Theists, please tell me why you believe murder is wrong.

[InChrist]

So God orders the total slaughter of innocent women and children and you believe this was just? Where is this conscience you claim?

There was no corruption and evil. It was an imperialist invasion and slaughter -- for territory. The winners wrote the history.
Even if there was corruption, why slaughter the women, children and livestock. Why carry off the virgin daughters for slaves?

OK. I'm seeing pure divine command morality here. What God says, goes, and there's an end on it.
I'm not seeing any personal assessment here at all. No conscience, no personal morality, no notion of right and wrong.

And we non-religious are criticized for our "situational ethics?!" It's you who is abdicating moral judgement.

No. He doesn't.

Horsefeathers! Have you actually read the Bible?

Have you read the Bible?

The Canaanites were warned over 400 years in advance of God’s judgment on them…. before their land was given to the Israelites. A way of escape was often provided, as well as opportunity for repentance. According to the account the entire culture was wicked beyond hope, steeped in violence and child sacrifice. Women can be as evil as men and what hope for any innocent child would exist or grow up in such an evil culture? “Innocent” people in the situation would delayed or stopped judgment altogether. For example, before judgment fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God, “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” and was told that if God found only ten righteous people in those cities, He would withhold judgment ( Genesis 18:22-32). The Bible gives examples that a person or a group of people can be redeemed from the culture receiving a judgment from God, such as; Rahab and her family in the city of Jericho in Joshua 2.

 

[InChrist]

They're entirely different systems, and will frequently clash. Which will you go with?

If, as you say, God is the ultimate authority, then any conscientious objection to executing homosexuals, argumentative children, critics of the true religion, or the wives, children and livestock of the Amalekites, or the first-born sons of the Egyptians, is entirely just and proper. Conscience does not enter into it.

Certainly conscience enters into it, but the biblical accounts must be read in context and then the questions asked; who, what , when, where, and why?

For example, the Egyptians, Pharoah in particular was testing God in complete rebellion by refusing to let the people of Israel go free, in spite of God’s clear command and demonstration of power over the false Egyptian idols and human magicians. God gave many opportunities for Pharoah to heed the warnings before the final judgement.

In the OT God gave specific laws and commandments to the nation of Israel when He called them to be distinct from the surrounding nations. These laws were to reveal His Holiness and perfect standards in all aspects of life and relationships. The fact that even Israel could not live up to the laws reveals that all fall short of God’s perfection. Homosexuality was one of the many sins for which execution was the penalty under OT law. In the NT it is stated that the wages of sin is death. Yet, the scriptures show there are different dispensations, meaning different ways in which God reveals and or deals with people or people groups at different times in history. We are in the Age of Grace now and God is patiently allowing people time to repent.

 

[InChrist]

You didn't answer my other question, probably because you sensed I was going somewhere with that so you didn't want to commit. That was wise.

But let's go back here...You said:


You say you've read the Bible, so let's discuss gods being and character.

In the book of 2 Kings, God sends two bears to kill 42 children who mocked a prophet named Elisha. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

So now let's evaluate right and wrong using your own definition and test it.

You said that God ordering murder would be inconsistent with God's Being and Character, thus:

1. Actions consistent with Gods Being and Character are moral while those that are inconsistent are immoral

2. Gods actions are always consistent with God's Being and Character

3. Considering 1 and 2 Gods actions are always moral.

4. God causes the deaths of 42 children with the intention of punishing them for teasing Elisha's baldness.

5. Therefore it is moral to kill children for teasing someone because they are bald.

Now most apologists will engage in some form of special pleading at this point, that immoral acts when done by God aren't immoral, sort of like, God's actions are the definition of good, regardless of what God does, but when humans do do these things it's immoral and reading back a few posts that's indeed what you do. And that's fine you can engage in that line of reasoning, as messed up as it is, but what you cannot say is that gods actions are the standard for what is morally right and morally wrong for human beings.

Now the question is, why is killing 42 children wrong? Whatever the answer, clearly it's not gods Being and Character that are the standard.

