quote:


My train of logic as you describe it is not accurate. My train is more of: The Bible condemns sexual immorality, homosexuality is (Biblically a clear form of sexual immorality), like other heterosexual forms of illicit sex, homosexual immorality likewise spreads AIDS/HIV also. And not surprisingly, gays have a high ratio of HIV/AIDS infection.

OK, then. I'm not trying to denigrate you personally, but let me see if I can make this clear for you how illogical it is. You say:

1. Bible says homosexuality is immoral
2. homosexuality spreads disease
conclusion: homosexuality is immoral

Assume 1 and 2 are correct. Where is your link in the logic chain between "disease" and "immorality"? What you need to say is either:

1. Bible says homosexuality is immoral
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral

(in that event you are arguing from Biblical authority)

or

1. disease is immoral
2. homosexuals carry disease
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral.

(in which case you make an illogical argument: not all disease is immoral, and even AIDS is not immoral. Unless you say it is?)

Perhaps what you are trying to say is:

1. homosexual transmission of AIDS is immoral
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral.

But why is homosexual transmission of AIDS immoral? If you say, "Because it says so in the Bible" then you are arguing from authority again.

quote:


quote:
Originally posted by Dave:



2. Gay rights will lead to the downfall of civilisation - you let open the barn door, and all the cows will get out. This is a logical fallacy, too - the slippery slope.
You again label this as a logical fallacy (in your own subjective opinion) and yet do not clearly demonstrate any fallacy beyond the dismissive label.
Dealt with this, again, above. Its textbook illogic.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


3. Interpretation of the Bible is an industry in itself.
FALSE interpretation is, but logic dictates that if you're going to be a Christian, you want a clear, factual, verifiable base for your beliefs and teachings. That logical base is the Bible. As I detailed in a previous post, there is considerable historic/archaological evidence to verify the Bible has been accurately preserved for 2,000 years, more verifiable than any other ancient document.
It is therefore dismissive and illogical to dismiss the Bible as a verifiable foundation for Judao-Christan teaching and ideology.
Or to put it another way, to NOT go by what the Bible says, to reject any part of it, is to defy what is clearly the "God breathed" Word of God. And logically, anyone who professes to be a Christian and IGNORES those teachings (or in the case of gays, circumvents and manipulates those teachings) clearly and simply IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Rejecting or ignoring scripture is buffet religion, and ignorant of the clear teachings of Christianity. And logically, NOT truly representative of Christianity.
If you think that the Bible is ""God breathed" Word of God", then you place emphasis on the form, and not on the man-made history of the Bible. I cannot in good conscience accept the Bible as literal truth. Some of the reasons I have outlined above. It would be against all common sense.

quote:



quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

You oppose a liberal interpretation, which is just as valid as liberally interpreting the Bible so that it can co-exist with evolutionary theory. You exclude all other interpretations of the Bible save your own. This is a radical fundamentalist view.
Liberal interpretation is not equally valid. It is disingenuously manipulative toward ulterior motives, and ignores the clear direct meaning.
What is clear, and what is not? Do you accept that God did not make the world 4000 years ago within 7 days? Or do you say, "Its only an allegory: God is responsible for the creation of the universe, but its clear that the universe is actually billions of years old, so the Bible is not literally true?"

This is not disingensous: its a valuable reconciliation for some Christians.

Now, if you bend the rules on one principle, that of creationism having a place in Christianity, despite the clear and unequivocal words in Genesis, can you bend the rules on homosexuality?

quote:

My example in earlier posts, of the literal as well as symbolic meaning for "the Bride" in scripture, and the value of purity. Gay sex violates that proscribed purity, just as HETEROsexual immorality does.
As I've said repeatedly. I feel you're attempting to falsely imply that I hold a different standard for homosexuality, when in point of fact I've clearly and repeatedly said that both (hetero and homo) forms of extramarital sex are prohibited Biblically, and punishable by death.
OK, fair enough. The person who has extramarital sex and does not repent has no right to get married in a church, either, then?

quote:


Homosexuality (when prevalent) has the Biblical distinction of marking a society that has reached its ultimate slump into decadence, and that society's near destruction. And as quoted in scripture (particularly ROMAN 1, quoted above) that meaning is unmistakeable, except to a mind that chooses to ignore the clear meaning )
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

4. the fourth example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality suffers from the logical fallacy of the hasty generalisation. What about all of the gays who are devoted to their partners? Or the gays which are not bisexual? Or the open bisexuals who practice no deceit? You take one segment of the gay community and apply their practices against all segments.
"hasty generalization" is another emotional label that is wrapped in a fancy coat of allegedly impartial pseudo-science.
How disappointing: logical theory is a "pseudo-science". I fear I'm wasting my time. "Hasty generalisation" is part of the terminology of the science, Dave, not an "emotional label". I use this terminology in court to attack the arguments of my opponents. They use it to attack my arguments. Logical debate is accepted by judges, mathematical logicians and other scientists as being valid and rational. The terminology is the distilled essence of how someone argues a point.

If you dismiss logic, then we can't meaningfully debate this because we aren't speaking the same language: you are speaking from belief, which is not logical but intuitive.

quote:

But ultimately, it is again your interpretation and your opinion, based on your own liberal preconceptions, and utter rejection of the Bible as a reasonable source of law and moral standard.
Attacking me, not my argument. Oh well. Unless you can come back and logically refute what I'm saying, I think I'll just form the opinion that you believe what you say, but do not think its appropriate to back it up with logic.

There is, after all, no point to debate in the absence of logic.