Is the US a Christian nation?

[1robin]

But if a God exists, he might not be the God of the Bible. Even if the God of the Bible exists, he does not have free will regarding his character.

There certainly may be another God. There is however less evidence of him. If I can stop responding to your freewill point long enough to research it I will clear it up.

You have said that you have some valid secular arguments against homosexuality. Do you have some valid secular arguments against what I said about secular factors that contributed to the growth of Christianity?

You must prove that no God exists in order to claim there are any purely secular factors but assuming you could (which you can't) I certainly grant that non purely Christian factors have been positive? Why is that important?

 

[Agnostic75]

There certainly may be another God. There is however less evidence of him.

You must prove that no God exists in order to claim there are any purely secular factors but assuming you could (which you can't) I certainly grant that non purely Christian factors have been positive? Why is that important?

You have not provided reasonable evidence that God is the God of the Bible. Even if you did, God does not have free will regarding his character.

 

[Agnostic75]

No you [didn't]. Your arguments regardless of merit had no capacity what so ever to even impact my primary claims and I pointed that out in that post.

I most certainly did. The following arguments that I made are irrefutable, and you have not directly replied to them:

1. Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk is same-sex behavior.

2. Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs ever could. That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals ever could if in great numbers they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise. Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity. There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs.

3. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

4. Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

5. Logically, there would be no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence.

6. Even some conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which would be much more difficult.

7. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them are monogamous, and will stay monogamous for the rest of their lives, that is 1.4 million homosexuals. By your own admission, you do not object to them personally since they did not harm you.

Aside from those arguments, the merits of having sex are not worth discussing since even you know that having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures.

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure? If so, do you believe that genetics had anything to do with it?

 

[1robin]

I most certainly did. The following arguments that I made are irrefutable, and you have not directly replied to them:

1. Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk is same-sex behavior.

2. Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs ever could. That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals ever could if in great numbers they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise. Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity. There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs.

3. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

4. Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

5. Logically, there would be no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence.

6. Even some conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which would be much more difficult.

7. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them are monogamous, and will stay monogamous for the rest of their lives, that is 1.4 million homosexuals. By your own admission, you do not object to them personally since they did not harm you.

Aside from those arguments, the merits of having sex are not worth discussing since even you know that having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures.

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure? If so, do you believe that genetics had anything to do with it?

This has just become too monotonous, counter productive, and a little weird. You repeated exactly what I said you did but insisted the outcome should be different. Plus you violated your own rule (that for some reason was intended to bind only me, apparently) in commenting on homosexuality in this thread.

 

[1robin]

You have not provided reasonable evidence that God is the God of the Bible. Even if you did, God does not have free will regarding his character.

I did both in one of the 6 threads you posted the same question. Do you remember where your posts are?

 

[Agnostic75]

This has just become too monotonous, counter productive, and a little weird. You repeated exactly what I said you did but insisted the outcome should be different.

I have never debated any other Christian who claimed victory without replying to my arguments. For example, I said:

"Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk is same-sex behavior."


Please state why lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior should practice abstinence. What is the impact of those lesbians having sex?


Also, please state why homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years should practice abstinence.

I also said:


"Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs ever could. That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals ever could if in great numbers they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise. Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity. There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world."


I provided absolute proof that 1) heterosexuals cause far more health costs because of their much greater numbers, and could thus do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could, that 2) even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and that 3) those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

 

[1robin]

I have never debated any other Christian who claimed victory without replying to my arguments. For example, I said:

I have replied to the same arguments at least 6 times each. How many times is necessary. I will only do so one more time at least for now. BTW wrong thread according to your rules again.

"Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk is same-sex behavior."

I am not debating against Lesbians in certain categories you happen to mention. I am debating against a sexual preference in general. Your compartmentalizing and creating composition fallacies. Is murder ok if no left handed albino Eskimo murderers ever get caught? This is just silly.