Respectfully,

EG

It’s late and I need to go to sleep, but I will try getting back to your question tomorrow.
I will leave you with this thought; having read and studied the account you’re referring to about the bear killing 42 “children “… I don’t think those were little kids innocently teasing an old man. I believe there’s more going on in that story.

Have a good night.

 

[InChrist]

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against rocks"
-- Psalm. 137:9

What's up with that?

As an isolated sentence that’s sounds very disturbing, I agree. But read it again in context of the historical situation and then in light of the entirety of the scriptures.


“Then in verse 9, the psalmist adds further detail to this cry for revenge, claiming, “Happy is the one” who kills the infants of their enemy. The desire is graphically stated, but it is simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation—the nation that had enslaved the Jews, killed their babies, and destroyed their city. The destruction of Babylon was expressly foretold in Isaiah 13:16, and by referencing that prediction, the psalmist may mean to say that the men who were God’s instruments in carrying out that prophecy would be happy in doing His will.

If we keep in mind that the psalms are songs that express intense emotions, a statement such as “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” should not shock us. The writer did not intend to go out and kill babies; rather, he desired justice, which required the death of his enemies. Even today, those who have lost loved ones at the hands of others understandably desire the death of those who committed the crime.

We must be careful to interpret Psalm 137 in its historical context and apply it appropriately in connection with the full counsel of Scripture. It is a normal human desire to see justice done and for enemies to be defeated. However, Romans 12:17–19 commands, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Psalm 137is not a selfish prayer for personal revenge. It is a plea for God to intervene in the affairs of men to keep His covenant and right all wrongs.”

What does Psalm 137:9 mean when it says, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”? | GotQuestions.org

What does Psalm 137:9 mean when it says, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”? Is God okay with babies being smashed against rocks?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[InChrist]

You didn't answer my other question, probably because you sensed I was going somewhere with that so you didn't want to commit. That was wise.

But let's go back here...You said:


You say you've read the Bible, so let's discuss gods being and character.

In the book of 2 Kings, God sends two bears to kill 42 children who mocked a prophet named Elisha. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

So now let's evaluate right and wrong using your own definition and test it.

You said that God ordering murder would be inconsistent with God's Being and Character, thus:

1. Actions consistent with Gods Being and Character are moral while those that are inconsistent are immoral

2. Gods actions are always consistent with God's Being and Character

3. Considering 1 and 2 Gods actions are always moral.

4. God causes the deaths of 42 children with the intention of punishing them for teasing Elisha's baldness.

5. Therefore it is moral to kill children for teasing someone because they are bald.

Now most apologists will engage in some form of special pleading at this point, that immoral acts when done by God aren't immoral, sort of like, God's actions are the definition of good, regardless of what God does, but when humans do do these things it's immoral and reading back a few posts that's indeed what you do. And that's fine you can engage in that line of reasoning, as messed up as it is, but what you cannot say is that gods actions are the standard for what is morally right and morally wrong for human beings.

Now the question is, why is killing 42 children wrong? Whatever the answer, clearly it's not gods Being and Character that are the standard.

Respectfully,

EG

Elisha was a prophet of God who was going to Bethel. Bethel had become a haven of idolatry and Elisha was going there with the message of truth, need for repentance and hope of blessing if the people would turn from their idols. So the larger picture in the account is the spiritual battle between truth and deception; God and demonic false gods. The KJV incorrectly calls the youths who came out to mock Elisha “little children”. For one thing, in Hebrew culture little kids wouldn’t be running around out of town. They would be at home helping with chores or family work. So the group of youths were likely upper teens to twenties, possibly even in service to the false prophets in Bethel, and they were deliberately going out to harass lone Elisha with a violent gang like mentality.

“Little children” is a rather bad translation if you ask me. The Hebrew term neurim qetannim is, I think, best translated as “young men”. The reason why the phrase neurim qetannim is best translated as “young men” is because of the abundant examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament. From these numerous examples, we recognize that these were boys from somewhere between 12 and 30 years of age. One of these words described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was 17 years old. By the way, the exact same word described members of the army in 1 Kings 20:14-15. These were young men between the ages of twelve and thirty. Therefore, it’s very likely that the people who mocked Elisha were older teenagers instead a group of elementary schoolers. This group of young men were comparable to a modern street gang. They were not children. They were young men mocking God’s prophet.”

