? Is it simply about the way it makes people feel?
Friend #1:
It’s not super complicated man. If your actions make your neighbor’s life better, that’s good. If it they make his life worse, they are bad. Pretty easy to extend that concept out to all of society and not just your neighbor.
If what you do makes people happy and supports them in troubling times, and improves their lives etc then that is good to me.
But almost more importantly, we don’t even have to do that. Especially in our world, it’s pretty much impossible to physically help everyone you know. But you know what we can do? Something that’s super easy and free? We can love others. We can understand others who might be different.
This doesn’t mean going out of your way to protect a serial killer. It means, for instance, looking at a gay man, and saying “you know what? I don’t 100% get you, or why you are who you are. But that’s ok, I don’t understand a lot of things. And it’s better for me to just accept and love you instead of focusing on your interests in the bedroom”.
It’s really not difficult. And it’s like a million times more of what Jesus talked about than anything else. Love, forgiveness, and understanding.
Those words mean something to me because they have real, tangible effects in the world, even if they aren’t immediately apparent. They are just good traits. I don’t need a god to tell me they are good, they just are, until evidence proves me wrong.
Me:
I'm afraid you are a bit too flippant about this topic Brent. Is this what you base your life decisions around?
How do you define if you have made someone's life better or worse? What if in the moment you make someone's life worse, but it improves the lives of countless people throughout time? What if it improves their OWN life at a future time that you are not aware of? How do you make those value judgements? If someone is doing something wrong and you tell them and it hurts them at the time, but resolution of that wrong action leads to unmeasurable goodness in five years, have you done right or wrong? I would have never received some of the greatest good in my life had caring neighbors followed your described standard of loving acceptance.
I encourage you to keep thinking about what makes something good. There is more to it than, "they just are" and you tried to get at it with your paragraphs, but respectfully, as a friend, you failed to define some of the most important aspects of these core tenants of life. And full disclosure - I do think these conversations will have to at some point lead to what the origin of human existence is.
For the record I do accept and love gay people. Don't conflate the sexual acts that I do not think of as good with the whole identify of a person.
Friend #1:
How do you define if you have made someone's life better or worse? What if in the moment you make someone's life worse, but it improves the lives of countless people throughout time? What if it improves their OWN life at a future time that you are not aware of? How do you make those value judgements? If someone is doing something wrong and you tell them and it hurts them at the time, but resolution of that wrong action leads to unmeasurable goodness in five years, have you done right or wrong? I would have never received some of the greatest good in my life had caring neighbors followed your described standard of loving acceptance.
I encourage you to keep thinking about what makes something good. There is more to it than, "they just are" and you tried to get at it with your paragraphs, but respectfully, as a friend, you failed to define some of the most important aspects of these core tenants of life. And full disclosure - I do think these conversations will have to at some point lead to what the origin of human existence is.
For the record I do accept and love gay people. Don't conflate the sexual acts that I do not think of as good with the whole identify of a person.
Friend #1:
To me, what you’re asking about in absolute nature is impossible to know. You might think there is an absolute set of right and good but I’m not sure about it. The only path I have is to do good to those around me in the ability I have and the context that it’s in. I don’t mean making someone’s life happier by giving them heroin or some simplistic “good now but maybe bad later”. I mean with everything I’ve learned in life so far, to be kind and helpful and good.
It’s one of those things that someone smarter than me has said “Nobody can define it, but you know it when you see it.” I think that guy was talking about pornography, but the sentiment applies to being a good person too.
And I just don’t think that consensual sexual acts between adults are remotely anyone’s business, nor do they have an effect on whether they are a good person or not. If there’s a god, he has a lot of answering to do about making people gay then condemning them for making love.
Friend #2:
u bring up a good point, and its one ive spent so many years of my online life on, arguing with christians. how do we know we are doing good? that is the question, isnt it.
and that, is actually why i hate religion. it makes people irrational, and get good people to do bad things, while thinking theyre doing good. i do believe u think u r doing good, but u r just wrong.
and it is possible we secularists are wrong too, but at least, we base our beliefs on right and wrong on evidence. i may be wrong in my moral beliefs, but i dont think i am because of the worldly evidence i have gathered and the logical deduction i have employed.
in simplistic terms: if an action hurts people, its bad. if it makes people feel good, its good. gay people existing and doing gay stuff doesnt hurt anyone, and it makes themselves happy, so, gay stuff = fine. thats the line of argument and conclusion secularists make.
christians, on the other hand, claim gay = bad, cuz old testament says its bad. (and yet most christians i argued with claimed the old testament doesnt count anymore since the inception of the new testament, so, go figure.) your christian way depends on the christianity religion being true first, which yall have yet to prove.
so then, how do we know we are doing good? we secularists are doing the best we can with the evidence we have. we think we are doing a pretty good job at it. what about you guys? are you so certain ur religion is true? is ur belief in it so strong that u r willing to accept gay = bad, simply... because? with 0 evidence from the natural world supporting it? r u really absolutely positively that u r correct on this? because if u r wrong, u (anti-gay people as a whole) would be causing a whole lot of suffering. (if we secularists didnt stop u, that is.)
in the end, just like the abortion debate we had so many times, it all comes down to religion. everything hinges on whether christianity is true or not.
Me:
A compass points north but the user doesn’t know why. It’s a mystery. So lost in the woods the user looks for other evidence to point their way. Do you throw out the compass because you don’t know it to be true? This is foolishness. You have a compass to guide you that has been honed over many centuries, but you refuse it and look for your own way because the divine magnetism (in this case) can’t be distilled conveniently for you. You think it is pointing arbitrarily and/or you think the north it shows you leads to a dry, uninformed, blindly obeyed, and corrupt den of child molesting. I was a devout Atheist for a solid decade of my life until I realized that what defined me was just avoiding the compass as a reference point.
