Homosexual marriage should never be allowed in the USA

[Sunni Man]

It is a source of great national embarassment to me that I and my partner are legally married in Canada (where neither of us is a national), but that our union is not recognized in the alleged land of the free home of the brave(where I was born and raised among good hard working god fearing Americans). McCain has had 7000 (ok maybe hyperbole) years to do something about it, in this issue it is time to give someone else a try.And I hope your sick perverted marriage is NEVER recognized in the good old USA.

[cgallaga]

Yes because you apparently desire a government of dictatorial prowess guided by nonsensical dogma which has the unlimited power to quash rights and freedom. You know, the middle east is nice and balmy this time o year.

[Terry]

Oh, Sunni Man is back. He clearly kibo-izes teh entire intarwebz for the word "gay" so he can show up and say how against it he is. Not that he's... unnaturally obsessed or anything...

[Sunni Man]

Yes because you apparently desire a government of dictatorial prowess guided by nonsensical dogma which has the unlimited power to quash rights and freedom. You know, the middle east is nice and balmy this time o year.I wouldn't know about the weather in the ME.

I am an American and live in the USA.

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time.

We don't want to surrender our rights and morals to the radical sodomite agenda.

[cgallaga]

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time.

Well at least you are honest.

[WildCat]

What?
Power of attorney, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, taxes, many more. There's an entire thread about it here somewhere.

[Sunni Man]

Oh, Sunni Man is back. He clearly kibo-izes teh entire intarwebz for the word "gay" so he can show up and say how against it he is. Not that he's... unnaturally obsessed or anything...Nah, I just have been busy with business and haven't had time to visit JREF for awhile.

[chipmunk stew]

We don't want to surrender our rights and morals to the radical sodomite agenda.
I, for one, welcome our fabulous overlords.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I wouldn't know about the weather in the ME.

I am an American and live in the USA.

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time.

We don't want to surrender our rights and morals to the radical sodomite agenda.


Ok; I'm going to regret this later I know it...but Sunni Man...what is the radical sodomite agenda?

[Terry]

Ok; I'm going to regret this later I know it...but Sunni Man...what is the radical sodomite agenda?

Stuff like not being in the closet, and not being executed for having sex.

[Cleon]

Ok; I'm going to regret this later I know it...but Sunni Man...what is the radical sodomite agenda?

It has to involve unicorns. It just has to.

[Sunni Man]

Ok; I'm going to regret this later I know it...but Sunni Man...what is the radical sodomite agenda?
Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.

[chipmunk stew]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.
There are not enough laughing dogs to express my reaction. I'll do my best:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

[cgallaga]

It reads like a Southpark outline...but I think they did it a while ago.

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.

[Cleon]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.

What? No unicorns? Shenanigans! Shenanigans, I say!

[Upchurch]

what is the radical sodomite agenda?
Does it include nicely decorated apartments and socks that match the rest of your clothes?

The horror...

[Terry]

Pink and/or rainbow unicorns, Cleon. Lavender is acceptable also.

[mrbaracuda]

Those hot steamy unicorns are still in the closet. Waiting for you, Cleon. Waiting.. for you.. :Banane59: :D

[Undesired Walrus]

Times like this is where I doubt Sunni Man is an actual Muslim, or if he is, a very rubbish fundamentalist, a hanger-on.

An Islamist would never say 'I am an American'. One of the first questions British Islamists ask each other in their circles such as Hizb Ut-Tahrir is 'Are you Muslim or are you British?'. They would also never say 'I may vote for McCain' as they would be like the kufr, enacting Man-made laws rather than God's law. It is a fundamental part of Islamic fundamentalists. I see no reason for American Islamists to be any different.

[Ladewig]

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned].


I think that is a word for word quote of what the bigots said just before interracial marriage was legalized. Just because something is old does not mean it is right.

[hcmom]

Pink and/or rainbow unicorns, Cleon. Lavender is acceptable also.

So My Little Pony = radical sodomite agenda?

[joobz]

Why are you against starting a democracy where everyone can have an equal say in the functioning of government?
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " - Pro-monarchists


"Why are you so in such support of slavery?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]." - Slave Owner


"Why are you so much against Women's Suffrage?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " - anti-feminist


"Why are you so much against the end of segregation?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " - bigot


"Why are you exhuming of cadavers, when there is so much to learn about the human anatomy?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " - anti-medical theist.


"why are you so against the steam engine and electricity?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " -Amish


"why are you so against women entering college?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. "-Sexist


"Why are you so against technology?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. "-Unabomber

[ponderingturtle]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.

Damn You FIRST AMENDMENT! You are the worst ammendment to the constitution!

How are you on lowering the age of marrage to a proper age like 8?

[Nogbad]

Unicorn loving FTW

[mrbaracuda]

http://c.imagehost.org/0004/jesus_kissing_muhammed.jpg

Oh, if Sunni Man only knew.. :D

[Nogbad]

Ooohhh! That is "phat one" territory (or something like that :) )

[Foster Zygote]

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned].
How do you feel about not being able to own and sell African Americans as slaves? How do you feel about women having the right to vote?

We don't want to surrender our rights and morals to the radical sodomite agenda.
You sound like the Klansmen who warned of the impending orgy of rape, murder and destruction to be wrought by the newly freed "black savages".

[Foster Zygote]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.
Now you're just being silly. There is no more link between male child molesters who prefer boys and the typical homosexual male than there is between male child molesters who prefer girls and the typical heterosexual male.

Just to provide an example that I'm sure you can relate to: Trying to link all homosexuals to child molesters is like trying to link all Muslims to terrorist suicide bombers.

[JFrankA]

....does this mean that Tinky Winky can't get married???????

[bluess]

....does this mean that Tinky Winky can't get married???????

Now that Jerry Falwell is gone, he's decided to live out his lonely life...

[ponderingturtle]

....does this mean that Tinky Winky can't get married???????

I am against people marrying fictional characters.

[Nogbad]

I am against people marrying fictional characters.

Fantasistist

[I Ratant]

Damn You FIRST AMENDMENT! You are the worst ammendment to the constitution!

How are you on lowering the age of marrage to a proper age like 8?
.
Actually, it's 6.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
And an amusing apologetic that has to deny the truth of the hadith, to work..
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1887

[Ashles]

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time.
Good point - homosexuality has certainly never been commonplace and accepted at any previous time in history.

Oh wait...

[Darth Rotor]

While you are free to have your own opinion, the difference between "should" (your choice of terms) and what comes to be is often significant. Why should this topic be any different?

[wahrheit]

Sunni Man's posts remind of Ted Haggard.

[Hokulele]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.


Aside from the one laughable claim towards the end there, it sounds a lot like this "radical sodomite agenda" is to allow people to be treated as, well, people.

Where do I sign up?

[JFrankA]

Sunni Man's posts remind of Ted Haggard.

Okay, wait.... I'm confused. Tinky Winky can't marry Ted Haggard because he's fictional or because he's gay or both???????

[mrbaracuda]

.
Actually, it's 6.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
And an amusing apologetic that has to deny the truth of the hadith, to work..
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1887

There be no limitation! (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1798.htm)
I don't get he part about being apologetic. Maybe it's because I'm no Frenchmen.

[billydkid]

And I hope your sick perverted marriage is NEVER recognized in the good old USA.There are two inclinations in American thought - One is the "ain't nobody's business" school of thought and the other is the "mind everybody else's business" school. I think one represents what American should be and distinguishes it from much of the rest of the world and the other is what brings us everything from "zero tolerance" to "mandatory minimums" and the drug war. It is no secret that I favor the "Ain't nobody's business" school. You don't like gayness - don't be gay. You don't approve of gay marriage - don't get gay marriage. I can not remotely understand the human inclination the worry about what everybody else is doing. Worry about your own life and how you live it. If they aren't harming you - then leave other people alone to live however they want to live. This self-righteous, moralistic, busybodyness, frankly, makes me sick. I have to add that I believe that people who are obsessed with the way other people live their lives have major issues - generally having to do with the subject of their obsession. Ted Haggard and Congressman Craig would be prime examples. Tell me this - isn't it striking the number of times that those prominent people who are consumed with the "immorality" of other people almost invariably have personal issues directly related to the behavior they proclaim to have such an issue with?

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh. Personally I believe that government shouldn't be involved in the marriage game, period. Still that being said, whose business is it if two consenting adults wish to enter into a social contract with each other; fundamentally that is all marriage really is once you divorce it from the religious aspects attributed to it.

As far as the children. Won't someone think about the children? (http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/categories/HelenLovejoy_t630.jpg) I have had many friends that grew up in the foster system, and had terrible experiences. Foster parents who ran farms that used them as slave labor and flat out told them that they were there to work; all while the foster parents received a paycheck from the state. I would rather these kids be in a loving home with fabulous parents than in the system that doesn't respect them as an actual human being.

That is just my perspective though.

[DoubtingStephen]

And I hope your sick perverted marriage is NEVER recognized in the good old USA.

http://aintnogod.com/images/yawn.jpg

boring

[Pardalis]

I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time.

We don't want to surrender our rights and morals to the radical sodomite agenda.

And yet you repeatedly claim to want to change the laws of your country (the ones you say have stood the test of time) to fit your radical Islamic worldview.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3878179&postcount=44

Why aren't homosexuals allowed to do the same?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

"why are you so against the steam engine and electricity?"
"I just don't want the laws and social norms that have stood the test of time [overturned]. " -Amish

... clip ...

Actually, the Amish response would be, "What? Brother Asa a gasoline powered baler has and Sister Agatha without her electric lighting to the outhouse after dark for fear of spiders would not go! I even a telephone in the outbuilding have!! Why you English the Luddites of your own country with us confuse beyond me is.

"Not that we against those things are: Just that slaves to them we seek not to be, so we to the barns and outbuildings relegate them, so we must a bit of walking do in order them to get to, thereby us time to reflect allowing."

Just to keep things straight. (Can I say, "straight," in a thread about gay marriages?)

About gay marriages!

Oh yeah. D'oh!! (_8(|)

The social and legal contract of marriage between two people is one of the most, if not the most, stabilizing and mutually protective of incorporation agreements.

It seems to me that people who object on religious grounds should remember two things:
1) These are civil marriage, so religious principals are not at risk. We are supposed to be in the world, not of it, and
2) If they object to homosexuals getting married because homosexuals are sinners, where does prohibition of sinners getting married leave THEM? Remember; The Book says, "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

People who object to it on cultural grounds should remember that culture is defined as what is done in the culture, and what is done changes as the population changes.

As they say: Majority rule and minority rights.

Saying homosexuals don't have access to a right enjoyed by all other non-homosexual members of the society, denying the protection and support of the marriage contract to a section of the society just because their garden gate swings differently, is anathema to what the secular American culture is supposed to be all about!

I support my nephew and his husband in their marriage, and hope that others can find the same sort of loving, caring, supportive relationship that they enjoy and from which they benefit.

As for me, I'm straight, so I'm kind of on the outside looking in, here, but as a very wise man once said about such things, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I'm good with it.

http://aintnogod.com/images/yawn.jpg

boring


KAWAII! SO CUTE!!

[Jon_Stripe]

I like what Billydkid and Fullflavormentholl said,

Why the Hell should government have ANY say in your sexual preference OR what you do in your god damn bedroom????

Infact, why the Hell should you have any say for that matter???

ESPECIALLY when sexuality isn't a CHOICE.


In America you are free to the presuit of happiness, or you are supposed to be constitutionaly.

Besides, marriage is more of a buisness term like divorce.

Such as: John told Paul he wanted a divorce.

So don't even try the whole "sanctity of marrige" horse s**t.

Seperation of church and state, remember.

If you're looking for religious aurguement try Matrimony.

But again I ask: Why is it any of YOUR buisness what someone's sexual preference is????

Why should YOU have any say in what someone else does in their bedroom???

How does same sex marriage harm YOU or anyone else???

I'm not asking for a religious arguement so don't give me that BS.

I want reason why gay marriage should not be legal....

S**t, what a thick wadd this thread starter is...

[Sunni Man]

In reality I guess homos should be allowed to be in a social union.

I saw a TV program where there were some mentally retarded people who were allowed to marry and set up a home.

Homosexuality is just a different form of mental illness.

So let them unite and pack each other's fudge.

They aren't going to reproduce. So what's the harm?

They will just make mudd babies.

[Ladewig]

In reality I guess homos should be allowed to be in a social union.

I saw a TV program where there were some mentally retarded people who were allowed to marry and set up a home.

Homosexuality is just a different form of mental illness.

So let them unite and pack each other's fudge.

They aren't going to reproduce. So what's the harm?

They will just make mudd babies.


You call that trolling? I give it 2 on a ten point scale. Go practice on some other boards and come back when you finally know how to rile folks.

[fullflavormenthol]

In reality I guess homos should be allowed to be in a social union.

I saw a TV program where there were some mentally retarded people who were allowed to marry and set up a home.

Homosexuality is just a different form of mental illness.

So let them unite and pack each other's fudge.

They aren't going to reproduce. So what's the harm?

They will just make mudd babies.
Why should you care so much about the marriage laws of non-Sharia nations? I mean you have to admit the whole of these laws, at least the moralist principle, is based upon this notion that marriage is a sacred covenant and not a social contract. Given that I wonder why you, specific to your name, really care so much?

[Hokulele]

They aren't going to reproduce.


Some homosexual couples do, some do not.

Just like heterosexual couples.

[Sunni Man]

Why should you care so much about the marriage laws of non-Sharia nations? I mean you have to admit the whole of these laws, at least the moralist principle, is based upon this notion that marriage is a sacred covenant and not a social contract. Given that I wonder why you, specific to your name, really care so much?Because I live here in America and don't want my children to be exposed to these sick degenerates.

[Hokulele]

Because I live here in America and don't want my children to be exposed to these sick degenerates.


Why not? Are you afraid it is contagious?

[Jon_Stripe]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Ladwig hit the Sunni Man nail on the head.

This thread shouldn't even be taking seriously anymore.

(I noticed, BTW, that "Sunni Man" avoided my requests for justifications towards his initail arguement.)

YOU FAIL!

[WildCat]

Because I live here in America and don't want my children to be exposed to these sick degenerates.
Why would that affect your children? Did you comtemplate becoming gay after you were exposed to homosexuals?

[fullflavormenthol]

Because I live here in America and don't want my children to be exposed to these sick degenerates.
Well the first problem is that you want to live in America and yet believe that your children have some inherent right to not be offended. There is no right to not be exposed to someone else's lifestyle. Remember there are people that don't want their children to be exposed to Muslims. Honestly I don't like that attitude. That type of attitude is the reason I can't go to a sports bar and be myself without some parent yelling at me because junior has to hear my profanities when his parents should have thought twice before bringing them into a clearly adult location.

To put it this way. As long as you are not making your kids watch gay porn I can't see what your problem is. I find to guys making out in public no less offensive than a straight couple making out in public. Other than that you have absolutely no right to not be offended. Bless America!

[Sunni Man]

Why not? Are you afraid it is contagious?
Many homos have infections and contagious diseases.

[DoubtingStephen]

Many homos have infections and contagious diseases.

Perhaps we can wipe out all contagious diseases in our lifetime by just praying that all gays will become heterosexual.

[Sunni Man]

Perhaps we can wipe out all contagious diseases in our lifetime by just praying that all gays will become heterosexual.Good luck!!

[Jon_Stripe]

Whats actually sad about this is that his childeren are going to be raised being just some more self richeous, ignorant, intolorant people.

Part of freedom, however, is having your own opinions so if "Sunni Man" really doesn't like gays...... Well thats his opinion. However, the reality is that part of everyone else's freedom is that if they're gay they should get to marry.
And, with freedom, everyones gets to defend themselves.

Gay rights are civil rights.

[Hokulele]

Many homos have infections and contagious diseases.


And the heterosexuals do not?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Many homos have infections and contagious diseases.


Indeed, they do! The incidence is fairly high because there's a lot of homosexuals out there engaging in high-risk behavior!!

As a society, we should DO SOMETHING about that!

My primary suggestion would be to let them get married and settle down.

....

Hey! It works pretty well with the bunch of heterosexuals who engage in high-risk behavior!! Why not?!?!?

Saying that they have diseases and infections and, because of that, denying them one of the major social safeguards against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and infections is kind of... ummm.... well... odd.

[Sunni Man]

Hi
Indeed, they do! The incidence is fairly high because there's a lot of homosexuals out there engaging in high-risk behavior!!
I support their high risk behavior. It helps cull them out of society.

[Jeff Corey]

Billydkid,
Are you implying the Sunni man is showing what the shrinks call "reaction formation"? That he might be SunniGirlyboy?

[Jon_Stripe]

It furthers the notion that "Sunni Man" is just a troll when he wont answer any straight forward questions but chooses to respond to little snipets with argravating replies to perpetuate an arguement and gain attention.

There is nothing to gain here.

[Hokulele]

Indeed, they do! The incidence is fairly high because there's a lot of homosexuals out there engaging in high-risk behavior!!


I had thought that only applied to homosexual men. Is there any research supporting a higher incidence among homosexual women? It sounds like Sunni Man's arguments (poor as they are) are demonstrating a strong gender bias as well as general bigotry.

[fullflavormenthol]

I had thought that only applied to homosexual men. Is there any research supporting a higher incidence among homosexual women? It sounds like Sunni Man's arguments (poor as they are) are demonstrating a strong gender bias as well as general bigotry.
As does a lot of homophobia for that matter. I personally find that much of the homophobia in our society is really just hatred against men that engage sexually with men.

[Sunni Man]

As does a lot of homophobia for that matter. I personally find that much of the homophobia in our society is really just hatred against men that engage sexually with men.
I think you are correct in that observation. Even though lesbians are just as nasty.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm really uncomfortable with the news that George Takai is getting married.

The homosexuality thing doesn't bother me, but the inter-racial thing does.

[Jeff Corey]

I'm really uncomfortable with the news that George Takai is getting married.

The homosexuality thing doesn't bother me, but the inter-racial thing does.

Yeah, look how Spock turned out.

[ConspiRaider]

I think you are correct in that observation. Even though lesbians are just as nasty.
No we're not. I myself was certified a God-fearing woman just last Thursday, and my partner wears a red bra, blue panties and white leg warmers every other day. We love America. And each other.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yeah, look how Spock turned out.


Ummm...

Wouldn't that be... like... inter... terrestrial?

[Sunni Man]

No we're not. I myself was certified a God-fearing woman just last Thursday, and my partner wears a red bra, blue panties and white leg warmers every other day. We love America. And each other.The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.

Then let God deal with them. Why are you involved? God is All Powerful and could send another Flood or strike them all down with brimstone and fire. They fact that He has not done so proves He has no problem with homsexuality.

Are you smarter than God?

<Is that enough TrollChow® for now?> :D

[ConspiRaider]

The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.
Did any of the 12 apostles have female significant others back in the catacombs? Because they seemed to hang out together. Like, a lot. Good thing they didn't live in America, methinks.

[Ladewig]

edited: not worth the effort

[Pardalis]

edited: not worth the effort

Exactly.

[NobbyNobbs]

Hi



Actually, the Amish response would be, "What? Brother Asa a gasoline powered baler has and Sister Agatha without her electric lighting to the outhouse after dark for fear of spiders would not go! I even a telephone in the outbuilding have!! Why you English the Luddites of your own country with us confuse beyond me is.

"Not that we against those things are: Just that slaves to them we seek not to be, so we to the barns and outbuildings relegate them, so we must a bit of walking do in order them to get to, thereby us time to reflect allowing."


I didn't know Yoda was Amish.....


I have to wonder about people who say they are against homosexuality because they are fighting for the sanctity of marriage. Aren't they spending their energy in the wrong direction? They should be trying to outlaw divorce. It certainly affects a bigger slice of society than gay marriage does.
Sunni Man, why don't you turn your efforts towards that?

[Sunstealer]

Many homos have infections and contagious diseases.Sunni Man has infections and contagious diseases; religion, dogma, bigotry, hate, irrationality, intolerance, homophobia... Better stop there or I'd be here all day listing them.

[Lothian]

Ok; I'm going to regret this later I know it...but Sunni Man...what is the radical sodomite agenda?I'll be buggered if I know.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I didn't know Yoda was Amish.....

... clip ...


Where I was, they still spoke, "Throw the baby out the window a piece of bread." Pennsylvania Dutch, and I the only guy in the EOD unit could heads nor tails of it make.

It's been a LOOOONG time, and, now, I can't remember if the verb at the end goes, or goes at the start the verb.

<<sigh>> I already ain't talkin' half as good as I knows how!

[Pantaz]

NAMBLA being declared legal.

What do you have against Marlon Brando impersonators (http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=406)?

[Lothian]

The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.
John 3.16 For God so loved the world, but not the homo part, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, apart from the evil homos, believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4.7 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, well by another I don't mean everyone, not the homos: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God apart from homos.

Romans 4.8 But God commendeth his love toward us that are not homo, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, well some of us obviously not the homos.

[gtc]

For the people who are bringing Christianity into this, Sunni Man claims to be a Muslim.

[Slayhamlet]

For the people who are bringing Christianity into this, Sunni Man claims to be a Muslim.

You'd think people would be able to pick up on this, seeing as it's right there in his name.

[Worm]

I think you are correct in that observation. Even though lesbians are just as nasty.

Two women together is God's way of showing how much he loves us. </hicks>

The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.

And may I just say - God Bless America.

[Lothian]

For the people who are bringing Christianity into this, Sunni Man claims to be a Muslim.Yes but he refers to American society. I don't think America is a muslim society. It is like me arguing that the Pakistan society should not eat beef because Vishnu would not approve.

You'd think people would be able to pick up on this, seeing as it's right there in his name.Names don't tell all. He calls himself a Sunni but on some issues he comes over as a complete Shiite.

[Gazpacho]

Hey Sunni Man, I can visualize you sitting behind your keyboard, gritting your teeth because the rest of the people in this thread don't see what an awful threat to civilization the fags are.

Tell me something, why is it such a big deal to you? Did a queer shoot your dog? What's the big goal in your life that fags are stopping you from accomplishing?

What's the matter, are you upset because you can't spot them in a crowd, unless they're dressed up for pride day? Are you worried that they might be hiding under your bed waiting to bugger you in your sleep?

Do they annoy you because they do what feels good, with other people who think it feels good, while you sit around feeling ashamed?

Come on, it's got to be something. Tell us.

[Jon_Stripe]

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, but not the homo part, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, apart from the evil homos, believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4.7 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, well by another I don't mean everyone, not the homos: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God apart from homos.

Romans 4.8 But God commendeth his love toward us that are not homo, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, well some of us obviously not the homos.

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Nice.

Look, people. Sunni Hick is trying to get a reaction. "He" doesn't want to discuss but instead sit and jam his bigotry down our throats whilst also enjoying the termoil he's created and attention towards him.

This thread really shouldn't be taken so seriously.

Do you really want to sit and idlly argue to this?:

http://www.ssqq.com/romance/images/fat%20guy.jpg

Just leave this crap...

[osmosis]

Tell me this - isn't it striking the number of times that those prominent people who are consumed with the "immorality" of other people almost invariably have personal issues directly related to the behavior they proclaim to have such an issue with?


This reminds me that apparently some scientists recenty proved what everyone has known all along: phobes want it.

They got a group of male volunteers and divided them into two groups based on their answers to a questionnaire designed to assess their level of homophobia. Then they got down to business.

They put them in room with a tension meter strapped to their dinkies and made them watch porn. Lo and behold, the homophobes became distinctly chubbier when they gay stuff came on.

[UnrepentantSinner]

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, but not the homo part, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, apart from the evil homos, believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4.7 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, well by another I don't mean everyone, not the homos: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God apart from homos.

Romans 4.8 But God commendeth his love toward us that are not homo, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, well some of us obviously not the homos.

For the people who are bringing Christianity into this, Sunni Man claims to be a Muslim.

You'd think people would be able to pick up on this, seeing as it's right there in his name.

No ****. The knee-jerk reactions around here make me question the critical thinking of some members. Speaking of which...

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Nice.

This is the JREF forum for skeptics. You might be looking for the AA for FFRF forums which are just down the hall.

[Lothian]

No ****. The knee-jerk reactions around here make me question the critical thinking of some members. Speaking of which...

This is the JREF forum for skeptics. You might be looking for the AA for FFRF forums which are just down the hall.I know exactly what you mean.

This issue is threatening to rip apart the Anglican community. The Lambeth conference is heavily boycotted due to attitudes to homosexuality.

