why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

What is the word used when a Christian attempts to convert another person?

There are quite a few but that was not an accurate description of the process. We attempt to explain why faith in the Bible is intellectually justified. I do little evangelizing but no Christian can convert anyone. We attempt to give truth and what is done with it is between God and the person. You can't equate what a religious person does when feeding the hungry, visiting hospitals, preaching etc.. with a biologist writing God is a delusion books for money. I can get into issues about positive and negative claims and argumentation but hope it will not be necessary.

This is a false equivalence. What is the impact of belief in aliens ( and unicorns ) in our societies? On the other hand, what is the impact of belief in God in our societies?

You are right but in the wrong direction. Christianity (that is all I defend) while having many dark events in the past has had an undeniable vastly higher net impact for good than bad. In fact even the crusades, witch trials, and inquisition having no justification in the Bible and are hardly the responsibility of the religion. I am not responsible for the non-practice of anything. The books says do not murder, how can the book be blamed for it. You evaluate a teacher by obedient students, not rebellious ones. Public education, hospitals by the hundreds and a very large portion of charity all owe themselves to Christianity. The potential negative impact of the God delusion is infinitely greater than acts wrongly blamed on Christianity. If you want to see real atrocity that can find at least partial justification in its world views then Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot are arguments against atheism. Even Bin Laden’s worst dreams did not involve a small fraction of the people they killed. I defend no other religions.

You ought to remember they are, first and foremost, human beings. And you are likely to see zealots on both sides.

This was in the context of the modern professional debate scene and all the hostility is on the atheist side that I have ever witnessed and I have seen most debates that exist. One Christian gets louder as he gets frustrated but none are hostile. Arguing for a possative concept that can't be proven has merit that arguing agaisnt an unproven possative concept does not.

 

[1robin]

Actually, I'm barely trying at all. I'm debating rather lazily. Here I'm having a bit of difficulty, but only because I just woke up and am waiting for the caffeine to kick in.

Let me restate. The bulk of what arguments you have given rest in that realm.

I've said over and over again that promiscuity is dangerous. The only thing I'm denying is that homosexuality makes people inherently promiscuous, since that's a part of culture.

The data indicates that homosexuals are in fact much more promiscuous. If the argument is that that is incidental you will need a lot of data to prove that. In my view both homosexuality and promiscuousness are symptoms of a common disease.

Things are rarely that simple.

Many times they are in fact that simple. Inconvenience causes unnecessary obfuscation that has no justification.

Numbers are an indication of something, but correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Nobody's obscuring anything; I'm pointing out that there are other, more likely, explanations.

Well the people who spent millions on the studies and whose lively hood makes necessary accurate conclusions, presented it that way. If you disagree the burden is on you.

To point out what I believe all couples should do, and smart couples will do to avoid infection.

I do not think the problem is ignorance. The problem is the discipline to follow well known conclusions.

Well, I disagree with the Bible part (as you know), but I can point to the fact that Scandinavia is actually doing quite well for itself despite the fact that it's barely religious at all over there. I can point out the fact that pre-Christian Rome did very well for itself, despite the fact that its military and government was responsible for many evils. During the European Dark Ages, the Middle East was in the Islamic Golden Age.

Very well by what standard? I can argue these points but that is not the context here. present them somewhere else or in a PM and I can illustrate the faults in the reasoning.

The thing is, we don't need common sense, old books, or instincts. Enlightenment philosophers have determined that we actually only need intelligence, and that morality can be calculated. I took an entire ethics class on this. Surely, since you have degrees, you've taken such classes?

Ethics as a class of absolute truth has no justification without God. Without God no values regarding anything can be made. Ethics is founded in value. The best that can be done without God is preference, not truth in morality. If your theory were right, morality should have resulted in far more justice and peace as time went by. In fact the opposite is the case. When God was removed from schools, shootings, teen pregnancy, and gang violence went through the roof. The same is true on larger scales. We have cell phones yet we kill millions of babies every year as a form of birth control. That is moral de-evolution.

I'm not getting into that one, because abortion is actually a debate worth having, but not here. That one actually is hard.

Oops I did not see this one before I made the above comment. How about the specific issue of as sexual morality gets more liberal the family has eroded and sexual diseases have risen drastically? Kids are on more drugs that any time before by unimaginable amounts as same sex parents and divorce rises.

That's actually two logical fallacies in one, argument from tradition, and argument from numbers.

Nope, Fallacies are the most abused issues in these forums. It is a fallacy to claim that popularity equals proof. I said statistically it indicates truth not proves it. I did not see the other one at all.