And there are reasons why I think anal sex is objectively bad for people that Christianity certainly coincides with, but stand on their own. I think it’s bad for the people involved in terms of physical trauma and reverberates to the culture- namely aiming cultural values at death and inverts the embodiment of fertility in action (life-giving {possibly} sex) to do it. I think masturbation and birth control are equally bad for the same reason. As I initially mentioned, that’s where poop comes out of (putting your toys in the dirty trash can). No Christianity or existence of God is needed for that conviction, but indeed Christianity does stand opposed to sodomy as well and for likely the same or similar reasons and probably further reason maybe that I don’t even understand! The Catholic view is steeped in well formed reason over centuries. I can check the compass and see that it coincides with the direction I’m already heading.
The modern view has barely existed for a generation and is steeped in making people feel good. Feeling good != good. But without a compass I guarantee you will almost always be drawn to equating what makes you or others FEEL the best will be the best good thing. No matter how many ways you slice it, I will guarantee this path of thinking will trap you time and time again.
People thinking I hate gay people when I don’t doesn’t feel good, but helping someone turn away from the trauma and cultural death knell of sodomy would be worth it - even if I will never knew about the good that developed.
I hope that adequately addresses both topics. Whether you think it’s True or not, the compass of the Holy Catholic faith - the fulfillment of Judaism - has thousands of years of demonstrated function throughout time since way before Christ. That is demonstrated evidence. Men have strayed from it many times in doubt or rejection and done horrible things still holding up the compass, but given any one of those circumstances it has always pointed the way. Wiser men than I can explain how in those circumstances of evil/malice/suffering attributed perhaps to Christ/God or his followers, the compass has maintained continuity and always taught north.
You can reject that guidance too, fine. But I think the “I don’t know what is right or good except I kinda do because be nice to people and do what’s good for them and not what is bad for them in the moment with no respect for the variable of time just kinda hope for the best and don’t be mean” seems way more irrational. I don’t mean to straw man your position with that long drawn out characterization, but I think I could fairly say that you have not given a better account for what good and bad are in life. Please correct me, if that is incorrect and I apologize.
Friend #1:
Hey please have patience with me because I want to read this all and respond properly. First thing I think of, and probably dumb, is that the compass needle hardly every points to true north. Most compasses actually really suck with true north because magnetic north doesn’t exist really
Me:
I think that strengthens the argument in a way, because man is always stuck interpreting God through the lens of man’s mind. The question is, can it get you out of the woods?
Friend #2:
"A compass points north but the user doesn’t know why."
except we do know why. evolution has answered our sense of morality time and again. its old news.
"And there are reasons why I think anal sex is objectively bad for people"
and thats good! here, at least, u r trying to think rationally, trying to find real world evidence against sodomy. when u at least attempt to discuss things in the world of evidence and logic, we can get somewhere.
and u r wrong. all ur objections can be refuted. we r 7 billion strong, we have more than enough straight people to keep the race going. childbirth has killed more people than sodomy ever has. but even if sodomy was actually dangerous, its a personal choice, like smoking. we as a FREE society has a duty to make people aware of the dangers of an activity, but ultimately leave that decision up to the individual.
i welcome any argument against sodomy, and ill refute it. (but we're talking about gay people, not sodomy. r u as vehemently against lesbians as u r against gays?)
"good != good."
im aware. i did say it was a simplistic explanation. of course we should consider long term consequences of actions rather than just immediate rewards, and account things accordingly.
so tell me, what long term negative consequences do gay people cause?
Me:
Friend #2:
"A compass points north but the user doesn’t know why."
except we do know why. evolution has answered our sense of morality time and again. its old news.
"And there are reasons why I think anal sex is objectively bad for people"
and thats good! here, at least, u r trying to think rationally, trying to find real world evidence against sodomy. when u at least attempt to discuss things in the world of evidence and logic, we can get somewhere.
and u r wrong. all ur objections can be refuted. we r 7 billion strong, we have more than enough straight people to keep the race going. childbirth has killed more people than sodomy ever has. but even if sodomy was actually dangerous, its a personal choice, like smoking. we as a FREE society has a duty to make people aware of the dangers of an activity, but ultimately leave that decision up to the individual.
i welcome any argument against sodomy, and ill refute it. (but we're talking about gay people, not sodomy. r u as vehemently against lesbians as u r against gays?)
"good != good."
im aware. i did say it was a simplistic explanation. of course we should consider long term consequences of actions rather than just immediate rewards, and account things accordingly.
so tell me, what long term negative consequences do gay people cause?
Me:
So it’s not “you know it when you see it?” Or is it?
Friend #2:
Friend #2:
hit enter by accident, i wasnt finished with my post. just finished it now.
Me:
Ahh nice. I’ll read that. [Bear in mind that the above post was edited after my initial response.
Friend #2:
and no, its not just u know it when u see it. most people have a general sense of right and wrong. but ive devoted a big part of my life meditating on the concepts of right and wrong, id like to think i understand it quite well.
the sense of morality is an evolved trait. everything makes perfect sense once u view it through the lens of evolution. theres plenty of reading material on this if u r interested.
why do u think sometimes some people do bad things? because god made satan and satan whispered in their ear? or do people just have an animalistic sense of self preservation and do what they feel like they need to in order to survive and thrive? why do some people behave saintly? because yahweh blessed them with a sense of justice? or because people are thinking beings with long memories and like people who are good and reliable? would the saintly people behave saintly if nobody can remember their deeds or give a shit about good behavior?
and what about animals? shitty humans exist because god gave us free will. what about chimps? god didnt give them free will, not from what ive read anyways. so they should be perfect little godly creations right? yet some of them still do some terrible things. dolphins too, otters, etc etc. whats the point of their assholey behavior?