The attitude of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America who do not appear to discriminate on the grounds of sex and sexuality is frowned upon by many who profess to follow a man who allegedly stood up for the disadvantaged.

They can not see the irony of professing love while applying hatred. They read into their sacred text words that are not there to justify their bigotry.

Highlighting that is very unskeptical.

[I Ratant]

"The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God "
.
In theory, god made it all.
And in theory, god can look after his own.
The religious maniacs are just too insecure in their fanaticism to wait for god to smite those that desperately need smiting, according to the lunatics of deep faith.
Don't trust the big guy to do it right, or do it at all?
So instead of waiting for that kid to dehydrate after his 1000 year soaking, it's perfectly OK to deprive everyone you know who's of the opposing belief (and any spectators within the lethal blast radius) of their lives, because what's-his-frog seems to be reluctant, if not totally absent or even concerned about this very very stupid and unimportant fantasy.

[cgallaga]

Do you really want to sit and idlly argue to this?: Warning NSFW though you shouldn't be reading at work anyway.

http://www.ssqq.com/romance/images/fat%20guy.jpg



1. Maybe we are all chubby chasers

2. I thought it was disrespectful to show images of their prophets...even in America.

3. That maybe the best argument from design I have seen yet. There couldn't be so much random mutation out there.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Lothian
John 3.16 For God so loved the world, but not the homo part, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, apart from the evil homos, believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4.7 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, well by another I don't mean everyone, not the homos: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God apart from homos.

Romans 4.8 But God commendeth his love toward us that are not homo, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, well some of us obviously not the homos.

================================================== ================
That's a misrepresentation of the biblical position making it appear as completely focused on homosexuals. It isn't. To demonstrate this, use other words, such as unrepentant heterosexual adulterers, unrepentant heterosexual fornicators, unrepentant murderers, unrepentant thieves, unrepentant practicers of bestiality, unrepentant blasphemers, idolaters, etcetera. People for which Christ died but who are required to change nevertheless.

BTW

Personally, if a religion condemns something I am unwilling to change I simply opt to seek a religion that doesn't instead of arguing or demanding that the religion that does condemn change its writings in order to accomodate my preferences. Make sense?

[fuelair]

Oh, Sunni Man is back. He clearly kibo-izes teh entire intarwebz for the word "gay" so he can show up and say how against it he is. Not that he's... unnaturally obsessed or anything...
Probably just misses the peg house.

[fuelair]

Yes but he refers to American society. I don't think America is a muslim society. It is like me arguing that the Pakistan society should not eat beef because Vishnu would not approve.

Names don't tell all. He calls himself a Sunni but on some issues he comes over as a complete Shiite.You misspelled that last word - but you are certainly correct!!:)

[alfaniner]

Shouldn't a picture like that be masked with the NSFW tag? My boss was doing a drive-by at the time this happened to come up.

[skeptifem]

I support their high risk behavior. It helps cull them out of society.


yeah that totally works. look at africa!

[skeptifem]

What do you have against Marlon Brando impersonators (http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=406)?


you know, that reminds me... wtf happened to maphesto? he just like stopped appearing w/o explanation. i liked him too.

[Jon_Stripe]

Gazpacho: "Hey Sunni Man, I can visualize you sitting behind your keyboard, gritting your teeth because the rest of the people in this thread don't see what an awful threat to civilization the fags are.

Tell me something, why is it such a big deal to you? Did a queer shoot your dog? What's the big goal in your life that fags are stopping you from accomplishing?

What's the matter, are you upset because you can't spot them in a crowd, unless they're dressed up for pride day? Are you worried that they might be hiding under your bed waiting to bugger you in your sleep?

Do they annoy you because they do what feels good, with other people who think it feels good, while you sit around feeling ashamed?

Come on, it's got to be something. Tell us."

Well put, but "he" might try to aviod that one so I quoted it and bolded it for his convinience...

cgallaga: "1. Maybe we are all chubby chasers

2. I thought it was disrespectful to show images of their prophets...even in America.

3. That maybe the best argument from design I have seen yet. There couldn't be so much random mutation out there."

I LOLed, but idunno if that was exactly your intent.


alfaniner: "Shouldn't a picture like that be masked with the NSFW tag? My boss was doing a drive-by at the time this happened to come up."

Sorry.

[Lothian]

================================================== ================
That's a misrepresentation of the biblical position making it appear as completely focused on homosexuals. It isn't. Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make. The bible does not have the additions in. The verses I abused are ones that are inclusive and profess God's love of all. As an atheist it means little to me but I am surprised when Christians appear to ignore these verses and act as if they do not apply to homosexuals.

I find it slightly strange that despite the bad press the Christian right get in America an American arm of the Anglican community appears quite liberal. I don't know how big the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is or whether there are other Anglican Churches there but when it comes to homosexuality in the Church of England the main resistance comes from Africa not the US.

[mrbaracuda]

Tell me something, why is it such a big deal to you? Did a queer shoot your dog? What's the big goal in your life that fags are stopping you from accomplishing?

Well, he said he was a Christian before, maybe even a Catholic, and you know, all those scandals; he might has his own reasons.. :covereyes

Shouldn't a picture like that be masked with the NSFW tag? My boss was doing a drive-by at the time this happened to come up.

'alfaniner! What did I tell you about browsing pictures of overweight males sitting naked in front of the computer?!'

Yea I can see how that worked out. :D

[Undesired Walrus]

Sunni Man, I just want you to know we all fully support your coming-out process. It cannot be easy.

[Cainkane1]

I don't believe in gay marriage either but I'd rather live in a society that allows same sex marriages than live in a society that arrests wpmen for witchcraft, flogs rape victims and hangs 13 year old children for having sex before age 10.

[Cainkane1]

I think you are correct in that observation. Even though lesbians are just as nasty.

Gay women are apparently beloved of the diety in that they have the lowest incidence of aids in the world. On the extremely rare occassion that they do get aids is when they do sex with men or share aids infected needles. In Iran where heroin use is rampany they catch aids using needles. Apparently god holds lesbians in higher regard than he does dope addicts.

[Garrette]

Personally, if a religion condemns something I am unwilling to change I simply opt to seek a religion that doesn't instead of arguing or demanding that the religion that does condemn change its writings in order to accomodate my preferences. Make sense?In so far as the words convey a discernible meaning, yes, it makes sense.

In so far as the words are supposed to lend any credence to religion at all, no, it does not make sense.

Thanks for your forthrightness with this, but surely you see how this attitude undermines all religious faith? It is an admission that the religion--and its tenets--have no intrinsic value.

[Radrook]

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make. The bible does not have the additions in. The verses I abused are ones that are inclusive and profess God's love of all. As an atheist it means little to me but I am surprised when Christians appear to ignore these verses and act as if they do not apply to homosexuals.

I find it slightly strange that despite the bad press the Christian right get in America an American arm of the Anglican community appears quite liberal. I don't know how big the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is or whether there are other Anglican Churches there but when it comes to homosexuality in the Church of England the main resistance comes from Africa not the US.

You are conveniently and cunningly isolating scriptures and rejecting a host of others which shed light on them. Have you considered the possibility that you are in need of being taught how to study the Bible? Please forgive if I offend but whenever someone begins isolating scripures and giving personal twists it indicates a deficiency that can only be remedied that way.


No, we don't agree. As I said, the Bible doesn't target only one behavior for special treatment as you seem to imply. It targets many behaviors and requires that they be changed in order for us to gain eternal life. Since it does, then it clearly means that God's love is not unconditional as you seem to believe. It requires that we show appreciation via striving to live Christian lives. The requirements are very clear and include not practicing all the behaviors previously mentioned.

You say that it doesn't matter. But that doesn't change all the scriptures which clearly tell us that it does matter. Neither are we authorized to cancel all other scriptures via isolating a few. That is a flawed modus operanbi and leads to the justification of anything we wish which is Satanic.

To be honest, I really don't understand why someone would insist on changing a religion which condemns a behavior that the person refuses to change instead of either rejecting the religion or simply ignoring it and going about his business. Can you explain this phenomenon? I once spoke with a fella who enjoyed being a heterosexual adulterer. He would say that he rejected Christianity because he wanted to continue his lifestyle. He didn't try to change Christianity nor accuse Christian scholars of not knowing their own religion. So why do people like you find that alternative so difficult?

BTW
The preferences of the churches is irrelevant to what the Bible says. Churches are prone to follow fads while the Bible remains morally steadfast.

[Radrook]

In so far as the words convey a discernible meaning, yes, it makes sense.

In so far as the words are supposed to lend any credence to religion at all, no, it does not make sense.

The words aren't trying to lend or reduce credence to anything. They merely constitute a question as to why we would insist on being part of a religion that we consider wrong. If indeed I am a thief, or a murderer, or a habitual liar, and I know that a religion condemns such things, why would I insist on being a member if I don't agree with those tenets? Why not simply choose another religion, make up my own religion, or else have no religion at all and go about my own business instead of vehemently accusing the religion in question of being wrong ands the majority of its scholars in error?


Thanks for your forthrightness with this, but surely you see how this attitude undermines all religious faith? It is an admission that the religion--and its tenets--have no intrinsic value.

No, I don't see how moral requirements undermine all religious faith and deprive its tenets of intrinsic value. Care to explain?

[Lothian]

To be honest, I really don't understand why someone would insist on changing a religion which condemns a behavior that the person refuses to change instead of either rejecting the religion or simply ignoring it and going about his business. Can you explain this phenomenon? I can try.

When it comes to morality most people are able to arrive at their own conclusion about what it right and wrong. Where that creates problems is when their own opinion conflicts with that being taught from scripture. People find themselves in a difficult situation when they hold two conflicting opinions and one has to give.

In those situations one opinion will be seen as a learned truth the other seen as a revealed truth. It is natural for the learned truth to take precedence and the revelation will be seen to be flawed. Some will then reject the whole religion but given many will have devoted years to it will want to keep hold and will only reject the interpretation of the offending part.

In the case of the bible it is not difficult to find a host of different interpretations. From what I assume was once a fairly unified opinion we now have hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the same basic novel.

[Achán hiNidráne]

BTW
The preferences of the churches is irrelevant to what the Bible says. Churches are prone to follow fads while the Bible remains morally steadfast.

Oh please, get off your high horse and stop implying how "morally steadfast" you are because you claim your bigotry is biblically endorsed. Do you stone disobedient children? (Leviticus 21:18-21), Do you stone women who are raped in a city and don't cry out? (Leviticus 22:23-24) )Do you stone those who dares to work on the Sabbath rather than spending the day kissing your deity's keister? (Exodus 35:2), or how about witches (20:27) As far as I know, even the most fundamentalist of Christian denomination follow the "fad" of not practicing the commandments of The ******* Bible to the letter.

Oh, and before you try to can weasel out and claim that JEEEZ-uuus somehow put an end to the Old Testament cruelty of the Law of Moses, he didn't! (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17) Like John Kerry and the Iraq War, he was against The Law even as he supported it! (JEEEZ-uuus seems to have come up with doublethink centuries before Orwell.) And if even he did, why shouldn't homosexuality also be forgiven just as working on the Sabbath, being "a witch," and having the misfortune of being raped in a urban setting?

Face it. Just like all the other Christians, you pick and choose the tenants of your faith to justify whatever your own your beliefs happen to be at the time. Proclaiming to be true to the infallible word of your imaginary tyrant's word just makes you look like a hypocrite as well as deluded.

[Radrook]

I can try.

When it comes to morality most people are able to arrive at their own conclusion about what it right and wrong. Where that creates problems is when their own opinion conflicts with that being taught from scripture. People find themselves in a difficult situation when they hold two conflicting opinions and one has to give.

In those situations one opinion will be seen as a learned truth the other seen as a revealed truth. It is natural for the learned truth to take precedence and the revelation will be seen to be flawed. Some will then reject the whole religion but given many will have devoted years to it will want to keep hold and will only reject the interpretation of the offending part.

In the case of the bible it is not difficult to find a host of different interpretations. From what I assume was once a fairly unified opinion we now have hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the same basic novel.

Thanx for the explanation. In short, they assume that the many interpretations are of equal value and therefore theirs is just as good as any other. Unfortunately that is a serious misconception. Some interpretations are clearly wrong because they generate insurmountable inner textual contradictions. Interpretations which generate such serious context contradictions cannot be right. The same holds true for any literary work. True, any literary work can be SAID to mean many things. But the glaring inconsistencies with context immediately identifies them as spurious to the informed reader. Those claiming that the Bible is an exception cannot convincingly prove that it is literary aberration of that kind because it isn't. When the Bible tells us not to be a habitual thief, a murderer, idolater, blasphemer, or any other behavior it considers wrong, for example, it means exactly what it says and expresses it in clear and concise words. If indeed we disagree with these requirements, then why not just disagree instead of accusing the book of meaning other than what it clearly says? That's what we do when reading any other book. We say we disagree.

[Agno]

If Sunni Man doesn't like the way things are in America, I for one would be willing to chip in to buy him a ticket to Yemen or Iran or somewhere, then he can legally stone people to death for having sex, treat women like slaves and kill his daughter for not wearing a veil. It would be heaven for him! Anyone else like to chip in?

I thought I read somewhere that Muhammed was a fag, didn't he like little boys or something like that???

[Garrette]

The words aren't trying to lend or reduce credence to anything. They merely constitute a question as to why we would insist on being part of a religion that we consider wrong. If indeed I am a thief, or a murderer, or a habitual liar, and I know that a religion condemns such things, why would I insist on being a member if I don't agree with those tenets? Why not simply choose another religion, make up my own religion, or else have no religion at all and go about my own business instead of vehemently accusing the religion in question of being wrong ands the majority of its scholars in error?You are missing the point, but rather than trying to explain it at length, I'll attempt to demonstrate by asking a question:

If someone does as you suggest--renounces a religion with which he disagrees and starts another--is that new religion on equal grounds with yours? If not, why not?


No, I don't see how moral requirements undermine all religious faith and deprive its tenets of intrinsic value. Care to explain?Sure. You are attributing a false meaning to my statement. I said nothing about moral requirements undermining a religious faith. I said your suggestion to renounce a disliked religion, along with the suggestion to create a more palatable one, undermines religion.

[Bob Klase]

I thought I read somewhere that Muhammed was a fag, didn't he like little boys or something like that???

Well, every religion has those little indiscretions they have to overlook.

[Lothian]

Thanx for the explanation. In short, they assume that the many interpretations are of equal value and therefore theirs is just as good as any other. Unfortunately that is a serious misconception. Some interpretations are clearly wrong because they generate insurmountable inner textual contradictions. Interpretations which generate such serious context contradictions cannot be right. The same holds true for any literary work. True, any literary work can be SAID to mean many things. But the glaring inconsistencies with context immediately identifies them as spurious to the informed reader. Those claiming that the Bible is an exception cannot convincingly prove that it is literary aberration of that kind because it isn't. When the Bible tells us not to be a habitual thief, a murderer, idolater, blasphemer, or any other behavior it considers wrong, for example, it means exactly what it says and expresses it in clear and concise words. If indeed we disagree with these requirements, then why not just disagree instead of accusing the book of meaning other than what it clearly says? That's what we do when reading any other book. We say we disagree.Ok, Can you tell me which of the following have interpretations which are clearly wrong. They all think they are the true Christian faith.

Armenian Catholic Church (1742)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (1990)
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Croatian Greek Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Georgian Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Catholic Church
Maronite Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the "Byzantine Catholic Church" in the United States)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
Anglican Church in Thailand
Anglican Church of Australia
Anglican Church of Burundi
Anglican Church of Canada
Anglican Church of Kenya
Anglican Church of Korea
Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
Anglican Church of Tanzania
Church in the Province of the West Indies
Church in Wales (1914)
Church of England (1534)
Church of Ireland (1536)
Church of Nigeria
Church of Uganda
Church of the Province of Central Africa
Church of the Province of Melanesia
Church of the Province of Myanmar
Church of the Province of Rwanda
Church of the Province of South East Asia
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
Church of the Province of West Africa
Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East
Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Episcopal Church of Cuba
Episcopal Church of the Sudan
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central America
Iglesia Anglicana de México
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil
Lusitanian Church of Portugal
Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Japan)
Philippine Episcopal Church
Scottish Episcopal Church
Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church
Church of Bangladesh
Church of North India
Church of South India
Church of Pakistan
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Finnish Orthodox Church
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe (autonomy not universally recognized)
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Saint Catherine's Monastery (considered autocephalous by some)
Russian Orthodox Church
Latvian Orthodox Church (semi-autonomous)
Moldovan Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Japanese Orthodox Church(autonomy not universally recognized)
Chinese Orthodox Church
Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (semi-autonomous; not universally recognized)
Serbian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric (autonomy not universally recognized)
Romanian Orthodox Church
Metropolis of Bessarabia
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
Cypriot Orthodox Church
Church of Greece
Polish Orthodox Church
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly not universally recognized)
Russian Orthodox Church in America (not universally recognized)
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
British Orthodox Church
French Coptic Orthodox Church
Syriac Orthodox Church
Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
Armenian Apostolic Church
Holy See of Cilicia
Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Assyrian Church of the East
American Catholic Church in the United States (1999)
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (1945)
Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada (1968)
Catholic Church, Inc. (2005)
Celtic Catholic Church (1974)
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (1957)
Communion of Christ the Redeemer (2007)
Free Catholic Church (1945)
Liberal Catholic Church (1916)
Mariavite Church (1906)
Old Catholic Church (1870)
Old Catholic Church of America (1925)
Old Catholic Church in Europe (2006)
Palmarian Catholic Church (1975)
Philippine Independent Church (1902)
Polish National Catholic Church (1897)
Spiritus Christi (1998)
True Catholic Church (1998)
African Orthodox Church (1919)
Anglican Catholic Church (1977)
Anglican Church in America (1991)
Anglican Mission in the Americas (2000)
Anglican Orthodox Church (2001)
Anglican Province of America (1995)
Anglican Province of Christ the King (1977)
Charismatic Episcopal Church (1992)
Christian Episcopal Church (2002)
Church of England (Continuing) (1994)
Church of England in South Africa (1938)
Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches (1994)
Episcopal Missionary Church (1992)
Free Church of England (1844)
Free Protestant Episcopal Church (1897)
Reformed Episcopal Church (1873)
Southern Episcopal Church (1962)
Greek Old Calendarists
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Russian Old Believers
Ukrainian Orthodox Church:
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchy)
Celtic Orthodox Church
Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA)
Hussites
Moravian Church
Taborites
Unity of the Brethren
Utraquists
Waldensians
Waldensian-Methodist Union of Italy
Waldensian Church of the Rio de la Plata
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (1872)
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (1962)
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (1900)
Church of the Lutheran Confession (1963)
Concordia Lutheran Conference
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (1993)
Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord" - Russia
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany) - Germany
Evangelical Lutheran Synod - United States
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference - Malawi
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference - Zambia
Ukrainian Lutheran Church - Ukraine
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - United States
Evangelical Catholic Church (1976)
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran (1997)
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA) (2006)
International Lutheran Council (1993)
American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC)
Evangelical Lutheran Church—Synod of France and Belgium
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil
Evangelical Lutheran Church of England
Gutnius Lutheran Church
Independent Evangelical—Lutheran Church
Japan Lutheran Church
Lanka Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church - Canada
Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Laestadian Lutheran Church (1973)
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ -USA (2000)
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (1975)
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA (1995)
The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (GCEPC) -USA (2000)
Lutheran World Federation (1947)
Church of Denmark (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark)
National Church of Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland)
Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway)
Church of Sweden
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway (Associate member)
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Asia Lutheran Communion
Africa Lutheran Communion
World Alliance of Reformed Churches
Canadian and American Reformed Churches
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Christian Reformed Churches of Australia
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Congregational Federation of Australia
Dutch Reformed Church
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches
Free Reformed Churches of North America
Heritage Reformed Congregations
Netherlands Reformed Congregations
Orthodox Christian Reformed Church
Protestant Reformed Churches in America
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in Hungary
Reformed Church in the United States
Remonstrant Brotherhood
The United Church of Canada
United Reformed Churches in North America
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Christ Community Church
Church of Scotland
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ukraine
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Church of Scotland
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster
Free Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian Church in America
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
Presbyterian Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church in Canada
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Presbyterian Church of Korea
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
Presbyterian Church of Wales (also a Methodist church)
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Canada)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia)
Reformed Church of France
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia
Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Southern Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Upper Cumberland Presbyterian Church
The United Church of Canada
United Free Church of Scotland
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Australia
Fellowship of Congregational Churches (Australia)
Huguenots (virtually extinct as a modern and distinct group)
National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
United Church of Christ
Amish
Beachy Amish
Nebraska Amish
Old Order Amish
Swartzendruber Amish
Apostolic Christian Church
Hutterites
Bruderhof Communities
Brethren in Christ
Mennonites
Alliance of Mennonite Evangelical Congregations
Chortitzer Mennonite Conference
Church of God in Christ, Mennonite (Holdeman Mennonites)
Conservative Mennonite Conference
Evangelical Mennonite Church
Evangelical Mennonite Conference
Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference
Evangelical Missionary Church
Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (formerly Evangelical Mennonite Brethren)
Mennonite Brethren Churches
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
Japan Mennonite Brethren Conference
US Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
Mennonite Church Canada
General Conference Mennonite Church (merged)
Mennonite Church in the Netherlands
Mennonite Church USA
General Conference Mennonite Church (merged)
Missionary Church
Old Order Mennonites
Swiss Mennonite Conference
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (Dallas, TX)
Congregational Methodist Church
Church of North India
Church of Pakistan
Church of South India
Church of the Nazarene
Evangelical Church
Evangelical Church of the Dominican Republic
Evangelical Methodist Church
The Evangelical Church (Spain)
First Congregational Methodist Church
The Free Methodist Church (North America)
Free Wesleyan Church (Tonga)
Fundamental Methodist Conference, Inc.
Methodist Church in Ireland
Methodist Church in Singapore
Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma
Methodist Church of Great Britain
Methodist Church of Malaysia
Methodist Church of New Zealand
Methodist Church of Southern Africa
Presbyterian Church of Wales (also a Presbyterian church)
Primitive Methodist Church
The United Church of Canada
United Methodist Church
Uniting Church in Australia
The Wesleyan Church (Indianapolis, IN)
Wesleyan Reform Union
Bible Fellowship Church
Christian Baptist Church of God
Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A.
Church of God (Anderson)
Church of God (Guthrie, Oklahoma)
Church of God (Holiness)
Church of God (Restoration)
Churches of God General Conference (Winebrenner)
Church of the Nazarene
Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)
Harmony Society
Missionary Church
Salvation Army
United Christian Church
Wesleyan Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches USA
Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland
Association of Grace Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Regular Baptist Churches
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist Conference of the Philippines
Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec
Baptist Convention of Western Cuba
Baptist General Conference (formally Swedish Baptist General Conference)
Baptist General Conference of Canada
Baptist General Convention of Texas
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Baptist Union of Australia
Baptist Union of Great Britain
Baptist Union of New Zealand
Baptist Union of Scotland
Baptist Union of Western Canada
Baptist World Alliance
Bible Baptist
Black Primitive Baptists
Canadian Baptist Ministries
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
Central Baptist Association
Central Canada Baptist Conference
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Convención Nacional Bautista de Mexico
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
European Baptist Convention
European Baptist Federation
Evangelical Baptist Mission of South Haiti
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada
Free Will Baptist Church
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Grace Baptist Assembly
Independent Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptist Church
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Myanmar Baptist Convention
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New England Evangelical Baptist Fellowship
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
Nigerian Baptist Convention
North American Baptist Conference
Norwegian Baptist Union
Old Baptist Union
Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptists
Primitive Baptists
Progressive Baptists
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptists
Regular Baptist Churches, General Association of
Regular Baptists
Separate Baptists
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptists
Southeast Conservative Baptists
Southern Baptist Convention
Southern Baptists of Texas
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Strict Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
Union d'Églises baptistes françaises au Canada
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptist Convention of the Atlantic Provinces
United Baptists
United Free Will Baptist
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Alliance
World Baptist Fellowship
The Spiritual Baptist Archdiocese of New York, Inc.
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Plymouth Brethren
Open Brethren
Exclusive Brethren
Indian Brethren
Kerala Brethren
River Brethren
Brethren in Christ Church
Old Order River Brethren
United Zion Church
Schwarzenau Brethren
Brethren Reformed Church
Church of the Brethren
Conservative Grace Brethren Churches, International
Dunkard Brethren
Ephrata Cloister
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches
Old German Baptist Brethren
Old Order German Baptist Brethren
The Brethren Church (Ashland Brethren)
Social Brethren
Catholic Apostolic Church
Restored Apostolic Mission Church
Old Apostolic Church
New Apostolic Church
United Apostolic Church
Apostolic Assemblies of Christ
Apostolic Faith Church
Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa
Assemblies of God
Assembleias de Deus
Assemblies of God in New Zealand
Assemblies of God in the United Kingdom
Assemblies of God in Vietnam
Australian Christian Churches
General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
Australian Fellowship of Faith Churches and Ministers Int. (AFFCMI)
Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship
Calvary Holiness Association
Charismatic Church of God
Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
Christian City Churches
Christ Gospel Churches International
Christian Church of North America
Christian Congregation of Brazil
Christian Outreach Centre
Christian Revival Crusade
Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee)
Church of God (Chattanooga)
Church of God (Cleveland)
Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama)
The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres)
The Church of God for All Nations
Church of God by Faith
Church of God, House of Prayer
Church of God in Christ
Church of God Mountain Assembly
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of God of the Original Mountain Assembly
Church of God with Signs Following
Church of God of the Union Assembly
Church of the Foursquare Gospel in the Philippines
Church of the Little Children of Jesus Christ
Congregational Holiness Church
CRC Churches International
Destiny Church
Elim Fellowship
Elim Pentecostal Church
Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas
Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost
God is Love Pentecostal Church
Holiness Baptist Association
India Pentecostal Church of God
Independent Assemblies of God, International
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Pentecostal Church of Christ
International Pentecostal Holiness Church
Life Application Gospel Ministries International
New Life Churches
New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc
Open Bible Standard Churches
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
Pentecostal Church of God
Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church
Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America
Pentecostal World Conference
Potter's House Christian Fellowship
Redeemed Christian Church of God
Revival Centres International
The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres)
The Church of God for All Nations
The Fellowship (FGFCMI)
The Pentecostal Mission
The Revival Fellowship
United Gospel Tabernacles
United Holy Church of America
Calvary Chapel
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Charismatic Church of God
Faith Christian Fellowship International
Full Gospel
Ministries Without Borders
Ministries of His Glory
Multiply Christian Network (Jesus Army)
New Frontiers
Sovereign Grace Ministries
The Vineyard
City Harvest Church
Bible Christian Mission
Church Assembly Hall
New Birth Movement
New Life Fellowship
True Jesus Church
Destiny Church Groningen
Apostles of Johane Marauke
Celestial Church of Christ
Church of the Lord (Aladura)
Kimbanguist Church
Zion Christian Church
China Christian Council
Church of Bangladesh
Church of Pakistan
Church of North India
Church of South India
Evangelical Church in Germany
International Council of Community Churches
Protestant Church in the Netherlands from 1 May 2004
Mar Thoma Church
St. Thomas Evangelical Church
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands
United Church in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
Uniting Church in Australia
United Reformed Church
Evangelical Friends International
Friends United Meeting
Friends General Conference
Christian Church
Churches of Christ (Non-denominational)
Churches of Christ (non-institutional)
Churches of Christ in Australia
Disciples of Christ
International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement)
Christian Israelite Church
Church of the East and Abroad
Seventh-day Adventist Church
Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day)
Church of God (Seventh-Day), Inclusive
Branch Davidians
Church of the Great God
Living Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Seventh Day Baptists
True Jesus Church
United Church of God
United Seventh-Day Brethren
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of the Blessed Hope (aka Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Primitive Advent Christian Church
Assemblies of Yahweh
House of Yahweh
New Life Fellowship
Christian Millennial Fellowship
Dawn Bible Students Association
Layman's Home Missionary Movement
Pastoral Bible Institute
Universal Life
British-Israel-World Federation
Church of Jesus Christ-Christian (Aryan Nations)
Kingdom Identity Ministries
LaPorte Church of Christ
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
Revival Centres International
The Revival Fellowship
Worldwide Church of God
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada (AGC)
Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches
Children of God a.k.a. "The Family International", "Family of Love", "The Family"
Church of Christ, Instrumental (Kelleyites)
Christian Conventions (non-denominational) (aka Two by Twos, The Truth, The Way) and its offshoot Cooneyites
Christian & Missionary Alliance
Eternal Grace
Evangelical Covenant Church of America ("Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant")
Evangelical Free Church of Canada (EFCC)
Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches
Grace Movement Churches
Great Commission Association
Shakers
Indian Shakers
Jesus Movement
Metropolitan Community Churches
Native American Church
New Frontiers (formerly New Frontiers International)
Schwenkfelder Church
Society of the Excitatus
Yehowists (aka Yehowists-Ilyinites, Russian Jehovists)
Latter Day Saints
Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Hedrickites)
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
Community of Christ (largest "Prairie Saint" denomination)
Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Independent RLDS / Restoration Branches
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Restored Church of Jesus Christ (Eugene O. Walton)
Apostolic United Brethren
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) - by far the largest Latter Day Saint denomination
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan)
The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
The United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ
Aaronic Order
The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
American Unitarian Conference
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic)
Branhamism (Believers Church)
Christadelphians
Christian Science
Church of Christ, Scientist Christian Scientists
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
Church of the Blessed Hope (one of the groups otherwise known as Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Doukhobors ("Spirit-Wrestlers")
Jehovah's Witnesses
Makuya
Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus
Members Church of God International
Molokans
Subbotniks
Geres
Unification Church
Unitarian Christian Association
Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus
Apostolic Brethren
Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God
Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ
Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Church of Jesus Christ
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
House of Prayer Christian Church
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
United Pentecostal Church International
American Unitarian Conference (USA)
International Council of Unitarians and Universalists
Australia and New Zealand Unitarian Association (ANZUA)
Canadian Unitarian Council
Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft, Germany
European Unitarian Universalists
General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, United Kingdom & Ireland
Unitarian Universalist Society of Spain
Unitarisk Kirkesamfund, Denmark
Socinianism (extinct as a modern and distinct group)
Polish Brethren
General Church of the New Jerusalem
Swedenborgian Church of North America formerly General Convention of the New Jerusalem (USA)
Chosen People Ministries
Jews for Jesus
Messianic Bureau International (MBI)
Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), founded in 1915, is the largest association of Messianic Jews in the world
Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC)
Divine Science
Religious Science
Religious Science International
United Church of Religious Science
Unity
Universal Foundation for Better Living
Church of Christ, Scientist
Rastafari
Bobo Ashanti
Twelve Tribes of Israel
Niyabinghi
Ascended Master Teachings
Church Universal and Triumphant
"I AM" Activity
Shangra-la Mission
Share International
The Bridge to Freedom
The Summit Lighthouse
Anago (Nigeria)
Batuque (Brazil)
Candomblé (Brazil)
Lukumí / Santería (Cuba and Puerto Rico)
Obeah (Jamaica and West Indies)
Oyotunji (USA)
Umbanda (Brazil)
Vodou (Vodun) (Haiti)