Why Did God Kill 42 Youths For Making Fun Of Elisha? - Cerebral Faith

"And Elisha went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in

cerebralfaith.net

Another point to consider is that the text indicates 42 of the youths were attacked by the bears…that means this group which came out to threaten and mock one man was larger than 42 in number.

 

[Valjean]

Have you read the Bible?

The Canaanites were warned over 400 years in advance of God’s judgment on them…. before their land was given to the Israelites. A way of escape was often provided, as well as opportunity for repentance. According to the account the entire culture was wicked beyond hope, steeped in violence and child sacrifice. Women can be as evil as men and what hope for any innocent child would exist or grow up in such an evil culture? “Innocent” people in the situation would delayed or stopped judgment altogether. For example, before judgment fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God, “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” and was told that if God found only ten righteous people in those cities, He would withhold judgment ( Genesis 18:22-32). The Bible gives examples that a person or a group of people can be redeemed from the culture receiving a judgment from God, such as; Rahab and her family in the city of Jericho in Joshua 2.

There's no evidence of this. It's all mythology; propaganda written by the victors.

You don't murder civilians. You don't kill innocent women and children. You don't invade sovereign territories.
The Hebrews violated the principles established at the Nürnberg trials. They violated the Geneva conventions. They violated commonly held moral principles. They committed a crime against humanity -- and you justify it because your conscienceless, divine command moral system says God commanded it. The Hebrews were just following orders.

Administrators. What's wrong with RF's new format? Now the italics function is broken. I can't get out of Italics. Please fix this.

 

[Valjean]

Certainly conscience enters into it, but the biblical accounts must be read in context and then the questions asked; who, what , when, where, and why?

The Biblical accounts are often unevidenced. They're mythology. Even if true, they reflect an evil God commanding a psychopathic, rapacious, imperialist society.

Have you no conscience? Have you no personal morals? Have you no compassion? Does your God not value these things?
If a nation did this today, would they not be condemned?
Imperialists and invaders always have a justification: Lebensraum. Manifest destiny, God-given territory, historical territory. God is always on everyone's side.

For example, the Egyptians, Pharaoh in particular was testing God in complete rebellion by refusing to let the people of Israel go free, in spite of God’s clear command and demonstration of power over the false Egyptian idols and human magicians. God gave many opportunities for Pharaoh's to heed the warnings before the final judgement.

Again, this is mythology. There is no historical evidence this ever happened. There is no actual historical evidence for widespread Hebrew slavery in Egypt, or for any exodus. These would definitely have left widespread historical and archæological evidence. There is none. You have not vetted your sources.

But given the Biblical narrative, why would God harden Pharaoh's heart, and prevent his doing the compassionate thing?
And how could anyone justify killing the innocent first born of random Egyptians? What would the world think of such an action today?
And then there's the question of why an omnipotent God would need a visual sign to identify His chosen people...

In the OT God gave specific laws and commandments to the nation of Israel when He called them to be distinct from the surrounding nations. These laws were to reveal His Holiness and perfect standards in all aspects of life and relationships.

Again, unsupported mythology, plus wouldn't these laws be judged capricious, nonsensical, and draconian today?

The fact that even Israel could not live up to the laws reveals that all fall short of God’s perfection. Homosexuality was one of the many sins for which execution was the penalty under OT law.

Why would God create homosexuals, only to condemn them?
What was the purpose and function of this law? What social good did it effect?

In the NT it is stated that the wages of sin is death. Yet, the scriptures show there are different dispensations, meaning different ways in which God reveals and or deals with people or people groups at different times in history. We are in the Age of Grace now and God is patiently allowing people time to repent.

You are using different criteria in judging Biblical actions than any reasonable person would use today. Are you sure you're not just defending your mythological, religious narrative, now that it's long in the past?

 

[EconGuy]

I don’t think those were little kids innocently teasing an old man. I believe there’s more going on in that story.

Thank you for acknowledging my post.

Keep in mind, I used a single account in the Bible where God has caused harm, this is just one, there are many others.