Just because something is tradition doesn't make it correct, and just because something is universally believed doesn't make it correct.

I said neither but when the erosion of moral X produces suffering then X has a good chance of being a moral truth. In fact only gain can come from the conclusion even if not true but incidental, in most cases.

 

[Agnostic75]

My primary objection is religous and the truth of that is indicated by science.

Regarding religion, you have not provided reasonable evidence that God inspired any writings about homosexuality. The writers might have falsely believed that they were speaking for God.

It is unacceptable, and unkind, to criticze anyone for anything if you cannot offer a better way. Homosexuals basically have three options, to continue having sex, try reparative therapy, or try abstinence for life. It is well-known that some homosexuals who have tried reparative therapy, and/or abstinence, end up having more physical and emotional stress than they did before, and that reparative therapy usually works best for religiously motivated homosexuals.

So, from an entirely scientific perspective, you have not provided any alternatives for homosexuals that usually work well.

Many homosexuals are healthy, and happy, and have no need to experiment with their sexual identity.

The only judgment I have ever made in reality is to be against marriage for homosexuals and service in the military, because I believe it is a holy institution in the first case and no place to experiment in the other.

Your judgments are wrong. Regarding the military, successful experiments have already been carried out. Dozens of countries have successfully allowed openly homosexual people to serve in their militaries for many years, including Britain, and Israel. In the U.S., the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved of the new policy from the beginning. The Commandant of the Marine Corps initially objected, but changed his mind after he found out that the new system is generally working well.

Some experiments with same-sex marriage have worked well too, such as in Denmark.

In the U.S., we have a separation of church and state. James Madison was the fourth president of the U.S., and is called the "father of the Constitution." An article at Quotes on Religion - James Madison has many things that he said about the separation of church and state. Consider the following from the article:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." [James Madison, according to Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. xii.]

In addition, all religions do not criticize homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Regarding religion, you have not provided reasonable evidence that God inspired any writings about homosexuality. The writers might have falsely believed that they were speaking for God.

I did not attempt to. The addition of an argument to prove God would simply to much. I have stated my moral conclusions as a personal belief that is consistent with reality, I have not attempted to make any argument from my beliefs alone beyond that.

It is unacceptable, and unkind, to criticize anyone for anything if you cannot offer a better way. Homosexuals basically have three options, to continue having sex, try reparative therapy, or try abstinence for life. It is well-known that some homosexuals who have tried reparative therapy, and/or abstinence, end up having more physical and emotional stress than they did before, and that reparative therapy usually works best for religiously motivated homosexuals.

I have never addressed an individual here and I resent any discussion of morality being obscured by political correctness. That kind of false appeals to sympathy and victumhood have produced more suffering than the reverse. People die because others will not even allow a discussion to occur. I criticized an action not a person. I supported it with more than enough data in the natural and comments about my beliefs. I went out of my way to sure I did next to nothing in the way of personal attacks and will not be accused of any. The practice of homosexuality produces a large net increase in suffering is a fact whether it is moral or immoral. I will not comment on the biology of homosexuality as I have no qualifications to do so but regard the science as pseudoscience at this time. I have not dictated any judgment or actions and do not intend to do so. I have illustrated facts and my beliefs if relevant. I have no agenda beyond truth.

So, from an entirely scientific perspective, you have not provided any alternatives for homosexuals that usually works well.

Nor have I tried, nor do I have a burden to. Giving data that proves a practice harmful has no need to provide an alternative to the act. However I disagree with the modern attitude that no one is responsible for anything. Every crime is societies fault, give kids drugs instead of re-establishing the family unit, all behavior is biologically dictated etc..... Personal responsibility will not disappear whether you reject it or not, nor obscure it or not.

Your judgments are wrong. Regarding the military, successful experiments have already been carried out.

Experiments, I was in it for 9 years and during a war I know what happens and I know very well what field commanders think about it. I do not mean that homosexuals are less capable (though that might be true) it is a social nightmare that undermines unit cohesion and confidence. I have seen the issue kill one person and injure several and effect morral drastically. That is the one place political correctness does not work. I am not allowed to elaborate on some of that and do not wish to have a personal discussion so I will end it there. BTW women in the military has been far far more destructive to efficiency but it is older. keep in mind I am not speaking about capability but application. It is an absolute fact the inclusion of women and homosexuals lessen efficiency and effectiveness even if they were exactly of the same capability. I can go on forever but this is not the subject.

