If your kids turn out gay, would you kill them as Bible/Islam imply?

[JusticeHammer]

Yep, Muslims and liberals are psychotic. My sense of reality is the correct option. Good luck.

So, you're not a Christian who believes in love thy neighbor and turning the other cheek, so what are you? Someone who wears Christianity as a mask to justify hurting others?

You're making assumptions. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Then why do you hate both?

Typical, you are clueless to what you are talking about.

On the contrary, the fact you are so defensive and cannot back up your opinions with fact proves which of us is the fucking clueless idiot.

Fact is your baseless claims are nothing more then lies to justify your sin. Read the Bible for once. I am glad you can admit you are a clueless idiot.

 

[Divine Wind]

Fact is your baseless claims are nothing more then lies to justify your sin. Read the Bible for once. I am glad you can admit you are a clueless idiot.

LOL
Thank you for proving everything I said about you. G'day sir!

 

[Divine Wind]

you AGAIN make no sense.....

Then why do you bother with me? Bored?

Slavery has existed in all of human history. Far longer than the Roman Empire. You should consider reading more history.

Let me help get you started:
HISTORY OF SLAVERY
Slavery enters human history with civilization. Hunter-gatherers and primitive farmers have no use for a slave. They collect or grow just enough food for themselves. One more pair of hands is one more mouth. There is no economic advantage in owning another human being.

Once people gather in towns and cities, a surplus of food created in the countryside (often now on large estates) makes possible a wide range of crafts in the town. On a large farm or in a workshop there is real benefit in a reliable source of cheap labour, costing no more than the minimum of food and lodging. These are the conditions for slavery. Every ancient civilization uses slaves. And it proves easy to acquire them.

Code of Hammurabi, from Babylon in the 18th century BC, gives chilling details of the different Rewards and penalties for surgeons operating on free men or slaves. But it also reveals that the system is not one of unmitigated brutality. Surprisingly, Babylonian slaves are themselves allowed to own property.

But the first civilization in which we know a great deal about the role of slaves is that of ancient Greece....

you have stated nothing that I did not know -----before you were born.
The rules and laws of slavery have been VERY VARIED over time and
place. Slavery in the ROMAN empire (that means Christian Europe and
parts of North Africa and---the NEW WORLD) was---in cases of racial slavery---
brutal chattel slavery. There were also formed involving the INDENTURED
STATUS

If you knew it, then why do you act like the Romans or US Southerners invented slavery?

 

[anotherlife]

If your kids turn out gay? The New Testament says, cut off what causes you to sin. It is better for you to enter heaven with your missing piece than go to hell altogether. This is one good example why the New Testament is generally better than the Old Testament. So, if you turn out gay, don't kill yourself or get your family to kill you, but check out if you can still have sex with and marry a woman and if not then get yourself castrated.

 

[depotoo]

It is not meant literally. It means to try to remove ones self from that which causes them to sin.

If your kids turn out gay? The New Testament says, cut off what causes you to sin. It is better for you to enter heaven with your missing piece than go to hell altogether. This is one good example why the New Testament is generally better than the Old Testament. So, if you turn out gay, don't kill yourself or get your family to kill you, but check out if you can still have sex with and marry a woman and if not then get yourself castrated.

 

[anotherlife]

It is not meant literally. It means to try to remove ones self from that which causes them to sin.

If your kids turn out gay? The New Testament says, cut off what causes you to sin. It is better for you to enter heaven with your missing piece than go to hell altogether. This is one good example why the New Testament is generally better than the Old Testament. So, if you turn out gay, don't kill yourself or get your family to kill you, but check out if you can still have sex with and marry a woman and if not then get yourself castrated.

But is goes into specifics of hands and legs or ears I forgot, so it seems pretty physical and literal I think.

 

[depotoo]

That's the problem with casual reading of the Bible.

It is not meant literally. It means to try to remove ones self from that which causes them to sin.

If your kids turn out gay? The New Testament says, cut off what causes you to sin. It is better for you to enter heaven with your missing piece than go to hell altogether. This is one good example why the New Testament is generally better than the Old Testament. So, if you turn out gay, don't kill yourself or get your family to kill you, but check out if you can still have sex with and marry a woman and if not then get yourself castrated.