[Radrook]

You are missing the point, but rather than trying to explain it at length, I'll attempt to demonstrate by asking a question:
If someone does as you suggest--renounces a religion with which he disagrees and starts another--is that new religion on equal grounds with yours? If not, why not?

It might or it might not be depending on what religion mine is.

BTW
Nice use of the categorical imperative!


Sure. You are attributing a false meaning to my statement. I said nothing about moral requirements undermining a religious faith. I said your suggestion to renounce a disliked religion, along with the suggestion to create a more palatable one, undermines religion.

But suppose that more palatable one is also more morally correct? Take for example the Aztec religion and its human sacrifices. Wouldn't the rejection of that religion and the establishment of a more humane one be an improvement? And if indeed such a decision undermines religion as you say-then please explain in what way.

BTW

I am not saying that a rejection of Christianity and a choosing of an alternate is recommendable. It isn't. I am merely stating that there are options besides accusing a book of not meaning what it says.

[DoubtingStephen]

I've noticed a striking similarity between some of the comments about gay rights issues made by Sunni Man and comments made by the famous US Senator Larry Craig (http://larrycraigvideo.com/) (Idaho - Party of Jesus (http://partyofjesus.com/)).

Now of course we all know that Senator Craig is a devout Christian, not a follower of Islam, but since Christianity and Islam both worship the exact same Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, it is not so surprising that some similarities in positions could occur.

I wonder what else Sunni Man might have in common with Larry Craig?

Both of them wish to frequently communicate the idea that they are not gay. Both express their total and complete not-gayness with great vehemence and emphasis. Both often refer to religious dogma they believe indicates that gays are naughty boys, or even naughty bad boys. That's what I call a wide stance!

I'm even willing to hazard a guess that neither Sunni Man nor Larry Craig like to be jerked around by their gas nozzle (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/17/sen-larry-craig-dont-let-foreigners-“jerk-us-around-by-the-gas-nozzle”/).

I've even noticed a certain toe-tapping rhythm to certain posts by our favorite fan of those Family Values Sharia laws.

Hmmmm. Doth anyone protest too much?

[Garrette]

It might or it might not be depending on what religion mine is.Yours is yours. The one to which you adhere now.

Is it conceivable for any religion to be on equal ground with yours.


BTW
Nice use of the categorical imperative! Completely unintentional, I assure you. It has been ages since I studied Kant, and I cannot claim ever entirely to have grasped him.

But suppose that more palatable one is also more morally correct?Now you're getting there.

1. "More morally correct" defined how?
2. "Moral correctness" is independent of religion


Take for example the Aztec religion and its human sacrifices. Wouldn't the rejection of that religion and the establishment of a more humane one be an improvement?An improvement? Absolutely. That is far different from saying "religiously more correct."


And if indeed such a decision undermines religion as you say-then please explain in what way. I have. You have advocated cafeteria-style religiosity. Such a stance is a tacit admission that the religion itself--i.e., the existence of some deity or deities and its/their moral rules--is simple an arbitrary form within which to mold cultural and personal norms. There ain't no God, but we'll act like there is.


BTW

I am not saying that a rejection of Christianity and a choosing of an alternate is recommendable. It isn't.I refer you to Lothian's post. Which Christianity? And by what measure(s)?


I am merely stating that there are options besides accusing a book of not meaning what it says.There are almost always other options. That does not mean taking the one you personally find unpleasant is invalid. It is not only atheists or non-christians who point out discrepancies, contradictions, and errors in the bible; it is also christians. If you disagree with them, you must do more to support your case than spout generalities about them being obviously wrong.

[Radrook]

Ok, Can you tell me which of the following have interpretations which are clearly wrong. They all think they are the true Christian faith....



True Christian faith? First, the only requirement for salvation is that we express our faith by accepting Jesus as our Ransom sacrifice and show our appreciation via living a morally correct Christian life. So all doctrinal deviations that do not seriously interfere with this requirement are of non-salvational importance.

However, despite holding this essential faith, such religions are might harbor beliefs that are not biblically justifiable. Here are two examples.

Spiritistic practices: = Voodoo and Santerias The Santerias and Voodoos are religions that practice spiritism something CLEARLY and repeatedly condemned in the scriptures as demonic.

Extra-bilblical ideas = The Latter Day Saints, for example, have extra biblical writings and doctrines not found in the acceptable Bible cannon. They teach that God was once a man who lived in Eden and that all of us will be Gods with our own worshipers and universes. That automatically places their ideas outside the biblical realm into a realm of their own since they go completely contrary to biblical teachings.

[Radrook]

Yours is yours. The one to which you adhere now.
Is it conceivable for any religion to be on equal ground with yours.

My religion is having faith in Jesus' Ransom sacrifice for salvation and doing what I am told to do morally in the Bible to show respect for that sacrifice. So if the proposed religion goes contrary to this my answer is no.

Completely unintentional, I assure you. It has been ages since I studied Kant, and I cannot claim ever entirely to have grasped him.

Me too.



Now you're getting there.

1. "More morally correct" defined how?
2. "Moral correctness" is independent of religion

An improvement? Absolutely. That is far different from saying "religiously more correct."

I never claimed that morality is always dependant on religion. Morality can be derived from our human condition and its exigencies for survival. With that basis anything contrary to those exigencies can be viewed as immoral.


I have. You have advocated cafeteria-style religiosity. Such a stance is a tacit admission that the religion itself--i.e., the existence of some deity or deities and its/their moral rules--is simple an arbitrary form within which to mold cultural and personal norms. There ain't no God, but we'll act like there is.

The issue isn't ID. It's biblical clarity in reference to sexual moral issues between and among the sexes.


I refer you to Lothian's post. Which Christianity? And by what measure(s)?

There is only one Christianity. The Church is not composed of buildings and organizations. It is a spiritual church which God recognizes as his own based on his evaluation of each person's heart and mind regardless of denominational membership.

There are almost always other options. That does not mean taking the one you personally find unpleasant is invalid. It is not only atheists or non-Christians who point out discrepancies, contradictions, and errors in the bible; it is also Christians. If you disagree with them, you must do more to support your case than spout generalities about them being obviously wrong.

I never claimed that there are no differences of opinions among those claiming to be Christians. Obviously there are. Catholics once were very keen on not eating meat on Fridays. Protestants couldn't have cared less. So my issue isn't with diversity of views among professed Christians. My issue is with those who argue that that Bible isn't clear in terms of sexual morality and insist that it doesn't mean what it says.

[hcmom]

Ok, Can you tell me which of the following have interpretations which are clearly wrong. They all think they are the true Christian faith.

Armenian Catholic Church (1742)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (1990)
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Croatian Greek Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Georgian Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Catholic Church
Maronite Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the "Byzantine Catholic Church" in the United States)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
Anglican Church in Thailand
Anglican Church of Australia
Anglican Church of Burundi
Anglican Church of Canada
Anglican Church of Kenya
Anglican Church of Korea
Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
Anglican Church of Tanzania
Church in the Province of the West Indies
Church in Wales (1914)
Church of England (1534)
Church of Ireland (1536)
Church of Nigeria
Church of Uganda
Church of the Province of Central Africa
Church of the Province of Melanesia
Church of the Province of Myanmar
Church of the Province of Rwanda
Church of the Province of South East Asia
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
Church of the Province of West Africa
Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East
Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Episcopal Church of Cuba
Episcopal Church of the Sudan
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central America
Iglesia Anglicana de México
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil
Lusitanian Church of Portugal
Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Japan)
Philippine Episcopal Church
Scottish Episcopal Church
Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church
Church of Bangladesh
Church of North India
Church of South India
Church of Pakistan
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Finnish Orthodox Church
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe (autonomy not universally recognized)
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Saint Catherine's Monastery (considered autocephalous by some)
Russian Orthodox Church
Latvian Orthodox Church (semi-autonomous)
Moldovan Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Japanese Orthodox Church(autonomy not universally recognized)
Chinese Orthodox Church
Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (semi-autonomous; not universally recognized)
Serbian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric (autonomy not universally recognized)
Romanian Orthodox Church
Metropolis of Bessarabia
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
Cypriot Orthodox Church
Church of Greece
Polish Orthodox Church
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly not universally recognized)
Russian Orthodox Church in America (not universally recognized)
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
British Orthodox Church
French Coptic Orthodox Church
Syriac Orthodox Church
Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
Armenian Apostolic Church
Holy See of Cilicia
Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Assyrian Church of the East
American Catholic Church in the United States (1999)
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (1945)
Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada (1968)
Catholic Church, Inc. (2005)
Celtic Catholic Church (1974)
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (1957)
Communion of Christ the Redeemer (2007)
Free Catholic Church (1945)
Liberal Catholic Church (1916)
Mariavite Church (1906)
Old Catholic Church (1870)
Old Catholic Church of America (1925)
Old Catholic Church in Europe (2006)
Palmarian Catholic Church (1975)
Philippine Independent Church (1902)
Polish National Catholic Church (1897)
Spiritus Christi (1998)
True Catholic Church (1998)
African Orthodox Church (1919)
Anglican Catholic Church (1977)
Anglican Church in America (1991)
Anglican Mission in the Americas (2000)
Anglican Orthodox Church (2001)
Anglican Province of America (1995)
Anglican Province of Christ the King (1977)
Charismatic Episcopal Church (1992)
Christian Episcopal Church (2002)
Church of England (Continuing) (1994)
Church of England in South Africa (1938)
Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches (1994)
Episcopal Missionary Church (1992)
Free Church of England (1844)
Free Protestant Episcopal Church (1897)
Reformed Episcopal Church (1873)
Southern Episcopal Church (1962)
Greek Old Calendarists
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Russian Old Believers
Ukrainian Orthodox Church:
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchy)
Celtic Orthodox Church
Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA)
Hussites
Moravian Church
Taborites
Unity of the Brethren
Utraquists
Waldensians
Waldensian-Methodist Union of Italy
Waldensian Church of the Rio de la Plata
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (1872)
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (1962)
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (1900)
Church of the Lutheran Confession (1963)
Concordia Lutheran Conference
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (1993)
Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord" - Russia
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany) - Germany
Evangelical Lutheran Synod - United States
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference - Malawi
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference - Zambia
Ukrainian Lutheran Church - Ukraine
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - United States
Evangelical Catholic Church (1976)
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran (1997)
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA) (2006)
International Lutheran Council (1993)
American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC)
Evangelical Lutheran Church—Synod of France and Belgium
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil
Evangelical Lutheran Church of England
Gutnius Lutheran Church
Independent Evangelical—Lutheran Church
Japan Lutheran Church
Lanka Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church - Canada
Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Laestadian Lutheran Church (1973)
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ -USA (2000)
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (1975)
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA (1995)
The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (GCEPC) -USA (2000)
Lutheran World Federation (1947)
Church of Denmark (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark)
National Church of Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland)
Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway)
Church of Sweden
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway (Associate member)
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Asia Lutheran Communion
Africa Lutheran Communion
World Alliance of Reformed Churches
Canadian and American Reformed Churches
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Christian Reformed Churches of Australia
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Congregational Federation of Australia
Dutch Reformed Church
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches
Free Reformed Churches of North America
Heritage Reformed Congregations
Netherlands Reformed Congregations
Orthodox Christian Reformed Church
Protestant Reformed Churches in America
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in Hungary
Reformed Church in the United States
Remonstrant Brotherhood
The United Church of Canada
United Reformed Churches in North America
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Christ Community Church
Church of Scotland
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ukraine
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Church of Scotland
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster
Free Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian Church in America
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
Presbyterian Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church in Canada
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Presbyterian Church of Korea
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
Presbyterian Church of Wales (also a Methodist church)
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Canada)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia)
Reformed Church of France
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia
Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Southern Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Upper Cumberland Presbyterian Church
The United Church of Canada
United Free Church of Scotland
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Australia
Fellowship of Congregational Churches (Australia)
Huguenots (virtually extinct as a modern and distinct group)
National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
United Church of Christ
Amish
Beachy Amish
Nebraska Amish
Old Order Amish
Swartzendruber Amish
Apostolic Christian Church
Hutterites
Bruderhof Communities
Brethren in Christ
Mennonites
Alliance of Mennonite Evangelical Congregations
Chortitzer Mennonite Conference
Church of God in Christ, Mennonite (Holdeman Mennonites)
Conservative Mennonite Conference
Evangelical Mennonite Church
Evangelical Mennonite Conference
Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference
Evangelical Missionary Church
Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (formerly Evangelical Mennonite Brethren)
Mennonite Brethren Churches
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
Japan Mennonite Brethren Conference
US Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
Mennonite Church Canada
General Conference Mennonite Church (merged)
Mennonite Church in the Netherlands
Mennonite Church USA
General Conference Mennonite Church (merged)
Missionary Church
Old Order Mennonites
Swiss Mennonite Conference
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (Dallas, TX)
Congregational Methodist Church
Church of North India
Church of Pakistan
Church of South India
Church of the Nazarene
Evangelical Church
Evangelical Church of the Dominican Republic
Evangelical Methodist Church
The Evangelical Church (Spain)
First Congregational Methodist Church
The Free Methodist Church (North America)
Free Wesleyan Church (Tonga)
Fundamental Methodist Conference, Inc.
Methodist Church in Ireland
Methodist Church in Singapore
Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma
Methodist Church of Great Britain
Methodist Church of Malaysia
Methodist Church of New Zealand
Methodist Church of Southern Africa
Presbyterian Church of Wales (also a Presbyterian church)
Primitive Methodist Church
The United Church of Canada
United Methodist Church
Uniting Church in Australia
The Wesleyan Church (Indianapolis, IN)
Wesleyan Reform Union
Bible Fellowship Church
Christian Baptist Church of God
Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A.
Church of God (Anderson)
Church of God (Guthrie, Oklahoma)
Church of God (Holiness)
Church of God (Restoration)
Churches of God General Conference (Winebrenner)
Church of the Nazarene
Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)
Harmony Society
Missionary Church
Salvation Army
United Christian Church
Wesleyan Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches USA
Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland
Association of Grace Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Regular Baptist Churches
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist Conference of the Philippines
Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec
Baptist Convention of Western Cuba
Baptist General Conference (formally Swedish Baptist General Conference)
Baptist General Conference of Canada
Baptist General Convention of Texas
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Baptist Union of Australia
Baptist Union of Great Britain
Baptist Union of New Zealand
Baptist Union of Scotland
Baptist Union of Western Canada
Baptist World Alliance
Bible Baptist
Black Primitive Baptists
Canadian Baptist Ministries
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
Central Baptist Association
Central Canada Baptist Conference
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Convención Nacional Bautista de Mexico
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
European Baptist Convention
European Baptist Federation
Evangelical Baptist Mission of South Haiti
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada
Free Will Baptist Church
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Grace Baptist Assembly
Independent Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptist Church
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Myanmar Baptist Convention
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New England Evangelical Baptist Fellowship
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
Nigerian Baptist Convention
North American Baptist Conference
Norwegian Baptist Union
Old Baptist Union
Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptists
Primitive Baptists
Progressive Baptists
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptists
Regular Baptist Churches, General Association of
Regular Baptists
Separate Baptists
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptists
Southeast Conservative Baptists
Southern Baptist Convention
Southern Baptists of Texas
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Strict Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
Union d'Églises baptistes françaises au Canada
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptist Convention of the Atlantic Provinces
United Baptists
United Free Will Baptist
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Alliance
World Baptist Fellowship
The Spiritual Baptist Archdiocese of New York, Inc.
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Plymouth Brethren
Open Brethren
Exclusive Brethren
Indian Brethren
Kerala Brethren
River Brethren
Brethren in Christ Church
Old Order River Brethren
United Zion Church
Schwarzenau Brethren
Brethren Reformed Church
Church of the Brethren
Conservative Grace Brethren Churches, International
Dunkard Brethren
Ephrata Cloister
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches
Old German Baptist Brethren
Old Order German Baptist Brethren
The Brethren Church (Ashland Brethren)
Social Brethren
Catholic Apostolic Church
Restored Apostolic Mission Church
Old Apostolic Church
New Apostolic Church
United Apostolic Church
Apostolic Assemblies of Christ
Apostolic Faith Church
Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa
Assemblies of God
Assembleias de Deus
Assemblies of God in New Zealand
Assemblies of God in the United Kingdom
Assemblies of God in Vietnam
Australian Christian Churches
General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
Australian Fellowship of Faith Churches and Ministers Int. (AFFCMI)
Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship
Calvary Holiness Association
Charismatic Church of God
Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
Christian City Churches
Christ Gospel Churches International
Christian Church of North America
Christian Congregation of Brazil
Christian Outreach Centre
Christian Revival Crusade
Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee)
Church of God (Chattanooga)
Church of God (Cleveland)
Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama)
The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres)
The Church of God for All Nations
Church of God by Faith
Church of God, House of Prayer
Church of God in Christ
Church of God Mountain Assembly
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of God of the Original Mountain Assembly
Church of God with Signs Following
Church of God of the Union Assembly
Church of the Foursquare Gospel in the Philippines
Church of the Little Children of Jesus Christ
Congregational Holiness Church
CRC Churches International
Destiny Church
Elim Fellowship
Elim Pentecostal Church
Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas
Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost
God is Love Pentecostal Church
Holiness Baptist Association
India Pentecostal Church of God
Independent Assemblies of God, International
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Pentecostal Church of Christ
International Pentecostal Holiness Church
Life Application Gospel Ministries International
New Life Churches
New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc
Open Bible Standard Churches
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
Pentecostal Church of God
Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church
Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America
Pentecostal World Conference
Potter's House Christian Fellowship
Redeemed Christian Church of God
Revival Centres International
The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres)
The Church of God for All Nations
The Fellowship (FGFCMI)
The Pentecostal Mission
The Revival Fellowship
United Gospel Tabernacles
United Holy Church of America
Calvary Chapel
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Charismatic Church of God
Faith Christian Fellowship International
Full Gospel
Ministries Without Borders
Ministries of His Glory
Multiply Christian Network (Jesus Army)
New Frontiers
Sovereign Grace Ministries
The Vineyard
City Harvest Church
Bible Christian Mission
Church Assembly Hall
New Birth Movement
New Life Fellowship
True Jesus Church
Destiny Church Groningen
Apostles of Johane Marauke
Celestial Church of Christ
Church of the Lord (Aladura)
Kimbanguist Church
Zion Christian Church
China Christian Council
Church of Bangladesh
Church of Pakistan
Church of North India
Church of South India
Evangelical Church in Germany
International Council of Community Churches
Protestant Church in the Netherlands from 1 May 2004
Mar Thoma Church
St. Thomas Evangelical Church
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands
United Church in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
Uniting Church in Australia
United Reformed Church
Evangelical Friends International
Friends United Meeting
Friends General Conference
Christian Church
Churches of Christ (Non-denominational)
Churches of Christ (non-institutional)
Churches of Christ in Australia
Disciples of Christ
International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement)
Christian Israelite Church
Church of the East and Abroad
Seventh-day Adventist Church
Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day)
Church of God (Seventh-Day), Inclusive
Branch Davidians
Church of the Great God
Living Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Seventh Day Baptists
True Jesus Church
United Church of God
United Seventh-Day Brethren
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of the Blessed Hope (aka Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Primitive Advent Christian Church
Assemblies of Yahweh
House of Yahweh
New Life Fellowship
Christian Millennial Fellowship
Dawn Bible Students Association
Layman's Home Missionary Movement
Pastoral Bible Institute
Universal Life
British-Israel-World Federation
Church of Jesus Christ-Christian (Aryan Nations)
Kingdom Identity Ministries
LaPorte Church of Christ
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
Revival Centres International
The Revival Fellowship
Worldwide Church of God
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada (AGC)
Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches
Children of God a.k.a. "The Family International", "Family of Love", "The Family"
Church of Christ, Instrumental (Kelleyites)
Christian Conventions (non-denominational) (aka Two by Twos, The Truth, The Way) and its offshoot Cooneyites
Christian & Missionary Alliance
Eternal Grace
Evangelical Covenant Church of America ("Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant")
Evangelical Free Church of Canada (EFCC)
Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches
Grace Movement Churches
Great Commission Association
Shakers
Indian Shakers
Jesus Movement
Metropolitan Community Churches
Native American Church
New Frontiers (formerly New Frontiers International)
Schwenkfelder Church
Society of the Excitatus
Yehowists (aka Yehowists-Ilyinites, Russian Jehovists)
Latter Day Saints
Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Hedrickites)
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
Community of Christ (largest "Prairie Saint" denomination)
Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Independent RLDS / Restoration Branches
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Restored Church of Jesus Christ (Eugene O. Walton)
Apostolic United Brethren
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) - by far the largest Latter Day Saint denomination
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan)
The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
The United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ
Aaronic Order
The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
American Unitarian Conference
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic)
Branhamism (Believers Church)
Christadelphians
Christian Science
Church of Christ, Scientist Christian Scientists
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
Church of the Blessed Hope (one of the groups otherwise known as Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Doukhobors ("Spirit-Wrestlers")
Jehovah's Witnesses
Makuya
Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus
Members Church of God International
Molokans
Subbotniks
Geres
Unification Church
Unitarian Christian Association
Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus
Apostolic Brethren
Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God
Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ
Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Church of Jesus Christ
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
House of Prayer Christian Church
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
United Pentecostal Church International
American Unitarian Conference (USA)
International Council of Unitarians and Universalists
Australia and New Zealand Unitarian Association (ANZUA)
Canadian Unitarian Council
Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft, Germany
European Unitarian Universalists
General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, United Kingdom & Ireland
Unitarian Universalist Society of Spain
Unitarisk Kirkesamfund, Denmark
Socinianism (extinct as a modern and distinct group)
Polish Brethren
General Church of the New Jerusalem
Swedenborgian Church of North America formerly General Convention of the New Jerusalem (USA)
Chosen People Ministries
Jews for Jesus
Messianic Bureau International (MBI)
Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), founded in 1915, is the largest association of Messianic Jews in the world
Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC)
Divine Science
Religious Science
Religious Science International
United Church of Religious Science
Unity
Universal Foundation for Better Living
Church of Christ, Scientist
Rastafari
Bobo Ashanti
Twelve Tribes of Israel
Niyabinghi
Ascended Master Teachings
Church Universal and Triumphant
"I AM" Activity
Shangra-la Mission
Share International
The Bridge to Freedom
The Summit Lighthouse
Anago (Nigeria)
Batuque (Brazil)
Candomblé (Brazil)
Lukumí / Santería (Cuba and Puerto Rico)
Obeah (Jamaica and West Indies)
Oyotunji (USA)
Umbanda (Brazil)
Vodou (Vodun) (Haiti)