Dozens of countries have successfully allowed openly homosexual people to serve in their militaries for many years, including Britain, and Israel. In the U.S., the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved of the new policy from the beginning. The Commandant of the Marine Corps initially objected, but changed his mind after he found out that the new system is generally working well.

If you want far more shocking information than you will ever need then PM me about this as I have plenty but it is inappropriate here. I am an amateur military historian and want very badly to tear into this but will not at this time.

In the U.S., we have a separation of church and state. James Madison was the fourth president of the U.S., and is called the "father of the Constitution." An article at Quotes on Religion - James Madison has many things that he said about the separation of church and state. Consider the following from the article:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." [James Madison, according to Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. xii.]
In addition, all religions do not criticize homosexuality.

How many huge and distinct issues are you going to just barely mention. Please pick just one and we may get somewhere. In what context do you claim my position is counter to the misstated but reasonable claim about church and state? My resistance to gays in the military is practical not religious in nature and so is every other rule in the military. Actually that is not true, many laws in the UCMJ are moral and religious but that has nothing to do with my claims just yours.
In summary:
My original claims were that homosexuality produces vastly more suffering in the world. That is a fact.
I have been drug into several more issues.
1. The moral issue of the practice.
2. The effect on homosexuals in the military.
3. Religion and the state.
I can argue all three effectively but not at once. Pick one and if it is relevant we will get into it somewhere if not here.

 

[Koldo]

There are quite a few but that was not an accurate description of the process. We attempt to explain why faith in the Bible is intellectually justified. I do little evangelizing but no Christian can convert anyone. We attempt to give truth and what is done with it is between God and the person.

This isn't true at all.
You are twisting the words to justify evangelization while at the same time criticizing militant atheists for doing the very same thing you are guilty of. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I could easily play with words too:

"Militant atheists attempt to explain why faith in the bible is not intellectually justified. No militant atheist can convert anyone. They attempt to give truth and what is done is between the person and their conscience ".

You can't equate what a religious person does when feeding the hungry, visiting hospitals, preaching etc.. with a biologist writing God is a delusion books for money. I can get into issues about positive and negative claims and argumentation but hope it will not be necessary.

Actually, many pastors gain quite a sum of money from preaching, but that's beside the point. I have never said anything about feeding the hungry, or visiting hospitals, so...

You are right but in the wrong direction. Christianity (that is all I defend) while having many dark events in the past has had an undeniable vastly higher net impact for good than bad. In fact even the crusades, witch trials, and inquisition having no justification in the Bible and are hardly the responsibility of the religion. I am not responsible for the non-practice of anything. The books says do not murder, how can the book be blamed for it. You evaluate a teacher by obedient students, not rebellious ones. Public education, hospitals by the hundreds and a very large portion of charity all owe themselves to Christianity. The potential negative impact of the God delusion is infinitely greater than acts wrongly blamed on Christianity.

I wasn't even talking about good or bad when i wrote that quote. Actually, you support the point i was making with that quote. What i meant to say with those questions is that in our societies the belief in God has a considerable impact. Belief in unicorns or in aliens doesn't change the way most of us live, while a belief in God has an undeniable impact even in the lives of those who don't possess it. Which is why you made a false equivalence when you compared belief in God to belief in aliens and unicorns. There is a reason to debate over this subject.

From my point of view, the militant atheists perceive that the good part of christianity could remain and even prosper in some areas without christianity, while the bad side would mostly go away with it.

If you want to see real atrocity that can find at least partial justification in its world views then Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot are arguments against atheism. Even Bin Laden’s worst dreams did not involve a small fraction of the people they killed. I defend no other religions.

Partially justificated by atheism? How?

This was in the context of the modern professional debate scene and all the hostility is on the atheist side that I have ever witnessed and I have seen most debates that exist. One Christian gets louder as he gets frustrated but none are hostile.

So what you take issue with is the hostility?

Arguing for a possative concept that can't be proven has merit that arguing agaisnt an unproven possative concept does not.

What do you mean by this?
So, if i argue in favour of a flying spaghetti monster i have more merit than someone who argues against it?

 

[Riverwolf]

The data indicates that homosexuals are in fact much more promiscuous. If the argument is that that is incidental you will need a lot of data to prove that. In my view both homosexuality and promiscuousness are symptoms of a common disease.
Many times they are in fact that simple. Inconvenience causes unnecessary obfuscation that has no justification.

Except the data doesn't say homosexuals are always more promiscuous. All it says is that a higher percentage of homosexuals are promiscuous than heterosexuals, but it's still less than half by quite a bit.

Besides, there's no inconvenience to be had. Like I said, I have no personal stake in this matter.

