The Big Homo-Sex Debate

[Isa]

[magic9mushroom]

Isa(ruman), your link is broken.

[Isa]

Eh, just Google the title. I'm not as high on bashing others views as I was when I posted this.

[WaterWizard]

The infogram was fairly accurate, but the tone was very unhelpful. It wasn't designed to persuade the opposition, just to jeer at them. There are better ways to be pro-gay.

[Isa]

Very much agreed.

[magic9mushroom]

Feb 15, 2013 11:16:44 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

The infogram was fairly accurate, but the tone was very unhelpful. It wasn't designed to persuade the opposition, just to jeer at them. There are better ways to be pro-gay.

Just out of curiosity, does that mean you support gay marriage?

[Agent Syrup]

I just looked at a video of Matthew Vines. He makes a considerable arguement. I would like to do some reasearch myself on the matter.

[Dre]

If you're anti-homosexuality, you basically have to reject science, and/or believe that god deliberately wanted educated people to think that homosexuality is ok.

It's ironic that religious people think it's animalistic to have sex outside of marriage/procreation, because it's the most primitive animals that only screw to procreate. The more intelligent animals eg. humans, other primates, lions, dolphins, crocodiles (the most intelligent reptile), whales etc. all use sex as a social tool, many of them practicing homosexuality. Bonobos, the most socially evolved species on the planet (moreso than humans) have social sex at the core of their society.

Sex was originally meant for procreation, but it's been evolved for social purposes, and this evident in human physiology as well. The human anus has the most nerve-endings of any part of the body, making it the most sexually sensitive part of said body. The anus has nothing to do with procreation, but guess who uses the anus? That's right, homosexuals.

So if you still want to be anti-ihomosexuality, you basically have to reject the credibility of science, or believe that your god deliberately designed human physiology to trick us into thinking that non-procreational sexual activity is acceptable.

Sorry but to me that just makes religion even more absurd than it already was.

[Agent Syrup]

I don't think you should use animals as a means to justify any sort of behavior. Though some things we do can be related to things animals do there are also many horrible things the animals regularly do that is never justified for a human being. Ex: goats will duel each other for a mate and the loser is pushed off a cliff, snakes are cannibals, ants conquer other colonies and make slaves of the defeated, ducks kidnap ducklings and rape females, and incest is also a common sexual practice among animals :/

[Nyara?]

We ARE animals, just making it clear, we're NOT better or worse than "them" because WE'RE them. Sometimes the human in its own ego starts to belive they are supreme or something, but that's far from being true, on any religion, in fact.

Incest is bad under a religous viewpoint because... *insert anything not-on-the-bible here"

Dueling for your love because that's how your species communitace is bad because... "insert anything not-on-the-bible here"

Being cannibal is bad because... *insert anything not-onthe-bible here"

Make other ants work for you because you winned a war is different from the human history because... *insert whatever here*

We should try to see what is just our flavor-wise viewpoint, and what was the real view point of any religion rather than say "because I do belive a thing on certain way and I'm christian it means CHRIST BELIVE THAT", because that's even more a far from being a falacy, that is just an excuse. The fact is, Christ NEVER said anything against the homosexuality, and not only that, he ALWAYS said we should love the love, just because a homosexual love can't produce a new being it means that's a crime? If were for that, all the people that is infertile could be demons, too.

[Agent Syrup]

Feb 17, 2013 11:56:34 GMT -8 Nyara? said:

We ARE animals, just making it clear, we're NOT better or worse than "them" because WE'RE them. Sometimes the human in its own ego starts to belive they are supreme or something, but that's far from being true, on any religion, in fact.

Incest is bad under a religous viewpoint because... *insert anything not-on-the-bible here"

Dueling for your love because that's how your species communitace is bad because... "insert anything not-on-the-bible here"

Being cannibal is bad because... *insert anything not-onthe-bible here"

Make other ants work for you because you winned a war is different from the human history because... *insert whatever here*

We should try to see what is just our flavor-wise viewpoint, and what was the real view point of any religion rather than say "because I do belive a thing on certain way and I'm christian it means CHRIST BELIVE THAT", because that's even more a far from being a falacy, that is just an excuse. The fact is, Christ NEVER said anything against the homosexuality, and not only that, he ALWAYS said we should love the love, just because a homosexual love can't produce a new being it means that's a crime? If were for that, all the people that is infertile could be demons, too.