Other #2:
it's not just religion. I mean, I'd even argue that in the West, religion is no longer the dominant driving force for "irrational" behavior, it's political ideology. If people truly believe with all their heart that you are a bad person for what you believe in (politically or otherwise), that is no different from a religious perspective.
I personally think arguing with Christians about homosexuality has been done to death and is a waste of time. The power of ideologies come and go -Christianity in the West in general has become so subdued, I no longer see it as the threat to society it once was.
Other #2:
on the topic of anal sex, I absolutely do not care what others do, but I personally do not like it for similar reasons that Matthew does (beyond the religious aspect). I don't engage in it, but I have many straight friends who do. I personally don't want to stick my ding-dong in the pooper and touch poopy, and it looks painful for the receiver. The fact that it is known you should do a decent enema before butt sex shows you're already engaging in harm reduction practices - like drug use. If I had the choice I would probably not want my daughter to ever do it, but if she did, then I would just hope that she did so safely.
Me:
I had something long and elaborate written out but I scrapped it - not because it sucked mind you, but it kept expanding our strands.
Point of order: I’ve only been focused on sodomy this entire time. All conversation regarding how that defines gay people has been brought up by other entities. Sodomy has a negative effect on everyone involved - consensually or otherwise in my debatably rational opinion.
As far as Christianity vs the lack of Christianity pertaining to how we should exist- you severely underestimate the rationality involved in Christian dogma. But that is another tangent.
I have a proposal for Rui and Brent:
1. Strip your pre-conceived notions of Christianity. Start from scratch. Many of them are incredibly ill informed.
2. Recognize the assumptions and faith that is involved in your scientific approach to the nature of the world. (Probably the hardest part for you both I would reckon, but I can expand on this further should you desire) (This mainly refers to absolute unknown of the origin of human life and the death of it)
3. EXPERIMENT with the Christian assumption by using the robust Catholic faith as your guide. Give it two months of genuine assumption as the basis for your existence. I would suggest accompanying it with St. Augustine’s confessions as reading and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis. Both of which are freely available in many places.
If you can do this and still deny the exist of God the father with a pure heart, you will have in your view brought another man to more “rationality” in your view. And at the very least, I think we will have something to discuss. It will require an open pipeline to humility, which in the Christian tradition as defined last Sunday from the Catholic pulpit of my parish last Sunday is the love of Truth beyond all other things. If you can manage that, you will have made the most convincing argument.
Friend #1:
Matt, I’ll be fully honest with you, I’m not going to take my life in a Catholic course for several months. But I also won’t take my life in a Muslim course for the same amount of time. Can you tell me how they are different? Or why one is better?
I mainly ask because I did take part in the Muslim religion for several weeks during, at the end of, and after Ramadan during my Arabic Language studies. It was really interesting and informative, but at the end of the day I still thought it was just as amazing and just as dumb as any other religion. Every philosophy and religion has their good points and their dumb stuff. I just try to learn from everyone.
I have not been a practicing Catholic myself but I have dated a girl I loved very much who was Catholic and went to services with her family for many years.
And Matt, I’m not speaking for Rui, but for me, it’s not like I’m trying to take some cold scientific rational approach to my beliefs, that’s obviously dumb because we’re all human, and pure rationality is not always what fits with me. I’m just going by what I see in the world and what I learn. And using that to see what I think it means, then talking to other people to see if I’m out of my mind or maybe on the right track. Some things are cut and dry to me: murder and rape for example. But some things are less cut and dry, like a man loving another man. I don’t see the harm in that. Maybe you do, but I firmly disagree that laws should be enacted against that.
Should there be laws against theft? Yes. Should there be laws against what kind of flags you can hang in your window? No. Should there be laws against Murder? Yes. Should there be laws against consensual sex between adults in a bedroom? No.
Should kids be taught the Kama Sutra and given lube in middle school? No. Should kids be taught that being gay is a completely normal and ok thing that has existed throughout all of history, with no harm done? Yes. They should know that they should be ok to talk adults about that. You can suppress it as much as you want, but it will only hurt the kids. Some kids will be gay. That’s how it works. And that’s ok. The best thing we can do is love them.
Friend #1:
The version of the Bible you’re looking at has hardly any New Testament verses about gay people. But literally the entire message of the Four Books is Love. LOVE. And you’re going to spend your time on people allowing gay people to live how they want and be a part of society? There is so much evil in this world and honestly you are just taking the easy way out. Instead of fighting for the real human right Justice that Jesus’ entire message is about, you’re going to take your time to focus on two people living each other in a way that you interpret is wrong? It’s utterly insane. Except that it’s not, because it’s just so easy for you to focus on that in order to feel superior.
I have actually studied the Bible too, in case you didn’t know. And what I got from the Four Books, is that Love trumps all else, hands down, game over. If someone is actively harming someone else, that’s fine, but even that is not what Jesus preaches. He only preaches love and forgiveness and understanding. And for any of you to rise above that and say “well actually if you interpret it like this you can see that the gays are the problem” is so fucking obviously your own issue that I’m shocked you haven’t seen it yourself.
Friend #1:
Fuck, at least abortion I can understand in a biblical sense. But for you to focus on gay people, that’s… hardly even in the whole book! But love and respect is! Let God determine if they are bad people, because Jesus barely mentioned it, and you obviously don’t really care about the small things Jesus talked about. You just pick and choose.
Me:
Why do you not understand that sodomy being rationally wrong != hating gay people? I think you constantly equivocating sodomy as the identity of gay men is far more offensive than me saying we shouldn't put toys in the trash can. Can you be gay without sodomy?
