I looked more at the epistle.us site, and of the arguments I can understand (not being a Greek or Hebrew scholar), all arguments stating that homosexuality was not a sin, and even some of the other arguments, contained obvious fallacies.
The most common fallacy I saw was the
false dilemma. In this context, it was pretty much assumed that either you accepted homosexuality as morally acceptable or you were a homophobic. Then, a falsehood of homophobia was proven. Then, it follows from the false premise that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This logic is obviously fallacious, for there is a third view: homosexuality is like all other sins.
You address this in your own story, but in a fallacious way:
Shirtless's Story wrote:I’ve talked to many Christians who say that they don’t hate gays themselves, they simply hate gay acts. Based on first-hand experience, I can assure you that this is simply not true. The core nature of homophobia is that gays are not committing sins, they are sin.
Here, you are making a
sweeping generalization. You assume that because you have met some homophobic Christians, all Christians who reject homosexuality must be homophobic. You are using the same logic people use when they reject Christianity just because the Christians they have met are hypocrites.
Then in your story, you mention an injustice done towards a gay person. I agree that the actions you described were very sinful and unjust. Nonetheless, it is simply a non sequitur to say that homosexuality isn't a sin. What if they killed him because he told a big lie? Would that mean that lying is OK?
Then I found another article that was just loaded with fallacies. Read it
here. I will take each item one by one:
1.) From my perspective, they're preaching to the choir. I have no problem with anything they say here.
2.) I can't recall any passages where Jesus condemns theft, either. I guess I should go steal some stuff... Plus there's the claim that we should not judge. They misunderstand the meaning of "judge", according to what I've read elsewhere. To "judge" is to claim that you are better than someone else because of their sin. I'm not judging if I say, "Homosexuality is wrong. Nonetheless, the fact that you struggle with homosexuality and I don't doesn't mean I'm any better than you." Strangely enough, it's usually atheists who reference the "do not judge" verse. This is also a
red herring, because it starts talking about "fundamentalists" and Pharisees instead of Jesus.
3.) Almost preaching to the choir again. Until the part about, "unless they change their ways." That part is true but very misleading. See Romans 6:1-2 for why they
should change their ways. Nonetheless, they don't have to change their ways in order to obtain salvation. Plus, one must question how "Christian" they are while they question whether hell exists.
4.) There is nothing of substance in the attempted refutation. So what if he created "Steve" later? And the fact that he loves them doesn't mean he loves their sin.
5.) The refutation is a
red herring - They just point out that not God but a particular group of humans who hate homosexuality also generally hate homosexuals. It's also a
sweeping generalization.
6.) They simply make an unsupported assertion. They are also guilty of
equivocation, replacing "natural" as in occuring in God's intended plan with "natural" as in what feels right to their fallen human nature.
7.) They seem to be referring only to attractions, in which case they might be right. Nonetheless, they do not support the conclusion at all. It is a non sequitur to claim that heterosexuals would have to have learned their behavior. It is possible that heterosexuality comes naturally and that changing this requires "learning".
8.) Gay behavior
can be changed, regardless of whether this is true for attractions. It is also true that straight people cannot change their attractions towards those who aren't their spouses, does this justify adultry? And their conclusion that the only reason they haven't changed is because there is nothing wrong with them is unfounded. We don't conclude that there is nothing wrong with cancer patients who die despite being prayed for.
9.) True, a Christian shouldn't deny homosexuals of the proper kind of love. However, no one needs sexual love to be happy. Jesus never married; neither did Paul. See 1 Corinthians 7:8 and Matthew 19:10-12 for a biblical case for celibacy. Homosexuals can and should have brotherly love, though. It is an absolute lie that people must be married or face an isolated life.
Equivocation, again, regarding the word "love".
10.) Using this argument against me would be a
straw man argument, because I would not make this claim.
11.) They might potentially be right that this is a myth, but their explanation is like one big fallacy. It's a
red herring, because it talks about how straight people behave rather than gay people. And I haven't seen any evidence for the last paragraph (not that there won't be any). Also, I believe that the type of people described are living an inconsistent life even if they don't realize it.
12.)
Straw man. I don't make this claim.
13.) Ditto.
14.)
Equivocation. They first prove, with success, that people don't choose to have homosexual attractions. Then they change the definition of "homosexual" to refer to a practicing homosexual, resulting in a conclusion they haven't established. And if you follow their "judging" arguments to the logical conclusion, we should all just go get drunk and lie and steal and commit adultry etc. etc. But they are right that Jesus did come to save the world and that salvation is available for homosexuals.
In your article you said,
Shirtless's Story wrote:When you are dealing with someone who is anti-gay, logic will not help you. Logic is a weak weapon against hate.
So I guess you decided to try illogic instead? BTW, this statement is an example of
poisoning the well.
You suggested we look at your arguments to see how strong they are, and I did so, and my conclusion is that they are even weaker than the arguments for evolution I see at TalkOrigins.
And I did see some obvious flaws in the arguments about the scripture passage. For example, it is correctly pointed out that "homosexual" was not a distinction the ancient Romans would have associated with a person to have come from birth. However, neither is "thief" or "adulterer" - therefore this rebuttal is meaningless.
Haven't you ever read Jesus' story of the Workers in the Vineyard?
. I would like to respond to your last post, as there are things in it that I agree with, and also things that I think are misunderstood. I'm kind of busy today, and I will get to it when I can. So for now, try to hold back the posts, I can't respond to everything 