@
Lysergic
This will likely be the last substantive response I make to your posts. I expand on this later below, but you don't seem interested in debate; you seem only interested in evangelizing. If you're going to repeat yourself ad nauseam, discourse cannot ensue.
I have another enormous post for you. I'm sure you don't mind.
With that:
[collapse=ON ONE LAST HURRAH]
My preface was more of a precautionary advisement. If we were to end up exploring the breadth and depth of the Bible's contents, then we'd risk straying further and further from the purposes of this particular thread (and also risk getting lost in details, going down and down the rabbit hole). It's about organization and clarity, you see.
As for your username quotation, that was indeed a sly dig, for LSD is a psychadelic drug. If it caused you offense, I retract it all.
Though I must nonetheless ask. Where does your username come from, if not from LSD? The root of the word "lysergic" is literally chemical (hydro
lysis,
ergoline).
I wrote as much as I did to analyze your responses. It's like working through a math problem. You first take an account of the variables at hand, determine what formulas and equations are relevant, and work sequentially from there, step by step.
In PEMDAS, you follow the order of operations. In debate, you follow the order of the premises. If, in a math problem, you run through the numbers and something doesn't add up, then you retrace your course to see where the error lies. If, in examining an argument, you run through the premises and something doesn't add up, then you retrace your course to see where the fallacy lies.
It's all there is to it.
Here's a question. Is questioning the Bible, God, the Church, or anything pertaining to such an act of blasphemy? Do I blaspheme against God by my inquiry? If I ask things like "how come things are this way", "how do you know X", "X seems problematic", etc. etc., then am I transgressing upon God, committing sin and condemning myself all the further?
If your answer is
yes, then I affirm that I blaspheme with no regrets. I value inquiry and investigation over accepting ideas without due consideration. I only know what I know. I'd rather know that which is true and concordant with experience and reality. I'd rather not be misled. Because of this, I cannot in good conscience do anything but not simply accept claims at face-value. If you come up to me and say "The Bible is true because I say the Bible is true", then I cannot with any honesty take that at face-value. What if you're lying? What if you believe what you say is true? What if the Bible is partially true, or not true in any way? This is why investigation and inquiry are necessary.
If you wish to dismiss the entirety of what I wrote as "elaborate subjective blasphemy", and not to engage with my response in any way, then we can't really have a conversation, can we? If this is your wish, then I suppose we'll soon be parting ways.
Because again, if you're only here to say "I'm telling you the Bible is true, so you should believe me," then it's clear you aren't interested in the exchange, contrast, and comparison of new ideas for the betterment of all parties.
-So God views cross-dressers with [extreme disgust and hatred]? How random, and absurd. Does God shake his fist whenever someone goes off-script on this stage that God has made?
Your description of God makes him seem like an emotionally manipulative person. If you don't do exactly as he tells you, you'll suffer for it (not with a black eye, but with unending agony). We recognize such qualities as reprehensible in fellow humans. We don't let the positive traits and behaviours of people excuse the negative traits and behaviours. Why would we make an exception for God? Because God is God? Because God created us?
My parents conceived me, and I would not be alive were it not for them. But does that I mean I must obey their every command, that I must excuse whatever negative traits they may exhibit? What do I owe my parents for having conceived me? What do I owe God for having created me (whether directly or indirectly)? It's all very depressing to think about.
-I have a purpose? What purpose is this? To live, and then to die? To remove sin from myself that I might enter the presence of God forever and ever? What purpose does living, then dying achieve? What purpose does entering heaven achieve? Entering hell? For there to be a purpose, there must be a goal. Yet there doesn't seem to be any, beyond the tautological.
-What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve? Is the Eden narrative 100% accurate? Which is to say, the Book of Genesis is a literal account of history? If so, how do you reconcile Adam and Eve being the first humans with evolutionary theory, genetics, and other facts of biology, which seems to make that literal account impossible? The problem of inbreeding alone makes a literal account impossible in our reality.
If not, is the Eden narrative metaphorical? Using images of gardens and fruits and serpents as symbols for what once led the human species astray? If so, how do we interpret these symbols? What's the right interpretation? The fact that there exist a huge number of Christian denominations shows that people can't agree on the details, whether they be large or small.
-So cross-dressing is a sin of envy and lust? If I wanted to present myself as female, then would it be that I am in envy of the female sex? Or that I lust for women so much that I want to become one myself?
What if I wanted to wear make-up, because I think I look nice on me? What if I wanted to wear a floral dress on a sunny day, because the dress was light and cool and thus befitting the weather? What if I wanted to wear red heels because I like the colour red? Does any of this bespeak envy or lust of females? Why are females the ones who get to use these things? Why are men the ones who get to use the things they use (e.g. cologne, trousers, tuxes, etc.)? How did God decide which sex/gender gets which articles of clothing?