There are many things that I have consensually engaged in that did damage to me. Where does your ideology prevent me from reaching out to others to help avoid them doing damage to themselves or others? Because you are having quite an emotional reaction to it. Not like I have any basis or foundation in your ideology to argue with, even if I wanted to. I would just have to listen to what you currently think based on your lived experience which might be sufficient or not in any given case and you may be willing to learn more or not.
I truly don't know how you make decisions between right or wrong. Your basic simple example of stealing being wrong in all cases as enshrined in the law opposes biblical teaching. But I guess that's just what you think right now.
I wish you well stumbling around in the darkness not knowing where life came from or where it will end up (but having faith that science will figure it out one day). I will pray that despair and nihilism does not sweep you away, or indeed that you turn head long into it and face it, conquering it in the name of Christ.
If you want to learn why Christianity is the one true Religion - that information is out there. But I will continue to suggest that you try it, so that you may know it by its fruits. It would add a convincing dimension to winning others over to your nebulous worldview.
Me:
And for the record that biblical teaching, like all of them, are an appeal to rationality and or the health of the soul.
Friend #1:
There are two parts to this: 1) I fundamentally don’t believe that sodomy is bad for humans if it’s consensual amongst adults. And I’ve heard no good logical reason why. It’s a real and fundamental and ok part of human existence I’m here if you’d like to explain why it’s somehow harmful to anyone.
But much more importantly, I don’t think the state should be able to dictate a person’s sexuality. And since it’s demonstrably true that many people are gay, and it’s a part of the world we live in, that we can’t just ignore it or pretend it isn’t true. Since it’s something that the a person can’t change, yet a lot of people will try to legally alienate them, and it is consensual adults, it must be a protected class no different than inter-racial marriage.
The US government is secular and must remain that way. Biblical or Koranic or Satanist arguments can’t be taken into effect. If those arguments are also secular and purely rational, then so be it. But I don’t agree with any I’ve heard.
Me:
But much more importantly, I don’t think the state should be able to dictate a person’s sexuality. And since it’s demonstrably true that many people are gay, and it’s a part of the world we live in, that we can’t just ignore it or pretend it isn’t true. Since it’s something that the a person can’t change, yet a lot of people will try to legally alienate them, and it is consensual adults, it must be a protected class no different than inter-racial marriage.
The US government is secular and must remain that way. Biblical or Koranic or Satanist arguments can’t be taken into effect. If those arguments are also secular and purely rational, then so be it. But I don’t agree with any I’ve heard.
Me:
Anal bleeding and a complete inversion of sexuality represent the personal and the cultural damage done by sodomy.
But I have a sneaking suspicion you are far more interested in holding an opinion that feels good and doesn't alienate people AND maintaining a moral framework that allows you to think what you want so as to avoid the risk of hurting people, people that you want to derive value from by not having to tell them that what they are choosing is wrong or bad for them or others. If you would like to tell me I'm wrong, I have given you a great framework to do so. I will in no uncertain terms tell you that you are wrong as I have lived your framework.
Me:
But I have a sneaking suspicion you are far more interested in holding an opinion that feels good and doesn't alienate people AND maintaining a moral framework that allows you to think what you want so as to avoid the risk of hurting people, people that you want to derive value from by not having to tell them that what they are choosing is wrong or bad for them or others. If you would like to tell me I'm wrong, I have given you a great framework to do so. I will in no uncertain terms tell you that you are wrong as I have lived your framework.
Me:
As for the US government, I hope they do good things, but I have no interest in solving any type of problem through it and don't think anyone else should until the dumpster fire that it is gets put out and we can start again.
Friend #2:
alright, lets focus on sodomy then. why is it bad? because its trickier to do safely? because it doesnt make children? who dictated that those are the meanings of life? sometimes risky things are worth it because theyre fun. hell, its one of the pillars of our society, the pursuit of happiness. treat it like smoking if u must, teach people the risks, and let them decide for themselves. and if something doesnt make children, we shouldnt do it? does that make sense? what about contraceptives? r u against those as well? if u think sodomy is "rationally wrong", then in ur opinion, what else is rationally wrong? i am curious.
im tempted to argue the beginning and ending of life too, spent a lot of my youth arguing metaphysics, but ill focus on one thing at a time here.
Me:
Friend #1 asked how it hurts people - that is the anal bleeding and the poop leaking out of your butt later in life as well as the trauma that goes along with what I am about to say. As for why it is rationally wrong, it is because it takes the fundamental building block of life which I rationally support (though you may not), procreation and doesn't just do something different, but symbolically and actually turns a life giving act to something infertile and not fruitful. Obviously, if you don't want to accept that procreation is objectively and rationally good, surely you can recognize that there are people out there who can make that argument well. Frankly anyone who argues against is only able to do so because of it . Sodomy, masturbation, and pornography are all clear examples of this inversion.
Other things that are also clearly rationally wrong are inversions of this nature. Usury for example, taking something that is fertile like exchange and promoting using the same materials for crushing death in the form of oppressive debt/interest.
There must be some confusion as when you use the smoking example, surely you don't think that I can't tell people that smoking is wrong and bad for them? That's all I am doing with sodomy. I am telling people it is wrong and bad. Smoking is slow motion suicide. I am not interested in any type of powerful body regulating these things, what I am interested in is NOT silencing people (or even silencing ourselves) from telling others that things are wrong and bad.
I think you both lack the foundation upon which to tell anyone that something is bad and at the same time, hold that telling someone something is bad is ... wait for it ... bad!!!
Friend #1
Dude… if that’s your argument… anal bleeding? Like what in the actual fuck? I guess we don’t have to get into it further, just a weirded out “not convinced” from me on that moral argument.
