Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Re Slavery: read Jeremiah 34 about freedom for slaves. You get to see God’s thinking as opposed to man’s. Very distinct things.

Re Rape: God dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t He?

That was in response to, "It appears that you don't know what condone means: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. The Bible does more than report on these. It advises on them, too."

You didn't address the comment. It appears that you still don't know what condone means.

Also, you didn't address the passages that condone slavery and rape which two of us have now described to you and explain how that's not condoning slavery and rape. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist is condoning rape. The Sodom and Gomorrah story doesn't mitigate that, and Jeremiah 34 doesn't mitigate the tolerance of beating slaves to death as long as the death is slow enough.

 

[Altfish]

I don't.

This

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Can't procreate naturally. . There. :0p

Adoption is a viable, natural form of helping to continue the species. It satisfies the concept of "natural procreation" from an evolutionary and ethological perspective.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Im sorry, my sense of humor is a little dead pan

A tiny deceased Greek God? That is sad...

 

[Nakosis]

Do you have an answer that actually makes sense? Don’t answer that. You don’t.

Because they aren't gay.
It would be wrong for me to be gay because I am not.
So I'd assume it wouldn't be right for someone else who isn't gay to be gay.
I certainly would want to try and convince them they ought to be gay when they are not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Adoption is a viable, natural form of helping to continue the species. It satisfies the concept of "natural procreation" from an evolutionary and ethological perspective.

That's why I had said naturally. Not artificially.

 

[Apostle John]

That was in response to, "It appears that you don't know what condone means: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. The Bible does more than report on these. It advises on them, too."

You didn't address the comment. It appears that you still don't know what condone means.

Also, you didn't address the passages that condone slavery and rape which two of us have now described to you and explain how that's not condoning slavery and rape. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist is condoning rape. The Sodom and Gomorrah story doesn't mitigate that, and Jeremiah 34 doesn't mitigate the tolerance of beating slaves to death as long as the death is slow enough.

You’re an atheist that bends the truth of what the Bible actually states. What’s more the Sodom and Gomorrah account shows how God punished those practicing homosexuals, no one escapes God’s justice.

 

[Father Heathen]

You’re an atheist that bends the truth of what the Bible actually states. What’s more the Sodom and Gomorrah account shows how God punished those practicing homosexuals, no one escapes God’s justice.

I thought it was because they wanted to rape the angels, and Lot offered his daughters to them, which him makes just as evil. The angels as well, since they should've offered themselves to protect the daughters (or smite them with their god magic), not the other way around.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it's quite easy actually. If you interpert your Holy Book to say it is wrong, it doesn't take much thought to conclude it to be wrong.

I have no Holy Book.
And you still don't differentiate between descriptive and normative as far as I can tell.

 

[Apostle John]

I thought it was because they wanted to rape the angels, and Lot offered his daughters to them, which him makes just as evil. The angels as well, since they should've offered themselves to protect the daughters (or smite them with their god magic), not the other way around.

Bending it all the way. The angels made the homosexuals blind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You’re an atheist that bends the truth of what the Bible actually states.

I have no reason to do that, and I am trained to not do that. Critical thinking teaches one how to think dispassionately and open-mindedly. The apologist, on the other hand, is motivated to make his scriptures seem good and true when they seem immoral and false. These two are often antithetical agendas and lead to contradictory claims as is the case in this discussion.

What’s more the Sodom and Gomorrah account shows how God punished those practicing homosexuals

What does that have to do with this discussion, which is about the claim that scripture condones rape and slavery, which claim you still haven't rebutted. Do you know what rebuttal is? It's not mere dissent followed by a different opinion. It's an attempt to falsify the rebutted claim - to show that it is wrong if it is. You don't do that. I tell you where the Bible condones these things and you go to some other part of it or make some comment that doesn't contradict the claim.

The claim about scripture condoning both slavery and rape is correct. How do I know? Because you can't successfully rebut it. If it were incorrect, you could. The sine qua non of a correct idea is that it can be used to accurately predict outcomes, and for that reason, it cannot be successfully rebutted (falsified, disconfirmed). It cannot be shown to be incorrect if it is correct.

no one escapes God’s justice

You use the word justice differently than I do. I don't consider what is offered as God's justice to be justice at all. Likewise with God's versions of love and mercy.

 

[Father Heathen]

Bending it all the way. The angels made the homosexuals blind.

Are you sure they didn't drop an Acme™ anvil on them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You’re an atheist that bends the truth of what the Bible actually states. What’s more the Sodom and Gomorrah account shows how God punished those practicing homosexuals, no one escapes God’s justice.

Im not an atheist. Sodom and Gomorrah was destoryed for sinfulness, not homosexuality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought it was because they wanted to rape the angels, and Lot offered his daughters to them, which him makes just as evil. The angels as well, since they should've offered themselves to protect the daughters (or smite them with their god magic), not the other way around.

The worst part of that story is Lot, the man who offered his own daughters to a gang for raping, walks away from all that being called righteous. If there were to be any righteousness for him it would have been those angels ripping off his balls.

 

[Father Heathen]

The worst part of that story is Lot, the man who offered his own daughters to a gang for raping, walks away from all that being called righteous. If there were to be any righteousness for him it would have been those angels ripping off his balls.

Yep. One of the countless reasons why the bible has far more use as a doorstop or paperweight than it does as a moral compass.

 

[Wu Wei]

Do you have an answer that actually makes sense? Don’t answer that. You don’t.

You are assuming everyone does with that post....and I don't think it is wrong

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Re Rape: God dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t He?

Well, that's what the Bible says, so I suppose that we must believe it.

But then, the Bible (Numbers 31) also says that after slaughtering all of the Midianite men, women and male children, the virgin girls, "all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Num 31:18)

Now, I'm fairly sure that they weren't keeping all the girls to play gin rummy with -- and I think we can be fairly certain that whatever it was they were being kept for was highly unlikely to be generally accepted by all those poor girls, since their captors had just slain their parents and brothers!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can't procreate naturally. . There. :0p

If sex is ONLY about procreation, you might have had a point. But it isn't. It is about bonding, as well. We do not insist that sterile people, or post-menopausal women immediately cease having sexual relations with their husbands and partners. Nor do we insist that contracteption not be used (well, the Catholics do, but they can still try to depend on the rhythm method).

Humans are not dumb animals and mere beasts for the purpose of "increasing the flock." And as a consequence, your argument fails.

 

[Apostle John]

Well, that's what the Bible says, so I suppose that we must believe it.

But then, the Bible (Numbers 31) also says that after slaughtering all of the Midianite men, women and male children, the virgin girls, "all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Num 31:18)

Now, I'm fairly sure that they weren't keeping all the girls to play gin rummy with -- and I think we can be fairly certain that whatever it was they were being kept for was highly unlikely to be generally accepted by all those poor girls, since their captors had just slain their parents and brothers!!

Stop reading just one verse and jumping to conclusions, it will make you come up with the wildest, daftest, nonsensical theories like well known atheist writers. Just two verses before gives the reason. Is that what you do read just one verse?

 

[Apostle John]

Im not an atheist. Sodom and Gomorrah was destoryed for sinfulness, not homosexuality.

Yes but homosexuality was obviously a sickening scourge.