I don't need to be religious to find killing and eating another human being a horrid act.

And dueling as a mean of communications, fine; but if I got into an argument with someone over a girl and "won" it would be nothing less then evil to PUSH HIM OFF A CLIFF for losing.

And ant slavery may not be too different from human slavery, but I hope we can all agree that slavery is a horrible and cruel thing regardless.

I did not make that point about animals from a relgious stand point and I wasn't even arguing Dre's position on homosexuality. But very simply if these are the kinds of things animals do regularly then we should not use them as any sort of beaken for good and natural human living in any area of our lives. We should choose what is a good way to live our lives as our own species.
EDIT: Oh and Ducks rape other ducks... do I even need to explain how much a duck's sexual practice shouldn't be immitated...

[Nyara?]

Killing and eating a human is horrid because...?

We're killing cows, pigs, chickens, all sort of fishes, some sort of other mammals, some sort of other avians, and even some kinds of bugs and all sort of plants (plants are alive), but of course, we kill most of them to eat, because we need food in order to survive. So, it's actually a horrid crime kill and eat a human? It's horrid because the human can tell you "hey, I'M DYING, THAT HURTS!!", because if were for that, then we can kill without guilty a person that doesn't speak our language. Yeah, you're most probably not directly killing those animals, but you're paying to someone for do that, and not just do that, but you're also paying him for but them on small cage all their life, for punch and kick them, and all sort of cruelty. I think, in my humild opinion, if you're killing something to use its body to save your life and/or eat, then it is ok.

Ants tecnically don't make slavs at all, but that's far more complex to just leave on that, so, I'll leave that there.

Too bad the sexuality of ducks is not a pleasure, but they are also not refusing they own sexuality as they need to reproduce to preserve the species, Human's sexuality is a pleasure for social reasons, but other species doesn't have too pleasure sexual relationships, for example the cats suffer when they are on the intercourse, bue they need to have sexual relationships in order to have babies. Life is hard, and rape is not OK on the human as our sexual reproduction system is different, but I'll just make you a point; almost any religion say we should reproduce ourselfs and have as many children we can, if in our species one of the two parts (either the male or the female) had pain on the intercourse, then the unique way to acomplish that objetive could be by the means of "rape" (a forced intercourse, but in part accepted by the "raped" part because that part needs or wants to reproduce).

In fact, the human is not different at all from other animals.

[Agent Syrup]

Humans are different, this very thread is proof. The exchange of ideas, morality, and beliefs... animals don't do that sort of thing. We think about and understand things on a deeper level and should hold ourselves to a higher sense responcibilty because of that.

[Isa]

I think that you're all taking a very odd approach to this.

Homosexual sex is something going on between two persons, which they've both agreed to. It doesn't hurt them or anyone else to engage in said activity. WHY is it bad?

[Agent Syrup]

Who was the one who said it was bad?

Edit: I apologize for the intellectual dishonesty in this comment.

[Isa]

What is your argument in this debate then? Are you disagreeing with the points that Dre and Nyara bring up, but agree with their ultimate conclusion (that homosexuality should not be condemned)?

[Agent Syrup]

Feb 17, 2013 14:22:57 GMT -8 Isa said:

What is your argument in this debate then? Are you disagreeing with the points that Dre and Nyara bring up, but agree with their ultimate conclusion (that homosexuality should not be condemned)?

Forgive me, I should have remained on topic. I was arguing the idea of saying homosexual relations is justified for people because "look, animals do that why should we be different".

To be honest beyond that off topic point and my comment on Matthew Vines I don't really have much to say on this thread....

[Dre]

Feb 17, 2013 13:33:59 GMT -8 Agent Syrup said:

Humans are different, this very thread is proof. The exchange of ideas, morality, and beliefs... animals don't do that sort of thing. We think about and understand things on a deeper level and should hold ourselves to a higher sense responcibilty because of that.

Actually this is completely wrong. There is nothing humans do that hasn't been replicated by animals in the wild (albeit at a lower intellectual scale). Chimpanzees do virtually everything humans do, include having various cultures and developing primitive technology.

There is no qualitative difference between a human and animals. The only people who think that are religious people who know jack shit about the animal kingdom and the rest of the universe.