-God made me a male, so I must act like a male. How does that logically follow? It's like the parent thing I noted earlier. God created me, either indirectly by the creation of the universe, or directly by sending my soul to this body.
So? Am I beholden to God's whims purely due to being God's creation?
A) God created me;
B) ???
C) Therefore, I must obey God.
There is a gap in your logic, Lysergic. If your premises don't follow from one another, your argument is invalid. If you cannot show what B) might be, then under the rules of debate, I have zero reason to accept your argument.
So, in the absence of evil and sin and vice, there would exist no transexual persons? Everyone born male would want to be a man, every born female would want to be a woman? 'Kay then.
I'm wary of dismissing experience out of hand. Experience is
incorrigible, which means that you can't deny that experience has happened.
For example, your faith in the Christian God is incorrigible. If you say that you have the experience of God, then I believe that you had an experience, which you call God.
Yet while experience is incorrigible, it doesn't mean it's true. Because it's certainly possible to misinterpret one's experiences. The human mind is fallible, prey to numerous biases and errors. You certainly had some kind of experience, but is it really from God? Or have you simply plastered "God" onto whatever you were feeling and experiencing?
Likewise, if a transexual person says that identity with another sex/gender, then I believe that they are having an experience, which they describe as being transexuality. Are they misinterpreting their experiences? Possibly.
You say they are misinterpreting their experience, because they are being influenced, if not outright misled, by demonic forces. Is this the only explanation? Is it the best?
Can physiology and neurology and psychology fully account for transexuality? Is it a combination of both those and demonic forces? How can we tell?
I can say that since we do know physiology and neurology and psychology exist -- as function of bodies and brains existing -- that chances are such things have far more explanatory power. We can't infer the presence of demonic influence to as much a detailed and comprehensive degree. So I'm placing my bets on transexuality being caused by brain wiring, genetics, biochemistry, and related factors, over subliminal demonic messaging.
Let us grant that, yes, indeed, there is a Moral Order. To adhere to that Order is Right; to act in opposition of that Order is Wrong.
My question is "why does the Order take the form that it does"? That's what I was musing about, earlier. I am interested in why things are the way things are. We can do as much for the world we live in. Why is my body the way it is? Chemistry, biology, evolutionary process can account for that. Why is the Earth here? Astrophysics and cosmology can account for that.
Why is X a sin? Well.. because God doesn't like it. Any reason God doesn't like X? Well... he just doesn't, okay!
For things about our world, we can point to the way things are connected, why one thing leads to another (or stems
from another). And if we don't know, it is possible to investigate to ascertain insight and context.
With the picture of Christianity you describe, none of that is possible. Things are the way they are either because the Bible says so, or God says so (or both). And that's the end of that. And I can't verify any of these claims unless I die or kill myself (or have some kind of special revelation, which I have not yet experienced). But dying is not something I can reverse, so it's too big a gamble for me.
So what I'm left with is a story that sounds absurd in multiple respects, which I cannot verify either in my own investigation or in the investigation by trustworthy sources, which people tell me I should believe to be true despite this, and which I can only truly verify after I die, which is not something I currently know how to reverse.
How unfortunate. How baffling. How boring.
If the truth is unattainable, I find myself much less interested in pursuing it.
As we come to the end of this discussion, we come back to the basics. Why should I believe you, or take your word for things?
"My name is Lysergic, and I, Lysergic, say that God is the Truth. You should believe me because I'm telling you to believe me. The Bible is true because I'm telling you that the Bible is true, and so you can clearly see that everything in the Bible must therefore then be consequently true."
This is what you sound to me, when I read your responses. You are in the Debate Hall. You are supposed to present a case. Here is my position, here are its arguments, here are the reasoning and evidence to support my assertions. Yet the only things you bring to the table are these kinds of assertions:
"The Bible said so, so it's true."
"God (or Jesus) said so, so it's true."
"I say so, so it's true."
But how? What are the A-B-C premises that inform these conclusions? And why should I believe any of this?
You want to "save" me, you say? You can start by actually addressing the things that I say, and showing why my reasoning is flawed. Because if you do show that my reasoning is flawed, then I would be inclined to consider reasonable alternatives and amendments to my worldview (as any rational, sensible person would).
You again use the word "confused".
To say that I am confused is to say that there is a
true state of affairs, and that, for whatever reason(s), I cannot perceive that true state of affairs, or have been lead away from it. The truth is there; I simply cannot see it, or are blind to it.
Or perhaps I am not confused. How am I to tell? You say that I am confused. How have you inferred this? Can you read into my thoughts, my experiences, my emotions? Do you have such powers? How do you know that "I think that I am smart"? If you can infer my states of mind, can you gauge how smart I actually am?