I've heard this rational, but even if you are right, the scholars who wrote the KJV obviously thought this was the translation and believed it despite the fact its pretty awful story. They rationalized it's reasoning and to this day we still have this story in (I would guess) the most popular modern day translation of the Bible the KJV, at least here in the US.

Now why don't more people question it? Because with God all things are permissible and morally justified as long as the source of an act begins with God.

Thus even if you are right about this particular story, the indictment is in the system of belief that does not have a method for weeding out bad ideas that are woven into the most popular interpretations of your faith.

The KJV incorrectly calls the youths who came out to mock Elisha “little children”. For one thing, in Hebrew culture little kids wouldn’t be running around out of town.

Moving on to interpreting the Bible. I'm familiar with an interpretation that I've never heard a Christian espouse. You are familiar with the story in Genesis about how God made made eve from Adams rib? This story is clearly mistranslation and I think it it can be shown that the translation equates to something more like; God split Adam to make Eve. Read on.

Here is my case.

In Aramaic there is a word for rib, "ala". We see it used in the Book of Daniel 7:5, "...the bear has three ala in it's mouth", but in Genesis we read that;

"...from the tsela God made woman". -Genesis 2:22

The word tsela is never translated as "rib" anywhere else in the Bible, but we do see the word used in other places, 40 times. In all the other instances it's translated as "half" or "side" like in Exodus 37 when talking about the Arc of the Covenant, "the arc has two tsela" or two "sides". Or the two tsela (sides) of the (double) doors that lead into the tomb of Solman. Of course in a male dominated culture the idea that Eve came from an equal part really doesn't fly I suppose.

Now, since we're interpreting the Bible based on our understanding, what do you think about my story? Were you aware of this translation. If not, do you find it convincing?

My question to most believers is, is there a system, within your faith that is self correcting? I mean, it's not hard to go back in time to find some pretty awful mistranslations of Christian faith and the awful acts done in light of those translations. Only in the light of secular cultural changes led by things like science is Christianity drug forward and forced to re-evaluate. There is nothing within the faith itself to test it's own ideas.

The story of Elisha that's in the KJV is one that looks bad in the context of secular culture and just one example of how a story like it can endure without question in the minds of so many. I mean, stop and consider the evil that it would take to kill 42 children for nothing but teasing. You say the story is wrong, and yet there it sits, uncorrected for centuries in what today is the most popular interpretation of your faith.

To be fair, if your right, this isn't an indictment of god, rather an indictment of faith and how it's not a path to truth. Even if God is everything that you claim, the fact that there is no clear path to moral truth makes god as the source of morality useless since no one can point to a system for uncovering immorality, even within the text of the Bible!

Respectfully,

EG

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, to be clear I know murder is wrong, but I'm curious the reason.

I prefer society without unjust killing.

 

[EconGuy]

I prefer society without unjust killing.

Who doesn't. But, what is the rational, in your opinion, to hold that belief?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who doesn't.

People who like unjust killing.
There are many of those.

But, what is the rational, in your opinion, to hold that belief?

It's not rational.
Just my personal preference for a peaceful
productive libertarian society. (Murder is
at odds with that goal.)

 

[EconGuy]

It's not rational.

You think its irrational not to murder others?

 

[Revoltingest]

You think its irrational not to murder others?

My basis is simply not of rational origin,
ie, it's my personal preference. To call
it "irrational" has connotations different
from my basis.
I don't believe that moral absolutes exist.
They only appear to exist because of
popularity of those shared.

 

[EconGuy]

I don't believe that moral absolutes exist.
They only appear to exist because of
popularity of those shared.

Agreed real absolutes don't exist. But...

If we take values that you and I and most of the people around us share there can be things that we judge rationally within the context of those values.

We don't want to be murdered, but since you can't murder yourself only be murdered by others, then we can meet and agree that murder is wrong and that those that murder are breaking a that rule and the group agrees to punish those that break our rule. That's perfectly rational.

Think about it like this. Is carrying the ball in a game of soccer wrong (unless you are the goalie)?