Humans to animals is like a dolphin to a worm- One in more intelligent than the other, but they're both still animals.

And yes, it is important to look at other animals, because it reminds you that you are just one species on the planet, and there is a lot to learn from other species. The fact that religious people never take this perspective is why they've ended up glorifying huimanity as surperior, and believe and anthropromorphic (can never spell that word) deity is the explanation of all existence.

Looking at other species has shown us that using sex as a social tool is actually a sign of evolution. Physiology also shows that that our bodies are structured for homosexual activity and other forms of social sex.

The reason why religious people have such narrow and primitive views is because they don't look past their religion and the human perspective. That's why so many religious people have very limited knowledge on the universe, the psychology and sociology of religion, human physiology etc.

[WaterWizard]

Feb 15, 2013 16:31:29 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Feb 15, 2013 11:16:44 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

The infogram was fairly accurate, but the tone was very unhelpful. It wasn't designed to persuade the opposition, just to jeer at them. There are better ways to be pro-gay.

Just out of curiosity, does that mean you support gay marriage?

Yes, I support gay marriage. As a libertarian, I believe there is absolutely no reason gay couples should be excluded from the benefits granted to straight couples. And as far as Christianity applies, I agree with the theological arguments in this presentation. "Bible-based" homophobia will continue to be abandoned by the church, just as racism was.

And Isa, Christians generally believe sex is a sacred gift given to married couples. When people interpret the bible as only granting marriage to straight couples, that limits the context for sex even further. However, a consistent obedience to the bible would also include following 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. So Christians really shouldn't be against gay marriage, whether or not they believe it is a sin.

[Dre]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind:
it is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind,
as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination."
- Leviticus 20:13

I'm pretty sure that's anti-homosexual sentiment right there. Your god also burned down a city because of the unrestricted homosexual activity that occurred there.

Your god is anti-homosexual. He also had people executed for wanting sauce on their meals, told people to stone their siblings to death if they swayed to other gods, and has killed innocent first borns, amongst other practices that humans would probably be executed for if they did them,

[Nyara?]

@Dre: You should learn more to respect the belief of others, I think, a bit of respect doesn't hurt anyone.

As for the thread comes, I agree with WaterWizard, and about what said Isa, I agree with that, too, I'm not seen homosexual couples are hurting more or less people than heterosexual couples are doing already, nor I'm seen a difference at all on our world, or our species is starting to die, or the bible said actually something against that at all, so, it doesn't have too many sense that true christians (people who had faith of the words of christ) can consider using the religion as an excuse to consider homosexuality a sin, because I can also kill someone, but I don't think it could be correct if I say "but the bible/christ said I had to kill that person", consequence I ask.

Any person that uses the bible as an excuse to recriminate sexual orientation, identify, or sexual tastes, or any kind of racism, is jut not a true christian but rather just a discriminatory ignorant. The same goes for the other popular religions and beliefs, too, as most of them said something similar to the respect (in other words, nothing at all).

The fact that ancient documents were being misstranslated a lot of times, and the fact that each person can interpret at its mere taste any word doesn't help at all.

[Agent Syrup]

Feb 17, 2013 16:49:42 GMT -8 Dre said:

Feb 17, 2013 13:33:59 GMT -8 Agent Syrup said:

Humans are different, this very thread is proof. The exchange of ideas, morality, and beliefs... animals don't do that sort of thing. We think about and understand things on a deeper level and should hold ourselves to a higher sense responcibilty because of that.

Actually this is completely wrong. There is nothing humans do that hasn't been replicated by animals in the wild (albeit at a lower intellectual scale). Chimpanzees do virtually everything humans do, include having various cultures and developing primitive technology.

There is no qualitative difference between a human and animals. The only people who think that are religious people who know jack shit about the animal kingdom and the rest of the universe.

Humans to animals is like a dolphin to a worm- One in more intelligent than the other, but they're both still animals.

And yes, it is important to look at other animals, because it reminds you that you are just one species on the planet, and there is a lot to learn from other species. The fact that religious people never take this perspective is why they've ended up glorifying huimanity as surperior, and believe and anthropromorphic (can never spell that word) deity is the explanation of all existence.

Looking at other species has shown us that using sex as a social tool is actually a sign of evolution. Physiology also shows that that our bodies are structured for homosexual activity and other forms of social sex.