Lothian, you need a hobby.... :halo:

[Lothian]

Lothian, you need a hobby.... :halo:I have one. I collect Churches.

[Garrette]

My religion is having faith in Jesus' Ransom sacrifice for salvation and doing what I am told to do morally in the Bible to show respect for that sacrifice. So if the proposed religion goes contrary to this my answer is no.Thank you for answering so directly. It is refreshing. Two questions:

1. What you are "told to do morally in the Bible" is far from clear. That is the point. Your insistence that it is clear doesn't make it so. Now in regard to homosexuality specifically, I agree that the bible is clear, at least in Leviticus, but I'm sure you've been asked several times on this forum about the other prohibitions in Leviticus. I'm also sure you don't take them all so seriously as you do the one on homosexuality. Why is that?

2. What makes your religion better than that I might create? By "better" I don't mean morally better or more palatable. I suppose I mean "legitimate." What besides the bible lends legitimacy to your version of christianity?


I never claimed that morality is always dependant on religion.So now it's you hinting at Kant? Universal Imperative and all that? This is not a minor point. If their can be morality outside religion, then what is the purpose of religion?


Morality can be derived from our human condition and its exigencies for survival. With that basis anything contrary to those exigencies can be viewed as immoral.I agree with the gist of this, but it gets me back to my question above. What is the purpose of religion? Are there two types of morality--one based on survival and one based on the imposed desires of a deity?


The issue isn't ID.Intelligent Design? Whoever said it was?


It's biblical clarity in reference to sexual moral issues between and among the sexes.I suggest it is about biblical clarity in general (how can you take the clear proscription against homosexuality and ignore the one about clothing fibers?) and about the legitimacy of the bible itself (why should we assume it has any more legitimacy than the Bhagavad Gita?)


There is only one Christianity.No, there is not, unless you define Christianity to mean only that belief which you hold yourself.


The Church is not composed of buildings and organizations.Though it does seem to have a lot of them. And spend lots of money on them.


It is a spiritual church which God recognizes as his own based on his evaluation of each person's heart and mind regardless of denominational membership. Even if that denomination is LDS?


I never claimed that there are no differences of opinions among those claiming to be Christians."claiming to be?"


Obviously there are. Catholics once were very keen on not eating meat on Fridays. Protestants couldn't have cared less. So my issue isn't with diversity of views among professed Christians. My issue is with those who argue that that Bible isn't clear in terms of sexual morality and insist that it doesn't mean what it says.And my issue is with the cafeteria-style of picking what you like from the bible and ignoring what is inconvenient. Ever worn polyester?

[Agno]

Lothian, none of the above. They're all a crock.

That's what religion gets you, whether it be Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever. It's the US and THEM attitude. WE are saved (from what? having to think?) THEY are not. Hitler used that tactic to dehumanize the Jews. US vs THEM.

It boggles my mind why it isn't OBVIOUS to anyone who looks at them that all religions are just old archaic creation myths and superstitions. They have nothing at all to do with reality. They're about invisible supernatural father-figures in the sky...give me a break! I'd sooner believe in the Easter Bunny.

But people get so sucked into their fairy tale worlds that they're blinded to reality. They tend to think of people who don't believe the way they do as heathens or infidels or just non-believers. To me ALL religions are bad. They lure people away from reality and pull them down into a fantasy world. No wonder they believe in all kinds of nonsense. And no wonder they discriminate against and even persecute people who don't adhere to their myths and superstitions.

[RandFan]

Does it include nicely decorated apartments and socks that match the rest of your clothes?

The horror...:D

[Upchurch]

Ok, Can you tell me which of the following have interpretations which are clearly wrong. They all think they are the true Christian faith.

{snip}
European Unitarian Universalists
Unitarian Universalist Society of Spain
{snip}

I'd just like to point out that these two (as well as any UU variant, to my knowledge) are neither exclusively Christian nor believe that there is a single "true faith".

[Upchurch]

So My Little Pony = radical sodomite agenda?
No, My Little Pony = radical six year old girl agenda.

[RandFan]

And my issue is with the cafeteria-style of picking what you like from the bible and ignoring what is inconvenient. Ever worn polyester?It is amazing the degree that people will go to justify their bigotry.

My issue is with those who argue that that Bible isn't clear in terms of sexual morality and insist that it doesn't mean what it says. The bible is clear about working on the sabbath. Kill them. Kill witches. Kill children who are disrespectful. Kill rape victims.

Christians, the bible is clear, go forth and kill...

Thou shalt not kill.

Well, maybe it's not so clear.

[DoubtingStephen]

The bible is clear about working on the sabbath. Kill them. Kill witches. Kill children who are disrespectful. Kill rape victims.


Surely their blood shall be upon them!

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f258/Panzerschreck_DH/feed_trolls.gif

[Aitch]

No, My Little Pony = radical six year old girl agenda.

Woah - don't take on the six year old girls, friend; you'll never win. ;)

[Jon_Stripe]

I can try.

When it comes to morality most people are able to arrive at their own conclusion about what it right and wrong. Where that creates problems is when their own opinion conflicts with that being taught from scripture. People find themselves in a difficult situation when they hold two conflicting opinions and one has to give.

In those situations one opinion will be seen as a learned truth the other seen as a revealed truth. It is natural for the learned truth to take precedence and the revelation will be seen to be flawed. Some will then reject the whole religion but given many will have devoted years to it will want to keep hold and will only reject the interpretation of the offending part.

In the case of the bible it is not difficult to find a host of different interpretations. From what I assume was once a fairly unified opinion we now have hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the same basic novel.

Very, very well stated.

Adding a bit on with a very much related statment--

Look at the Gay Christian comunity

[Jon_Stripe]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f258/Panzerschreck_DH/feed_trolls.gif

Is it Troll Season?

*shuck--shuck*

[truethat]

Gay marriage is going through. Its like the last gasping breath of a a fading movie star to read this thread.

How hysterically stupid. Thanks for the laughs. :j1:

[skeptifem]

Ok, Can you tell me which of the following have interpretations which are clearly wrong.


Im sorry, Mormon is the correct religion. mormon.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Gay marriage

Homo couples adopting children

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion.

NAMBLA being declared legal.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in childrens schools.

So the radical sodomite agenda is actually the wholly reasonable sodomite agenda? The NAMBLA bit is obvious bait; but for other reasons it's also innacurate. NAMBLA already is legal; first amendment. What they advocate is making man-boy-love legal; which won't happen. The rest I would consider basic minority rights especially when no evidence exists to suggest that homosexuality can be anymore dangerous than heterosexuality.

Gay marriage -- Reasonable. You have Anglican church to thank for secularizing marriage.

Homo couples addopting children -- Also Reasonable.

Gay soldiers allowed to be open about their perversion -- Also reasonable. You expect them to die defending your right to free speech but not to excercize their right to free speech eh? I'm allowed to be open about any sexual perversions I want in the military; so why should homosexuality be any differant. I know I know it isn't a perversion because it isn't inherrently immoral...I'm just making a point here.

Homosexuality taught as being normal in children's schools -- Along with teaching evolution and that Social Conservatism is not God manifested into politics that's among the three things fundies don't want to see in schools. If their taught anything about homosexuality it would be that you have to tolerate their existance. I very much doubt their going to show kids how to elicitly posture for sex in a men's restroom.

Ok; now stop feeding the trolls.

[Sunni Man]

Thou shalt not kill.

Well, maybe it's not so clear.Actually, the correct translation from Hebrew is: Thou shalt not "Murder"


Thus when you are administering capital punishment for a crime.

You are "killing" the person by execution. Not murdering them.

[Nogbad]

The history of religion
is the history of the state
incestuous exploiters of
love, death, hate

Roy Harper

[Garrette]

Actually, the correct translation from Hebrew is: Thou shalt not "Murder"


Thus when you are administering capital punishment for a crime.

You are "killing" the person by execution. Not murdering them.Ah. So killing people for working on the sabbath or for being rape victims or for being disrespectful children isn't murder or for being witches isn't murder.

Got it. Quite clear.

[Darth Rotor]

7[/B]"]
That font thing you just did with the haha is a red flag indicating a lamer.
Ladwig hit the Sunni Man nail on the head.
Nice turn of phrase. :)
This thread shouldn't even be taking seriously anymore.
Are you suggesting it should have been taken seriously from the beginning, or ever? :confused:
(I noticed, BTW, that "Sunni Man" avoided my requests for justifications towards his initail arguement.)
Initial argument.

Interesting usage.

The OP seemed to me more of a set up for an insult, not an argument.
YOU FAIL!
Glass houses and stones come to mind.

Hoping this wasn't your A, B, or C game. ;)

DR

[DoubtingStephen]

The history of religion
is the history of the state
incestuous exploiters of
love, death, hate

Roy Harper

Good. I also like:

Church and State
Greed and Hate
Two Baboons
In One Supreme Gorilla-Person

Aldous Huxley

[Safe-Keeper]

Funni Man only posts very short posts with little or no substance.
He only replies when he has very controversial statements to make.
He only comments on a few controversial topics.
How anyone can think this guy is not a troll is beyond me.
Ok; now stop feeding the trolls.

[fuelair]

Funni Man only posts very short posts with little or no substance.
He only replies when he has very controversial statements to make.
He only comments on a few controversial topics.
How anyone can think this guy is not a troll is beyond me.I was unaware that there was anyone who did not think him a troll.
:confused:

[Radrook]

Thank you for answering so directly. It is refreshing. Two questions:

1. What you are "told to do morally in the Bible" is far from clear.

I see nothing unclear about not murdering, not stealing, not lying, not blasphemiing, not pratacticing spiritism, not fornicating and not having sex with same sex.


Now in regard to homosexuality specifically, I agree that the bible is clear, at least in Leviticus, but I'm sure you've been asked several times on this forum about the other prohibitions in Leviticus. I'm also sure you don't take them all so seriously as you do the one on homosexuality. Why is that?


The OT ceremonial aspects of animal sacrifices, annual celebrations, dietary restrictions, were done away with and are said to have been done away with in the NT. However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.


2. What makes your religion better than that I might create? By "better" I don't mean morally better or more palatable. I suppose I mean "legitimate." What besides the bible lends legitimacy to your version of christianity?

I really don't see what this has to do with whether the Bible is clear or not on the sodomy issue.


So now it's you hinting at Kant? Universal Imperative and all that? This is not a minor point.

How am I hinting at Kant?


If their can be morality outside religion, then what is the purpose of religion?

From a Christian-Jewsh and Islamic, [monotheism] standpoint, the function of religion is to establish a good relationship between man and his creator. Other religions, whether monotheistic or not follow that pattern to lesser or greater degrees.

I agree with the gist of this, but it gets me back to my question above. What is the purpose of religion? Are there two types of morality--one based on survival and one based on the imposed desires of a deity?

The Christian religion's morality is in full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival.

Intelligent Design? Whoever said it was?

If the issue becomes the existence of the biblical God then in deviates the thread to the ID issue since its alternative is abiogenesis.


I suggest it is about biblical clarity in general (how can you take the clear proscription against homosexuality and ignore the one about clothing fibers?) and about the legitimacy of the bible itself (why should we assume it has any more legitimacy than the Bhagavad Gita?)

We don't have to assume anything. However, if indeed we claim to accept it as divine revelation, then we bind ourselves to take its restrictions seriously. There isn't a middle ground where we can say it's God's word except where we draw the line because we find it inconvenient in some way.

Even if that denomination is LDS?

I mentioned LDS and Santeria as examples of how easy it is to identify what is and what is not in sync with the rest of the scriptures.

"claiming to be?"

You consider all who claim to be Christians sincere? Isn't that a bit nsaive?

And my issue is with the cafeteria-style of picking what you like from the bible and ignoring what is inconvenient. Ever worn polyester?

In relation to homosexuality-which is the subject at issue here, there is no picking what one likes or dislikes since the Bible is clear on that issue. That you disagree doesn't make it unclear. It only demonstrates that you disagree. Nothing more.

BTW

My original qiuestion was why insist on changing scripture instead of simply choosing a religion which doesn't restrict the lifestyle which one insists one has the right to live. So far I find the responses unconvincing. If I were in an identical situation that's what I would do. So I am looking at it from that hypothetical perspective. I would simply pronounce the religion as ridiculously unreasonable and go about my own business.

This isn't meant as a unique response to homosexuality. It applies to anyone who disagrees with anything that the Bible might require of them and who feel that they don't have to abide by it.
Actually, usually such individuals simply state their position and
go about as usual without a care in the world. So insisting on changing the Bible moral law in order to have it accomodate behavior it clearly condemns isn't a common reaction.

[Hokulele]

The OT ceremonial aspects of animal sacrifices, annual celebrations, dietary restrictions, were done away with and are said to have been done away with in the NT. However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.


So being a lesbian is OK. Got it.

[Radrook]

So being a lesbian is OK. Got it.

If you aren't jesting then you have an English reading comprehension problem.

[ConspiRaider]

So being a lesbian is OK. Got it.
So long as it is not enjoyed (too much), H, why then of course. And it fits right in with human survival as well. Hell, if they stopped my Penthouse subscription, I don't see how I could make it. So in God's eyes, lesbianism is jake.

[Texas]

Actually, the correct translation from Hebrew is: Thou shalt not "Murder"


Thus when you are administering capital punishment for a crime.

You are "killing" the person by execution. Not murdering them.Sunni knowing where your loyalty lies I would think you would welcome the collapse of the United States and the West from the "debauchery" of homosexuality.

[OlbarStein]

The bible doesn't change, but our interpretation of it should. There are some rules we kept and some we ignore today. During the US civil war there were arguments for and against slavery directly based on the bible. Today we ignore the rules for slavery. In 50 years people will look back upon this debate and will wonder why it even was an issue.

[B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)]

I have one. I collect Churches.

Do they float?

[Lothian]

Do they float?On this side of the pond most of them are sinking.

[Hokulele]

If you aren't jesting then you have an English reading comprehension problem.


Your quote cited "heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, and sodomy". How does lesbianism fit any of those categories?

[RandFan]

You are "killing" the person by execution. Not murdering them. My neighbor works on the Sabbath. If I stone him to death is that killing or murder?

Numbers 15:32-36
32While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Perhaps the differnce between murder and killing is simply in the eye of the person doing the killing.

[mrbaracuda]

Thou shalt not kill.

Well, maybe it's not so clear.

See here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3852236&postcount=99) for my little investigation. But don't bother resurrecting the thread. ;)

[mrbaracuda]

Ah. So killing people for working on the sabbath or for being rape victims or for being disrespectful children isn't murder or for being witches isn't murder.

Got it. Quite clear.

Isn't it? :p

[RandFan]

See here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3852236&postcount=99) for my little investigation. But don't bother resurrecting the thread. ;)Oh, I agree. I accept the distinction. Completly. The problem (and the answer) lies in the modern application of bronze age moral proscriptions. Is stoning someone who works on the sabbath today murder or killing? Back then it was simply killing.

[mrbaracuda]

Oh, I agree. I accept the distinction. Completly. The problem (and the answer) lies in the modern application of bronze age moral proscriptions. Is stoning someone who works on the sabbath today murder or killing? Back then it was simply killing.

Hooray for our evolving societies I say! :)

[Soapy Sam]

Golly, this is one mixed up thread.
My pennyworth (2 cents).

Homosexual marriage. I have doubts. Marriage is, pretty much by definition, a legal contract between (one or more) men and women , to establish certain legal & financial rights within the state- the primary purpose of which is the rearing of children and the passing to said children, of property.

Now maybe we just need to scrap that and come up with something new that takes same sex couples (or groups) into account. But would that be "marriage"?
We may argue what's in a name? But the name matters to different folks for different reasons. Some, for instance, see marriage as a "sacrament"- a holy contract between humans and gods. I think that's a meaningless phrase, but meaningless phrases can kill. ("Sieg heil" was a good one).

With the relentless decline of marriage in the west, it seems clear its days are numbered. Do gays really want to climb onto a wagon which seems to have only one wheel left (with the Cherokees in hot pursuit)- or does it make more sense to rethink the whole mess?

And is polygamy such a bad idea, while we're at it? Shrinking nuclear families and longer lifespans result in lots of isolate elderly people in care homes , because there's no family to care for them. Would group marriage solve that? Why must such contracts be limited to two individuals?

Other stuff- "What's the purpose of religion?" Easy one. It's a meme. Its purpose is its own propagation. No different from Enron.

Can we have moral behaviour without religion?
Look at other pack hunters. They ALL have complex social structure, laws and structured behaviour which anyone but the severely blinkered would agree is "moral" in their context. But is that behaviour inspired by genes or gods?
Do wolves have religion? I doubt it.
I think so-called "moral" behaviour is built into the minds of all social animals (in the brains, in the genes). Religion is a chance spin off that came very late to humans and probably to no other species. It's a mind parasite.

Am I biased? Yes. Social animals exist, as do brains and genes and memes.
Can anyone demonstrate the same of gods? I'm biased towards the evidence.

By the way- are any gods exclusively gay? If not, I wonder why not?
Are homosexuals more , or less religious than heterosexuals? Any data on this?

[Aitch]

Homosexual marriage. I have doubts. Marriage is, pretty much by definition, a legal contract between (one or more) men and women , to establish certain legal & financial rights within the state- the primary purpose of which is the rearing of children and the passing to said children, of property.

If it is a legal definition, then the legal system can re-define it. Depending on which people make up the legal system, of course.

Other stuff- "What's the purpose of religion?" Easy one. It's a meme. Its purpose is its own propagation. No different from Enron.

But much more profitable, in the long run. So far...

[Mashuna]

Your quote cited "heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, and sodomy". How does lesbianism fit any of those categories?

Pictures of it encourage hetrosexual fornication.

[Worm]

So being a lesbian is OK. Got it.

If you aren't jesting then you have an English reading comprehension problem.

I'm with Hokulele on this one. Given that your list of naughtiness was:

However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.


I can't quite see where lesbianism is covered in that?

Of course, there may well be something in the bible that covers same-sex sex in general as opposed to male-male sex, but the only stuff I seem to see quoted is the 'man lie with a man' stuff.

I'm no biblical scholar however so can anyone point me at the relevant passages?

(I'm normally quite happy to Google this stuff up myself, but I'm at work and slightly wary of what I could possibly put into a search engine that wouldn't come up with some pretty NSFW results...)

[Safe-Keeper]

I was unaware that there was anyone who did not think him a troll.Then why do people keep giving him attention?

[Radrook]

I'm with Hokulele on this one. Given that your list of naughtiness was:

I can't quite see where lesbianism is covered in that? Of course, there may well be something in the bible that covers same-sex sex in general as opposed to male-male sex, but the only stuff I seem to see quoted is the 'man lie with a man' stuff.

Need my list be meticulously comprehensive in order for my previous statements and the clearly-stated thread theme to be understood? Actually, you are missing some scriptures that do include Lesbianism by default. But since your interest in the subject is merely to dismiss everything as irrelevant, then you'll need to look them uo yourself.

I'm no biblical scholar however so can anyone point me at the relevant passages?

No you obviously aren't. Yet you feel very qualified to challenge those who are. I for my part would not venture to challenge an understanding of those who have thoroughly studied the a subject for decades while admitting that I am not a scholar of the given subject. How do you justify that?

(I'm normally quite happy to Google this stuff up myself, but I'm at work and slightly wary of what I could possibly put into a search engine that wouldn't come up with some pretty NSFW results...)

Since the subject is homosexuality which includes lesbianism, I assumed that its inclusion would be understood by default and no nit-picking in order to ridicule would be resorted to. I was wrong.

BTW

If I disagree with a religion-I seek another. I don't dedicate myself to fuming and fretting about why that religion chooses to view things in any particular way. I consider it a waste of time. Why don't you?

[Sunni Man]

Sunni knowing where your loyalty lies I would think you would welcome the collapse of the United States and the West from the "debauchery" of homosexuality.
Criminalizing homosexuality wouldn't cause the collapse of the United States.