In an absolute sense, no, but within the context of the game of soccer, yes. Every person that plays soccer their own self interest should use their hands, yet they know that using their hands will result in punishment and at the same time know that if they don't use their hands others will be less likely to do so as well.

The point is, the lack of True absolutes does not mean that we cannot derive social and moral absolutes within the context of a shared value system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed real absolutes don't exist. But...

If we take values that you and I and most of the people around us share there can be things that we judge rationally within the context of those values.

We don't want to be murdered, but since you can't murder yourself only be murdered by others, then we can meet and agree that murder is wrong and that those that murder are breaking a that rule and the group agrees to punish those that break our rule. That's perfectly rational.

Think about it like this. Is carrying the ball in a game of soccer wrong (unless you are the goalie)?

In an absolute sense, no, but within the context of the game of soccer, yes. Every person that plays soccer their own self interest should use their hands, yet they know that using their hands will result in punishment and at the same time know that if they don't use their hands others will be less likely to do so as well.

The point is, the lack of True absolutes does not mean that we cannot derive social and moral absolutes within the context of a shared value system.

One can assume premises, & then use reason
to deduce things from them. But those premises
are still personal values / beliefs.

 

[EconGuy]

But those premises
are still personal values / beliefs.

Agreed, but we can share those values and then, via a social contract, enforce them, no?

 

[InChrist]

Thank you for acknowledging my post.

Keep in mind, I used a single account in the Bible where God has caused harm, this is just one, there are many others.

I've heard this rational, but even if you are right, the scholars who wrote the KJV obviously thought this was the translation and believed it despite the fact its pretty awful story. They rationalized it's reasoning and to this day we still have this story in (I would guess) the most popular modern day translation of the Bible the KJV, at least here in the US.

Now why don't more people question it? Because with God all things are permissible and morally justified as long as the source of an act begins with God.

Thus even if you are right about this particular story, the indictment is in the system of belief that does not have a method for weeding out bad ideas that are woven into the most popular interpretations of your faith.


Moving on to interpreting the Bible. I'm familiar with an interpretation that I've never heard a Christian espouse. You are familiar with the story in Genesis about how God made made eve from Adams rib? This story is clearly mistranslation and I think it it can be shown that the translation equates to something more like; God split Adam to make Eve. Read on.

Here is my case.

In Aramaic there is a word for rib, "ala". We see it used in the Book of Daniel 7:5, "...the bear has three ala in it's mouth", but in Genesis we read that;

"...from the tsela God made woman". -Genesis 2:22

The word tsela is never translated as "rib" anywhere else in the Bible, but we do see the word used in other places, 40 times. In all the other instances it's translated as "half" or "side" like in Exodus 37 when talking about the Arc of the Covenant, "the arc has two tsela" or two "sides". Or the two tsela (sides) of the (double) doors that lead into the tomb of Solman. Of course in a male dominated culture the idea that Eve came from an equal part really doesn't fly I suppose.

Now, since we're interpreting the Bible based on our understanding, what do you think about my story? Were you aware of this translation. If not, do you find it convincing?

My question to most believers is, is there a system, within your faith that is self correcting? I mean, it's not hard to go back in time to find some pretty awful mistranslations of Christian faith and the awful acts done in light of those translations. Only in the light of secular cultural changes led by things like science is Christianity drug forward and forced to re-evaluate. There is nothing within the faith itself to test it's own ideas.

The story of Elisha that's in the KJV is one that looks bad in the context of secular culture and just one example of how a story like it can endure without question in the minds of so many. I mean, stope and consider the evil that it would take to kill 42 children for nothing but teasing. You say the story is wrong, and yet there it sits, uncorrected for centuries in what today is the most popular interpretation of your faith.

To be fair, if your right, this isn't an indictment of god, rather an indictment of faith and how it's not a path to truth.

Respectfully,

EG

Thanks for your response and perspectives. I appreciate it.

I certainly do think there is room for questioning and there are methods within the biblical faith to determine truth and error and to weed out bad ideas. Comparing scripture to scripture, similar subject matter, reading verses in their immediate context, as well as in the context of the entirety of the Bible are all important. Christians are to …
…search the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Acts 17:11

Thanks for the information about the word “tsela”. I’ve considered rib and side to be basically the same and have been under the impression that God created Eve out of Adam’s rib because the surrounding text says….