But is goes into specifics of hands and legs or ears I forgot, so it seems pretty physical and literal I think.

 

[anotherlife]

That's the problem with casual reading of the Bible.

It is not meant literally. It means to try to remove ones self from that which causes them to sin.

If your kids turn out gay? The New Testament says, cut off what causes you to sin. It is better for you to enter heaven with your missing piece than go to hell altogether. This is one good example why the New Testament is generally better than the Old Testament. So, if you turn out gay, don't kill yourself or get your family to kill you, but check out if you can still have sex with and marry a woman and if not then get yourself castrated.

But is goes into specifics of hands and legs or ears I forgot, so it seems pretty physical and literal I think.

It's all just interpretations? (Who wrote this song?).

 

[Joy4Uall]

Question: If your children turn out to eventually be gay, would you kill them as the Bible/Islamic texts imply, or are the Bible/Islamic texts wrong? Which is it?

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

If you reply "I don't follow the OT", that's great - then admit that it's wrong (or else you'd follow it).

I believe in loving gays, so of course I think we can move beyond the morality in the Bible/Islamic texts since they got it wrong.

Your opinion?

Religions can "evolve" during the years. You can see Christians used violence in the past but now they don't do any violent act.
So you don't have to choose between killing your gay children or declaring Bible or Koran wrong.
Plus religious texts must be decoded because parts of those books are allegorical

If they need to "evolve" then they are NOT from an all-knowing god, and that also would show that the Bible is wrong because a number of Biblical passages say that god does not CHANGE.

Well this is a real problem. I'm not a specialist in religions but maybe somebody could suppose an all-knowing divinity wants his own religion to change through the years (for unknown reasons)

God didn't set up the Abrahamic religions; mankind did so. Believers think there is an all powerful entity which is the force behind the creation of the universe, but what that entity expects from us is pure guesswork, hence not only why there are so many different religions in the world, be so many interpretations of the Bible.

The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition)

• there are 33,000+ total of these "Christian denominations" in 238 total countries

These 33,000 are subdivided into "6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs", and ordering them by denomination size we have (I am rounding up or down slightly for convenience, using year 2000 figures) :

• Independents (about 22000)
• Protestants (about 9000)
• "Marginals" (about 1600)
• Orthodox (781)
• Roman Catholics (242)
• Anglicans (168)

So the 33,000 number is from the total of these 6 mega-blocs:

Wrong. WITHIN those 6 are many many subdivisions - they can't agree on SHIT, that's because it's not really from an all-knowing magic invisible man who lives in the sky.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Yep, Muslims and liberals are psychotic. My sense of reality is the correct option. Good luck.

So, you're not a Christian who believes in love thy neighbor and turning the other cheek, so what are you? Someone who wears Christianity as a mask to justify hurting others?

You're making assumptions. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Then why do you hate both?

Typical, you are clueless to what you are talking about.

On the contrary, the fact you are so defensive and cannot back up your opinions with fact proves which of us is the fucking clueless idiot.

Can we also agree that because JESUS "cannot back up [his] opinions with fact" (i.e. he in 2000 years has never been able to produce a court-room level of evidence to his divinity - we just have unverified stories passed down verbally!) that JESUS is "the fucking clueless idiot", as well?

 

[Joy4Uall]

you AGAIN make no sense.....

Then why do you bother with me? Bored?

Slavery has existed in all of human history. .........

As a Scientific Humanist, if we were in the magic invisible man's shoes, we would have, every decade or so (say), have told the world in no uncertain terms "end slavery w/in the next 30 years". Would YOU have done that if you were all-powerful and all-knowing, Divine.Wind? I would have because I love humanity SO MUCH that I would have chosen to do so. You, Divine.Wind?

PS I you can't say "yes", then realize that Jesus has failed to be as moral of a role model as Scientific Humanism is.
Have a great night.

 

[Joy4Uall]

It's not an "argument", Rose, it's a fact.