All we would have to do is change the law to make it a crime.

I believe doing this would make America stronger and bring back normal morals

[I Ratant]

... normal morals
.
See the stoning thread for what is "normal" in the Stone Age.

[Worm]

Need my list be meticulously comprehensive in order for my previous statements and the clearly-stated thread theme to be understood? Actually, you are missing some scriptures that do include Lesbianism by default. But since your interest in the subject is merely to dismiss everything as irrelevant, then you'll need to look them uo yourself.

I'm sorry if you thought I was being dismissive, that certainly was not my intention. I explained why I was not able to 'look them up' at the time, now I am home I can certainly do more research into the matter.


No you obviously aren't. Yet you feel very qualified to challenge those who are. I for my part would not venture to challenge an understanding of those who have thoroughly studied the a subject for decades while admitting that I am not a scholar of the given subject. How do you justify that?

I'm not sure where you perceive the challenge in my post. I was attempting to make a civil enquiry as to where I could find the relevant passages in the bible to further my understanding of the objections to homosexuality contained within. I was certainly not challenging anyone who has a clear understanding of the scripture on what is contained, I was was merely hoping to gain some knowledge from whoever might be able to point me in the right direction.


Since the subject is homosexuality which includes lesbianism, I assumed that its inclusion would be understood by default and no nit-picking in order to ridicule would be resorted to. I was wrong.

I had no intention to ridicule, and if my post came across that way then, well, c'est la vie.


If I disagree with a religion-I seek another. I don't dedicate myself to fuming and fretting about why that religion chooses to view things in any particular way. I consider it a waste of time. Why don't you?
I'm not sure I would classify myself as 'fuming' or 'fretting' in any extent. My whole aim was to gain some understanding about a subject that is clearly an area where my knowledge is lacking.

My whole post seems to have provoked a reaction way beyond what I intended. Possibly it was badly worded, but I'm not really sure it is.

[shadron]

I'm not sure I would classify myself as 'fuming' or 'fretting' in any extent. My whole aim was to gain some understanding about a subject that is clearly an area where my knowledge is lacking.

My whole post seems to have provoked a reaction way beyond what I intended. Possibly it was badly worded, but I'm not really sure it is.

I wouldn't worry about it, Worm, Radrook seems to have a thing about casting emotions (generally, high ones) at the text on the screen, like he has his own set of virtual emoticons. A couple of threads back I was being hysterical and generally overwrought in my replies to him. I think he must live in a violent environment.

Oh, and Soapy - the Cherokees probably never pursued anything on wheels. They were pretty peaceful from the white man's get-go. Perhaps you meant Comanches, or some such.

[Mashuna]

If I disagree with a religion-I seek another. I don't dedicate myself to fuming and fretting about why that religion chooses to view things in any particular way. I consider it a waste of time. Why don't you?

Because religions have a tendency to try to impose their morals on others.

[Radrook]

I wouldn't worry about it, Worm, Radrook seems to have a thing about casting emotions (generally, high ones) at the text on the screen, like he has his own set of virtual emoticons. A couple of threads back I was being hysterical and generally overwrought in my replies to him. I think he must live in a violent environment....


Very humorous! LOL! Thanx for the levity in an otherwise over-serious thread.

[Radrook]

Because religions have a tendency to try to impose their morals on others.

What I do personally when someone or some group tries to impose their morals on me is that I avoid that person or group like the plague. Otherwise I might spend my time fuming and griping when I could be doing something more productive. Like seeking an environment where my morals are not condemned or otherwise viewed in a bad light. Actually, that's what the majority of people do. I have personally met hundreds of persons who just can't abide with what the Bible requires. These people usually chose simply to live their lives as they chose and not associate in any way with the religious organization that condemned their preferred lifestyle. Never, not even once did I encounter people who commit adultery, theft, murder, or any of the other things biblically condemned arguing vehemently that the Bible should not say those things and that they should be allowed to murder, fornicate, adulterate to their heart's content.

[Mashuna]

Whgat I do personally when someone or some group tries to impose their morals on me is that I avoid that person or group like the plague. Otherwise I might spend my time fuming and griping when I could be doing something more productive. Like seeking an environment where my morals are not condemned or otherwise viewed in a bad light.

So if they seek to impose their morals through legislation, you would just move to another country?

[zooterkin]

Oh, and Soapy - the Cherokees probably never pursued anything on wheels. They were pretty peaceful from the white man's get-go. Perhaps you meant Comanches, or some such.

You'll probably have to take it up with Burt Bacharach and Bob Hilliard (http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/threewheelsonmywagon.shtml).

[Radrook]

I'm sorry if you thought I was being dismissive, that certainly was not my intention. I explained why I was not able to 'look them up' at the time, now I am home I can certainly do more research into the matter.


I'm not sure where you perceive the challenge in my post. I was attempting to make a civil enquiry as to where I could find the relevant passages in the bible to further my understanding of the objections to homosexuality contained within. I was certainly not challenging anyone who has a clear understanding of the scripture on what is contained, I was was merely hoping to gain some knowledge from whoever might be able to point me in the right direction.


I had no intention to ridicule, and if my post came across that way then, well, c'est la vie.


I'm not sure I would classify myself as 'fuming' or 'fretting' in any extent. My whole aim was to gain some understanding about a subject that is clearly an area where my knowledge is lacking.

My whole post seems to have provoked a reaction way beyond what I intended. Possibly it was badly worded, but I'm not really sure it is.

If I indeed misunderstood the intention of your words then I apologize. Actually, I think that the majority of participants are misunderstanding the gist of what I am saying as well. I guess that happens often on internet discussion forums.

[Lothian]

I don't dedicate myself to fuming and fretting about why that religion chooses to view things in any particular way. I consider it a waste of time. Why don't you?My government directly allocates some of the funds I have contributed in taxes to these bodies. The same government also gives these bodies tax breaks. They exempt them from having to pay sales tax on their supplies. They exempt them having to pay tax on goods and servies which when I buy are taxed.

They give representatives from these religions votes in the upper house of the parliament setting the laws of this land. The government consults these churches heavily on many many issues.

My government funds schools which have an objective to teach a particular faith as the true one. Many of these church schools are selective in their admissions. Cherry picking pupils likely to preform well academically creates a demand for school places. This raises house prices in catchment areas. It segregates towns and helps create divisions in society.

I fume and fret about how these religions choose to view things because it has a direct effect on my everyday life and I hate it.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The OT ceremonial aspects of animal sacrifices, annual celebrations, dietary restrictions, were done away with and are said to have been done away with in the NT. However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.

Which is, of course, the usual Christian position in regards to the alleged moral naughtiness of the OT when referring to God's more violent and morally black judgments. Heterosexual adultery, fornication, murder, theft, and blasphemy sure but homosexuality? Maybe; Jesus' followers did speak of it but Jesus himself did not. That should at the very least give some Christians pause when contemplating the moral, immoral, or morally neutral nature of homosexuality. It gives a credible argument to the liberal Christian position that the prohibition on homosexuality was a human invention and not divine.

I really don't see what this has to do with whether the Bible is clear or not on the sodomy issue.

In effect it has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality; but rather it's a pragmatist argument regarding the overall use or need of Christianity. If Christianity or any Abrahamic faith is found wanting in pragmatic use than you could infer that you need not worry about the prohibition on homosexuality because the Abrahamic faiths serve no function.

From a Christian-Jewsh and Islamic, [monotheism] standpoint, the function of religion is to establish a good relationship between man and his creator. Other religions, whether monotheistic or not follow that pattern to lesser or greater degrees.

That all depends on two different factors: (1) A creator exists. (2) It is the exact creator(s) depicted in that religion. Otherwise it serves no function. Buddhism with a dash of atheistic secular humanism works for me and if I follow what Kant said about maxim's then I can only assume it would work for the rest of humanity as well.

The Christian religion's morality is in full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival.

That depends on whether or not the morality of Christianity is universally accepted; since it is not then it is not in "full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival". In effect there would only be one morality if God is the god described in the bible; what he has imposed on us. Since humanity would likely have no free will (theological determinism) than we are not free to determine what we desire. However if you believe what the Calvinists do, predestination, than there are only seemingly multiple morals but in fact are only the morals God determined we should have. I, however, am an atheist and don't believe gods determine my morality though I do lean towards determinism.

We don't have to assume anything. However, if indeed we claim to accept it as divine revelation, then we bind ourselves to take its restrictions seriously.

True.

There isn't a middle ground where we can say it's God's word except where we draw the line because we find it inconvenient in some way.

Unless it's not God's word.

In relation to homosexuality-which is the subject at issue here, there is no picking what one likes or dislikes since the Bible is clear on that issue. That you disagree doesn't make it unclear. It only demonstrates that you disagree. Nothing more.

Not quite so clear. Of course the punishment for homosexuality is rendered void based on the NT; maybe. I've always questioned why if it is void then do they still keep it in the bible? Take for example this little snippet of the bible.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_King_James_Version_of_the_Bible_say_ about_the_non-believers)

Historically I'd say that they remained out of convenience. Excerpts such as this allowed the Catholic church and numerous early protestants to have their cake and eat it too. They get all of Jesus' love, tolerance, acceptance, and promise of redemption with all of the OT's blood-lust. Effectively it allowed the Catholic church to kill anyone who supported any heretical and non-Catholic version of Christianity while assuring themselves that they were doing God's work. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the bible...and that of course is a knife which cuts both ways.

So being a lesbian is OK. Got it.

If you aren't jesting then you have an English reading comprehension problem.

That's a perfectly reasonable question; the bible always condemns male homosexuality but never lesbianism. Some would say that it's an obvious conclusion; that it also condemns lesbianism. But I'm not so sure; many people didn't even consider it anatomically possible.

[Radrook]

Which is, of course, the usual Christian position in regards to the alleged moral naughtiness of the OT when referring to God's more violent and morally black judgments. Heterosexual adultery, fornication, murder, theft, and blasphemy sure but homosexuality? Maybe; Jesus' followers did speak of it but Jesus himself did not. That should at the very least give some Christians pause when contemplating the moral, immoral, or morally neutral nature of homosexuality. It gives a credible argument to the liberal Christian position that the prohibition on homosexuality was a human invention and not divine.

All scripture is considered sacred not just what Jesus spoke. That's basic Christian theology with which you appear to be unfamiliar. In any case,regardless of personal opinions, the situation which is relevant is that Christianity does condemn the practice so why insist on being part of a religion which condemns a lifestyle one insists isn't condemned?



In effect it has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality; but rather it's a pragmatist argument regarding the overall use or need of Christianity. If Christianity or any Abrahamic faith is found wanting in pragmatic use than you could infer that you need not worry about the prohibition on homosexuality because the Abrahamic faiths serve no function.

Again this is irrelevant to the present situation.



That all depends on two different factors: (1) A creator exists. (2) It is the exact creator(s) depicted in that religion. Otherwise it serves no function. Buddhism with a dash of atheistic secular humanism works for me and if I follow what Kant said about maxim's then I can only assume it would work for the rest of humanity as well.

Well, if a person wishes to be a homosexual and is in additon an atheist-then there should be no problem for that person whatsoever in going about his business with nary a care a to what the Bible says or doesn't say. So adding an athesitic factor to the equation makes it even more illogical than before.



That depends on whether or not the morality of Christianity is universally accepted; since it is not then it is not in "full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival". In effect there would only be one morality if God is the god described in the bible; what he has imposed on us. Since humanity would likely have no free will (theological determinism) than we are not free to determine what we desire. However if you believe what the Calvinists do, predestination, than there are only seemingly multiple morals but in fact are only the morals God determined we should have. I, however, am an atheist and don't believe gods determine my morality though I do lean towards determinism.[/q



True.



Unless it's not God's word.



Not quite so clear. Of course the punishment for homosexuality is rendered void based on the NT; maybe. I've always questioned why if it is void then do they still keep it in the bible? Take for example this little snippet of the bible.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_King_James_Version_of_the_Bible_say_ about_the_non-believers)

Historically I'd say that they remained out of convenience. Excerpts such as this allowed the Catholic church and numerous early protestants to have their cake and eat it too. They get all of Jesus' love, tolerance, acceptance, and promise of redemption with all of the OT's blood-lust. Effectively it allowed the Catholic church to kill anyone who supported any heretical and non-Catholic version of Christianity while assuring themselves that they were doing God's work. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the bible...and that of course is a knife which cuts both ways.




[quote]
That's a perfectly reasonable question; the bible always condemns male homosexuality but never lesbianism. Some would say that it's an obvious conclusion; that it also condemns lesbianism. But I'm not so sure; many people didn't even consider it anatomically possible.

You obviously haven't read the Bible since it does mention Lesbianism specifically. The real quyestion then becomes, why does a person unfamiliar ewith the Bible feel he can expound on it with an air of unjustifiable authority. Care to explain this phenomenon which I don'e see happening inreference to any other holy book such as the Koran? Just curious.

[Hokulele]

Pictures of it encourage hetrosexual fornication.


Heck, just about anything encourages heterosexual fornication. ;)

[Radrook]

Which is, of course, the usual Christian position in regard to the alleged moral naughtiness of the OT when referring to God's more violent and morally black judgments. Heterosexual adultery, fornication, murder, theft, and blasphemy sure but homosexuality? Maybe; Jesus' followers did speak of it but Jesus himself did not. That should at the very least give some Christians pause when contemplating the moral, immoral, or morally neutral nature of homosexuality. It gives a credible argument to the liberal Christian position that the prohibition on homosexuality was a human invention and not divine.

The Christian faith is based on the whole Bible not just on what Jesus spoke during his brief three year ministry.

In effect it has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality; but rather it's a pragmatist argument regarding the overall use or need of Christianity. If Christianity or any Abrahamic faith is found wanting in pragmatic use than you could infer that you need not worry about the prohibition on homosexuality because the Abrahamic faiths serve no function.

The Bible speaks of right and wrong conduct. Conduct leading to life and conduct leading to death. Such statements of right and wrong are morality statements by definition. As to functions or non-functions, that is irrelevant to the issue. Which is why you fume instead of simply ignoring what others choose to believe and going about your own self-approved business as you see fit.

That all depends on two different factors: (1) A creator exists. (2) It is the exact creator(s) depicted in that religion. Otherwise it serves no function. Buddhism with a dash of atheistic secular humanism works for me and if I follow what Kant said about maxim's then I can only assume it would work for the rest of humanity as well.

But that's irrelevant to the present situation over which you are fuming.



That depends on whether or not the morality of Christianity is universally accepted; since it is not then it is not in "full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival." In effect there would only be one morality if God is the god described in the bible; what he has imposed on us. Since humanity would likely have no free will (theological determinism) than we are not free to determine what we desire. However if you believe what the Calvinists do, predestination, than there are only seemingly multiple morals but in fact are only the morals God determined we should have. I, however, am an atheist and don't believe gods determine my morality though I do lean towards determinism.

If you really believe that then you shouldn't really have a problem with what others choose to believe. I know people who point fingers in my direction all the time saying that I am not a true Christian because I don't do exactly what they do and I couldn't care less because I know better. So why all the fuss?


Unless it's not God's word.

Then you should have absolutely nothing over which to constantly fume. Right?


Not quite so clear. Of course the punishment for homosexuality is rendered void based on the NT; maybe. I've always questioned why if it is void then do they still keep it in the bible? Take for example this little snippet of the bible.


Not according to the NT which states that the inevitable result of certain behaviors leads to rejection and death. Read Revelations the last chapter. Read Romans the second chapter. Read Jude.

BTW

The real question is why do you feel you must force or persuade others to change their religious faith in order to accommodate your sexual preferences? Isn't that harassment?
If not it sure comes across that way. Live and let live is my motto. Make sense?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_King_James_Version_of_the_Bible_say_ about_the_non-believers)

Which has absolutely no relevance as to why you insist on changing other people's beliefs in order to practice a lifestyle you consider OK by God.

Historically I'd say that they remained out of convenience. Excerpts such as this allowed the Catholic church and numerous early Protestants to have their cake and eat it too. They get all of Jesus' love, tolerance, acceptance, and promise of redemption with all of the OT's bloodlust. Effectively it allowed the Catholic church to kill anyone who supported any heretical and non-Catholic version of Christianity while assuring themselves that they were doing God's work. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the bible...and that of course is a knife which cuts both ways.

Church history isn't the issue here. Obviously people have deviated from what was written. That's common knowledge and no one is denying it. However, previous deviations do not justify our choosing to follow suite. Otherwise we could go around skinning people alive and ripping out their tongues because false Christians did so at one time. Which is obviously absurd.


That's a perfectly reasonable question; the bible always condemns male homosexuality but never lesbianism. Some would say that it's an obvious conclusion; that it also condemns lesbianism. But I'm not so sure; many people didn't even consider it anatomically possible.

Its in the Bible. Read it. If unwilling then don't assume to know.


BTW

I don't see anything anatomically impossible in condeming Lesbianism. ; )

[fullflavormenthol]

Radrook, I can say that while I may not agree with the Bible's perspective on things, I will agree that people shouldn't attempt to retroactively change what it says. In many terms it is irrelevant to the greater society, and to attempt to rewrite the Bible is a negative in that you are showing a moral weakness in your position. That being said I am for homosexual unions, I am just not about forcing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else to accept them.

[uruk]

Criminalizing homosexuality wouldn't cause the collapse of the United States. It would set a dangerous precident. If you make a life style or a human condition illegal then other life styles and conditions could be made illegal based solely on the whimms of a majority. Homosexuality breaks no legal laws. Remember the separation of church and state. Just because religion does not like something does not make that thing illegal. You would also have to show proof that homosexuality is detrimental to society. So far you have no evidence whatsoever. Homosexuality has existed in every culture througout history.

All we would have to do is change the law to make it a crime. I vote to make christianity a crime. It promotes bigotry, treating women as second class citizens, murder and slavery. It also idolizes people who practice incest and bigomy. These are hardly the morals we wish to have promoted in this country. Who's with me on this?

I believe doing this would make America stronger and bring back normal morals Exactly what morals are these?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The Christian faith is based on the whole Bible not just on what Jesus spoke during his brief three year ministry.

Except it isn't; you said so yourself.

The OT ceremonial aspects of animal sacrifices, annual celebrations, dietary restrictions, were done away with and are said to have been done away with in the NT. However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.

The Bible speaks of right and wrong conduct. Conduct leading to life and conduct leading to death. Such statements of right and wrong are morality statements by definition. As to functions or non-functions, that is irrelevant to the issue. Which is why you fume instead of simply ignoring what others choose to believe and going about your own self-approved business as you see fit.

Who fumes? I don't fume. In fact I agreed with you that the issue raised by the other poster is irrelevent to the issue at hand.

But that's irrelevant to the present situation over which you are fuming.

Again I'm not fuming. It's hardly irrelevant given that I was responding to a separate issue which you were attempting to explain in the first place. Perhaps irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality but also an issue I want to give me opinion on. Hardly a red herring if you were hoping for that. ;)

If you really believe that then you shouldn't really have a problem with what others choose to believe. I know people who point fingers in my direction all the time saying that I am not a true Christian because I don't do exactly what they do and I couldn't care less because I know better. So why all the fuss?

As a good friend of mine (and also a Christian) said "Orthodox is Greek for narrow minded".

I do believe that and I also don't care what people believe. If you want to give a lecture on "live and let live" you should probably start speaking to both your fellow and rival theists than little ole' Buddhist me.

Then you should have absolutely nothing over which to constantly fume. Right?

All the more reason for why I'm not fuming. :)

Not according to the NT which states that the inevitable result of certain behaviors leads to rejection and death. Read Revelations the last chapter. Read Romans the second chapter. Read Jude.

Of course I don't disagree that certain behaviors do lead to "rejection and death"...just replace rejection and death with suffering. And I also disagree that fornication and homosexuality is inherently immoral.

BTW

The real question is why do you feel you must force or persuade others to change their religious faith in order to accommodate your sexual preferences? Isn't that harassment?
If not it sure comes across that way. Live and let live is my motto. Make sense?

I don't feel I have to force or persuade others to change anything in order to accommodate my heterosexual preference towards the vagina. Perhaps you should stop being so presumptuous? :rolleyes:

Above all others my primary maxim is to do nothing to hinder human autonomy unless their will would hinder the autonomy of other humans. So why would I feel that I have to force or persuade anyone of anything unless I deemed it dangerous? I'm not going to force you to accept a new version of Christianity or anything to accommodate for my preference of the female gender nor to accommodate for the preference of the same gender for homosexuals. People like sunni man (if he wasn’t such an obvious troll) do need to be told to back down as they do want to hinder the autonomy of other humans in order to accommodate their own worldview...which is intolerable.

Live and let live indeed...perhaps you need to step back a minute before responding and get a new victory stratagem. Your delusion is that I'm trying to change you...you confuse rebuttal with conversion. I'm not a missionary; I oppose and detest missionaries. If you don't want someone to ever rebut or challenge your beliefs than I would suggest barricading yourself in your house and not speaking to anyone...ever.

Please don't try to shift the argument into a debate about my views of human autonomy and my leaning towards determinism...everyone always does it and I get sick of explaining.

Which has absolutely no relevance as to why you insist on changing other people's beliefs in order to practice a lifestyle you consider OK by God.

I don't presume to speak for any god but would much rather prefer gods spoke for themselves...for an interesting change of pace. However this is relevant to why I would insist on other people changing their belief and it conflicts with my primary maxim.

Church history isn't the issue here. Obviously people have deviated from what was written. That's common knowledge and no one is denying it. However, previous deviations do not justify our choosing to follow suite. Otherwise we could go around skinning people alive and ripping out their tongues because false Christians did so at one time. Which is obviously absurd.

No it isn't about church history; I was giving an example of why irrelevant material is still present in the bible. Having your cake and eating it too as it were.

Its in the Bible. Read it. If unwilling then don't assume to know.

I've read it but recall nothing condemning lesbianism specifically. Provide the quote.

BTW

I don't see anything anatomically impossible in condeming Lesbianism. ; )

I'm certain you don't. However; I find nothing logically or morally impossible in allowing lesbianism and regarding it as no more immoral than heterosexuality...nor immoral at all for that matter.

All scripture is considered sacred not just what Jesus spoke. That's basic Christian theology with which you appear to be unfamiliar. In any case,regardless of personal opinions, the situation which is relevant is that Christianity does condemn the practice so why insist on being part of a religion which condemns a lifestyle one insists isn't condemned?

Well of course that would be the case if Christianity didn't demand all others follow it or suffer the wrath of eternal hellfire.

Well, if a person wishes to be a homosexual and is in additon an atheist-then there should be no problem for that person whatsoever in going about his business with nary a care a to what the Bible says or doesn't say. So adding an athesitic factor to the equation makes it even more illogical than before.

Oh boy here we go. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to be baited into the flame war you've just hooked and dangled over my face in your last sentence.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I vote to make christianity a crime. It promotes bigotry, treating women as second class citizens, murder and slavery. It also idolizes people who practice incest and bigomy. These are hardly the morals we wish to have promoted in this country. Who's with me on this?

Sunni Man is Muslim...or so he claims. Personally I think he belongs to the first orthodox church of trolling but that's just me. But anywhoo...

I vote to make Islam a crime. It promotes bigotry, treating women as second class citizens, murder and slavery. It also idolizes people who practice incest and bigomy. These are hardly the morals we wish to have promoted in this country. Who's with me on this?

Fixed.

[uruk]

Thanks for the correction KF.

[Safe-Keeper]

What I do personally when someone or some group tries to impose their morals on me is that I avoid that person or group like the plague.Can someone explain to me how the fundies, who seek to limit gays' rights, condemn their actions, outlaw the very sexual preference as Sin, and in general force gays back into the closet...

...can say, with a straight face, that they are the ones having morals forced down their throats?!

I mean, I'm seriously at a loss to understand it. Heck, even moderates do it - in Norway we're trying to rid our elementary schools of compulsory prayer and church attendance. The religious community's reaction? To say they're being persecuted and that Christianity is under attack. Seriously, I'm asking. What is it with certain Christians and claiming the victim role even when it's clear to even the most half-witted person that it doesn't fit them?

All scripture is considered sacred not just what Jesus spoke. That's basic Christian theology with which you appear to be unfamiliar. In any case,regardless of personal opinions, the situation which is relevant is that Christianity does condemn the practice so why insist on being part of a religion which condemns a lifestyle one insists isn't condemned? Indeed. What's with all these Christians joining the church and not selling all they have and giving the money to the poor? And seriously, I see so many "Christians" eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics that it's a joke. And whenever I try to enforce these Biblical truths, I get the dogma of tolerance forced down my throat and get told that I can't do that. Apparently America isn't a free country anymore:(.