And as far as an inversion of sexuality? Also… lots to unpack there but as far as the argument goes, not convinced. Is Oral sex an inversion of sexuality? Or manual sex? Like dude, if your religion is actually focused on that kind of stuff… go for it I guess.
I know it’s an easy attack, but your own church has proven to be masters of sodomy and pedophilia for centuries if not since forever. I know it occurs everywhere but the Catholic Church is like taking a masters course on sodomy and touching kids. Lots of places I look to for morality and Christianity as a whole is one of them, but the Catholic Church as an organization is… the opposite of that.
Me:
Dude… if that’s your argument… anal bleeding? Like what in the actual fuck? I guess we don’t have to get into it further, just a weirded out “not convinced” from me on that moral argument.
Bleeding is a common indicator that harm has been done... Did you want me to explain how it causes harm some other way? Do you disagree? Again, the truth doesn't care about your "weirded out not convinced." While I would love to convince you in a non weirding out way, it is not a luxury of the topic.
And as far as an inversion of sexuality? Also… lots to unpack there but as far as the argument goes, not convinced. Is Oral sex an inversion of sexuality? Or manual sex? Like dude, if your religion is actually focused on that kind of stuff… go for it I guess.
My moral framework does not care whether you are convinced or not. That is the difference. I am not out to convince you. But I do require you to refute what I say if you wish to convince me. I am not using any reliance on Religion to make this argument, though you seem to think I am. It's about taking something good and flipping it on its head on purpose.
I see Western Culture and perhaps human culture pointed towards death, and the high valuation of sodomy in our culture as the major standard bearer (literally amirite ) AND actual progenitor (one of many types) of that cultural death in action.
I know it’s an easy attack, but your own church has proven to be masters of sodomy and pedophilia for centuries if not since forever. I know it occurs everywhere but the Catholic Church is like taking a masters course on sodomy and touching kids. Lots of places I look to for morality and Christianity as a whole is one of them, but the Catholic Church as an organization is… the opposite of that.
An easy attack? I don't even know if you are "convinced" that sodomy and pedophilia are wrong because I have no object basis to understand your morality beyond what "convinces" you or not. The culture is definitely working on convincing everyone that pedophilia is a-okay. At that point you'll start thinking the Catholic church has no problems at all!
The evil that is done by the Church puts the evildoers in great danger of eternal torment (which I happen to think is merely the full knowledge of who God is and the reality of the enduring choice that he has been turned away from). Any faithful Catholic who does evil is doing it knowing that the evil they do is leading to eternal torment and turning away from God - either that or they are not faithful Catholics, but masquerading as them - in which case, why would I let their actions reflect poorly on Catholicism? Perhaps we will have to get a bit inquizitive! The deterrent from doing bad things in YOUR moral system is what? Social shame and guilt? The evildoers are quaking in their boots.
The ability of humans to follow right or wrong has no link to our ability to reason out what it is. There is so much other stuff the Catholic church does bad as well that you haven't mentioned and will continue to do - unfortunately. The difference between the Catholic Church is that at the core of it, there is a clear demonstration (Jesus Christ) of what is right and what is wrong. (The divine compass.) Out there by your metric, you have the same amount of filth (or more), but in many cases, the filth has become the God.
Friend #1:
I Think pedophilia is wrong because it is an attack on people who cannot consent, and is thus rape. I do not think that sexual acts between consenting adults is wrong, because they both agree to it.
I do not trust or respect a church that has done so much evil, because their entire premise is that they claim to represent God. I also don’t fully trust the US government, but at the very least, they don’t try to claim to be acting to the will of a divine being.
The idea of a moral compass makes it worse, the Catholic Church claims to have a “divine compass”, and has so consistently fucked it up, it’s equivalent to lying. At least the secular organizations are basically saying “we’re not 100% sure, but we’re going to be constantly trying to be better to people and the world”.
The Church can’t claim that. They already have their ‘moral compass’ and have still always fucked it up. If the moral compass was true, I would at the very least expect their own, primary, core organization to do better than others, but they haven’t in the slightest. The far right talks about democrat pedophiles, and they are there, but why weren’t they going after the church first? Or even now? The dems suck, I despise them, but so do the republicans and so called Christians. And the Catholic Church is the worst because they actually have the organization to prevent it, and they didn’t. THAT is what makes them the worst.
I don’t mean to bring politics into this, it was just part of a point. I don’t hate the Christian beliefs. I in fact try to follow much of what they say, they’re good things. But the Church itself has lost any credibility they ever had to me.
You’re telling me that God has one single part of one religion (Catholicism), that he considers true, and allows so many of his own people to violate children, and then have the others lie about it? And I’m supposed to think “Oh yea those guys must be the ones who have everything right?”
That’s like me looking at the Clintons and thinking the Democratic Party must be correct. No, it’s bullshit. None of it is universally correct. There are good and bad parts of every religion and culture, and it’s up to us to do our best and take the best from it all, throw away the worst, and live in the best way we can.
Me:
You want the Church to be God and represent God and that is at the crux of your argument and any failure of it to be God is evidence against it. No one is asserting that the Church is God, so your objection is so backwards it's crazy.
"They already have their ‘moral compass’ and have still always fucked it up. If the moral compass was true, I would at the very least expect their own, primary, core organization to do better than others, but they haven’t in the slightest"
Why would you expect that? Don't we all have our own moral compass that we mess up, even yours that is pulled out of a very advanced appraisal of the positive and negatives of all action throughout time that can't begin to be the same from one person to another, except for the fact that "you know it when you see it" ...have you managed to keep to that better than anyone?