Agreed that many have died in the "name of God", but it wasn't God doing it. It was people. Not sure if it was millions either. WWII wasn't over religion even though the fucking Nazis murdered millions for their religion.

if you imagine that adolf could have accomplished his genocidal program without
the PRIMING of the same canon law that legalized the inquisition and pogroms for
centuries---thruout the catholic, protestant and eastern orthodox ------you are damned naïve. The Hungarians were not particularly
"Nazi" in orientation-----nor were the Italians nor were the Poles

By your logic, then the US Constitution is responsible for slavery and every member of Congress and every state that ratified the Constitution is responsible for slavery.

Your rejoinder, divine person----makes no sense at all. Slavery of black
persons in the USA was the result of the beliefs of the people of the USA----
who considered it a good idea and ----IN GENERAL---not a contradiction of
church doctrine. Was chattel slavery ever outlawed by DA CHURCH?

Are you saying the US invented slavery? Are you seriously claiming that if it wasn't for the Protestants fleeing Catholic Europe that slavery would never have existed in the Americas, much less the world? Wow. I'd really like to see you back that up.

Meanwhile, some light reading while you gather your facts:
Slavery in Ancient Aztec, Mayan and Inca
Slavery in Aztec society was in some ways more humane than in Western cultures. While some slaves were punished criminals or prisoners of war, others sold themselves or their children into slavery due to economic hardship. Slaves could free themselves by repaying their purchase price. They could marry and own property, and their children were born free.

An Aztec slave market (right) (Historia … de Nueva España). The slave has a wooden collar around his neck, which could indicate either ill treatment by the owner or bad behavior by the slave. A collared slave could gain freedom by running inside the ruler’s palace.

you AGAIN make no sense. At no point did I suggest that the AZTECS did not engage in slavery. Slavery has existed now and then in various forms thruout
the world------in CHRISTIAN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA-----slavery was----in general of the most brutal CHATTEL TYPE------a left over from the ROMAN
EMPIRE------the first, second reichs. The slavery in Merry old England-----
was a child of the roman empire form too------and ----also various forms \of INDENTURED slavery (not dependent on race)

Agreed. If only Jesus was a ethical, as caring, as compassionate as Scientific Humanism, then he would have taken a mere 15 seconds out of his life of teaching ethics and said "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years". But, alas, Jesus can't live up to the ethical/loving/caring standards of Scientific Humanism, so because of that MILLIONS more people had to suffer from barbarity than if he was caring enough to utter those few words. Jesus, you screwed up, dude.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Like Earl says, we all were given freedom of choice.

Agreed, within limitations. A child with a heart defect or spina bifida had no more choice in the matter than an autistic child.

Which has nothing to do with choice, except that of the parents.

Neither is being gay or straight. The choice is acting upon their desires like 13 years having sex, but there is no choice in their desires to have sex.

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way, YOU'D refrain from having (straight) sex? Keep in mind that the invisible man ("god") saying that gay sex is wrong is so savage, so barbaric, that he tortured, brutally, an innocent man just to make a point to another invisible man (the devil)....I'm talking about his brutal torture of Job, in the Bible. So we can't take his morality, his teachings, his ethical stand, seriously. I think that most pet chimps are more ethical than said invisible friend is - do chimps ruthlessly torture, savagely, their own "children" just to make a point? No, they don't - so chimps are more ethical than the Christian god is.

 

[miketx]

Like Earl says, we all were given freedom of choice.

Agreed, within limitations. A child with a heart defect or spina bifida had no more choice in the matter than an autistic child.

Which has nothing to do with choice, except that of the parents.

Neither is being gay or straight. The choice is acting upon their desires like 13 years having sex, but there is no choice in their desires to have sex.

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way, YOU'D refrain from having (straight) sex? Keep in mind that the invisible man ("god") saying that gay sex is wrong is so savage, so barbaric, that he tortured, brutally, an innocent man just to make a point to another invisible man (the devil)....I'm talking about his brutal torture of Job, in the Bible. So we can't take his morality, his teachings, his ethical stand, seriously. I think that most pet chimps are more ethical than said invisible friend is - do chimps ruthlessly torture, savagely, their own "children" just to make a point? No, they don't - so chimps are more ethical than the Christian god is.