Cough (http://thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_law_of_moses/mt05_17.html).

[RandFan]

Its in the Bible. Read it. Have you read it?

Infanticide --Psalm 137:9 (glorified and encouraged)
Incest --Genesis 19:30, 38 (performed by the only "moral" people of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Infanticide --Numbers 31:17 (ordered by a prophet of god)
Fillicide --Judges 11 (killing one's daughter to fulfil promise to god)


Infanticide? Good.
Incest? Permissible.
Filicide? Ok to keep promise to god.
Homosexuality? Kill them
I don't see anything anatomically impossible in condeming Lesbianism. Do you see any reason, based on the bible, to do so?

[cgallaga]

Heck, just about anything encourages heterosexual fornication. ;)

Not in homosexuals. Se there? 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said that Homosexuals are nteen times less likely to be encouraged into heterosexual fornication.

Therefore they are far less likely to do all those many heterosexual sins. They just got the one...sodomy...to worry about. Therefore they are more likely to be people of high moral standing (at least in biblical terms) and sinless.

Up with gay marriage. It saves Saint Peter log writing time!

[osmosis]

The OT ceremonial aspects of animal sacrifices, annual celebrations, dietary restrictions, were done away with and are said to have been done away with in the NT. However the prohibition against heterosexual adultery, heterosexual fornication, murder, theft, blasphemy as well as sodomy are mentioned in the NT as still binding.

But how do you know they were really "done away with"? Maybe they're still in effect and you just don't know it. Do you think GOD will kindly tell you you're sinning? NO! He (capital 'H') will let you sin for eternity and then when you're trying to get into Heaven (capital 'H') He'll (capital 'H') let you know that you were wrong all along, and you're really going to Hell (capital 'H') even though you tried your best to do the right thing. Sorry about your luck. Isn't God wonderful?!


I really don't see what this has to do with whether the Bible is clear or not on the sodomy issue.?!

Oh the bible is clear -- thou shalt not penetrate another man's wrecked 'um with thine probuscis. Of course, the people who wrote the bible had never been to prison... -- or had they?!


From a Christian-Jewsh and Islamic, [monotheism] standpoint, the function of religion is to establish a good relationship between man and his creator. Other religions, whether monotheistic or not follow that pattern to lesser or greater degrees.

No, the function of religion is to quell rational thought and to be believed in. It's like the bacteria on your mouth -- it only exists because otherwise there would be something far more pathogenic taking it's place.

The Christian religion's morality is in full harmony with that which our human condition demands in order to optimize survival.

hahaha I'm not even going to dignifiy that with a response..

"thou shalt not forget to recycle.."

If the issue becomes the existence of the biblical God then in deviates the thread to the ID issue since its alternative is abiogenesis..

False Dichotomy. There are infinite possible alternatives.

We don't have to assume anything. However, if indeed we claim to accept it as divine revelation, then we bind ourselves to take its restrictions seriously..

.. and if we don't?

I mentioned LDS and Santeria as examples of how easy it is to identify what is and what is not in sync with the rest of the scriptures..

Oh here we go, someone who knows what is and isn't "in sync with the rest of the scriptures.."

Just like my Jehovah's Witness relatives.

You consider all who claim to be Christians sincere? Isn't that a bit nsaive?..

You're so right! We should apply YOUR criteria of a 'REAL' Christian to the situation, that way we can weed out the fake Christians from the REAL Christians.

In relation to homosexuality-which is the subject at issue here, there is no picking what one likes or dislikes since the Bible is clear on that issue.

The bible isn't really clear on ANY issue. In fact, you can't even use the bible to prove what an ISSUE is.

That you disagree doesn't make it unclear. It only demonstrates that you disagree. Nothing more.

So you STILL know the One Correct Interpretation despite conflicting viewpoints?! How nice for you! I wish *I* could be that certain about.. well.. anything..

My original qiuestion was why insist on changing scripture instead of simply choosing a religion which doesn't restrict the lifestyle which one insists one has the right to live. So far I find the responses unconvincing. If I were in an identical situation that's what I would do. So I am looking at it from that hypothetical perspective. I would simply pronounce the religion as ridiculously unreasonable and go about my own business.

Let me get this straight.. you would choose your religion to fit your lifestyle, not the reverse? So if you're gay, for example, you would simply believe in a GOD that permits gayness?! You just believe in whatever GOD loves the type of person you are? Sheesh! Why do you even NEED god, if not to smile and nod at your life and tell you it's all good.. or all bad, if you're a masochist..

This isn't meant as a unique response to homosexuality

Agreed; It's more a kind of 'spiritual flashing', as if the rest of the world cares what your imaginary friend looks like.

It applies to anyone who disagrees with anything that the Bible might require of them..

most people

and who feel that they don't have to abide by it.
Actually, usually such individuals simply state their position and
go about as usual without a care in the world.

WHAT?! You mean they ACTUALLY act as though they ACTUALLY believe that your invisible friend doesn't ACTUALLY exist, and that therefore those phony rules don't ACTUALLY matter?!!! THE HORROR!!

So insisting on changing the Bible moral law in order to have it accomodate behavior it clearly condemns isn't a common reaction.

er.. yeah.. the bible rocks!

[Radrook]

Except it isn't; you said so yourself.

I don't recall contradicting myself that way. Care to explain?

As a good friend of mine (and also a Christian) said "Orthodox is Greek for narrow minded".

Any belief can be tagged that way if we strongly disagree with it. The real issue is why all the fuss when a person can just go about his business.

I do believe that and I also don't care what people believe. If you want to give a lecture on "live and let live" you should probably start speaking to both your fellow and rival theists than little ole' Buddhist me.

Sorry, but you come across as evangelizing or on some type of crusade to demolish orthodox Christian beliefs. That's why I mentioned live and let live.


All the more reason for why I'm not fuming.

OK, let's just say you are strongly disagreeing with what is written in the bible concerning homosexuality. Is that definition acceptable?

Of course I don't disagree that certain behaviors do lead to "rejection and death"...just replace rejection and death with suffering. And I also disagree that fornication and homosexuality is inherently immoral.

And you have all the right in the world to disagree, disregard and disobey for whatever reason strikes your fancy. The only thing I'm curious about is why insist that the Bible doesn't say what it says without even being sufficiently familiar with the book to begin with. This is a phenomenon I don't see occurring with other holy books. Only with people who disagree with the Bible. How do you explain this? I certainly wouldn't venture on lecturing Koran scholars or Talmud scholars on what these books say because I am not sufficiently familiar with those books. So I find it rather curious when I encounter that modus operandi since I can't seem to find a logical explanation to justify it.


I don't feel I have to force or persuade others to change anything in order to accommodate my heterosexual preference towards the vagina. Perhaps you should stop being so presumptuous?

Sorry. I should not have presumed anything. My mistake. On the other hand you presume quite a bit yourself concerning my motives. But I guess it's all part of being human.

Above all others my primary maxim is to do nothing to hinder human autonomy unless their will would hinder the autonomy of other humans. So why would I feel that I have to force or persuade any one of anything unless I deemed it dangerous? I'm not going to force you to accept a new version of Christianity or anything to accommodate for my preference of the female gender nor to accommodate for the preference of the same gender for homosexuals. People like sunni man (if he wasn’t such an obvious troll) do need to be told to back down as they do want to hinder the autonomy of other humans in order to accommodate their own worldview...which is intolerable.

I agree that bigotry is dangerous and should be spoken out against. However, we have to be careful that we don't misunderstand zeal for religious beliefs and a request for adherence to clearly-defined requirements as bigotry. Otherwise we will wind up thinking that Jesus and his Apostles and the prophets were bigots.

Live and let live indeed...perhaps you need to step back a minute before responding and get a new victory stratagem. Your delusion is that I'm trying to change you...you confuse rebuttal with conversion. I'm not a missionary; I oppose and detest missionaries. If you don't want someone to ever rebut or challenge your beliefs than I would suggest barricading yourself in your house and not speaking to anyone...ever.

I have no victory strategy because I am not seeking victory of any kind.
I'm merely trying to unravel the motives for a certain mindset that perplexes me.

Phenomenon number 1 Why do people who are unfamiliar with the Bible assume expert status and presume to know more about it than those who have dedicated decades to studying it?


Phenomenon number 2: Why do these same people who vehemently oppose what is written in the Bible insist changing it via denying its meaning or claiming not to see?


Phenomenon Number 3 Why do people who feel extremely uncomfortable with Christian moral requirements insist that those requirements be abolished so they can live as they wish instead ofd seeking another book and another religion or else ignoring anything that the Bible says?

Since this baffles me I ask.


Please don't try to shift the argument into a debate about my views of human autonomy and my leaning towards determinism...everyone always does it and I get sick of explaining.

I was merely jesting. I don't know what your views re in that respect and consider it irrelevant to the issue anyway.

I don't presume to speak for any god but would much rather prefer gods spoke for themselves...for an interesting change of pace. However this is relevant to why I would insist on other people changing their belief and it conflicts with my primary maxim.

I didn't accuse you of purporting to speak for any god or God.

No it isn't about church history; I was giving an example of why irrelevant material is still present in the bible. Having your cake and eating it too as it were.

The ones having cake and eating it too are those who want to be considered Christian while living in sin to the hilt. But obviously that doesn't phase you at all. In fact, you want to abolish requirements from a book you are obviously unfamiliar with. Which again is one of the phenomenons which I find rather quaint since I just can't imagine myself or anyone who is reasonable attempting such a thing.



I've read it but recall nothing condemning lesbianism specifically. Provide the quote.

Google the subject. The scriptures will jump out at you like a jack-in-the box. You will also be graced with a plethora of wonderful websites which deal in-depth with the simmering subject.



I'm certain you don't. However; I find nothing logically or morally impossible in allowing lesbianism and regarding it as no more immoral than heterosexuality...nor immoral at all for that matter.

Of course you don't. Neither do the practitioners. Which is again irrelevant to the issue since all persons who choose to ignore the Biblical statutes see them that way. Nothing unusual about that.


Well of course that would be the case if Christianity didn't demand all others follow it or suffer the wrath of eternal hellfire.

Then why not simply reject it and go about your business? There are many religions that millions reject because they find them unreasonable. However, most people don't waste their time arguing about and attempting to prove their views with those who don't see such religions that way.


Oh boy here we go. I'm not going to be baited into the flame war you've just hooked and dangled over my face in your last senteence

You expressed a view from an atheist viewpoint-I mention atheism in response and am baiting and flaming? All I am saying is that if we are atheists, then morality issues as expressed in the Bible should not logically provoke strong psychological distress. Agreed?

[Darat]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?

[Radrook]

But how do you know they were really "done away with"? Maybe they're still in effect and you just don't know it.

Maybe the Declaration of Independence doesn't mean what it says? Maybe the Constitution isn't really saying what it means. Maybe when you get a red light at an intersection you should put pedal to metal cause maybe it means green. Maybe you don't really need a parachute to skydive and can flap your arms to break your fall.

Do you think GOD will kindly tell you you're sinning? NO! He (capital 'H') will let you sin for eternity and then when you're trying to get into Heaven (capital 'H') He'll (capital 'H') let you know that you were wrong all along, and you're really going to Hell (capital 'H') even though you tried your best to do the right thing. Sorry about your luck. Isn't God wonderful?!

Maybe you should write your own version of the Bible that teaches those things.


Oh the bible is clear -- thou shalt not penetrate another man's wrecked 'um with thine probuscis. Of course, the people who wrote the bible had never been to prison... -- or had they?!


Are you suggesting that if they would have been to prison then they would have said the opposite? Such as: "Thou shalt penetrate another man's wrecked 'um with thine probuscis!"?


No, the function of religion is to quell rational thought and to be believed in. It's like the bacteria on your mouth -- it only exists because otherwise there would be something far more pathogenic taking it's place.

Not according to the basic precepts of sociology it isn't.



hahaha I'm not even going to dignifiy that with a response..

He! He! he! Ok!


snips! Snip! Snip!

Oh here we go, someone who knows what is and isn't "in sync with the rest of the scriptures.."


And you find that an impossibility?

Just like my Jehovah's Witness relatives.

I have JW relatives too! Welcome to the club!



You're so right! We should apply YOUR criteria of a 'REAL' Christian to the situation, that way we can weed out the fake Christians from the REAL Christians.

Please don't flatter me saying that those are my criteria. They aren't. Actually, nothing that I said is avant guard or idiosyncratic from the viewpoint of a person familiar with basic Christian theology. So it's your unfamiliarity that's causing the illusion you are expressing.

The bible isn't really clear on ANY issue. In fact, you can't even use the bible to prove what an ISSUE is

Of course! For some people it would seem that way. As a matter of fact, it seems that way for many uninformed individuals. You aren't a unique exception so no need to worry.



So you STILL know the One Correct Interpretation despite conflicting viewpoints?! How nice for you! I wish *I* could be that certain about.. well.. anything..

You aren't certain about anything? Yikes!

Let me get this straight.. you would choose your religion to fit your lifestyle, not the reverse? So if you're gay, for example, you would simply believe in a GOD that permits gayness?! You just believe in whatever GOD loves the type of person you are? Sheesh! Why do you even NEED god, if not to smile and nod at your life and tell you it's all good.. or all bad, if you're a masochist..

Not at all. I simply said that IF I disagreed so vehemently as some individuals do I'd simply walk away from the annoying religion. I said nothin g about how God would view such an action-did I? No, that's your idea.

snip! sigh! snip!


WHAT?! You mean they ACTUALLY act as though they ACTUALLY believe that your invisible friend doesn't ACTUALLY exist, and that therefore those phony rules don't ACTUALLY matter?!!! THE HORROR!!er.. yeah.. the bible rocks!

Personal invisible friend? Aha! just as I suspected. A heckler jeckler! Sorry but I have a strong aversion to such an approach.

Nothing personal BTW

[Mashuna]

Heck, just about anything encourages heterosexual fornication. ;)

That can't be true. I mean, if anything encouraged hetrosexual fornication, then. . .

Hang on. . .

I'll be back in half an hour.

[Radrook]

So if they seek to impose their morals through legislation, you would just move to another country?

I would simply continue living my life as I see fit.

[DoubtingStephen]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?

This is a reasonable question to ask. i respect your effort to get this thread back onto the very important subject of the tremendous dangers posed by gay marriage.

Although it has not yet been the case that gay marriage is legal everywhere across the United States, we can observe the impact it has had in certain portions of the country.

In Massachusetts, the city of Worcester was forced to buy 83 additional front end loaders and 27 new dump trucks in order to haul away the rotting corpses of heterosexual married couples who have died suddenly as a result of a tragic loss of marital sanctity.

Statewide the average lifespan of happily married opposite sex Christian couples has been decreased by 52 years, causing many couples to die up to 27 years ago retroactively.

In Boston former Governor Mitt Romney required 12 cases of Kleenex-brand tissues in order to sop up the tears he personally shed over the onset of equal rights under the law for all couples.

In Springfield, made famous by a long-running American TV cartoon series, Mayor Quimby was forced to give up bonking his secretary due to a sudden city-wide reduction in sanctimony.

Other effects include an increase in revenue for local jurisdictions as a result of more marriage license applications, increased sales in the wedding industry, and of course it is well known that the Red Sox have been doing very well in several years since the total and absolute destruction of the Sanctimoniousness of Marriage.

[Mashuna]

I would simply continue living my life as I see fit.

Assuming you are able to, following the imposition of their religion-based morality through legislation.

[hcmom]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?

More married couples.

[RandFan]

Maybe the Declaration of Independence doesn't mean what it says? Maybe the Constitution isn't really saying what it means. Maybe when you get a red light at an intersection you should put pedal to metal cause maybe it means green. Maybe you don't really need a parachute to skydive and can flap your arms to break your fall.Hmmmm......

Of course that would lead back to Darat's question.

"What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?"

[cgallaga]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?

The protection of the benefit of freedoms based on natural rights along with the enforcement of the obligations that go hand in hand with those rights.

[Lothian]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?Equality 1:0 Bigotry

[RandFan]

The protection of the benefit of freedoms based on natural rights along with the enforcement of the obligations that go hand in hand with those rights.No, no, no... you're doing it all wrong.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[ConspiRaider]

What would be the result of allowing homosexual marriage in the USA?
A fabulous increase in global warming. You want to take on that responsibility?

[uruk]

More married couples.

Which would lead to more divorces. A new golden age for divorce lawyers

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I don't recall contradicting myself that way. Care to explain?

You're claiming the bible but denying certain aspects of it at the same time. Exactly what you accuse many of doing.

Any belief can be tagged that way if we strongly disagree with it. The real issue is why all the fuss when a person can just go about his business.

The fuss becomes intolerance and that's what the fuss is about. I'll go ahead and invoke Godwin's law and take the bullet myself here. You could argue that if a guy teaches his kids that African Americans are nothing more than "welfare-hungry n****** feeding off the white man" and that it's just him going about his business and the fuss is unwarrented. Of course when his kids start to bully non-white children and treat them differantly than it becomes an issue but not the original teaching at hand. The same applies that if you teach your children that homosexuals are "disgusting immoral f****** who will burn in hell forever for their wickedry" and that it's just him going about his business and the fuss is unwarrented. Of course then when your children start to bully homosexual kids and treat them differantly it becomes an issue. You see what I'm getting at here?

Sorry, but you come across as evangelizing or on some type of crusade to demolish orthodox Christian beliefs. That's why I mentioned live and let live.

The only thing I'm on a crusade to demolish is the viewpoint that people must impose their maxims on the autonomy of others.

OK, let's just say you are strongly disagreeing with what is written in the bible concerning homosexuality. Is that definition acceptable?

Yes. Fuming implies that I'm angry.

And you have all the right in the world to disagree, disregard and disobey for whatever reason strikes your fancy. The only thing I'm curious about is why insist that the Bible doesn't say what it says without even being sufficiently familiar with the book to begin with. This is a phenomenon I don't see occurring with other holy books. Only with people who disagree with the Bible. How do you explain this? I certainly wouldn't venture on lecturing Koran scholars or Talmud scholars on what these books say because I am not sufficiently familiar with those books. So I find it rather curious when I encounter that modus operandi since I can't seem to find a logical explanation to justify it.

Well it may comfort you to know that I was raised as a strict conservative Baptist and have memorized the bible front-to-back. And how exactly did a spatially limited being living in an area where Christianity is the dominant religion come to quantify that people primarily have a beef with Christianity?

Sorry. I should not have presumed anything. My mistake. On the other hand you presume quite a bit yourself concerning my motives. But I guess it's all part of being human.

Please provide a quote where I presumed your motives.

I agree that bigotry is dangerous and should be spoken out against. However, we have to be careful that we don't misunderstand zeal for religious beliefs and a request for adherence to clearly-defined requirements as bigotry. Otherwise we will wind up thinking that Jesus and his Apostles and the prophets were bigots.

I of course take the liberal interpretation. Even as a Christian did not believe homosexuality was a sin.

Phenomenon number 1 Why do people who are unfamiliar with the Bible assume expert status and presume to know more about it than those who have dedicated decades to studying it?

I don't know and I can't speak on it. I've seen it but really am indifferant to the process. Especially since I have a pastor hounding me demanding that I return to Christ and stop worshipping "some fat bald guy".

Phenomenon number 2: Why do these same people who vehemently oppose what is written in the Bible insist changing it via denying its meaning or claiming not to see?

Why continue to believe in something that can be measured as false?

Phenomenon Number 3 Why do people who feel extremely uncomfortable with Christian moral requirements insist that those requirements be abolished so they can live as they wish instead ofd seeking another book and another religion or else ignoring anything that the Bible says?

Perhaps because they believe? I don't know. Maybe you should be asking Phelps and his ilk why they feel they have to change the world around them to make themselves feel comfortable?

The ones having cake and eating it too are those who want to be considered Christian while living in sin to the hilt. But obviously that doesn't phase you at all.

I disagree and say the ones lusting for blood and spouting on about how Christ is love are the ones who really want to have their cake and eat it too. And it does phase me if you haven't been able to tell yet.

In fact, you want to abolish requirements from a book you are obviously unfamiliar with. Which again is one of the phenomenons which I find rather quaint since I just can't imagine myself or anyone who is reasonable attempting such a thing.

I do want to abolish it the same as I want to abolish the portion of the bible which states that blacks are a cursed people descended from Ham and Genesis 1.

Google the subject. The scriptures will jump out at you like a jack-in-the box. You will also be graced with a plethora of wonderful websites which deal in-depth with the simmering subject.

You seem to think you're more familiar with the bible than me so you should be able to give me a quute rather than forcing me to hunt around the internet. I know what the book says...I wanna know if you do.

I understand there are websites...and I've done quite abit of debunking on their nonsense in the past.

Of course you don't. Neither do the practitioners. Which is again irrelevant to the issue since all persons who choose to ignore the Biblical statutes see them that way. Nothing unusual about that.

The thing I often here is that God is greater than us therefore he is wiser and we cannot comprehend them. I always respond by saying that if God was so wise we should be able to understand him perfectly. They usually repeat the same and I ask what good it does for a creator to create creations that cannot possibly comprehend him and then formulate a form of eternal unending torture if they refuse to obey him. It's logically inconsistent and makes no sense. Likewise the bit about homosexuality makes no sense.


Then why not simply reject it and go about your business? There are many religions that millions reject because they find them unreasonable. However, most people don't waste their time arguing about and attempting to prove their views with those who don't see such religions that way.

No they don't; typically because theism v. theism arguments are an effort in begging the question.

You expressed a view from an atheist viewpoint-I mention atheism in response and am baiting and flaming? All I am saying is that if we are atheists, then morality issues as expressed in the Bible should not logically provoke strong psychological distress. Agreed?

Agreed. When you wrote it down you made it seem as if you were equating my view to being illogical...which I consider baiting.

[Molinaro]

The homo lifestyle is an abomination to God and a sickness infecting American society.

No it's not.

Homosexuals are another facet of God's love. They are created in His image. You are a disciple of Satan. You spread his hatred and bigotry. The one you call god is false because it is Satan's words that you hear from him.

At least that's what the evidence seems to suggest to me.

[Radrook]

You're claiming the bible but denying certain aspects of it at the same time. Exactly what you accuse many of doing.

Oh! You are referring to your concept of unconditional acceptance based on isolating certain a scriptures while ignoring other statements which clearly tell us that eternal life is conditional.




The fuss becomes intolerance and that's what the fuss is about. I'll go ahead and invoke Godwin's law and take the bullet myself here. You could argue that if a guy teaches his kids that African Americans are nothing more than "welfare-hungry n****** feeding off the white man" and that it's just him going about his business and the fuss is unwarranted. Of course when his kids start to bully nonwhite children and treat them differently than it becomes an issue but not the original teaching at hand.

Of course. However, Christians aren't maliciously teaching their kids to hate people and persecute people in the way you describe.

The same applies that if you teach your children that homosexuals are "disgusting immoral f****** who will burn in hell forever for their wickedry" and that it's just him going about his business and the fuss is unwarranted. Of course then when your children start to bully homosexual kids and treat them differantly it becomes an issue. You see what I'm getting at here?

I understand your viewpoint. But I disagree with your accusation that Christian parents are teaching their kids to do the horrible things which a minority of ignoramuses choose to do. Christian parents warn their kids about many behaviors, not just homosexuality. They are taught to treat people with consideration and respect and are never told to persecute.

Christian sermons are about salvation via faith in Jesus Ransom Sacrifice. They are never about instigating people to go out and physically attack or persecute people. If they were, then adulterers, fornicators, thieves, liars, blasphemers, would be getting attacked. So if attacks or persecutions of gays happen it isn't biblically sanctioned activity but a demonically inspired one instead.

I don't think that the way to protest against the moronic people who persecute gays is to launch a frontal attack on the Bible. In fact, such an approach might make matters worse by infuriating the ignoramuses even more.

BTW

That literal burning in hell has long since been discarded for the more humane interpretation of it being simply a distancing from God.


The only thing I'm on a crusade to demolish is the viewpoint that people must impose their maxims on the autonomy of others.

Imposing? Are you sure that that's not what you are inadvertently doing?


Yes. Fuming implies that I'm angry.

OK.


Well it may comfort you to know that I was raised as a strict conservative Baptist and have memorized the bible front-to-back. And how exactly did a spatially limited being living in an area where Christianity is the dominant religion come to quantify that people primarily have a beef with Christianity?

It would comfort me to know that you properly understood what you memorized.