The proof of a concrete reality in which the Catholic Church lives in terms of morality is that the rules haven't changed to say "well that's okay now because we are doing it". It's still wrong. Can you say the same for other morality indices? Can you say the same for your own. Maybe if "take the best from it all, throw away the worst, and live in the best way we can." doesn't work, you can just change your idea of what the best and the worst of things are.
Me:
The proof of a concrete reality in which the Catholic Church lives in terms of morality is that the rules haven't changed to say "well that's okay now because we are doing it". It's still wrong. Can you say the same for other morality indices? Can you say the same for your own. Maybe if "take the best from it all, throw away the worst, and live in the best way we can." doesn't work, you can just change your idea of what the best and the worst of things are.
Me:
Here's a great video on some of the topics we've been talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Friend #2:
Actually anal sex can be quite safe if u do it correctly. and theres really no evidence of long term damage, again, provided if its done safely. no bleeding, no leaky poopy. sure theres risk, but its really not at all as bad as u suggest.
u keep saying inversion of nature and turning life giving act infertile or whatever. but, its simply not true. ive said it quite a few times already. people who have anal sex, oral sex, or simple masturbation, can also have vaginal sex, u realized that, right? just because i wanked off once doesnt mean god has forbidden my penis from ever entering a vagina for the rest of time. and people who use contraceptives can still want to have children, just not 50 children. also we are not having a human shortage. this argument u keep using is nonsense on so many levels. and yet another level is, not everyone thinks their life's purpose is the continuation of their bloodline. some people just dont want kids, and thats fine. it doesnt make them bad people. its a personal choice. and not everything we do have to be about making kids. we play video games, arguably it lessens our chances to procreate, and im sure u r fine with that. think of anal sex as just another form of entertainment.
its good to know that ur not trying to force this belief of urs upon people. i assume this means u will not vote for such legislations and vote against people who would try to pass such legislations. like what i said with smoking, im fine with u telling people of the dangers of anal sex, so long as u leave the choice to them in the end. but im also trying to change ur mind that anal sex isnt even bad to start with.
Friend #2:
"The deterrent from doing bad things in YOUR moral system is what? Social shame and guilt? The evildoers are quaking in their boots."
jails. fines. or just plain old retribution on a personal level.
"The ability of humans to follow right or wrong has no link to our ability to reason out what it is."well if one understands right and wrong better, one can follow them better. low level moral understanding is, follow the rules, obey the authority. which is fine in a lot of day-to-day situations. but if one is capable of understanding the higher complexities of morality, one can make more correct decisions in more morally ambiguous situations. (see the theory on stages of moral development by kohlberg.)
"Out there by your metric, you have the same amount of filth (or more), but in many cases, the filth has become the God."its not that the filth has become our god. we simply dont believe its filth. (if by filth u mean things like sodomy.)
"The difference between the Catholic Church is that at the core of it, there is a clear demonstration (Jesus Christ) of what is right and what is wrong. (The divine compass.)"this is an old question. is it good because god wills it, or does god will it because it is good?
if u claim it is good because god wills it, then we secularists disagree with god on what is good. god can claim slavery is good and u must believe it as a christian. so, what u believe is good relies entirely upon the veracity of ur religion. whereas, we secularists' beliefs in the definition of good are at least based on worldly evidence. ur "clear demonstration", ur "divine compass", theyre not so clear or divine to the rest of us.
if u claim god wills it because it is good, then god must be following the same method we secularists are following when we try to find out what good is, when we try to define good. he may be better at it, being smarter and all. and so we must ask ur gods reasoning on why the things he deems (concluded to be) good, are good. and i have yet to see clear demonstration on anything from the bible.
Friend #1:
hey Matt, that’s a long video, I’ll watch it tonight. I just have an image to share with you out of curiosity:
Do you think that all these people are wrong? And secondly: Do you think that your version of Christianity could help them?
And third: How would you do it/ How would your God do it?
These are all people of the book. They believe in the same God. Are they all cursed to hell? Or is it all mostly political/ethnic? How could God allow this to happen for thousands of years of suffering. Yet, you in West Michigan somehow have the right and true course?
A map of Jordan is shown, with the different religions displayed.
Friend #2
lol, mapporn.
Friend #1
I added to my comment btw
Me:
Me:
#1, if they are aware of God and turn away from him - their desire to turn away shall be granted ad infinitum. If they are not aware of God, but still manage to lead a virtuous life they will be heaven bound - I personally don't know the full details of that part, but certainly the Church has established an answer to it.
But if they are aware of the life of Jesus Christ, what he professed, and what he established among his disciples: the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church - then it is as I have said before. Their choice to turn away from God, if not repented and reconciled by the time of their death, shall be granted.
When you ask if they are wrong, to me it is like asking if someone who is out in the cold who declines my offer to come inside is wrong. I don't know - maybe they know something I don't or are seeking something that I am not, but from inside a warm home it certainly seems wrong to not want to come in - especially for eternity. But if that is their wish, then I will let them know the door is always open. I will try to convince them in facebook posts as well and answer all their queries. Come in from the cold!
Friend #1:
Matt, I don’t know if God is real. And false belief is worse than un-belief. Belief means a full heart. I believe that air, and rocks, and stones exist. With my full heart.
But I don’t BELIEVE in a god. I don’t believe a god doesn’t exist. I’m not an atheist. I simply admit that I don’t know. If God curses people like me to hell, I don’t want to believe in him anyway. I have heard the word, and I say that I am not convinced. But I am trying my best. I live by some of the things in your version of the Bible. And I disagree with others. I agree with some versions of Hinduism and Buddhism, but not others. Am I forsaken because I don’t believe 100% in your particular version of your religion? Someone who is trying but won’t lie to themself and claim BELIEF in one exact interpretation? If it is so true then God would show me the way. But he hasn’t.