Please state why lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior should practice abstinence. What is the impact of those lesbians having sex?

If every Lesbian who ever tried being gay received a million dollars and 10 extra years of life would that mean the tens of thousands that die of aids spread through homosexuality never got it?

Also, please state why homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years should practice abstinence.

No. When that defines the entirety of the homosexuality community I might need to. Do you not see the massive flaw in this logic?

I also said:

"Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs ever could.

I am not for heart disease either.

That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals ever could if in great numbers they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise.

How many times do I have to claim gluttony is wrong as well. Is it being wrong proof homosexuality is right in some bizarro world?

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

I am against cancer as well.

There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world."

You do not prove X right by proving Y wrong. Is this what the homosexual community use to justify it at large? Is Christianity right because Islam is wrong? Christianity is right based on it's own merits not in comparison with something else.

I provided absolute proof that 1) heterosexuals cause far more health costs because of their much greater numbers, and could thus do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could,

That is irrelevant, incidental, and of no help whatever to homosexuality even granting it is true. Is drug abuse good because alcoholism is more costly?

2) even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and that

How does that help homosexuality. There is no way you believe this is relevant. I say that rhetorically many times but I am literal in this case. You can't believe this is a defense of homosexuality of any kind can you?

3) those problems would still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

When I claim Christianity is the instant cure all for all problems then that would still not help homosexuality. This is why I am slow about responding. None of this is even a poor defense of homosexuality. It has no relevance in the debate at all. None of it. I have been replying mostly out of courtesy but even that is running low. I appreciate a good challenge even if wrong. This is not good or right.

 

[Scopz]

When I claim Christianity is the instant cure all for all problems then that would still not help homosexuality. This is why I am slow about responding. None of this is even a poor defense of homosexuality. It has no relevance in the debate at all. None of it. I have been replying mostly out of courtesy but even that is running low. I appreciate a good challenge even if wrong. This is not good or right.

Just reading through all of that gave me a headache. You did not provide any claims or answers to what that man was asking. You just put forth your own opinion and said "No", constantly. I'd like you to actually put forth the effort in evaluation to help me enjoy reading a good argument.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not debating against Lesbians in certain categories you happen to mention. I am debating against a sexual preference in general. Your compartmentalizing and creating composition fallacies.

When [homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years] defines the entirety of the homosexuality community I might need to.

But risk applies to individuals, whether homosexual, heterosexual, male, or female, not to entire groups of people. If a man has had one glass of wine for over ten years, there are not any good reasons to assume that he will become an alcoholic. Surely, good health is best judged on an individual basis, not upon a collective basis.

Is murder ok if no left handed albino Eskimo murderers ever get caught? This is just silly.

That is a bad analogy since one party in a murder is always harmed. Safe sex among homosexuals is frequently safe, and beneficial for both parties.

Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Are you proposing that homosexuality should be illegal?

If every Lesbian who ever tried being gay received a million dollars and 10 extra years of life would that mean the tens of thousands that die of AIDS spread through homosexuality never got it?

I do not understand what you mean. Will you please explain what you said more simply?

As far as reality is concerned, lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior have lower risk than heterosexuals men and women do, and thus have no need to practice abstinence.

If all lesbians practiced abstinence, how would that lower the STD rates in the three other groups of people who have more risk, meaning gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women?

 

[1robin]

Just reading through all of that gave me a headache. You did not provide any claims or answers to what that man was asking. You just put forth your own opinion and said "No", constantly. I'd like you to actually put forth the effort in evaluation to help me enjoy reading a good argument.