The reason why religious people have such narrow and primitive views is because they don't look past their religion and the human perspective. That's why so many religious people have very limited knowledge on the universe, the psychology and sociology of religion, human physiology etc.

Never once did I cite religion as my reason for thinking humans have a higher responcibilty than animals.

[WaterWizard]

Feb 18, 2013 2:39:14 GMT -8 Dre said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind:
it is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind,
as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination."
- Leviticus 20:13

I'm pretty sure that's anti-homosexual sentiment right there. Your god also burned down a city because of the unrestricted homosexual activity that occurred there.

Your god is anti-homosexual. He also had people executed for wanting sauce on their meals, told people to stone their siblings to death if they swayed to other gods, and has killed innocent first borns, amongst other practices that humans would probably be executed for if they did them,

The Levitical proscriptions don't apply to Christians, but yes, that is where people often draw their bases for being anti-gay. You should watch that video, Dre.

And God has never killed anyone innocent ["For all have sinned..." "The wages of sin is death."], nor should actions acceptable in ancient times be so quickly judged through a modern lens.

[Dre]

Nyara- I respect a person's right to a belief, but that doesn't mean every belief is equally respectable. Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is more respectable than believing that you're a unicorn that can walk through walls.

I respect a person's right to a belief in that I won't have a go at someone for simply having a belief. However, if someone announces their beliefs publicly without being asked to, then they open themselves to constructive criticism. Likewise, if I posted a thread criticising religion, people would be within their right to constructively criticise whatever flawed logic I may have,

Feb 18, 2013 11:36:40 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

Feb 18, 2013 2:39:14 GMT -8 Dre said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind:
it is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind,
as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination."
- Leviticus 20:13

I'm pretty sure that's anti-homosexual sentiment right there. Your god also burned down a city because of the unrestricted homosexual activity that occurred there.

Your god is anti-homosexual. He also had people executed for wanting sauce on their meals, told people to stone their siblings to death if they swayed to other gods, and has killed innocent first borns, amongst other practices that humans would probably be executed for if they did them,

The Levitical proscriptions don't apply to Christians, but yes, that is where people often draw their bases for being anti-gay. You should watch that video, Dre.

And God has never killed anyone innocent ["For all have sinned..." "The wages of sin is death."], nor should actions acceptable in ancient times be so quickly judged through a modern lens.

Yes he has, he has killed innocent first borns in Egypt.

Even if he hadn't done that, you still need to honestly think about what you're saying. Firstly, the fact that this god thinks that homosexual and other non-procreational activity is sinful, when he actually designed us physiologically to do these activities and have it be better for us than to not do it, is silly as it is. To then think that this 'sin' is somehow worthy of death and then eternal suffering is outright disgusting.

It's simply not reasonable for me to believe that an omniscient and omnibenevolent god would design humans so that non-procreational sexual acitivity was encouraged physiologically and better for us than to not do it, and then expect us to believe that it is the wrong thing to do, and doing it should earn you eternal suffereing.

Remember, St. Paul said that non-believers are morally bad people. So I'm a morally bad person because I support what is healthy for humanity. Expecting intelligent people to believe that social sex is bad is like believing that excreting waste is bad. It's literally as unhealthy as not excreting waste, and in both cases if you don't do it your body will do it for you (ie. wet dreams).

The reality is your religion came from a time where people were uneducated about the world, and this is laughably obvious. So many religious teaching have been proven to be unhealthy from humanity. I've already mentioned a few, but clothing is another example. The religious concept of women having to cover up is what actually sexualises the female body, leads to self-consciousness of the body, sexism and to porn addiction in men. Nudist societies have been shown to be happy, open-minded people with less body issues and much less pron addiction and sexism.

That is just one example of many where religion simply got it unquestionably wrong. The fact that people expect people of the modern era to believe in something that is completely cultural (we know the cultures/religions that most theological elements of Christianity came from), says stuff that is factually incorrect, is completely understood from a psychological and sociologicl perspective, has a text full of contradictions, and is responsible for the opression and deaths of millions of people is honestly just an insult to human progression.

[WaterWizard]

Dre,

I found your last post to be... all over the place. I told you above that I do not find homosexuality to be wrong, nor does the bible make such arguments regarding physiology, psychology, etc. Christians have made those arguments, but that does not impugn the bible.