I am precisely as smart as I happen to be. That's all there is to it. Don't let my fancy words and long posts lead you into thinking that I am smart (or that I think that I am smart). Writing well is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, because for all my verbiage, it might well all be lacking substance.
...By the way, I'm not a transexual, nor a tranvestite. I am male, but have no plans to start putting on dresses and skirts and heels anytime soon. I was not expressing such desires; rather, I was using myself for the sake of example (e.g. "If I were to do X, would it mean Y?").
It seems you misinterpreted what I was saying, there. I thought my writing was pretty obvious and straightforward.
But whatever. If I am in danger of damnation, it is
clearly not because of what I decide to wear on Friday nights.
[/collapse]
Our conversation is drawing to a close. You have displayed little to no interest in commenting on, nor addressing points I raise. And you say the Bible is true, but provide nothing to give anyone justification to believe you, beyond saying things like "the Bible is true", or saying that "the Bible is factual" without demonstrating how that is the case. This is not a debate; it is prosetylization.
Of course, I expected as much, given your initial posts. Yet I attempted to debate in good faith with you, as that's a courtesy I'd extend to anyone out of principle. But you don't seem to want to debate in good faith, either; you don't seem to want to debate at all. Which is fine. But it means your time will be better spent outside the Debate Hall.
I am interested in inquiry and investigation and accuracy. When I inquire, and when I investigate, the Judeo-Christian package fails to meet the standard that
any truth should meet. I would ask you if maybe I'm doing this whole inquiry thing wrong, but you hardly seem an authority on inquiry and investigation, given your posts.
To conclude, let me state for the record, and for your reference, what I actually think about cross-dressing:
[collapse=ON CROSS-DRESSING, FOR REAL]
Cross-dressing, gender-bending, transexuality, and related things have neither positive nor negative moral value. Only actions have moral value. Deeds, words, behaviours. If these things are never expressed in the actual world, then for all intents and purposes, they exist in a vacuum as unexpressed potentialities, and so cannot possess any moral quantity or quality.
Clothing can't have more value. It can only have moral value
as a function of the way it is used by persons. Same for make-up. Same for shoes. Same for accessories. The only way such things can possibly have negative moral value is if they are used for unrighteous purposes (e.g. strangling someone with my shirt).
This is also why skin colour, eye colour, ethnicity, sex, hair style, body type, and other superficial traits have neither positive or negative value. Does having green eyes make someone a good person? A bad person? Does wearing a skirt make someone a good person? A bad person?
If thoughts and impulses and desires are never expressed as actions, then they cannot create consequences. You can never know what a person is thinking or desiring until and unless they act upon it. Otherwise, no harm nor benefit is incurred on anyone. Therefore, the locus of morality is not on what kind of person you should be (virtue ethics), nor what external duties you are supposed to uphold (deontology), but the consequences of actions (consequentialism).
And under a consequentialist ethic, which I hold to, cross-dressing has neutral moral value. It is therefore neither good or bad to do. Whether a person does or does not cross-dress neither entails any negative moral consequence.
What
is wrong to do is to limit the autonomy of other people. If a person wants to dress a certain way, and I restrict their choice against their desire and will, I am violating their autonomy. So while cross-dressing in itself has neutral moral value, to ban or disavow cross-dressing for those who do wish to engage in cross-dressing does constitute a moral wrong. And this is why cross-dressing is not only permissible, but
should be permitted, legally and culturally.
Cross-dressing, transexuality, gender expression, public nudity, sexual orientation (homo, bi, pan, non, etc.), polyamory (and non-traditional families and/or relationships generally)... this consequentalist ethic permits a wide number of things. And it can all be justified through logic, reasoning, and evidence.
This is what I hold to be the most rational and reasonable state of affairs -- a conclusion reached through inquiry and investigation (and reasoning).
[/collapse]
Well, this seems to be the end. I imagine you will probably read this post and:
-Try to address my questions by citing Biblical knowledge;
-Tell me I am confused/deluded/influenced by Satan, and should seek Christ to free myself from these shackles;
-Say that I am engaging in sophistry because I gain delight in sinning and in opposing God;
-Conclude with a block of text warning me to save myself before it is too late, and that you are rooting for me to find my way to Christ.
I say that I expect this because these are the only things you bring to the table, which in debate is insufficient. Consequently, I am not interested in the latter three -- since they are not relevant to debate -- and I may respond for your response to my queries, but not much beyond that. If you decide you want to engage in debate by addressing my points and pointing out their flaws through use of logic and reasoning (and Biblical authority -- once you demonstrate that authority is worth anything), then we can get a real discussion going. Otherwise, this will mark the conclusion of our discourse.
Have a good day, then -- and this, because it's nice when people have good days. 8)