You might want to review the last several thousand posts between us over the last decade. I have answered every arrangement of letters in the defense of homosexuality that can be randomly or purposefully put in a series. I did not say no in the way you suggest because it did not matter if every argument was true or not they made. The no was an indication that even if true they do not do what they were intended to do. For that I have no need of evidence. In fact my entire position only requires in statistic why I have supplied several times and is not contended. Homosexuality produces a massive increase in human suffering and cost without a corresponding gain in that justifies it. Now if you wish to point out why that was not true then fine but a last minute inaccurate critique of a long ineffective debate is not meaningful. Until that can be done the argument is academic. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

But risk applies to individuals, whether homosexual, heterosexual, male, or female, not to entire groups of people. If a man has had one glass of wine for over ten years, there are not any good reasons to assume that he will become an alcoholic. Surely, good health is best judged on an individual basis, not upon a collective basis.

I condemn alcohol abuse and sexual abuse in general. Alcohol abuse doe snot become moral even if Albino's can drink more without effect. It is a false composition argument. Wait a minute I have already addressed the arguments in all 27 forms you have used them and said I would not do so again for now. I also point out your are violating your own rule again.

 

[Agnostic75]

In fact my entire position only requires in statistic why I have supplied several times and is not contended. Homosexuality produces a massive increase in human suffering and cost without a corresponding gain in that justifies it.

But in my previous post, I showed that some groups of homosexuals do not contribute very much, if anything, to the costs of homosexuality, and thus have no need of practicing abstinence.

Some heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay men, and lesbians are at risk. Regardless of which group we are discussing, the only members of a given group who should practice abstinence are those who are the most at risk.

Risk is risk regardless of which group a person is in.

 

[Agnostic75]

I condemn alcohol abuse and sexual abuse in general. Alcohol abuse does not become moral even if Albino's can drink more without effect. It is a false composition argument.

That is irrelevant since many homosexuals practice safe sex, and thus do not abuse it.

Since I used an example of a man drinking only one glass of wine a day, your comment about alcohol abuse was not relevant to what I said. I said that it would not be reasonable to assume that a man who drank one glass of wine a day would become an alcoholic. I intended for that to be analogous to a gay couple who had been monogamous for at least ten years, implying that there would not be any good reasons to assume that they would give up monogamy.

 

[1robin]

That is irrelevant since many homosexuals practice safe sex, and thus do not abuse it.

It was a comment on the practice in general. The fact most 5 year olds don't shoot themselves when handling a gun (which is generous to homosexuality) is not an argument the practice is wise, moral, or justified.

Since I used an example of a man drinking only one glass of wine a day, your comment about alcohol abuse was not relevant to what I said.

And what you said not relevant to my argument.

I said that it would not be reasonable to assume that a man who drank one glass of wine a day would become an alcoholic. I intended for that to be analogous to a gay couple who had been monogamous for at least ten years, implying that there would not be any good reasons to assume that they would give up monogamy.

When all homosexuals only are gay for ten years and are only monogamous then that might help. Let me change the point to crack use since the legality versus morality issue is causing some confusion. Even if I granted every point you ever made it would not even begin to contend with my primary points.

 

[Agnostic75]

It was a comment on the practice in general.

When all homosexuals only are gay for ten years and are only monogamous then that might help.

But risk among homosexuals is assessed individually, not collectively. The same goes for heterosexuals. What you need are statistics that back up your claims, but there aren't any since I showed that research has shown that lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have lower risks than heterosexual men and women do. So you are not making any sense at all claiming that the lowest risk group (lesbians), should practice abstinence, and that some higher risk groups (heterosexual men and women) should not practice abstinence. That is really wild even for you.

You need statistics that show that a good percentage of homosexual couples who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years have given up monogamy, and that when they did, they did not practice safe sex. Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are talking about achievements, but what about motives, and desires? What I mean is that today, many non-Christians have the motives, and the desires, to accomplish things not only equal to what some Christians have accomplished, but much greater things. Many Olympic athletes who win gold medals have less desire than other athletes who have less physical abilities.

Motives are only as reliable as the persons claims. They claimed to be doing their Christian duty. Lincoln and John Brown went on and on about it. Modern society can't even decide what wrong actually is many times much less die for it. I am a veteran and many soldiers are there for reasons that have nothing to do with morality or gain for others. I am not complaining about modern soldiers but we do not have to live on green corn and march for 500 hundred miles with no shoes and stand in lines and kill each other for hours at a time. They were of a different sort back then.