You say he has, but billions of the people of God’s creation would disagree. And they make good sense to me. Why would they make sense to me if your version of God is true? I’m doing my best, but no particular religion has convinced me, especially Catholicism. If your particular god wants us all to know the truth, and believe it, he seems to be doing a pretty shitty job of it.
You might say “Well he is! You’re just not listening!” But lots of other religions say the same thing. You were brought up in Mid-west America. Does that make you special? Does everyone in Asia, the Middle East, and the Protestants in America just get fucked and sent to hell? If that is truly what God wants, then I don’t want anything to do with him.
I might be in the cold, but what you’re saying is that if I choose a different source of warmth, I’m wrong. Does a good god play with his people like that?
Me:
But I don’t BELIEVE in a god. I don’t believe a god doesn’t exist. I’m not an atheist. I simply admit that I don’t know. If God curses people like me to hell, I don’t want to believe in him anyway. I have heard the word, and I say that I am not convinced. But I am trying my best. I live by some of the things in your version of the Bible. And I disagree with others. I agree with some versions of Hinduism and Buddhism, but not others. Am I forsaken because I don’t believe 100% in your particular version of your religion? Someone who is trying but won’t lie to themself and claim BELIEF in one exact interpretation? If it is so true then God would show me the way. But he hasn’t.
You say he has, but billions of the people of God’s creation would disagree. And they make good sense to me. Why would they make sense to me if your version of God is true? I’m doing my best, but no particular religion has convinced me, especially Catholicism. If your particular god wants us all to know the truth, and believe it, he seems to be doing a pretty shitty job of it.
You might say “Well he is! You’re just not listening!” But lots of other religions say the same thing. You were brought up in Mid-west America. Does that make you special? Does everyone in Asia, the Middle East, and the Protestants in America just get fucked and sent to hell? If that is truly what God wants, then I don’t want anything to do with him.
I might be in the cold, but what you’re saying is that if I choose a different source of warmth, I’m wrong. Does a good god play with his people like that?
Me:
actually anal sex can be quite safe if u do it correctly. and theres really no evidence of long term damage, again, provided if its done safely. no bleeding, no leaky poopy. sure theres risk, but its really not at all as bad as u suggest.yes... Someone who murders someone can give birth to someone too.
I find it highly unlikely that participants have managed to avoid harm from the act given the thin rectal tissue in the anus.
u keep saying inversion of nature and turning life giving act infertile or whatever. but, its simply not true. ive said it quite a few times already. people who have anal sex, oral sex, or simple masturbation, can also have vaginal sex, u realized that, right?
just because i wanked off once doesnt mean god has forbidden my penis from ever entering a vagina for the rest of time.yes... I don't see how inverting goodness is excused by later on participating in that goodness.
and people who use contraceptives can still want to have children, just not 50 children.False, what they want is to have sex with the procreative delibrately stripped from it.
also we are not having a human shortage.If you want less humans, there's an easy solution - don't have sex!
this argument u keep using is nonsense on so many levels. and yet another level is, not everyone thinks their life's purpose is the continuation of their bloodline.Absolutely. Nor do I. Have you heard of priests?
some people just dont want kids, and thats fine. it doesnt make them bad people. its a personal choice. and not everything we do have to be about making kids. we play video games, arguably it lessens our chances to procreate, and im sure u r fine with that. think of anal sex as just another form of entertainment.I'm fine with people not procreating, just don't invert the act of procreating.
its good to know that ur not trying to force this belief of urs upon people. i assume this means u will not vote for such legislations and vote against people who would try to pass such legislations. like what i said with smoking, im fine with u telling people of the dangers of anal sex, so long as u leave the choice to them in the end. but im also trying to change ur mind that anal sex isnt even bad to start with.I'm sure we could have a robust conversation about whether, on a physical level, anal sex harms someone. But let's just leave that to someone else. I know you don't like my "don't invert procreation" idea, and that you support sexual pleasure on demand because who does it hurt? But I stand opposed to that. This is coming from a guy who has watched a lot of pornography and mastrubated with great frequency. I think those do equal damage when compared to sodomy for both my own self psychology, for the culture at large, and to the honor of the human person. I assume we will have to agree to disagree on these?
"The deterrent from doing bad things in YOUR moral system is what? Social shame and guilt? The evildoers are quaking in their boots."
jails. fines. or just plain old retribution on a personal level.Jails and fines for things that your government agrees with you on morally. Quite often evil doers will be protected by those very jails and fines from your retribution.
"The ability of humans to follow right or wrong has no link to our ability to reason out what it is."
well if one understands right and wrong better, one can follow them better. low level moral understanding is, follow the rules, obey the authority. which is fine in a lot of day-to-day situations. but if one is capable of understanding the higher complexities of morality, one can make more correct decisions in more morally ambiguous situations. (see the theory on stages of moral development by kohlberg.)I'm looking at it from the other direction. I'm saying that if someone follows their morality well or not well, that doesn't have any effect on how well they understand morality. This was a response to Brent pointing out that the Catholic Church follows their morality poorly.
"Out there by your metric, you have the same amount of filth (or more), but in many cases, the filth has become the God."
its not that the filth has become our god. we simply dont believe its filth. (if by filth u mean things like sodomy.)Filth is maybe too strong of rhetoric for our purposes. As I say filth I mean what I think of as my own filth and that of the Catholic church. Those areas in which I have and continue to turn away from the logos of God.
