LGBTQ and the Bible

Do they? I know pro-life atheists. I myself have made pro-life arguments on this very forum.

 

I think its a pretty huge stretch to say God made it all better. Job's family was still dead. Sure, new kids. But Job's not supposed to mind that his initial kids were killed for nothing but a bet and for God to show off?

 

Jesus never said anything against gays. If you only care about the old testament, you're a Jew, not a chrustian

 

Not according to your imaginary god's chosen people. They don't recognize their "god given law" as being "fulfilled in its entirety". Quite the opposite.

When you REMOVE the OT the entire basis for your NT becomes null and void.

 

Not to mention that denigrating the OT as immoral is the same thing as denigrating Judaism as immoral since it is entirely based upon the OT and Jesus was a Jew therefore he was immoral too.

 

That makes your imaginary god a SADIST because being omniscient he would have known beforehand that Job would remain faithful. The TORTURE of Job was meaningless since it served no purpose other than to needlessly HARM someone who had done nothing to deserve it.

 

Your imaginary god "aborts" millions of "children" all the time but you still support his killing them.

 

Are you PRETENDING that heterosexuals do NOT masturbate and drink alcohol?

 

Lets not forget that this thread is about people wanting to discriminate against others, mock and ridicule them and in general look down their pious noses at others because their imaginary friend tells them being gay is naughty.

Apparently I have to prove that their imaginary friend does not exist, well I think you need a reality check. When a child tells you that the naughty words crayoned on the wall of their bedroom were put there by their imaginary friend, no adult takes that rubbish, and yet religion trys to make out that somehow their imaginary friend is special, they do not have to prove he exists rather it is up to the responsible adults to prove he does not exist. My old man would have had a short and violent response to such silliness from a petulant child!

 

Perhaps it is because you don't have a greater eye to the future of humanity (replacing the mind of God with your own) that you don't understand His purpose here.
If God spoke to me directly, as he did Abraham.....I would take Him at His Word knowing He does not go against His own nature.

 

I'm convinced it isn't God. It is other people using the idea of God and your belief in God, to control you, and if you blindly accept what you read and what you are told God wants, you become their tool and their weapon.

 

Likewise, I believe other people, and your own agenda. has convinced you there is no God and you and they are all powerful and in control of your destination. Perhaps only when you find that is not the case you will turn. Humanism has their tools and weapons also. Hope you the best and thanks for the "civil discussion".

 

That ignores the fact that heterosexuals get involved in that as well. Or, do you think porn, campus partying, Trump bragging about feeling up women, etc. doesn't count as "self gratification and bacchanalia"?

Beyond that, it's like suggesting that prison sex is homosexuality. It's definitely same sex behavior, but knocking out the teeeth of a bunkmate to facilitate better rape is not the same thing as the dedicate relationship between same sex partners who are getting married.

Besides, there is science on this.

 

Scientists have their own biases.

 

Very good point. I let that ridiculous claim of "reparations" pass and I should not have allowed that.

 

You can't write off scinece so easily.

Totally unlike politics and religion, science is designed to make biases as irrelevant as humanly possible.

 

But they do not always succeed.

 

Actually, God never told Job why he and his family suffered. The only "explanation" he offered Job was that he was incapable of understanding the actions of God.

 

WTF: "replacing the ind of God with your own"???

Where did you come up with THAT? In what way is that not just pure assumption and ad hom?

And, I don't see any value to this discussion in your hypothetical.

 

You're trying to use this bit of garbage as a justification for ignoring the best knowledge we have today on how this universe works.

Science is designed to produce and understanding of how this universe works that is both agreed across the world and open to examination to eliminate any false idea creeping in.

Religion is not. There is no methodology or even attepts at methodology for accomplishing such an agreement or for eliminating false ideas that can creep in. The vast number of religions and variaties of those religions and the intollerance (to the point of war) based on these biases is proof.

Politics is not. Politics has only a passing interest in truth and is strongly oriented to PRECLUDING investigation that could improve understanding of what's going on and why. Politics spends EFFORT on preventing truth in favor of supporting biases.

 

Blame Carl Sagan. Read his OFFICIAL biography about how he deliberately misrepresented evidence to support the idea of nuclear winter...because "the greater cause of preventing a nuclear war was more important than a slavish devotion to exact scientific standards".

I can name other instances where respected scientists justified misrepresenting scientific information because they wanted to serve a "a greater cause"

Whether it is evidence of evolution or in support of climate change.

Ever heard of the Kettlewell Speckled Moths? To this day used as examples in college level science textbooks of "evolution in action".

 

Please consider this:

You are looking through HISTORY trying to find cases of misrepresentation.

Do you think that kind of search is necessary to find falsehoods in politics or religion?

Beyond that, I don't accept EITHER of your two examples.

The Ketterling accusations have long since by debunked.

And, the reason Sagan was attacked was that he pointed out the failures of the SDI direction. The right wing and nuclear weapons advocates such as Teller hated him for opposing nuclear weapons - not for his science. And, scientists of the time did not like the idea of someone seen as a scientist to be an activist.

If you think he admitted to fudging something, please cite it.

You just aren't putting a dent in the fact that science provides the best knowledge humans have on how this physical universe works.

 

I am not in total control of my own destination. In fact, my control is very limited. Unfortunately rain dances don't make it rain and prayer to imaginary Gods don't give any more actual control over anything, but merely the illusion for it, for which I suppose some are desperate. I'm not. I accept my limitations. And I will exercise the control that I do have, rather than blindly doing whatever others tell me to.

To the dark side of the force?

I'm not a Humanist. What are Humanism's tools and weapons?

Same.

 

Innumerable books and scientific articles have been written to explain the evolution of morality.Morality exists outside of religion. As a matter of fact, religion does nothing short but create a complete relativistic conundrum as to how to lead a moral life.

 

not in practice sorry