I do not think the problem is ignorance. The problem is the discipline to follow well known conclusions.

Yet where there's less ignorance, people do better. Where there's more "discipline", people do worse.

Ethics as a class of absolute truth has no justification without God. Without God no values regarding anything can be made. Ethics is founded in value. The best that can be done without God is preference, not truth in morality. If your theory were right, morality should have resulted in far more justice and peace as time went by.

And it has.

In fact the opposite is the case. When God was removed from schools, shootings, teen pregnancy, and gang violence went through the roof.

Actually, they're far lower than ever in regards to all of history.

I don't have to worry about marauding bandits, invading hoards, or random maniacs just slicing or shooting everything up as much as I would have had to not a century ago. I don't have to worry about being extorted by corrupted officials as much as I would have used to. Gang violence is actually not much of a problem these days; heck, the local Hells Angels have participated in good community work, I've heard.

My advice: the worst place to learn about current situations is the news. Any news (except perhaps the BBC.)

The same is true on larger scales. We have cell phones yet we kill millions of babies every year as a form of birth control. That is moral de-evolution.

Yet the standard of living is far higher than it's ever been. Therefore, we're actually doing quite well.

Besides, it's where Christian politics is most prevalent where teen pregnancy is highest, and here on the coasts, which is far more secular and liberal in its education, where teen pregnancy is lowest.

Oops I did not see this one before I made the above comment. How about the specific issue of as sexual morality gets more liberal the family has eroded and sexual diseases have risen drastically? Kids are on more drugs that any time before by unimaginable amounts as same sex parents and divorce rises.

Divorce is not a problem at all. Same sex parents do very well, in truth. Drugs have always been popular.

 

[Agnostic75]

Giving data that proves a practice harmful has no need to provide an alternative to the act.

It most certainly does if you call the behavior harmful, or unhealthy. It would be unacceptable to criticize people who smoke cigarettes unless you provided them with better options. Among most experts, it has already been widely agreed upon that homosexuals generally experience greater elevated levels of stress than heterosexuals do, so you are merely stating the obvious. The main debates among experts are about what causes homosexuality, and what should be done about it.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that in some cases, it is more harmful to homosexuals to try reparative therapy, or abstinence, than to continue engaging in same-sex behavior. Even some supporters of reparative therapy have admitted that it generally works best for religiously motivated people, and that it often does not work well even for religiously motivated people.

Homosexuals develop homosexual sexual identities through no efforts of their own.

If you wish, I will be happy to discuss your misrepresentions about gays in the military, and same-sex marriage in two new threads that I could start. Over 30 countries allow openly gay people to join the military. There is no way that you can provide documented evidence that all of those countries would be better off if they did not have that policy. The "social cohesion" that you mentioned quite obviously varies in different countries. Many Western countries are much more liberal than the U.S. is, and in many of those countries, homosexuality is not a big deal.

Consider the following:

Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Israeli Military Performance | Palm Center

28 June 2000 — SANTA BARBARA. A new 48-page study of gays and lesbians in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has found that after Israel’s 1993 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline.

Experiments, I was in it for 9 years and during a war I know what happens and I know very well what field commanders think about it.......it is a social nightmare that undermines unit cohesion and confidence. I have seen the issue kill one person and injure several and effect morral drastically.

Do you really think that your own personal, anecdotal, undocumented evidence is superior to the extensive research that the military branches themselves have conducted? No newly proposed system ever promises not to have any problems. Rather, it is a process of considering the overall postive things to the overall negative things. The Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has approved of the new policy since the start. At least one past Chairman also approves. The Commandant of the Marine Corps initially opposed the new policy, but changed his mind when he found out that it has worked pretty well. So you are presuming that you know more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and all of the people who provided them with data, even though they have studied far more research than you personally experienced. Many current servicemen have given exactly the opposite reports that you gave.

The new policy has only been in effect since 2011. You were probably in the military prior to that, so you cannot accurately judge current opinions in the military. Now that there is evidence that the policy has worked pretty well, some people who were iniitally opposed to it have changed their minds, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

It is important to note that when you were in the military, openly homosexual people were not allowed to join the military. Now that they are, there is bound to be more acceptance of the new policy. The approval of the President of the U.S. has great influence, and the majority of Americans favor the new policy.

 

[Agnostic75]

He did not say you could not do it. He said you should not do so.

Would you like some evidence that some homosexuals who tried reparative therapy ended up worse off than they were before?

