[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

So I am Zeitgeistian because I used Freke and gandy as a source? Nice logics. And your argument is flawed, trying to argue otherwise is only digging a deeper hole then you are in and I honestly did not think even you would be so dumb to say abortion and incest is harmless.

Philokalia

Hey, Im thinking of calling people who use Jack Chick like Logic Jchikians, that might be appropiate. And saying my argument is flawed, is not hte same as demonstrating it.

Buddy I dont have to prove your argument is flawed, that is apparent. The fact you are trying to tell me incest and abortion is harmless I know you can't be a very good christian.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

Im sorry your argument sucked ass. But to use abortion as a example of something harmless isn't very christian of you. And the Zeitgeistian? Wtf. Im a agnostic athiest who used one Zeitgeistian argument against you in a thread completley unrelated to this. If you wish to furthur deflect go ahead, you are only proving how dumb you are.

Philokalia

Your a Zeitgeistian who follows those whom are so far out of line with the intellectual commmunity I can only but say you are zeitgeistian from your terrible defense of the ideas that movie promoted and stole from people like TImothy Freke and Gandy and Archya S. Saying my argument sucked is not the same as demonstrating it as flawed and fundamentally wrong.

So I am Zeitgeistian because I used Freke and gandy as a source? Nice logics. And your argument is flawed, trying to argue otherwise is only digging a deeper hole then you are in and I honestly did not think even you would be so dumb to say abortion and incest is harmless. If I had used a jewish or buddist argument against christianity would I of then been a jew or a buddist. Your type of mentality is mind numbing to argue with.

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]Convenient that ain't it?foxhound_fox

:lol:

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

Apparently it is you who doesn't understand where I am coming from. I know you don't support it and I know you don't support incest. But you were trying to say morals aren't always dictated by harm. Then you proceeded to give two examples that harmed animals and people and then a third harmful example. If you want to be a f*cking moron fine but dont accuse me of being the intellectually dishonest one you jimmie rustling c*nt

Philokalia

I am trying to demonstrate that by their standards they must neccesarily support incest and beastiality which has not been demonstrated to be flawed. but whose the moron here? the Zeitgeistian or the one demanding consistency? But indeed you were intellectually dishonest when you asserted I supported Abortion as if I were not being Christian Enough.

Im sorry your argument sucked ass. But to use abortion as a example of something harmless isn't very christian of you. And the Zeitgeistian? Wtf. Im a agnostic athiest who used one Zeitgeistian argument against you in a thread completley unrelated to this. If you wish to furthur deflect go ahead, you are only proving how dumb you are.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

What you are doing is called deflecting. You are insulting me for your own piss poor argument. I understand what you were saying but you used piss poor examples. Incest is not harmless and last I checked most christians didn't think abortion was harmless either.

Philokalia

Its not a poor argument to show that the opponents arguments fail in the consideration of their own viewpoints and thus inevitably contradict itself.

And are you really that intellectually dishonest to think I support abortion? Really?

Apparently it is you who doesn't understand where I am coming from. I know you don't support it and I know you don't support incest. But you were trying to say morals aren't always dictated by harm. Then you proceeded to give two examples that harmed animals and people and then a third harmful example. If you want to be a f*cking moron fine but dont accuse me of being the intellectually dishonest one you jimmie rustling c*nt

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

And I am saying that those two examples were two of the worst and you have no right debating much of anything using them. I understand the point you are trying to make but you do so poorly. I find it even more funny the fact that you would say incest is not harmful and then backpeddle while using abortion towards your point. (which seems very un-Christian of you.) Again a poor example to back up your first poor example.

Philokalia

You don't seem to have a grasp of the arugment I am making. I was assuming a naturalist stance using the criteria of the person who would argue Homosexuality is not immoral because it does not involve harm. No doubt that same person would also accept abortion as many naturalists do. Was I back peddling or simply stating what "i" believed all the time throughout the conversation? And from the very begining was showing how bad that argument is which you didn't seem to grasp.

What you are doing is called deflecting. You are insulting me for your own piss poor argument. I understand what you were saying but you used piss poor examples. Incest is not harmless and last I checked most christians didn't think abortion was harmless either.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

So I take it you aren't pro life. Lets be honest those were two terrible examples. I really hope you don't try to argue for bestiality too.

Philokalia

Shouldn't it be obvious that I am not seriously arguing for these positions only trying to demonstrate that harm is not the indicator of morality. If Say a horse and a woman both enjoy having sex and there is no harm to it, it is justified morally by the criteria that there should be no harm. I am saying that examples like these which clearly go against all of our moral intuitions demonstrate my point.

And I am saying that those two examples were two of the worst and you have no right debating much of anything using them. I understand the point you are trying to make but you do so poorly. I find it even more funny the fact that you would say incest is not harmful and then backpeddle while using abortion towards your point. (which seems very un-Christian of you.) Again a poor example to back up your first poor example.

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

Terrible examples. Incest causes no harm huh?

Optical_Order

If they don't have children, perhaps we can justify it by saying they must get abortions, use contraception and the like.

LOL

you can do your whole incest bit, but you gotta abort those babies.

No problem with that...

:lol: Can already see someone doing this in stand up comedy.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

Terrible examples. Incest causes no harm huh?

Philokalia

If they don't have children, perhaps we can justify it by saying they must get abortions, use contraception and the like.

So I take it you aren't pro life. Lets be honest those were two terrible examples. I really hope you don't try to argue for bestiality too.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Because there is absolutely no harm caused by homosexuality.

Philokalia

So is harm to be hte determining factor in anything moral? Would you consider Incest, Beastiality and the like immoral? That because there is no harm doesn't seem an adeqaute reason to state fully the all knowing cannot have a good reason against Homosexuality.

Terrible examples. Incest causes no harm huh?