…Continued

<<There appears to be an anomaly between the census report and the increasing numbers of evangelical Christians, don't you think.>>

No, I’d say that the more traditional churches are simply losing more members than the evangelical Churches (e.g. Hillsong) are gaining.

<<… the declining state of the traditional Liberal church, as a direct consequence of accepting defeat in the face of a relentless attack by the gay rights lobby …>>

There’s likely to be a several causes (I listed one above). But, yes, as I mentioned earlier, the Christian Church drags its feet on progress until not doing so would mean the end of it.

Bigotry should always be “attacked”. So, good on them there.

<<… through its propaganda wing … specifically aimed at destabilising societal moral norms, using as its main armoury, the acceptance as equals of homosexuals, demanding equality and acceptance of their sexual fetishes.>>

Firstly, you have not yet demonstrated that there has been any “propaganda” (i.e. misleading information). Secondly, you have not yet demonstrated that anyone has wanted to “destabilise” anything. Thirdly, you have not explained how demanding equality is a bad thing. Finally, you have not yet demonstrated that anyone wants anyone else to accept their sexual fetishes.

<<A Christian church which supports immorality, will fail.>>

You have not yet explained how homosexuality is immoral.

Now THIS is at the heart of what I want to get to, but you keep ducking and weaving my requests that you substantiate your assumptions.

<<… homosexuality and its evil influence …>>

How is homosexuality’s influence “evil”?

You are yet to explain how homosexuality is evil, immoral, or deserving of contempt, and I’m not going anywhere until you do.

AJP



It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.

The homosexual bible was published in 1989, "after the ball". Suggest you read it. You have fallen for the new morality, or more accurately, the end of traditional Christian morality.

The greatest achievement of this war on society, has been the capture and trashing of the Christian church, with the jewel in the crown, the reputational trashing of the Catholic Church (in particular), with homosexual suicide bombers, behaving with traditional homosexual queerness.

A vote for acceptance of gay marriage, is a vote for the death of traditional Christian morality;
the second jewel in the homosexuals crown for the death of the Christian church and the highlight of the end of the war on morality.

Christians have lost this war: The next war for homosexuals is the war on Muslims, this war is underway!

So, you’re just going to resort to ad hominem now, diver dan?

<<It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.>>

How have I been brainwashed? Unsurprisingly, you don’t into detail there. But, yes, arguing any anti-gay point with anyone would be difficult when you don't back your assertions with any evidence or reasoning.

<<The homosexual bible was published in 1989, "after the ball". Suggest you read it.>>

Now you are resorting to emotive language. How about you give me a rundown of this book first?

<<You have fallen for the new morality, or more accurately, the end of traditional Christian morality.>>

Well, I can certainly tell you how immoral Christian morality can be. But what is this “new morality” exactly, and how is it bad?

<<The greatest achievement of this war on society, has been the capture and trashing of the Christian church, with the jewel in the crown, the reputational trashing of the Catholic Church (in particular), with homosexual suicide bombers, behaving with traditional homosexual queerness.>>

More emotive language with not a shred of substance.

<<A vote for acceptance of gay marriage, is a vote for the death of traditional Christian morality;>>

Well, one aspect of it at least. But Christian morality as a whole has proven, over the centuries, to be quite malleable.

<<the second jewel in the homosexuals crown for the death of the Christian church and the highlight of the end of the war on morality.>>

You have not yet explained how homosexuality is in any way immoral. Let alone this idea that gay people have had malicious intent.

<<Christians have lost this war: The next war for homosexuals is the war on Muslims, this war is underway!>>

Ah, yes. Wonderful stuff, isn’t it? It’s known as the ‘shifting moral zeitgeist’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwz6B8BFkb4

So, you’re just going to resort to ad hominem now, diver dan?

<<It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.>>

Here you go again AJP, criticising the structure of debate by designing a ruse to avoid the honesty and "truth" of a critical key point.

The critical point is, opinion on this subject is governed by which side of the argument you stand.
Viz, you could accuse me of the same crime of brainwashed, by belief in Christianity and its abiding morality.

Morality V ethics! I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist. As electrons, they repel. You and I can bang away without resolution indefinitely, would there be a point?

To a Christian, it is a moral argument. To an Agnostic, its ethics !
Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.

I apologise AJP. I'm having difficulty with time constraints. I acknowledge your other points, which I would like to address.

Research the recommended book, it will open your eyes to my view

Again, diver dan? When did I do it before?

<<Here you go again AJP, criticising the structure of debate by designing a ruse to avoid the honesty and "truth" of a critical key point.>>

And how exactly have I done this? Again, we’re mighty short on detail.

All I have done is criticise your actions, because they suggest a level of dishonesty. But at no point have I avoided anything. In fact, I have gone out of my way to address every one of your points. You are the one who is being evasive by dodging my requests that you support the basis of your claims (i.e. that homosexuality is immoral).

<<The critical point is, opinion on this subject is governed by which side of the argument you stand.>>

No, I would say the “critical point” is whether one can support their position. Not everyone is hopelessly trapped by their biases.

<<Viz, you could accuse me of the same crime of brainwashed, by belief in Christianity and its abiding morality.>>

I could, but so far, I have given you more credit than that by treating you with the assumption that you have a rational reason as to why homosexuality is evil, immoral, and deserving of contempt. I would ask that you do the same for me.

<<Morality V ethics! I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist.>>

Not necessarily. I am concerned with what is moral, too. Which is why I’m asking you to justify your claims. Instead, all I’m getting is this tap dance.

<<As electrons, they repel.>>

No, on the contrary, there is often massive overlap.

<<You and I can bang away without resolution indefinitely, would there be a point?>>

The point would be that you will have either attempted to justify the reasoning behind your contempt for homosexuality, or you will have demonstrated that you will go to all sorts of lengths to avoid doing so.

<<Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.>>

Not necessarily. My favourite lectures on morality are done by atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjbdWGre370

Morality is not necessarily an assumed presupposition.

I thought I could remember you once stating that you were a Christian, diver dan:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4748#125361

And only a fundamentalist Christian could say something this loopy:

“… [antibiotic resistance] is actually Gods vengeance on overpopulation and moral degradation of society. It's not going to end well!” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19123#340291)

I thought to check because you have finally (indirectly) categorised yourself as a Christian in your last post when you said:

“I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist … Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340576)

Interestingly, I’ve noticed that Christians invoke their god less and less nowadays; opting instead to attempt to provide rational reasons for their position, even duck and weave as you are now doing, before ever appealing to their god or the Bible. I suppose that's a good thing, given that it suggests that more and more of you are realising that pointing to the Bible is not evidence of anything, as frustrating as it has been watch you tap dance this whole time.

Let’s cut to the chase, though. You believe that homosexuality is evil, immoral, and deserving of contempt, because your god says so. But there are two problems with this:

The first is that until you can demonstrate the existence of your god, this is not a rational reason to believe that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. The second is the theological problem that I noted earlier by citing Isaiah 44:24 and Isaiah 45:7.

Apparently understanding this, you now attempt to brush opinion on the matter off as some unresolvable presuppositional difference, determined only by one's worldview, when that is simply not the case. Homosexuality is either immoral, or it is not immoral. And until you can demonstrate that it is immoral, the default position of 'not immoral' remains the most rreasonable position to hold.