Debating with a theologian over the validity of biblical condemnation of

Debating with a theologian over the validity of biblical condemnation of

Debating with a theologian over the validity of biblical condemnation of homosexuality i've been offered a sequence of arguments that seem to me circular. First argument: Divine directives 1. God has given the directive to establish the eterosexual marriage 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexuals brake the divine directive Second argument: Perverse heart 1. To brake a divine law willingly is perversion 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible 3. Homosexuals are perverse Third argument: social deviance 1. To diffuse behaviours that are condemned in the Bible is a form of social deviance 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexual are social deviant To me it is obvious that all these arguments implies, as a second premise, the condemnation whose validity is in question. When i have made this observation i have been offered a curios answer: anyone has a worldview that starts from certain unquestionable premise, that are in themselves circular but not invalid. For instance: Premise: God exists. Conclusion: God exists. For a Christian the validity of the Bible is a presupposition that is not questionable. Therefore there is no circularity in their argument. When i have asked a more detailed explanation, pointing to the fact thta there is a logical jump from their premise to their conclusion, i have received only personal offences. Could you help me to understand better the concept of "worldview" and which ideas can be considered correctly as unqestionable presupposition of a worldview and which not? Thanks Luca ps excuse me for my poor english...

Read another response by Allen Stairs
Read another response about Rationality, Religion
Print