Where have all the Christians gone?

So what is your objection to using biology as a basis for morals? Especially as you have no objective criteria to offer.
My objection is that lots of things in nature are morally wrong, as I pretty much just said.

Now can you answer my questions?
  • Do you consider sacrificing yourself for country is morally wrong?
  • Do you consider parasitism is morally right?
  • Or do you just say "Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals" as and when convenient, and drop just as readily?


No it doesnt.. you never explained why you think humans should engage in homosexual acts and eat their offspring because it happens in nature.
...
You are the one who wants to use nature as a guide to what is moral and what is not.
 
My objection is that lots of things in nature are morally wrong, as I pretty much just said.

Now can you answer my questions?
  • Do you consider sacrificing yourself for country is morally wrong?
  • Do you consider parasitism is morally right?
  • Or do you just say "Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals" as and when convenient, and drop just as readily?



You are the one who wants to use nature as a guide to what is moral and what is not.
Ugh? I am asking you guys that.
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy
.NOTHING you can say will change that.
 
You guys cant accept reality. You engage in analogies that are too general to work and you will not put up with evidence
 
No it doesnt.. you never explained why you think humans should engage in homosexual acts and eat their offspring because it happens in nature.
This seems a confused request. I don't think humans should eat their offspring just because it happens in nature, because it's not a part of human nature, whereas homosexuality happens in nature and is a part of human nature.
The existence of two sexes for it is the same everywhere in nature.
So? Single sex activity happens naturally in nature.
There are two sexes for it, not one and nothing you argue can change that
So? Homosexuality is a part of nature and nothing you argue can change that.
 
Last edited:
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy
.NOTHING you can say will change that.
Right, nature has produced that. Nature has also produced creatures with a preference for homosexuality, and nothing you can say will change that.
 
Right, nature has produced that. Nature [Satan, the enemy] has produced creatures with a preference for homosexuality, and nothing you can say will change that.

And so you justify every murderer also, and every criminal who acts on natural impulses.

Parable of the Tares in the Wheat

Mat 13:24 "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 "But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 "So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?"
Mat 13:28 "He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?"
Mat 13:29 "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. "
Mat 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
 
So what is your objection to using biology as a basis for morals? Especially as you have no objective criteria to offer.
There is a difference between what is necessary for biological life and what is the supreme good. Biology dictates that we must eat to live but does eating make us good? What if one eats too much to the point of gluttony? In your position, you say, biology dictates that Animals reproduce through sex but does that make them good? Are two dogs mating in the front yard morally good for following their biology? No. Good is more than biology. If it were mere biology then God would be doing it himself.

Seneca argues that the supreme good comes from soul processes which humans are uniquely created to do. We apply reason, wisdom, or moral consciousness to biology, to nature in order to produce good in others and in ourself.

“This being so, you should consider whether one has a right to call anything good in which God is outdone by man. Let us limit the Supreme Good to the soul; it loses its meaning if it is taken from the best part of us and applied to the worst, that is, if it is transferred to the senses; for the senses are more active in dumb beasts.​

The sum total of our happiness must not be placed in the flesh; the true goods are those which reason bestows, substantial and eternal; they cannot fall away, neither can they grow less or be diminished. 17. Other things are goods according to opinion, and though they are called by the same name as the true goods, the essence of goodness is not in them. Let us therefore call them "advantages," and, to use our technical term, "preferred" things. Let us, however, recognize that they are our chattels, not parts of ourselves; and let us have them in our possession, but take heed to remember that they are outside ourselves [in our flesh]. (Seneca, moral letter #74)​
 
Ugh? I am asking you guys that.
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy
.NOTHING you can say will change that.
So have you now abandoned your argument in respect of nature? I ask because earlier you said:
Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals.
I mean, I really hope you have, as nature is a very poor basis for morals, but it seems a quick U turn on your part.
 
And so you justify every murderer also, and every criminal who acts on natural impulses.
No. Whether something occurs in nature or not is not a moral question. People acting on impulses that they know will cause harm is.
 
So what is your objection to using biology as a basis for morals?
Because it leads to other absurd conclusions such as

"vasectomies and tubal ligations are immoral because the reproductive organs were designed to reproduce and you are subverting their natural function".
 
lol. I don't do bait, either.
Doesn't sound like you do much but bemoan how christians don't apologize as good as you though, so I'll just sit back and learn from your inactivity.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
 
Last edited:
No. Whether something occurs in nature or not is not a moral question. People acting on impulses that they know will cause harm is.
Well, since you know that the practise of homosexuality perverts the moral character (if not the body and mind also) of all who engage in it, how can you justfy it?

For instance, just supposing that there is a creator God (eminently reasonable per Paul in Roms 1). Do you really think that homosexual activity is going to favorably dispose God towards oneself and one's partner?
 
Well, since you know that theh practise of homosexuality perverts the moral character of all who engage in it, how can you justfy it?
You assume too much. I don't know that.

Too easily assuming what someone thinks or knows isn't a strong indicator of reasonableness.
For instance, just supposing that there is a creator God (eminently reasonable per Paul in Roms 1). Do you really think that homosexual activity is going to favorably dispose God towards oneself and one's partner?
I really don't see why an omnipotent, omniscient God of love would be that bothered.
 
My objection is that lots of things in nature are morally wrong, as I pretty much just said.

Now can you answer my questions?
  • Do you consider sacrificing yourself for country is morally wrong?
  • Do you consider parasitism is morally right?
  • Or do you just say "Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals" as and when convenient, and drop just as readily?



You are the one who wants to use nature as a guide to what is moral and what is not.
So if lots of things in nature are wrong, some things in nature are right? I am not the on using nature as a guide, whatsisface was. I am using the biology of humans.
 
So have you now abandoned your argument in respect of nature? I ask because earlier you said:

I mean, I really hope you have, as nature is a very poor basis for morals, but it seems a quick U turn on your part.
My point is that there are two sexes for it, not one. I am saying that is the reality the moral can be based on.
 
Back
Top