But what of moral importance has any Christian done that no non-Christian would have done if they had had the opportunity, and the means to do so?

I am talking about individual non-Christians, not groups of non-Christians. It doesn't make any difference how many Christians were willing to give their lives as long as just one non-Christian would have done the same thing if they had had the opportunity, and the means to do so. Every day, many non-Christians give their lives for causes that they believe in.

You did the same thing regarding homosexuality when you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Some homosexuals are exceptionally committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for over 20 years. Similarly, some non-Christians are exceptionally committed to serving in the military, or to being philanthropists, or to being kind, loving, and forgiving.

If a God did not inspire the Bible, then the reasons why Christians have accomplished a lot of good things can be explained by entirely secular factors.

If Christianity had not come along, sooner or later, slaves would have been freed, and women would have been considered to be equal to men. That is easy to justify since, for example, Hammurabi's Code was remarkable for its time period, and since
Buddha gave the world a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ. The writers of the New Testament merely improved upon already existing advances in morality, and of course, they never said anything about freeing slaves.

Wikipedia says:

"Slavery in China has taken various forms throughout history. Never as pronounced as the American or Arab models, Chinese slavery still often viewed its objects as 'half-man, half-object.' Slavery was repeatedly abolished as a legally-recognized institution, including in a 1909 law fully enacted in 1910, although the practice continued until at least 1949."

So slave owners in ancient China treated their slaves better than early Americans, or early Arabs did.

For all we know, the first man who was willing to give his life to free slaves was not a Christian. In fact, it might be probable that that was the case.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have also already addressed this. Hell is not eternal torture. It is eternal non existence.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 14:9-11

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Doesn't that disagree with what you said?

William Lane Craig disagrees with you. Consider the following:

Middle Knowledge and Hell | Reasonable Faith

Your response is that unbelievers “did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.” This response seems to miss the thrust of my answer. Of course, the damned would prefer not to have been created! Obviously! But my question is why such persons’ freely rejecting God should be allowed to prevent the blessedness and joy of those who would freely accept God’s salvation? These people shouldn’t be privileged over those who would love and want God. So long as God gives sufficient grace for salvation to every person He creates and wills that person’s salvation, then I can’t see that God is less loving for creating a worlds with less than universal salvation rather than refraining from creation of free creatures altogether. (Recall that we’re assuming that there are no worlds feasible for God to create which involve universal salvation without overriding disadvantages.) But if it is not less loving, then what’s the problem supposed to be?

As I've sought to show elsewhere, the reality of eternal punishment is in no way inconsistent with God's love or justice (Questions 35, 55, 172).

God doesn’t wish hell on anybody either, John. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33.11). But those who freely reject God deserve their awful fate; they thrust eternal life from them. It is really they themselves and not God who is responsible for the reality of hell.

 

[1robin]

But what of moral importance has any Christian done that no non-Christian would have done if they had had the opportunity, and the means to do so?

Die on the cross for my sins. Die is service spreading that message. Die as a martyr for God by the millions. Leave everything they have to spread the gospel in nations darkened by ignorance. How many do I need? In a government full of secularists atheists and Christians only the Christian Lincoln never waivered. Almost all his cabinet wanted to give it up, retain slavery and split the country.

I am talking about individual non-Christians, not groups of non-Christians. It doesn't make any difference how many Christians were willing to give their lives as long as just one non-Christian would have done the same thing if they had had the opportunity, and the means to do so. Every day, many non-Christians give their lives for causes that they believe in.

Oh yes it does. One was acting on behalf of God and one was not. It is not equally good to do something for God's sake and to do the same for some other reason (in many cases a convoluted selfish reason like glory or acknowledgement).