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Genesis 2:23

And I sure don’t think translating this as "rib" demeans Eve or women, but instead acknowledges the strength of womankind. The revelation that Eve is made from Adam's side indicates that Eve is Adam's equal, so there is very little bias displayed in translating צֵלָע (tsela) as rib.

I would definitely consider it evil for God to murder 42 innocent little children. For God to do so would go against the attributes revealed about Him throughout the scriptures ; love, justice, mercy, compassion, etc. That’s why I said previous that there is a bigger situation going on and those were not little, teasing kids.

Have a good day.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed, but we can share those values and then, via a social contract, enforce them, no?

Sure.
Things needn't be "True" to be generally agreed upon.
And they vary with place & time.

 

[InChrist]

The Biblical accounts are often unevidenced. They're mythology. Even if true, they reflect an evil God commanding a psychopathic, rapacious, imperialist society.

Have you no conscience? Have you no personal morals? Have you no compassion? Does your God not value these things?
If a nation did this today, would they not be condemned?
Imperialists and invaders always have a justification: Lebensraum. Manifest destiny, God-given territory, historical territory. God is always on everyone's side.

Again, this is mythology. There is no historical evidence this ever happened. There is no actual historical evidence for widespread Hebrew slavery in Egypt, or for any exodus. These would definitely have left widespread historical and archæological evidence. There is none. You have not vetted your sources.

But given the Biblical narrative, why would God harden Pharaoh's heart, and prevent his doing the compassionate thing?
And how could anyone justify killing the innocent first born of random Egyptians? What would the world think of such an action today?
And then there's the question of why an omnipotent God would need a visual sign to identify His chosen people...


Again, unsupported mythology, plus wouldn't these laws be judged capricious, nonsensical, and draconian today?

Why would God create homosexuals, only to condemn them?
What was the purpose and function of this law? What social good did it effect?

You are using different criteria in judging Biblical actions than any reasonable person would use today. Are you sure you're not just defending your mythological, religious narrative, now that it's long in the past?

I thought about addressing some of your questions and other points, like; “why would God harden Pharaoh's heart” or “why would God create homosexuals”, but on second thought since you’ve repeatedly stated your view that the biblical accounts are nothing but mythology, why bother?
If you think none of what we are discussing is true or took place, then it’s a waste of time.

 

[EconGuy]

I thought about addressing some of your questions and other points, like; “why would God harden Pharaoh's heart” or “why would God create homosexuals”, but on second thought since you’ve repeatedly stated your view that the biblical accounts are nothing but mythology, why bother?
If you think none of what we are discussing is true or took place, then it’s a waste of time.

The important thing, IMO, is for secular people like myself and (spiritual? I don't want to paste a label on you) people like yourself to figure out how to live together. I really don't care that you are a devout believer. I will go to bat for you if someone tries to take that away from you, but in that I expect you to also respect my decision not to believe what you believe (obviously I'm speaking of a few choice items). I wish we could agree on those things we share in common and then try to find compromise where possible in areas that we don't, but agree to keep our ideas in our homes and churches and only expect those things in public spaces that show no favor to a particular religion or non-religion.


One of the biggest problems I have with Christians (aware that not all Christians are the same, so I'm speaking for a particular subset, though reasonably large subset in the US) is that they believe it is their duty to use their influence (which can be substantial) to push their Christian ideals on others. In other words. People who hold Humanism as a foundation for moral ideas can find a lot in common with almost any denomination of Christian in the moral sphere. But when looking at something like, for instance, homosexuality, something that personally I couldn't fathom, but I think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and that consenting adults that want to engage in homosexual relationships should have the right to do so without discrimination. So just as I would stand up for Christians to practice their beliefs, I would stand up for homosexuals (and other flavors of non-heterosexuality that involves consenting adults) because I think they have that right. That said, I find myself supporting homosexuality against intolerant Christians who don't respect the rights of others they disagree with all while pretending to be persecuted.

Thoughts?