Are you not aware that many homosexuals enjoy excellent physical and mental health as judged by any widely accepted definition of good health? The Prime Minister of Iceland is an open lesbian, and the Prime Minister of Ontario is also an open lesbian. I assume that they both have reasonably good physical and mental health, at least good enough to do their jobs well.

 

[Agnostic75]

Giving data that proves a practice harmful has no need to provide an alternative to the act.

Please provide documentation about how homosexuality is harmful, and, most importantly, the percentage of all homosexuals that it has harmed. It will not do you any good to mention research that shows, hypothetically, that homosexuals are twice as likely as heterosexuals to be alcoholics since that would not tell us anything about the percentage of all homosexuals who are alcoholics, only the percentage of homosexuals who are alcoholics as compared with the percentage of heterosexuals who are alcoholics. Many statistics that show that homosexuals have higher levels of stress as compared with heterosexuals do not apply to 90% of homosexuals. Simply stated, most statistics only compare elevated levels of stress "among people who have stress," not the entire populations of homosexuals, and heterosexuals. That is very important.

 

[Agnostic75]

Giving data that proves a practice harmful has no need to provide an alternative to the act.

But you did provide an alternative. You said "he did not say you could not do it. He said you should not do so." So you recommended abstinence.

 

[Agnostic75]

Experiments, I was in it for 9 years and during a war I know what happens and I know very well what field commanders think about it. I do not mean that homosexuals are less capable (though that might be true).......

Why might that be true? Certainly not because of anything physical since during the recent olympics in London, known gay athletes won seven medals, including four gold medals. That is pretty good for such a small group of people.

Some gay soliders are Arabic interpreters. Why wouldn't they be just as good as heterosexual Arabic interpreters?

Many gay people have doctorate degrees, and earn much more money than many heterosexuals do. Do you actually believe that you have evidence that the vast majority of homosexuals, say 70%, are not able to perform the daily tasks of living in an acceptable manner?

 

[Ken Brown]

Does anyone know why Sodom was destroyed? KB

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Does anyone know why Sodom was destroyed? KB

There are already apologetics online which "explain" that the sin of S and G was a lack of hospitality as opposed to perversion. Ultimately, if people don't want to believe something there are more than enough "teachers" to provide just the rationales that their ears are itching to hear.

 

[Riverwolf]

Does anyone know why Sodom was destroyed? KB

Did Sodom exist at all?

 

[Riverwolf]

There are already apologetics online which "explain" that the sin of S and G was a lack of hospitality as opposed to perversion. Ultimately, if people don't want to believe something there are more than enough "teachers" to provide just the rationales that their ears are itching to hear.

How is that apologetic? Sounds just as rational, to me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Dr. Tumbleweed: This is from a pro gay survey. Even the pro gay source has numbers far higher than what the original "apologist" who quoted that sentence fragment was trying to distort in an attempt to pass his argument off as scientific.



• [FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]Genre [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]"Sex Survey Results," [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]Genre ([/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]Lambda Report[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular], January 1998, 20.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular]Getting It Straight[/FONT][/FONT]

For those following along, Getting It Straight is a book published by the anti-gay Family Research Council, and Genre was a Gay lifestyle magazine (now out of print) that took a poll about as credible as those taken by Cosmopolitan. Speaking of which, Cosmo took a poll that "found" that 35% of heterosexual women have lied about the number of sexual partners they have had.

cue the predictable cry of "but...but...but... you didn't read it in its original context."

Grow up.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Does anyone know why Sodom was destroyed? KB

According to Ezekiel....

Ezekiel 16:48-50
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

For those following along, Getting It Straight is a book published by the anti-gay Family Research Council, and Genre was a Gay lifestyle magazine (now out of print) that took a poll about as credible as those taken by Cosmopolitan. Speaking of which, Cosmo took a poll that "found" that 35% of heterosexual women have lied about the number of sexual partners they have had.


Grow up.

I don't doubt that exaggeration is a factor in unscientific polls such as these as people sometimes m alter the truth slightly because of fear of looking depraved. This would easily explain why Genre's numbers are significantly lower than some of the more "scientific" studies conducted.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't doubt that exaggeration is a factor in unscientific polls such as these as people sometimes m alter the truth slightly because of fear of looking depraved. This would easily explain why Genre's numbers are significantly lower than some of the more "scientific" studies conducted.

Perhaps FRC is not the best place to find truthful references.

 

[Ken Brown]

There are already apologetics online which "explain" that the sin of S and G was a lack of hospitality as opposed to perversion. Ultimately, if people don't want to believe something there are more than enough "teachers" to provide just the rationales that their ears are itching to hear.

Hi Peacemaker, really? KB