You did the same thing regarding homosexuality when you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

I never said that until you brought that issue up. In fact I don't think anyone but you ever suggested it at all. I am not here to fix the world but point out what needs fixing.

Some homosexuals are exceptionally committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for over 20 years. Similarly, some non-Christians are exceptionally committed to serving in the military, or to being philanthropists, or to being kind, loving, and forgiving.

I am not getting drug into that issue again.

If a God did not inspire the Bible, then the reasons why Christians have accomplished a lot of good things can be explained by entirely secular factors.

Not really. Even if God did not exist they were still acting on the belief in him. This is like arguing if your grandmother was a man he would be your grandfather. You make very bizarre arguments.

If Christianity had not come along, sooner or later, slaves would have been freed, and women would have been considered to be equal to men. That is easy to justify since, for example, Hammurabi's Code was remarkable for its time period, and since

You should not have gone there. Hammurabi's code made it illegal to not report a runaway slave by capitol punishment. OT slavery (servitude) made it illegal to report a runaway and allowed servants to run at any time and even allowed to settle in any city (something not even a Hebrew citizen could do). The Bible has by far the most benevolent laws concerning servitude of any ever found from the ANE. Hammurabi's code is famous for being early and for being harsh. I have written on slavery in vast detail so search for it if you want to discuss that issue. I am not retracing my steps for the 10th time.

Buddha gave the world a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ. The writers of the New Testament merely improved upon already existing advances in morality, and of course, they never said anything about freeing slaves.

That is a fantasy but even if true it is an epistemological issue that is perfectly consistent with a God given conscience and not the more meaningful ontological foundations that are far more important argument. No one knows that but I will grant it as it will make no difference and proves nothing.

Wikipedia says:

"Slavery in China has taken various forms throughout history. Never as pronounced as the American or Arab models, Chinese slavery still often viewed its objects as 'half-man, half-object.' Slavery was repeatedly abolished as a legally-recognized institution, including in a 1909 law fully enacted in 1910, although the practice continued until at least 1949."

So slave owners in ancient China treated their slaves better than early Americans, or early Arabs did.

Once again I will grant this without even checking. So what?

For all we know, the first man who was willing to give his life to free slaves was not a Christian. In fact, it might be probable that that was the case.

That was not the point even If I grant that as well. I never said only Christians can die for slaves or do good. I just said they have done so in massive numbers.

 

[1robin]

Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 14:9-11

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

That is a literary style referred to as apocalyptic. It existed in most ANE cultures and was meant to convey impact not fact. Most of Hells imagery comes from association with a garbage dump outside Israel where waste was burned. It was not meant to be literal but symbolic of the relative loss of Hell. My views come from two primary sources.

1. New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

2. The fact that is Hell were a place then God would have to be there for eternity and that makes no sense.

Let me add that this doctrine is not one I established by firm and fixed exhaustive research. While the confidence in my doctrine concerning salvation maybe approx. 99%. My views on Hell maybe about 60%. It may very well be that Hell is a place but I do not think so. In detail I thing it is a temporary place that is destroyed and annihilated with it's contents at some future time.

Doesn't that disagree with what you said?

William Lane Craig disagrees with you. Consider the following:

Middle Knowledge and Hell | Reasonable Faith

I do not get it. It seems Craig agrees with exactly what I claimed. He even touched on your miracles issue as well. I did not see anything he said that was a challenge to anything I said. You misunderstood either me or him or I have.

 

[1robin]

But risk among homosexuals is assessed individually, not collectively. The same goes for heterosexuals. What you need are statistics that back up your claims, but there aren't any since I showed that research has shown that lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have lower risks than heterosexual men and women do. So you are not making any sense at all claiming that the lowest risk group (lesbians), should practice abstinence, and that some higher risk groups (heterosexual men and women) should not practice abstinence. That is really wild even for you.

You need statistics that show that a good percentage of homosexual couples who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years have given up monogamy, and that when they did, they did not practice safe sex. Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex.

The homosexual lamp is not lit currently.