And to say that the authors were "uneducated about the world" is absolutely ridiculous. What is your basis for calling them uneducated? It's such an anachronistic validation. The bible is so sophisticated that it completely outshines all contemporary writings and those previous to it. Plato's Symposium has not stood the test of time, but the bible continues to influence and teach.

And yes, Paul calls non-believers immoral. Anyone who has not been born again in Christ is immoral and thus lost. But "immoral" is defined within the Christian system. If you don't play by those rules, why does it matter to you if you're considered immoral within Christianity? If you're not playing Monopoly, who cares if you move out of turn? And what is morality to you? I would argue that you have no basis for morality, so even talking about this is absurd.

Further, the bible is not responsible for oppressing anyone, any more than knives are responsible for killing people. The occasional misuse of such powerful ideologies is bound to have negative effects, but that does nothing to devalue the source. The gospel has liberated billions of people and changed history like nothing else. The positive impact it has had on Western history is unparalleled.

I don't enjoy talking with people who use straw man arguments and have an inconsistent historical approach, so I would prefer that you rein in your claims to those which are concrete, and not scatter as many assaults as possible hoping one will penetrate. It just leads to a messy discussion.

Also, there is nothing inconsistent within the bible. It has perfect internal harmony. John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards would not have wasted their time with a flawed book, and neither would I. People don't leave Christianity because of perceived inconsistencies within it; they leave because they don't want to accept the truth it contains.

WW

[Dre]

Sorry but so much of what you said is just flat-out wrong.

God himself is directly responsible for opressing people. God directly ordered the stoning of one's siblings who have done nothing but believe in other gods. Your god ordered 'his people' to take the lands of the other tribes. He has also murdered numerous innocent people.

You god is anti-gay. He burned down a city specifically because it was a gay city.

And they were very uneducated about the world. Today we are still uneducated about the world, but the difference is that we not only know a lot more than they do, and that a lot of the stuff they thought was flat-out wrong, but most importantly we know that we don't know everything, unlike people back then, when they attempted to explain everything away and have an answer for everything.

They believed-
The Earth was the centre of the universe
Our galaxy was the entire universe
That the world was only 6 000 years old
That women are intellectually inferior
That natural disasters are god's way of punishing us for sin, and not because of natural causes
That social sex is wrong, when it has been proven to be part of our design, and healthy for us


Those are just a few from the bible. If you include the Early Church too, the list can expand much further.

Also, here are just a few Biblical contradictions-

Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16- God is invisible.
Exod. 33:20- One will die if they see God’s face.
Gen. 32:30- Jacob sees God’s face yet his life is spared.
Gen 12:7, 26:2; Exod. 6:3- God appears to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Exod. 24:9-11- Leaders of Israel see God.
Exod. 33:11,23- Moses sees God.
John 8:58- Jesus suggests He is God.
John 20:28- Jesus does not correct Thomas when he calls Him “my God”.
John 10:33- Others think that Jesus considered Himself God.
John 14:28- The Son is inferior to the Father.
John 1:2- Jesus is with God.
Tim. 2:5- Jesus mediates between God and man.
Mark 6:5- Jesus is not omnipotent
Matt. 28:18 Jesus came to be omnipotent.
Mark 13:32- Jesus is not omniscient.
John 16:30, 21:17- Jesus is omniscient.






Plato was very uneducated about the world and it shows in his writing. He was capable of intense logic, but at the end of the day, he was still an intellectual elitist, sexist, believied in public morality and thought his race was superior. These were common views of his time, and are very primitive views, evidenced by the fact that they common amongst mammals in the wild. Male-dominated mammal societies are based on this mentality.

The fact that you're referring to Calvin as some intellectual pillar really weakens your argument. Many Calvinist protestant philosophers delierately avoid using Calvin's reasoning because they know it's fallacious. Likewise, Christian philosophers avoid using faith to justify belief, and saying things like 'people deconvert because they don't want to accept the truth' because they know they're fallacies.

You tell me you'll only listen to me when I present 'concrete' facts (despite the fact that everything I've said is based on research and scientific findings) but you then say that people who deconvert do so because they don't want to accept the truth. How is that concrete? That is also flat-out wrong, and I know that from personal experience.