Please provide a quote where I presumed your motives

I get that impression from the unrelated subjects you are bringing to my attention.

I of course take the liberal interpretation. Even as a Christian did not believe homosexuality was a sin.

What you choose to see as liberal, Christians perceive as demonically-inspired apostate interpretation. That's because they know that the Bible doesn't allow that kind of interpretational leeway in relation to clearly stated prohibitions. In fact, such attempts brings the Satanic Bible to their minds. That Bible contradicts all the moral statement found in the real Bible. Instead of prohibiting it encourages sin.

I don't know and I can't speak on it. I've seen it but really am indifferent to the process. Especially since I have a pastor hounding me demanding that I return to Christ and stop worshipping "some fat bald guy".

Christians aren't instructed to demand.


Why continue to believe in something that can be measured as false?

I agree. if you perceive it as false than you have no motive to believe. Nothing unusual about that.

Perhaps because they believe? I don't know. Maybe you should be asking Phelps and his ilk why they feel they have to change the world around them to make themselves feel comfortable?

Changing the meaning of scripture, as you are doing, seems to qualify as an attempt at transforming the world to suite one's fancy.

disagree and say the ones lusting for blood and spouting on about how Christ is love are the ones who really want to have their cake and eat it too. And it does phase me if you haven't been able to tell yet.

Lusting for blood? How does a hypocritical person claiming to be a Christian but who goes about lusting for blood justify our choosing to ignore God's moral standards? That's the well-known fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Are you aware of this?

I do want to abolish it the same as I want to abolish the portion of the bible which states that blacks are a cursed people descended from Ham and Genesis 1.

The Caananites were not black. True, Ham did have black descendants. But they were not cursed. Only the Caananites were.



You seem to think you're more familiar with the bible than me so you should be able to give me a quote rather than forcing me to hunt around the Internet. I know what the book says...I wanna know if you do.

I already know that you disagree with whatever I might chance to quote. So why waste time quoting?

I understand there are websites...and I've done quite abit of debunking on their nonsense in the past.

Do the accused of being debunked agree that they were debunked?

The thing I often here is that God is greater than us therefore he is wiser and we cannot comprehend them.

That's not a biblical teaching.

I always respond by saying that if God was so wise we should be able to understand him perfectly. They usually repeat the same and I ask what good it does for a creator to create creations that cannot possibly comprehend him and then formulate a form of eternal unending torture if they refuse to obey him. It's logically inconsistent and makes no sense.


We are given understanding of what is essential for salvation.
Which is the reason why the Bible was provided in the first place.
So there is absolutely no deficiency whatsoever there.



Likewise the bit about homosexuality makes no sense.

There is also the bit about murder, the bit about adultery, the bit about theft, the bit about lying, the bit about blaspheming the bit about respecting parents and the bit about avoiding spiritistic practices. I strongly suspect that the whole Bible is merely a "bit" for you. Which is OK by me since to each his own.


No they don't; typically because theism v. theism arguments are an effort in begging the question.

Then feel yourself blessed with greater wisdom and go about your business in peace.

[RandFan]

So if attacks or persecutions of gays happen it isn't biblically sanctioned activity but a demonically inspired one instead.Odly enough it's not atheists that attack or persecute gays.

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

[Radrook]

Odly enough it's not atheists that attack or persecute gays.

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Oddly enough wasn't atheists who ripped out tongues and burned people alive over doctrinal disagreements-it was sadistic, apostate, moronic, hypocrites who did so.

[RandFan]

Oddly enough wasn't atheists who ripped out tongues and burned people alive over doctrinal disagreements-it was sadistic, apostate, moronic, hypocrites who did so. I thought we were talking about hate crimes against homosexuals. The behavior has to come from somewhere and you suggest that it is demonic. I don't think there is any evidence of that. People aren't as simplistic as either being good or bad. If Ted Haggard can be a very successful evangelical Christian, preach against homosexuality and have an affair with a man then it's quite possible that many Christians struggle with their feelings like Ted. Since homosexuality is seen as a perversion by Christians it must be a very troubling thing to have homosexual tendencies. One way to prove to oneself that one is not gay is to hate and persecute gays.

To be intellectually honest, I know that homophobia and oppression of homosexuals existed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and I suspect that it existed in other atheistic societies as well so it is absolutely possible for atheists to hate and persecute homosexuals. However this was based on false beliefs about homosexuality. Homosexuality was only recently considered not to be a mental illness so it is understandable. I don't think you will find any such hatred from most humanists.

[Radrook]

I thought we were talking about hate crimes against homosexuals.

And you typified them as invariably from Christians to which I responded that such people you call Christians are really not Christians at all as is evidenced by their satanic cruel conduct.


The behavior has to come from somewhere and you suggest that it is demonic. I don't think there is any evidence of that.

I don't describe it as demonic-the Bible describes that type of conduct as demonic.


People aren't as simplistic as either being good or bad. If Ted Haggard can be a very successful evangelical Christian, preach against homosexuality and have an affair with a man then it's quite possible that many Christians struggle with their feelings like Ted.

Of course not. Christians struggle with feeling of wanting to commit adultery, steal, murder. lie, fornicate, violence, verbally insult and otherwise humiliate others, sloth, sadistic tendencies, and a host of other inclinations of the fallen flesh which try to deviate them from what they sincerely believe to be right.

BTW
From a true Christian's perspective a person who is violating a biblical prohibition while telling others to abide by God's Word is a hypocrite regardless of his material success.


Since homosexuality is seen as a perversion by Christians it must be a very troubling thing to have homosexual tendencies. One way to prove to oneself that one is not gay is to hate and persecute gays.

All sinful thoughts are troubling to a sincere Christian. That doesn't cause them to go out and attack those who are committing those sins though. However, your explanation does correctly explain why SOME calling themselves Christians Might ignorantly feel it their duty to attack gays.


To be intellectually honest, I know that homophobia and oppression of homosexuals existed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and I suspect that it existed in other atheistic societies as well so it is absolutely possible for atheists to hate and persecute homosexuals. However this was based on false beliefs about homosexuality. Homosexuality was only recently considered not to be a mental illness so it is understandable. I don't think you will find any such hatred from most humanists.

True. Psychiatrists now have chosen to classify homosexuality as normal while classifying those who feel uncomfortable with homosexual inclinations as sick.

BTW

Though I have never persecuted a gay person for being gay, I have been victimized by gays for not being gay or not going along with what they consider the normal flow under give circumstances. So gays themselves are quite capable of being very nasty toward others whom they feel should act as they do and yet don't.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Oh! You are referring to your concept of unconditional acceptance based on isolating certain a scriptures while ignoring other statements which clearly tell us that eternal life is conditional.

I would of course reply by stating that this doesn't excuse you from contradicting yourself and from your statement from also being little more than a vague red herring.

[QUOTE=Radrook;3891555]Of course. However, Christians aren't maliciously teaching their kids to hate people and persecute people in the way you describe.

Maybe, maybe not. I can find alot of examples of Christians who do...they may be nothing more than the vocal minority but their example enough.

I understand your viewpoint. But I disagree with your accusation that Christian parents are teaching their kids to do the horrible things which a minority of ignoramuses choose to do. Christian parents warn their kids about many behaviors, not just homosexuality. They are taught to treat people with consideration and respect and are never told to persecute.

I never said that all Christians are doing it. I'm simply stating a fact here; tell a kid certain groups of people are bad and they'll start to believe it then start to act on it.

Christian sermons are about salvation via faith in Jesus Ransom Sacrifice. They are never about instigating people to go out and physically attack or persecute people. If they were, then adulterers, fornicators, thieves, liars, blasphemers, would be getting attacked. So if attacks or persecutions of gays happen it isn't biblically sanctioned activity but a demonically inspired one instead.

Again; you're assuming. It's not your fault you didn't have my upbringing in Christianity I suppose, which was typically filled with propoganda about how atheist "evolutionists" want to kill us and destroy our way of life. Or the constant unending xenophobic, religiously bigoted, racist, and paranoid sermons. Visiting pastors came in frequently and tried their best to scare the hell out of everyone, but especially the kids, with their doomsday predictions and vivid details of torment in hell, the apocolypse, and the second coming of Jesus. And that was usually followed by the pastor and the visiting pastor having a friendly p****** match about who was the bigger American patriot and who owned more guns. They claimed God wants us to suffer but also that suffering is caused by teaching evolution and "abortionism". I especially liked the bit about how liberal Christianity is the teachings of Satan (as you seem to believe) and that abortions are really sacrifices of innocent blood to Satan. Or of course that the devil wants to make men "sissies" (gay) and women "men" (lesbians). And my absolutely favorite was when they told us that it was a proven historical fact that God sent angels down to the earth to turn back a Nazi army during WWII and that atheist liberals don't want us to hear that because it proves God exists.

When you get a minute look for some of the Uncle Charlie cassette tapes. Basically pre-veggie tales Christian propaganda for kids only much nastier. Look for the tape called "Evolution Revolution". They spend the first half making fun of the idea that humans could evolve from ape-like creatures and the second half going back in time with two atheist "evolutionists" who discover that Adam & Eve really did exist, the earth is at least 6,000 years old, and when they return to the present day and the first atheist "evolutionist" (who is portrayed as an expert in the field) proclaims "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to which the whole crowd (forgot to mention they're in the middle of a big Evolution and atheism convention) becomes absolutely enraged and the second "evolutionist" who went back in time with them vehemently denies the whole thing happens and shouts "we must destroy him before he destroyes us" in which the whole crowd riots and attempts to murder the now evangelized scientist and Uncle Charlie et al. They handed these cassettes out to the kids at Sunday school for free.

I suppose what I'm saying here is don't presume to tell me what a sermon is like and what is taught. I've seen both sides of the aisle, and I know some are worse than others, but I still feel I have to point out that I am far more knowledgable and familiar with Christianity than you are giving me credit for.

I don't think that the way to protest against the moronic people who persecute gays is to launch a frontal attack on the Bible. In fact, such an approach might make matters worse by infuriating the ignoramuses even more.

I've not begun to make a frontal attack on the Bible. If you want to see a frontal attack on the Bible I'd suggest trolling the internet for some of my posts around 17ish when I was absolutely furious and despised the entire Christian religion. You're seeing a much calmer more mature me and I assure you that you'd be very shocked at some of the things I said at 17ish.

BTW

That literal burning in hell has long since been discarded for the more humane interpretation of it being simply a distancing from God.

Of course it hasn't except by liberals who either take that position, the position that hell does not exist, or the position of universal redemption akin to what the Russian Orthodox church believes. Fundamentalists still believe it's a place of punishment. And of course this does contradict your literalist view of the bible.

My understanding of hell is that it is two places. Hell is more of a holding chamber and the lake of fire is a seperate area of punishment that Satan and his angels...along with all sinners...will be thrown into following their appearance in front of the Great White Throne of Judgement.

But I'm curious; if hell is simply distance from God is it possible to become closer to God?

Imposing? Are you sure that that's not what you are inadvertently doing?

Not in the least; and it's not imposing to demand one respect the autonomy of other human beings.

It would comfort me to know that you properly understood what you memorized.

I'd say have an excellent understanding.

What you choose to see as liberal, Christians perceive as demonically-inspired apostate interpretation.

There goes that presumptive nature of yours again. Many would argue that your interpretation that hell is not a place of profound torture is "demonically-inspired apostate interpretation".

That's because they know that the Bible doesn't allow that kind of interpretational leeway in relation to clearly stated prohibitions. In fact, such attempts brings the Satanic Bible to their minds. That Bible contradicts all the moral statement found in the real Bible. Instead of prohibiting it encourages sin.

Right...

Christians aren't instructed to demand.

And if Christians only did what they were instructed to do they wouldn't do much.

I agree. if you perceive it as false than you have no motive to believe. Nothing unusual about that.

Not just perceived as false but measured as such.

Changing the meaning of scripture, as you are doing, seems to qualify as an attempt at transforming the world to suite one's fancy.

That depends on whether or not you believe the world ends outside of scripture.

The Caananites were not black. True, Ham did have black descendants. But they were not cursed. Only the Caananites were.

All the children of his son Caanan were cursed to "be the servent of servents". Canaan's wife was Arsal daugher of Batawil son of Tiras, who by Canaan gave birth to "Blacks, Nubians, Fezzan, Zanj, Zaghawah, and all the peoples of the Sudan".

I already know that you disagree with whatever I might chance to quote. So why waste time quoting?

If I disagree at least the other people know you're right. And refusing to quote makes you seem as if you're making the quote up.

Do the accused of being debunked agree that they were debunked?

Do they ever?

That's not a biblical teaching.

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". -- 1 Corinthians 1:25 (King James Version)

We are given understanding of what is essential for salvation.
Which is the reason why the Bible was provided in the first place.
So there is absolutely no deficiency whatsoever there.

But of course the bible is not wholly accurate. Ask Solomon.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE=Radrook;3891555]

[quote]I would of course reply by stating that this doesn't excuse you from contradicting yourself and from your statement from also being little more than a vague red herring.

Perception of contradictions doesn't guarantee their reality. The fault often resides within the perceiver and not the thing perceived.

Maybe, maybe not. I can find a lot of examples of Christians who do...they may be nothing more than the vocal minority but their example enough.

Enough to make an unrepresentative generalization? That's a common fallacy.


I never said that all Christians are doing it. I'm simply stating a fact here; tell a kid certain groups of people are bad and they'll start to believe it then start to act on it.

No, but you are implying that the fault is inherent in the informing kids about what they should and should not do. The fact is that the vast majority are specifically instructed NOT to murder and physically attack people. Why? Because murdering and attacking people because their belief or lifestyle is different is a non-Christian activity which is itself condemned as wrong. That's the part you are omitting.

Again; you're assuming. It's not your fault you didn't have my upbringing in Christianity I suppose, which was typically filled with propaganda about how atheist "evolutionists" want to kill us and destroy our way of life. Or the constant unending xenophobic, religiously bigoted, racist, and paranoid sermons. Visiting pastors came in frequently and tried their best to scare the hell out of everyone, but especially the kids, with their doomsday predictions and vivid details of torment in hell, the apocalypse, and the second coming of Jesus. And that was usually followed by the pastor and the visiting pastor having a friendly p****** match about who was the bigger American patriot and who owned more guns. They claimed God wants us to suffer but also that suffering is caused by teaching evolution and "abortionism". I especially liked the bit about how liberal Christianity is the teachings of Satan (as you seem to believe) and that abortions are really sacrifices of innocent blood to Satan. Or of course that the devil wants to make men "sissies" (gay) and women "men" (lesbians). And my absolutely favorite was when they told us that it was a proven historical fact that God sent angels down to the earth to turn back a Nazi army during W.W.II and that atheist liberals don't want us to hear that because it proves God exists.

It's common knowledge that there are churches which deviate considerably from Christian principles and which teach their members to behave in unchristian ways. Exposure to such influences from childhood can indeed produce a negative attitude toward anything or everything biblical. However, to say that these things are typical of Christianity is simply unjustified. They are perhaps typical of certain sects which purport to be Christian. But that's as far as we are justified in generalizing. So I guess we disagree on one very important factor. You classify people and organizations which teach unchristian things as Christian. I in contrast do as Jesus instructed me to do-identify such people by their fruits as being false.

Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

17
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

When you get a minute look for some of the Uncle Charlie cassette tapes. Basically pre-veggie tales Christian propaganda for kids only much nastier. Look for the tape called "Evolution Revolution". They spend the first half making fun of the idea that humans could evolve from ape-like creatures and the second half going back in time with two atheist "evolutionists" who discover that Adam & Eve really did exist, the earth is at least 6,000 years old, and when they return to the present day and the first atheist "evolutionist" (who is portrayed as an expert in the field) proclaims "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to which the whole crowd (forgot to mention they're in the middle of a big Evolution and atheism convention) becomes absolutely enraged and the second "evolutionist" who went back in time with them vehemently denies the whole thing happens and shouts "we must destroy him before he destroys us" in which the whole crowd riots and attempts to murder the now evangelized scientist and Uncle Charlie et al. They handed these cassettes out to the kids at Sunday school for free.

Heckling and jeckling is a common human foible. That's omne thing I learned quickly on this website. Christians are not immune to this since they too are human. Evolutionists are particularly adept at mocking and shouting down those who disagree with their pet idea.
So maybe-just maybe those people were following their bad example.



I suppose what I'm saying here is don't presume to tell me what a sermon is like and what is taught. I've seen both sides of the aisle, and I know some are worse than others, but I still feel I have to point out that I am far more knowledgeable and familiar with Christianity than you are giving me credit for.

Sure! Such things happen. I attended a church once where people began shouting trembling and then dropping to the floor and rolling down the aisles. But I don't classify that behavior as Christian. Neither do I classify my aunt's voodoo sweat soaked vehement guttural jiberrings and convoluted physical gyrations as being Christian. Such aberrations are easily identifiable. What I'm saying is that you were unfortunately exposed to have an aisle that YOU think or innocently perceived and understood Christian but which was not.



I've not begun to make a frontal attack on the Bible. If you want to see a frontal attack on the Bible I'd suggest trolling the Internet for some of my posts around 17ish when I was absolutely furious and despised the entire Christian religion. You're seeing a much calmer more mature me and I assure you that you'd be very shocked at some of the things I said at 17ish. Of course it hasn't except by liberals who either take that position, the position that hell does not exist, or the position of universal redemption akin to what the Russian Orthodox church believes. Fundamentalists still believe it's a place of punishment. And of course this does contradict your literalist view of the bible.

I have literalist view? You are the one interpreting symbolic language of Revelation literally not me. See below:


My understanding of hell is that it is two places. Hell is more of a holding chamber and the lake of fire is a separate area of punishment that Satan and his angels...along with all sinners...will be thrown into following their appearance in front of the Great White Throne of Judgment.

But I'm curious; if hell is simply distance from God is it possible to become closer to God?

The subject requires it's own thread since delving into it would seriously deviate this one.
Taking it to the religious forum would stir up a hornet's nest of bigoted anti-Bible freaks.
So I'll try to respond as briefly as possible. The Bible uses symbolic language in Revelation-such as lake of fire, beast, abyss etcetera. As long as there is human life, distance from God can always be reduced by approaching him in prayer and accepting the Ransom sacrifice.


[Not in the least; and it's not imposing to demand one respect the autonomy of other human beings.

How is your approach any different from someone who insists that you are wrong and should change your ways? You yourself admitted that you would like to abolish scriptures which are sacred to others and have others view things as you have concluded them to be.
How is that any different from a crusade?


I'd say have an excellent understanding.

Not from a Christian perspective I'm afraid.


There goes that presumptive nature of yours again. Many would argue that your interpretation that hell is not a place of profound torture is "demonically inspired apostate interpretation".

That position in defense of torture is ethically untenable.


And if Christians only did what they were instructed to do they wouldn't do much.

From your standpoint-of course. From a Christian standpoint they have managed to work miracles in the lives of millions by providing the wisdom necessary to turn thieves into honest men, murderers into humane individuals, blasphemers into ministers of God. All because they did as they were told. In any case, Christians were never instructed to attack unbelievers. Physically attacking unbelievers identifies a professing Christian as a misguided apostate. Of course viewing them correctly that way deprives those who want to denigrate Christianity of a very useful tool-misrepresentation.


Not just perceived as false but measured as such.

Measurements are susceptible to subjective biased interpretations.



That depends on whether or not you believe the world ends outside of scripture.

Each person has a world view. Do you ever step outside of yours?


All the children of his son Caanan were cursed to "be the servant of servants." Canaan's wife was Arsal daugher of Batawil son of Tiras, who by Canaan gave birth to "Blacks, Nubians, Fezzan, Zanj, Zaghawah, and all the peoples of the Sudan".

Not according to this article:


Racial Problems
The Canaanites were not a black people but were more like their Semitic neighbors. ... Canaanites were cursed while the black skinned Cushites were not cursed. ...
www.ao.net/~fmoeller/christat.htm


excerpt


THE CHILDREN OF HAM are listed in Genesis 10:6. They are Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. Not all the sons of Ham were black skinned people. The word "Ham" [ ] itself carries with it the idea of hot, --dark or swarthy. But of the three clearly identifiable sons of Ham (Phut is not unquestionably identified), only the Ethiopian descendants (Cush) are what Americans and Western Europeans call black, while Egyptians (Mizraim) and Canaanites are swarthy people.

l. CUSH: The Hebrew word Cush [ ] is often rendered "Ethiopia" in the English translation of the Bible. The nation of Ethiopia is always indicated by the word "Cush." These black-skinned natives of Ethiopia are negroes. Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" (Jer. 13:23) Cushite people first settled in the Mesopotamian Valley where they developed the world's first civilization before invading Semites became the dominate race in Mesopotamia. (Genesis 10) These Cushites are called Sumerians in secular history.

Under Nimrod, a Cushite, the greatest cities of the ancient world in Mesopotamia were built. Nineveh, Babylon, Erech, and Accad are mentioned in Genesis 10 as cities founded by Nimrod.....

Semitic people conquered the darker Hamites of Mesopotamia (about 1900 B.C.), then drove them out. This is thought to have hastened their migration to Africa and Hindu Cush, which was already under way. Secular historians write about the Semitic Accadians and Hamitic Sumerians who lived that history. Negro Cush, though a hamite, settling first in Mesopotamia, was not a Canaanite and therefore not a recipient of the curse of Canaan.

2. MIZRAIM: he Hebrew name Mizraim [ ] is the name of the second son of Ham. Mizraim, Hebrew for Egypt, brought into existence the second old world civilization which followed the Hamitic beginnings in Mesopotamia already spoken of. The pyramids and glories of the dynasties of ancient Egypt were the product of darker-skinned Hamitic people.....

The Psalmist said, "God did great wonders in the land of Ham." He was speaking of the ten plagues of Egypt. (Psalms 105:27) Egyptians then are Hamites. They are not Canaanites, whom Noah cursed.

3. PHUT: [ ] is the third son of Ham listed in Genesis 10. Phut is identified as Libya in Smith's Bible Dictionary and by other students of the Bible. It should be kept in mind that Libya was a designation of the greater part of the African interior used by geographers like Strabo* and others who were living when the Bible was being written. Since this son of Ham was not a Canaanite either, this nation is not a part of the curse.

* Strabo; Geography; Book I:2;26.
4. CANAAN: [ ] The fourth son of Ham. He was cursed by Noah. Canaan's descendants are listed in Genesis 10:15-20. Remember that these descendants are nationality groups. They are listed as: Sidon, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Sinites, etc. "The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as you come to Gerar unto Gaza, as you go unto Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim and Laisha." (Gen. 10:19) Tracing this on a map, one sees that the land of the Canaanites is what we now call the Holy Land or the Promised Land, --the land that God promised to Abraham. These people then, living in that land, are the people whom God through Noah cursed, saying, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Cushites (Ethiopians) were black people. Mizraim (Egypt) was a dark people. The Canaanites were not a black people but were more like their Semitic neighbors. This is no mere assumption, for many excavations have uncovered Amorite and Hittite civilizations. The art left in stone bears record of the physical characteristics of these peoples.

CONCLUSION: Cushites were black; Canaanites were not black. Canaanites were cursed while the black skinned Cushites were not cursed.[/b] Therefore black skin is not related to the biblical curse. Again: Cushites were black. They were not included in the Noahic curse. Canaanites were NOT black. They were cursed. Black skin has no relation to the biblical curse. Neither, then, has the servitude of negro people of past 100 years ago in America, any relation to the biblical curse of Canaan.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/christat.htm

bolding mine


If I disagree at least the other people know you're right. And refusing to quote makes you seem as if you're making the quote up.

I am assuming basic biblical knowledge on your part which would make quoting unnecessary. However, since you insist I will begin providing quotes.





Do they ever?

Which would be the same words they would say in reference to you.



"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". -- 1 Corinthians 1:25 (King James Version)

Paul is referring to how Jews and non-Christians of his day viewed the Bible and the teachings about Christ-as foolishness and as being weak in its ability to convince. Please read the context of the statement.



But of course the bible is not wholly accurate. Ask Solomon.

I don't recall Solomon ever making that statement or anything that he said which can be justifiably interpreted as an attack against biblical accuracy.

[RandFan]

And you typified them as invariably from Christians to which I responded that such people you call Christians are really not Christians at all as is evidenced by their satanic cruel conduct. This is fallacy. It begs the question and it is a no true scotsman fallacy. The premise is the proposition. Any evidence I give you of a Christian behaving in a way that you think is not Christian can simply be used as evidence that they are not in fact Christian. You are defining Christians as perfect when Christ defined them as sick people in need of a doctor. People who would continue to make mistakes even when they knew and were commited to not making those very same mistakes.