If that were true, you and your religion would never have been heard of.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Like Earl says, we all were given freedom of choice.

Agreed, within limitations. A child with a heart defect or spina bifida had no more choice in the matter than an autistic child.

Which has nothing to do with choice, except that of the parents.

Neither is being gay or straight. The choice is acting upon their desires like 13 years having sex, but there is no choice in their desires to have sex.

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way, YOU'D refrain from having (straight) sex? Keep in mind that the invisible man ("god") saying that gay sex is wrong is so savage, so barbaric, that he tortured, brutally, an innocent man just to make a point to another invisible man (the devil)....I'm talking about his brutal torture of Job, in the Bible. So we can't take his morality, his teachings, his ethical stand, seriously. I think that most pet chimps are more ethical than said invisible friend is - do chimps ruthlessly torture, savagely, their own "children" just to make a point? No, they don't - so chimps are more ethical than the Christian god is.

If that were true, you and your religion would never have been heard of.

Good point - not as much reproduction by gay folks. But would YOU abide by that restriction....or is the Bible wrong for doing the same thing (restricting gay sex)? Please tell us.

 

[miketx]

Agreed, within limitations. A child with a heart defect or spina bifida had no more choice in the matter than an autistic child.

Which has nothing to do with choice, except that of the parents.

Neither is being gay or straight. The choice is acting upon their desires like 13 years having sex, but there is no choice in their desires to have sex.

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way, YOU'D refrain from having (straight) sex? Keep in mind that the invisible man ("god") saying that gay sex is wrong is so savage, so barbaric, that he tortured, brutally, an innocent man just to make a point to another invisible man (the devil)....I'm talking about his brutal torture of Job, in the Bible. So we can't take his morality, his teachings, his ethical stand, seriously. I think that most pet chimps are more ethical than said invisible friend is - do chimps ruthlessly torture, savagely, their own "children" just to make a point? No, they don't - so chimps are more ethical than the Christian god is.

If that were true, you and your religion would never have been heard of.

Good point - not as much reproduction by gay folks. But would YOU abide by that restriction....or is the Bible wrong for doing the same thing (restricting gay sex)? Please tell us.

Not any reproduction? WTF is wrong with you, saying not as much?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Which has nothing to do with choice, except that of the parents.

Neither is being gay or straight. The choice is acting upon their desires like 13 years having sex, but there is no choice in their desires to have sex.

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way, YOU'D refrain from having (straight) sex? Keep in mind that the invisible man ("god") saying that gay sex is wrong is so savage, so barbaric, that he tortured, brutally, an innocent man just to make a point to another invisible man (the devil)....I'm talking about his brutal torture of Job, in the Bible. So we can't take his morality, his teachings, his ethical stand, seriously. I think that most pet chimps are more ethical than said invisible friend is - do chimps ruthlessly torture, savagely, their own "children" just to make a point? No, they don't - so chimps are more ethical than the Christian god is.

If that were true, you and your religion would never have been heard of.

Good point - not as much reproduction by gay folks. But would YOU abide by that restriction....or is the Bible wrong for doing the same thing (restricting gay sex)? Please tell us.

Not any reproduction? WTF is wrong with you, saying not as much?

So to you the Bible is ok in saying gays don't get to heaven, because gays don't (by themselves, on their own) REPRODUCE? Isn't the 4% of the world that's gay not reproducing actually good for the planet?

 

[Tilly]

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way

I think people would smell a rat, unless they were nihilistic in the extreme.

 

[Joy4Uall]

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way

I think people would smell a rat, unless they were nihilistic in the extreme.

In other words they would NOT abide by that religious ruling....just like gays should NOT be expected to follow the religious ruling of Christianity (that gay sex is wrong.)

 

[Tilly]

So if, say, my religion (just say), taught that being straight is wrong (our "prophet" tells us that), and that being gay is the only correct way

I think people would smell a rat, unless they were nihilistic in the extreme.

In other words they would NOT abide by that religious ruling....just like gays should NOT be expected to follow the religious ruling of Christianity (that gay sex is wrong.)

The religion wouldn't get off the ground, unless a huge number of people thought it a good idea to kill off the human race.