Most atheists actually wish Christinaity was true. It is much more comforting and convenient to believe that some is always watching you, you will be rewarded for your good actions, and that you can achieve eternal happiness by simply believing that something exists and having faith in it. That's why so many peopel cling to their faith.

Most atheists don't hate God. How could they hate something if they don't even believe it exists? What many of them 'hate' is the fact that in the modern era people still believe in this god, and all the opression and killing that has occured as a result of these beliefs.

Saying that people don't want to believe or because they hate god is a classic fallacy known as confusion of a categories. That's why Christian philosophers avoid using that sort of reasoning in debates and their academic work, because they know it's fallacious.

[magic9mushroom]

Feb 18, 2013 11:36:40 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

The Levitical proscriptions don't apply to Christians, but yes, that is where people often draw their bases for being anti-gay. You should watch that video, Dre.

And God has never killed anyone innocent ["For all have sinned..." "The wages of sin is death."], nor should actions acceptable in ancient times be so quickly judged through a modern lens.

"You're all guilty, so it's not wrong for God to kill you" is really, really dumb logic.

[WaterWizard]

Dre,

The term "gay" is anachronistic here and should not be applied to anything prior to the 20th century. Homosexuality as an orientation is also a modern concept, as is heterosexuality and sexuality itself. Scholars agree that the concepts did not even exist during the time the bible was written. In fact, in that world, sex was based on subject/object, passive/active, dominant/subordinate, and other such dynamical pairings. The dichotomy of heterosexual/homosexual is simply not there. The bible does condemn same-sex activity of some kind in Leviticus, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Sodom was destroyed after a group of men tried to gang rape some angels. The sex the angels were appearing as has nothing to do with the sin that was almost committed, other than to intensify the humiliation. In the ancient world, conquerors often raped those whom they subdued, to "put them in their place." To rape a man was to emasculate him. Further, the "sin of Sodom" is described elsewhere in the bible and sometimes sex (let alone homosexual sex) is not even listed. The major and minor prophets describe the sins of the Sodomites as being lying, haughtiness, and adultery, while Christ (and the original narrative in Genesis) implies that it was inhospitality. Sexual orientation cannot be found in this passage or anywhere else in the bible. It is a totally foreign concept to Scripture. I would appreciate it if you dropped this topic until you educate yourself on it. I have spent over 200 hours reading and writing on a professional level about same-sex sexual activity in the ancient and Christian past, and I can promise you, you're not arguing this properly.

The bible does not have inconsistencies. The ones you think you've found can easily be explained when looked at in context. Christian scripture has been scrutinized endlessly, more than any other text, and still stands. And I referenced Calvin not because of his logical prowess but because of his extensive familiarity with the bible. Edwards is another good example, perhaps more salient since he is so brilliant and universally esteemed.

You say everything you say is backed up by science, but you make completely unhistorical claims about ancient "anti-gay" texts and about how "most atheists" wish a certain thing were true. I am not impressed. Further, there is nothing wrong with those contemporary to the bible not understanding everything about the universe. We don't understand everything either, and in two thousand years many modern views will be just as ridiculous as those that readers of the bible extrapolated in the first few centuries after Christ rose from the dead. Once again, you blame the wrong person. It is not God, but man who errors. The bible stands aside of such temporal views as the ones you describe, and it is instead an atemporal proclamation of truth. It is unassailable.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

[WaterWizard]

Feb 20, 2013 0:13:03 GMT -8 magic9mushroom said:

Feb 18, 2013 11:36:40 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

The Levitical proscriptions don't apply to Christians, but yes, that is where people often draw their bases for being anti-gay. You should watch that video, Dre.

And God has never killed anyone innocent ["For all have sinned..." "The wages of sin is death."], nor should actions acceptable in ancient times be so quickly judged through a modern lens.

"You're all guilty, so it's not wrong for God to kill you" is really, really dumb logic.

Magic, I'm sorry that you think I use "dumb logic." What exactly is unintelligent about it, in your opinion? I find it pretty reasonable, myself.

Why are you using the word "wrong" anyway? An atheist should not use such words as "right" and "wrong." They are meaningless without a divine standard, or at least a natural one, neither of which you have.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

[Isa]

Are you claiming that there's no morals in atheists?