I don't describe it as demonic-the Bible describes that type of conduct as demonic. Actually it describes behavior associated with mental illness as demonic.

From a true Christian's perspective a person who is violating a biblical prohibition while telling others to abide by God's Word is a hypocrite regardless of his material success. Then Taggert is an excellent example of why it's silly to suppose that one can know who is and isn't a Christian. It's impossible. As soon as a person sins he or she instantly stops being a True Christian. Everyone falls short of the glory of god (assuming for a moment that perfection is even a logically valid concept). A person's righteousness, according to the Bible, are as filthy rags to god.

Though I have never persecuted a gay person for being gay, I have been victimized by gays for not being gay or not going along with what they consider the normal flow under give circumstances. So gays themselves are quite capable of being very nasty toward others whom they feel should act as they do and yet don't. It's called humanity. All people are subject to human frailties and error. It's what we are.

[Radrook]

This is fallacy. It begs the question and it is a no true scotsman fallacy. The premise is the proposition. Any evidence I give you of a Christian behaving in a way that you think is not Christian can simply be used as evidence that they are not in fact Christian. You are defining Christians as perfect when Christ defined them as sick people in need of a doctor. People who would continue to make mistakes even when they knew and were commited to not making those very same mistakes.

No those are your concepts not mine.

Everyone sins as the Apostle Paul admitted in the following verses:

Romans 7:22-24
(King James Version)

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

The answer is that Christ died for us, in order for us to be forgiven when we are trying to do good but do bad anyway. So I am definitely not referring to people who are trying to do good but keep making mistakes despite their best sincere efforts. I am referring to those who voluntarily CHOOSE unchristian conduct in full knowledge that they are sinning, and who simultaneously put on a sannctimonious Christian coumouflage.

Actually it describes behavior associated with mental illness as demonic.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Then Taggert is an excellent example of why it's silly to suppose that one can know who is and isn't a Christian. It's impossible. As soon as a person sins he or she instantly stops being a True Christian. Everyone falls short of the glory of god (assuming for a moment that perfection is even a logically valid concept). A person's righteousness, according to the Bible, are as filthy rags to god.

You are completely misrepresenting my viewpoint as well as the Bible's. People sin all the time and remain true Christians. It's when they choose to unrepentantly practice thiings which identify them non-Christian that they become non-Christian. You seem to be saying that no one can identify a hipoccrite. The criteria for such identification is provided in the Bible itself.

God's providing a Ransom sacrifice for our salvation in order for us to associate with him in good standing is evidence that he doesn't consider us worthless, filthy, rags.

It's called humanity. All people are subject to human frailties and error. It's what we are.

Of course! But let's not portray a persecuted group as being always the persecuted when that group seems to be quite ready willing and able to dish out its own type of unprovoked bigotry as well.

[Safe-Keeper]

Actually it describes behavior associated with mental illness as demonic.They aren't mutually exclusive. I hate to break this to you, radrook, but yes, modern medicine's way of diagnosing illnesses such as epilepsy through proven, empirical methods and Bronze Age peoples' habit of writing them off as demon possession are mutually exclusive.

[RandFan]

Let me attempt a clarrification. Christ died for us, in order for us to be forgiven when we are trying to do good but do bad anyway. So I am definitely not referring to people who are trying to do good but keep making mistakes despite their best sincere efforts. I am referring to those who voluntarily CHOOSE unchristian conduct in full knowledge that they are sinning, and who simultaneously put on a sannctimonious Christian coumouflage. I don't think there is any evidence that people choose in the way that you suppose. People who have heard confessions like priests and others will tell you that most people struggle very hard not to commit what you call sin and they often fail and it causes great remorse and pain. Many people are challenged with very serious moral issues like adultery. It's really not as simple as you would like to portray. It's not a simple dichotomy.

They aren't mutually exclusive. People with mental illness aren't necassarily associated with commiting crime or what you call sin. What people in the past called demonic had very little to do with moral transgression. People simply associated the two because the didn't understand. I think if the Bible were the word of god then god would have made that distinction and many innocent people wouldn't have had to suffer so much because of ignorance and superstition.

You are completely misrepresenting my viewpoint as well as the Bible's. People sin all the time and remain true Christians. It's when they choose to unrepentantly practice thiings which identify them non-Christian that they become non-Christian. You seem to be saying that no one can identify a hipoccrite. The criteria for such identification is provided in the Bible itself. If you look into the lifes of people in general you will find hypochrites. Your view of human behavior doesn't really fit the anthropoligical view.

Also, Christians are told not to view the person badly but only the conduct. God's providing a Ransom sacrifice for our salvation in order for us to associate with him in good standing is evidence that he doesn't consider us worthless, filthy, rags. Sadly, humans being what they are, it translates to just that. I think you know this. Christians are quite capable of harboring resentment toward people they deem as sinners. Oh, they will tell themselves and others that they only hate the conduct but it's difficult to really keep feelings of disgust concerning behavior sperate from the person.

Of course! But let's not portray a persecuted group as being always the persecuted when that group seems to be quite ready willing and able to dish out its own type of bigotry as well. I'm affraid there isn't much evidence that Homosexuals are actively targeting anyone for not being gay or not agreeing with them. There is no valid comparison.

http://www.madebymark.com/madebymark/20050615_idaho-god-hates-fags.jpg

[Radrook]

I hate to break this to you, radrook, but yes, modern medicine's way of diagnosing illnesses such as epilepsy through proven, empirical methods and Bronze Age peoples' habit of writing them off as demon possession are mutually exclusive.

I agree, I meant not necessarily mutually exclusive. Actually, I wasn't even refering to demon possession. The one bringing in demon possession was the person responding to one of my posts. I guess he assumed I was referring to demon possession. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[cgallaga]

Wait a second...god hates fags? Damn, if only someone had told me 43 years ago, I would never have chose to be born.

P.S. Happy Birthday RandFan

[Radrook]

I don't think there is any evidence that people choose in the way that you suppose. People who have heard confessions like priests and others will tell you that most people struggle very hard not to commit what you call sin and they often fail and it causes great remorse and pain. Many people are challenged with very serious moral issues like adultery. It's really not as simple as you would like to portray. It's not a simple dichotomy.

Of course there are gradients in the continuum of human behavior. That's why we have such terms as "borderline" in describing certain mental illnesses. However, that there is a continuum and that there are gradients doesn't meant that people have lost their ability to choose one behavior over another. How many times have you felt like punching someone in the nose but have chosen not to do it? I know I have. Or been faced with a temptation to steal but have chosen otherwise? Or to make a move on someone else's wife but have restrained yourself. The same can be asked in reverse of course. How many times has an individual been confronted with such choices and taken the opposite to the one I just described? That we have ability to choose who we are is part of our human condition as Sartre pointed out in his writings on existentialism where he describes the agony involved in choosing and becoming or not becoming. Animals in contrast have no such psychological responsibilities since their behavior is mostly hardwired. To different degrees of course depending on species. So I find it rather dehumanizing to depict humans as incapable of choice and therefore not susceptible to culpability. If indeed such were the case then it could be always used in a court of law to evade severe punishment since those incapable of choosing are considered not responsible for their actions.



People with mental illness aren't necessarily associated with committing crime or what you call sin. What people in the past called demonic had very little to do with moral transgression. People simply associated the two because the didn't understand. I think if the Bible were the word of god then god would have made that distinction and many innocent people wouldn't have had to suffer so much because of ignorance and superstition.

Where did I say that people who are mentally ill are always associated with committing crimes?



If you look into the lifes of people in general you will find hypochrites. Your view of human behavior doesn't really fit the anthropoligical view.

Where did I say that hypocrites are rare?



Sadly, humans being what they are, it translates to just that. I think you know this. Christians are quite capable of harboring resentment toward people they deem as sinners. Oh, they will tell themselves and others that they only hate the conduct but it's difficult to really keep feelings of disgust concerning behavior sperate from the person. [

Where did I say that Christians are incapable of harboring resentment? Where did I say that keeping feelings of disgust for for person and condfuct separated is easy?


I'm afraid there isn't much evidence that Homosexuals are actively targeting anyone for not being gay or not agreeing with them. There is no valid comparison.

http://www.madebymark.com/madebymark/20050615_idaho-god-hates-fags.jpg

Where did I say that my conclusion is based on abundant evidence that gays are targeting people and that such targeting is comparable to the moronic activity of straight bigots? My comment was based on my personal experience in which I have been repeatedly exposed to gay bigotry. Nothing more.

[Sunni Man]

Wait a second...god hates fags? Damn, if only someone had told me 43 years ago, I would never have chose to be born.

That's O.K., most homos don't reproduce.

[Tumblehome]

Yet gays still happen. Hmmmm...

Maybe--just maybe--outlawing homosexuality won't stop it, virtually all of mankind's history being just one example.

[RandFan]

Not sure where the smilie came from but it wasn't intentional. No chagrin intended.

Of course there are gradients in the continuum of human behavior. That's why we have such terms as "borderline" in describing certain mental illnesses. However, that there is a continuum and that there are gradients doesn't meant that people have lost their ability to choose one behavior over another. How many times have you felt like punching someone in the nose but have chosen not to do it? I know I have. Or been faced with a temptation to steal but have chosen otherwise? Or to make a move on someone else's wife but have restrained yourself. The same can be asked in reverse of course. How many times has an individual been confronted with such choices and taken the opposite to the one I just described? That we have ability to choose who we are is part of our human condition as Sartre pointed out in his writings on existentialism where he describes the agony involved in choosing and becoming or not becoming. Animals in contrast have no such psychological responsibilities since their behavior is mostly hardwired. To different degrees of course depending on species. So I find it rather dehumanizing to depict humans as incapable of choice and therefore not susceptible to culpability. If indeed such were the case then it could be always used in a court of law to evade severe punishment since those incapable of choosing are considered not responsible for their actions. The problem is that this "choosing" (assuming that we actually choose and there is very good scientific evidence to suppose that we don't) is not at all as simple as you suppose as is evidenced by the human condition. I think the notion of a gradient is all that really needs be said. At what point does night become day? At what point does a person become a hypocrite?

As for courts of law and crime and punishment. The theory is that human behavior is based, to a large degree, on external variables. Punishment, regardless of whether or not humans have free will, clearly contributes to the control of behavior.

I'm not interested in a debate about free will. It is entirely beside the point. Whether we have free will or not doesn't change the fact that human behavior can be altered through external reward and punishment.

Where did I say that people who are mentally ill are always associated with committing crimes? Whether or not you said that they are is not relevant to my argument.

Where did I say that hypocrites are rare?
Whether or not you believe that they are is not relevant to my argument.

Where did I say that Christians are incapable of harboring resentment? Where did I say that keeping feelings of disgust for for person and condfuct [sic] separated is easy?
Whether you did nor not is not relevant to my argument.

Where did I say that my conclusion is based on abundant evidence that gays are targeting people and that such targeting is comparable to the moronic activity of straight bigots? My comment was based on my personal experience in which I have been repeatedly exposed to gay bigotry. Nothing more.Again, not relevant to the point being made.

*[sic] glass houses and all that.

[Sunni Man]

Yet gays still happen. Hmmmm...True, mental illness happens in all societies and cultures.

[RandFan]

Wait a second...god hates fags? Damn, if only someone had told me 43 years ago, I would never have chose to be born.

P.S. Happy Birthday RandFan:) Damn, I didn't even realize. Thank you. Hope I get cake.

[RandFan]

True, mental illness happens in all societies and cultures. Homosexuality is not a mental illness.

[Sunni Man]

Homosexuality is not a mental illness.It used to be classified as a mental illness.

Hopefully, it will be again in the future.

[GreyICE]

It used to be classified as a mental illness.

Hopefully, it will be again in the future.

Oh my! I just realized the point of this thread.

Lets classify Sunni Man's mental illnesses!

I'm going with Antisocial personality disorder and Oppositional defiant disorder.

Anyone else?

[RandFan]

It used to be classified as a mental illness. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Hopefully, it will be again in the future. What would that accomplish? Statistically homosexuals are college educated, receiving above average pay, are involved in the community, pay taxes, responsible and do not suffer from any ailments associated with mental illness. Homosexuality isn't a predictor of the ability of an individual to lead a mentally and emotionally productive life outside of the stigma and scorn of people with bronze age sensibilities.

[Safe-Keeper]

I know Funni Man is a troll, but I'll reply to this one as it's been spouted by less-than-trollish people on various forums before.
It used to be classified as a mental illness.But on what grounds? Certain elements of the anti-gay rights crowd love to state that it was due to "political correctness gone mad" that psychiatry seized to regard homosexuality as a disorder, but they never stop to think if the classification was justified in the first place.

Let's say that I lived in a purely vegan society and found the butchering and eating of animals so bizarre and repulsive that I viewed the people who did it as sick somehow and classified the eating of meat as a disorder. Then times change, meat-eating become more widespread, and activists call for the classification of Animal Consumption Disorder (ACD) to be regarded as "normal". What should the psychiatrists do? After all, they're not supposed to be affected to activists in your eyes, right? So then meat-eating should remain a mental disorder in this fictional country, right? By your reasoning?

[four elevener]

That's O.K., most homos don't reproduce.


In the context of his statment, your comment made about as much sense as...well...nothing.

[Tumblehome]

True, mental illness happens in all societies and cultures.


Michaelangelo, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Colette, Cole Porter, Leonard Bernstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Suleiman the Magnificent, Noel Coward, T. E. Lawrence, Gore Vidal, Alan Turing...

Yes, all of those people were plainly mentally ill. We can only hope to be as sick as they were.

Unreasonable hatred of a minority is more an indication of mental illness.

[Sunni Man]

Yes, all of those people were plainly mentally ill. We can only hope to be as sick as they were.
So a few sick homos made some historcal acomplishments. Big deal. They were still nasty perverts.

[Terry]

So a few sick homos made some historcal acomplishments. Big deal. They were still nasty perverts.

Takes one to know one, sweet-cheeks.

[RandFan]

They were still nasty perverts. A mob of men throwing stones at a defenseless girl until she dies isn't vulgar but certain sex habits are. Your morality is what is perverse. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of anyone's business. Some people think Islam is perverted. Mohammad having sex with a child is considered by some as perverse. Forcing women to marry a person she despises and who beats her is considered perverse.

[uruk]

That's O.K., most homos don't reproduce.

That's right. Homosexuals come from rightious, god fearin' heterosexual couples.

I,ve known a baby boy born to a normal heterosexual couple next door grow from a todler to an efeminate young boy to a gay adult.
I know from experiance that people are born gay. It's not a choice.
people don't usualy chose to become a member of an ostracised group.

God clearly makes them gay from the get go.

So if god hates homosexuals why does he make them? Your god has some esplainin' to do!

[uruk]

It used to be classified as a mental illness. But then pepole got smarter

Hopefully, it will be again in the future.Well, not everybody.

[Sunni Man]

I,ve known a baby boy born to a normal heterosexual couple next door grow from a todler to an efeminate young boy to a gay adult.
I know from experiance that people are born gay. It's not a choice.
people don't usualy chose to become a member of an ostracised group.

God clearly makes them gay from the get go.
I hope you are right that being a homo is not a choice.

I really wish they would all come out and practice their sick lifestyles.

Since most homos don't reproduce.

This genetic abnormality will be culled from the human genetic pool in just a few generations.

[RandFan]

I hope you are right that being a homo is not a choice.

I really wish they would all come out and practice their sick lifestyles.

Since most homos don't reproduce.

This genetic abnormality will be culled from the human genetic pool in just a few generations.No. It doesn't work that way. Homosexuality is part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. A percentage of homosexuals as part of the population is favored (see selfish gene).

[RandFan]

I hope you are right that being a homo is not a choice.

I really wish they would all come out and practice their sick lifestyles.It always amazes me to encounter hatred and bigotry so close up. I used to argue against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. I'm sorry I was ever associated with something so ugly and hateful. You don't need religion to be evil but it sure helps.

[RandFan]

Radical Muslim Porn. (http://latibule.net/Other/Muslim_Murder.html)

Yes, It's a Yezidi being killed for dating a Sunni but what difference does it make. Stoning is stoning and who can't get into that?

[Sunni Man]

No. It doesn't work that way. Homosexuality is part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. A percentage of homosexuals as part of the population is favored (see selfish gene).So some guy getting his fudge packed is part of the evolutionary process?

Sounds like a real scientific theory!!

[cyborg]

So some guy getting his fudge packed is part of the evolutionary process?

No, that's part of the confectionery process.

[DoubtingStephen]

When a person repeatedly says very stupid things, they run the risk of seeming to not be so clever.

[RandFan]

So some guy getting his fudge packed is part of the evolutionary process? Religion and hatred go together so well.

[uruk]

I hope you are right that being a homo is not a choice.

I really wish they would all come out and practice their sick lifestyles. Well it's no wonder that with some people around that share your belifs and attitudes that they they would just assume avoiding being harrased and assaulted in the name of god and wholesome American morals.

Since most homos don't reproduce.

This genetic abnormality will be culled from the human genetic pool in just a few generations. That's right homosexual couples do not produce homosexual children because technically a homosexual relationship cannot produce children.

Homosexual children usualy come from heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples are the reproducers.

Maybe you might want to have heterosexual sex banned.

Or perhaps you could push for research that could identify homosexuality in the fetus. You could always have the children aborted. If abortion is not you cup of tea, maybe expose the infants to the elements like the Spartans did.

Am I making you all warm and fuzzy with the possibilities?

[Sunni Man]

When a person repeatedly says very stupid things, they run the risk of seeming to not be so clever.
Sounds like personal experience!!

[uruk]

So some guy getting his fudge packed is part of the evolutionary process?

Sounds like a real scientific theory!!

Who said it was just guys

[Terry]

Sounds like personal experience!!

yes, we've all read your posts. Duh.

[Sunni Man]

yes, we've all read your posts. Duh.Are you just a troll now Terry?

Because that looks like all you are doing

[Terry]

I'm giving your "arguments" about the level of reply they deserve.

[RandFan]

Are you just a troll now Terry?

Because that looks like all you are doing You are the one insulting others and being vulgar. Your posts are especially provocative and hateful to individuals who do nothing to warrant such abuse.

[Sunni Man]

You are the one insulting others and being vulgar. Your posts are especially provocative and hateful to individuals who do nothing to warrant such abuse.RandiFan I hope I was not being vulgar. Just humoriously descriptive.

As far as I know, I haven't made any personal attacks. Just attacking the homosexual lifestyle.

If I have, I apologize. As I am not here to make enemies.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Perception of contradictions doesn't guarantee their reality. The fault often resides within the perceiver and not the thing perceived.

You still enjoy making vague statements that don't seem to address the situation.


Enough to make an unrepresentative generalization? That's a common fallacy.

I'm not making a generalization (in fact I even pointed out in my last response that they were just a vocal minority) I'm refering to an example of what happens when you teach these things. If we were discussing negative Christian views towards Palestinians I'd be complaining about that now.


No, but you are implying that the fault is inherent in the informing kids about what they should and should not do.

This implies that it is possible to tell a child "don't be gay" and they'll stop being gay. There's probablly no good research available on the subject; considering that deliberately exposing children to hate speech is unethical. But one doesn't need to be able to cite such things when contemplating the effects on society of constantly embelishing the abnormal nature of a minority population.

The fact is that the vast majority are specifically instructed NOT to murder and physically attack people. Why? Because murdering and attacking people because their belief or lifestyle is different is a non-Christian activity which is itself condemned as wrong. That's the part you are omitting.

This implies that the majority of people view our tribal sky-gods as a greater immediate threat to our well-beings than the police men around the corner; which I would love to see how you quantified. Can this be a good reason to behave ethically? Sure. If good reason were to mean prudent or pragmatic. The part you are, of course, omitting is that numerous people and organizations find ways around that. If it happened once it can happen again.

It's common knowledge that there are churches which deviate considerably from Christian principles and which teach their members to behave in unchristian ways.

As Randfan pointed out this is a no true scotsman fallacy. Read Mark 9:40 please.

Exposure to such influences from childhood can indeed produce a negative attitude toward anything or everything biblical. However, to say that these things are typical of Christianity is simply unjustified. They are perhaps typical of certain sects which purport to be Christian. But that's as far as we are justified in generalizing. So I guess we disagree on one very important factor. You classify people and organizations which teach unchristian things as Christian. I in contrast do as Jesus instructed me to do-identify such people by their fruits as being false.

Of course as a fallible spatially limited three dimensional being you really have no way of quantifying that statement. Jesus did not say to measure Christians based on their fruits but rather that "he who is not against us is for us on our part".

Heckling and jeckling is a common human foible. That's omne thing I learned quickly on this website. Christians are not immune to this since they too are human.

Of course heckling and jeckling isn't the problem. This isn't a matter of some random jerk on the internet making fun of your religion. This is a matter of teaching children that "evolutionists" want to kill you.

Evolutionists are particularly adept at mocking and shouting down those who disagree with their pet idea.
So maybe-just maybe those people were following their bad example.

As I've always done in the past with creationists I'll first ask you to define what an "evolutionist" is. Second, perhaps you should put things back in perspective and consider that while people like that do exist you should keep in mind that the number of people who do acknowledge the reality of evolution do exist in great numbers. And I doubt those people are walking around talking down to people who don't 24/7. Maybe we should go back to the bit about generlizations.

So maybe-just maybe those people were following their bad example.

Sounds like your trying to justify it.

Sure! Such things happen. I attended a church once where people began shouting trembling and then dropping to the floor and rolling down the aisles. But I don't classify that behavior as Christian.

No true scotsman fallacy again.

I have literalist view? You are the one interpreting symbolic language of Revelation literally not me. See below:

If you consider it symbolic than you don't. If you consider it literal than you do. It would be difficult for me to be a biblical literalist with that whole atheism thing getting in the way.


The subject requires it's own thread since delving into it would seriously deviate this one.
Taking it to the religious forum would stir up a hornet's nest of bigoted anti-Bible freaks.

If you define anti-Bible freaks as anyone who disagrees with you than I suppose it would. In fact, your mere continuing presence on the forums probablly stirs up large amounts of anti-Bible freaks.

So I'll try to respond as briefly as possible. The Bible uses symbolic language in Revelation-such as lake of fire, beast, abyss etcetera. As long as there is human life, distance from God can always be reduced by approaching him in prayer and accepting the Ransom sacrifice.

I get that. That wasn't the question though. The question was that, if in hell already and hell was merely distance from God is it then possible to repent and become closer to God in hell?

How is your approach any different from someone who insists that you are wrong and should change your ways? You yourself admitted that you would like to abolish scriptures which are sacred to others and have others view things as you have concluded them to be.
How is that any different from a crusade?

You misunderstand abolish and maxims. I wouldn't take a maxim I wouldn't be happy with the rest of humanity taking as well. You assume that what I mean by abolish is that I want to make illegal or make taboo. I don't.


Not from a Christian perspective I'm afraid.

That's debateable. If understanding is limited to total agreement with you than I suppose I do misunderstand.

From your standpoint-of course. From a Christian standpoint they have managed to work miracles in the lives of millions by providing the wisdom necessary to turn thieves into honest men, murderers into humane individuals, blasphemers into ministers of God. All because they did as they were told. In any case, Christians were never instructed to attack unbelievers. Physically attacking unbelievers identifies a professing Christian as a misguided apostate. Of course viewing them correctly that way deprives those who want to denigrate Christianity of a very useful tool-misrepresentation.

I'd of course argue that you're, rather deliberately, misrepresenting the people you are accusing of misrepresenting Christianity. This would also require it's own thread...to fully debate the effects of Christianity on society. Obviously you're going to sing it's praises but it's not to much more than any other religion could lay claim to.

Measurements are susceptible to subjective biased interpretations.

If in anycase that were true...it's still far less so than simple perception.

Each person has a world view. Do you ever step outside of yours?

I could ask the same question of you.

I am assuming basic biblical knowledge on your part which would make quoting unnecessary. However, since you insist I will begin providing quotes.

I'm still waiting.

Which would be the same words they would say in reference to you.

I'm sure they would. However, their opinion of me doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

Paul is referring to how Jews and non-Christians of his day viewed the Bible and the teachings about Christ-as foolishness and as being weak in its ability to convince. Please read the context of the statement.

Even if I'm to accept that as true; it still doesn't change the fact that the bible does teach God is wiser than men.

I don't recall Solomon ever making that statement or anything that he said which can be justifiably interpreted as an attack against biblical accuracy.

God promised him that his kingdom would last forever. Well that didn't happen now did it?