"The difference between the Catholic Church is that at the core of it, there is a clear demonstration (Jesus Christ) of what is right and what is wrong. (The divine compass.)"
this is an old question. is it good because god wills it, or does god will it because it is good?
if u claim it is good because god wills it, then we secularists disagree with god on what is good. god can claim slavery is good and u must believe it as a christian. so, what u believe is good relies entirely upon the veracity of ur religion. whereas, we secularists' beliefs in the definition of good are at least based on worldly evidence. ur "clear demonstration", ur "divine compass", theyre not so clear or divine to the rest of us.
if u claim god wills it because it is good, then god must be following the same method we secularists are following when we try to find out what good is, when we try to define good. he may be better at it, being smarter and all. and so we must ask ur gods reasoning on why the things he deems (concluded to be) good, are good. and i have yet to see clear demonstration on anything from the bible.While a religion like the Mohammedans establishes that the will and judgment of their god is reality in whatever way the wind is blowing. In the Religion of Jesus Christ, God is the fulfillment of reason and rationality and all things including reason and rationality lead to him. But also that is like a sub pattern of the much larger (infinite) pattern that is God. It is not that God is "better at it, being smarter and all" rationality and reason are just subsets of his divine pattern. I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that the reasoning is there for almost everything you may have a question about. Check out Catholic.com and search for what you have questions about! Many things don't make sense because we lack the perspective or context of the time period - but even those contextual issues have been well researched and fleshed out. I don't think you will find much arbitrary or reasonless content at all. Prove me wrong?
Me:
God wants you to have the choice. You are saying God made you cold to the guy who is literally trying to invite you into the warm house at the same moment.
God doesn't "curse people to hell" it is people who curse God. I'm sorry, but no it doesn't work that you pick and choose things you like from Christianity because Christ makes the claim that he is God. You can appreciate some things he did and represented and not like or accept others, but if you call him a liar - all I can do is to tell you to check your premises. If you don't come to a different conclusion then you curse God and God allows it as you wish.
It seems like you want God to MAKE you understand that Christ is not a liar, but God dictating the will of your soul is not part of the beautiful logos that is humanity. God not dictating the will of our soul is really the essence of humanity. Please keep thinking it over.
Friend #2:
"yes... I don't see how inverting goodness is excused by later on participating in that goodness."whoa, hey, goodness != procreation, and badness != sodomy or other non-procreating sexual practices. this is begging the question.
people want to have sex, anal or otherwise, because its fun, it feels good. being burdened with child is bad for them if they dont want it at the time. so, being clever humans that we are, we find ways to have the good without the bad. u have yet to argue why this is a bad thing. u cant just say "have sex and not have child is bad". u have to explain WHY its bad. inverting nature? thats not an answer. u dont get to dictate what nature is. i say masturbation anal oral sexes are all natural, because, clearly, these things happen in nature, they exist, therefore, natural.
again, explain why sexual pleasure without procreation is bad. dont just proclaim its bad, EXPLAIN why its bad.
"This is coming from a guy who has watched a lot of pornography and mastrubated with great frequency. I think those do equal damage when compared to sodomy for both my own self psychology, for the culture at large, and to the honor of the human person. I assume we will have to agree to disagree on these?"this isnt an explanation. these are claims. u claim it damages our psychology and culture and honor, but this is nonsense.
time and again, these sexual acts, especially masturbation, has been shown to improve psychological wellbeing, as well as physical wellbeing. and the vast majority of people participate, and most of them are just fine.
damaging to our culture? which culture? we have so many. and many cultures have some very strange sexual cultures from our point of view. one of the odd ones i know is where young boys request to (yes, request TO) give blowjobs to other men, so they can ingest their sperms, because they believe it is the source of virility. this is normal to them. and theres the greeks, athenians, spartans, and i believe a certain period in japan, when sexual relations between a man and a younger man (idk how young) were commonplace, perhaps even encouraged.
honor? how can u even put forth this as an argument? honor is so subjective. what is honorable depends entirely on the society. it was once honorable to slaughter muslims. it was once DIShonorable for a woman to show her ankles.
these "damages" are only considered damaging to a society that considers them damaging. its a tautology. and so, if we as a society decides that its NOT culturally damaging or dishonorable to do these sexual acts, then these sexual acts become benign. in other words, its purely subjective.
im looking for objective arguments.
"Jails and fines for things that your government agrees with you on morally. Quite often evil doers will be protected by those very jails and fines from your retribution."no, i was simply pointing out that deterrents to bad behavior exist without the need for the divine. id be the first one to agree that our legal system is hugely flawed. but it is nevertheless, a deterrent, as it has always been.
"I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that the reasoning is there for almost everything you may have a question about."on, the reasoning most certainly isnt there. well, there are reasonings, poor ones, all have been refuted. ive heard it all. ive spent 15 years arguing these things.
"In the Religion of Jesus Christ, God is the fulfillment of reason and rationality and all things including reason and rationality lead to him. But also that is like a sub pattern of the much larger (infinite) pattern that is God. It is not that God is "better at it, being smarter and all" rationality and reason are just subsets of his divine pattern."this is just apologist rhetoric. it sounds like its saying something, but its not saying anything. use clear language.
"Many things don't make sense because we lack the perspective or context of the time period - but even those contextual issues have been well researched and fleshed out."they dont make sense because they dont make sense.
from ur website:
"There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 18:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4)."
explain to me how sodomy is in the same category as murder.
Friend #2:
I’m not calling Jesus or any God a liar. I’m saying I’m not convinced that the information I’m being given by humans about what he said is true. There are many versions, translations, and interpretations of the Bible. They can’t all be the true word of God. And I guess you are ok picking one and going with that. I’m not. I’m not denouncing anything, I’m just saying “from what I’ve seen, not convinced that this is from the one god of the universe”.
I’m open to it in the future, just haven’t come across it yet. Sorry? As has been said, most people are atheist about 99.9% about almost gods humans have come up with, they just tend to pick one or a few”.
I’m just saying I don’t know and haven’t been convinced yet.
