Secular vs "religious" arguments on homosexuality

[WinterBorn]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

Yes.

It does not occur to you that a "God" that called for slaughtering millions might not be worthy of worshippers?

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

Yes.

It does not occur to you that a "God" that called for slaughtering millions might not be worthy of worshippers?

But the planet is worth being cared for, despite having slaughtered millions in Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos?

And it should be feared and appeased, lest it destroy us for not taking care of it?

Why? Perhaps such a cruel and apathetic planet is not worth caring for after all, and is better off being raped, plundered, and destroyed like any other material resource.

 

[Katniss]

Religion was developed for the purpose of controlling large masses of people.

1. Conspiracy theory

2. In many cases, for good reason - those who wish to rape and murder unabated need to be controlled, as they lack the morality and self-restraint to so out of goodness, rather than out of force.

You would be more justified in saying that about virtually all "mass media and propaganda itself", whether for "religious, political, or advertising reasons", which.has been around since the days of ancient Rome, if not before.

Those who read books instead of consuming primarily propaganda are generally the better off for it, and the less dumbed down.

Religion is also one of the primary reasons there is pure evil in the world

Science more or less debunks this, such as fields like evolutionary psychology which reveal that the proclivities to engage in illegal or immoral behaviors such as murder and rape are genetic.

Which incidentally coincides with much folk wisdom and teachings of world religions, which compare those unchecked "impulses" within humans to the behaviors of feral beasts, as well as "secular" systems and treatises on civilization as well, such as John Stuart Mill's assertion that "it is better to be a man dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied". As well as the basis of legal concepts such as intentions, premeditation, crimes of "passion" and what not, which distinguishes between notions such as premeditation and intent, or commuting a crime while "in the heat of the moment".

Most religious people are the most intolerable and judgmental in society.

1. That, in itself is a judgment and lack of toleration.

2. Yes, religious people who believe in religious morals, such as that raping, murdering, abusing children, and so forth tend to be judgmental about those things, as opposed to those atheistic who aren't, and that's of course a good thing.

Let people live the lives they choose and focus on our own lives and what makes us happy.

As an absolute rule, or assertion of what inherently is?

No thanks. Not all "happiness" is created equal - a rapist believes "happiness" comes from raping women, a pedophile from raping children, their atheistic, "life is meaningless" world view substantiating that.

But of course, due to our society and our law being founded on religious morality, such as the Golden Rule, we thankfully do not put the so-called 'happiness' of rapist or pedophile on par with the "happiness" of a moral individual. And for good reason.

This should be exercised by following the existing perimeters of our laws, e.g. no child molesting, no killing............

Those are of course religious morality, such as the Golden Rule our Common Law having evolved out of older systems of law and religion, such as Exodus, and its acknowledgment of concepts such as respect for other people, their families, their property, and so forth.

Wheras, of course, raping, murdering, child molesting, are just the mere practice of nihilistic atheism, and those who believe life is meaningless, as per evil atheists such as the Marquis de Sade, or the morality of cults such as LeVeyan Satanism, which doesn't in theory, to my knowledge prohibit any of these things or condemn them as immoral.

Thankfully, as our law is founded on the religious principles of respect for people, their property, their family, and so forth, even if an nihilistic atheist claims his happiness is depend on these things, the law will force religion on him whether he likes it or not, and for good measure.

[/QUOTE]

I was going to reply to each of your points but then realized ........nah, it's not a worthwhile conversation in my opinion.

 

[ding]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

No. I wouldn’t support that.

That’s stupid.

 

[Lysistrata]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

What about that Baptist slut Stephen Anderson? He does it all the time.
Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving '50 Less Pedophiles in This World': Video

And LGBTs are not the only ones this primitive pig is trying to attack
Pastor Steven L. Anderson Wants Women Silent In Church -- Not Even An 'Amen' (VIDEO) | HuffPost

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

What about that Baptist slut Stephen Anderson? He does it all the time.
Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving '50 Less Pedophiles in This World': Video

And LGBTs are not the only ones this primitive pig is trying to attack
Pastor Steven L. Anderson Wants Women Silent In Church -- Not Even An 'Amen' (VIDEO) | HuffPost

Who cares about a fringe individual like that?

Probably about as relevant as Obama's "Rev Wright".

(The "KJV only" theology is based on a lot of misconceptions anyway, while we're on it, such as a story about it being the only version of the Bible translated directly from the Texus Recepticus, when in reality there are others, and how the KJV was designed to be an "ecumenical" translation written in a common tongue, not as "pure" as some imagine it.

There are apparently rumors the King James was gay as well ,but I'm unsure of that and not too keen to delve into them.

I've read the KJV, and he merely references parts of it while ignoring the rest, or taking bits out of context, intentional or not to change the meaning behind it.

 

[DGS49]

Virtually every human religious institution that speaks formally on the issue condemns homosexual sodomy, however, only the most extreme zealots propose overtly punishing sodomites physically, in the here&now. Christians don't condemn ANYBODY, but do condemn behavior that is overtly condemned in the Bible, including homosexual sodomy. For the first two hundred years of our nation's history, not only was homosexual sodomy a CRIME in most jurisdictions, but there was no particular debate on the issue. The laws were consistent with the Bible/Torah, and that was sufficient.

In recent years, in response to public condemnation (the Gay Mafia is powerful), certain failing religions (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed Jews, etc.) have softened their position on the issue, as they are so starved for members that they hope to attract religious homosexuals who are elsewhere rejected. But in rejecting clear Bible teachings, they antagonize and lose members who take the Bible seriously, if not literally. It's a no-win situation.

As a believer in a religion that condemns homosexual sodomy, one should show due respect for all of the Children of God, but not do or say anything that explicitly or implicitly sanctions the behavior in question. It would be the same with, for example, an open, notorious, and unrepentant adulterer, a wife beater, or any other conspicuous sinner. Hate the sin; love the sinner. One might, for example, decline an invitation to celebrate a gay marriage - which is, after all, an open celebration of the intention to engage in immoral conduct in the future.

From a secular standpoint, with the bizarre declaration by the U.S. Supreme Court that homosexual sodomy is a protected activity under the imaginary Right of Privacy of the Constitution, there is no longer any issue of homosexual sodomy being illegal. And the fact that the pandemic of AIDS was spread primarily by homosexual activity doesn't justify segregating, interning, or - for goodness sake - executing homosexuals. The best course of action was and is merely, public education on methods of avoiding the transmission of AIDS, along with prosecution of individuals who intentionally or negligently spread this plague.

 

[Lysistrata]

Just what is the point of constantly whining about LGBTs? It accomplishes nothing useful to anyone.

 

[rylah]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

There are some out there who've advocated it, but they're a fringe minority, and don't read the entire Old Testament anyway, since there was a host of many other things which the Iron Age law of Israel punished with death or forbade with harsh penalties (e.x. Idols or graven images were forbidden, which would potentially mean that all modern forms of mass media would have to be banned, as were other things such as tattoos, working on the Sabbath, clothing of two-types of materials, and so on).

So in reality it's not even Biblically accurate, and usually just a disproportionate obsession with homosexuality for childish or emotional reasons.

(In the New Testament, it's mentioned as a sin, but no mention of punishment, along with other sins such as greed, drunkenness, slander, swindling, thieving, sexual immorality, envy, strife, deceit, gossip, arrogance, and so on).

There have been only 2 cases of capital punishment recorded in all Jewish history.
None of them for homosexuality.

Both for public desecration of the Shabat.
First was applied by Moses A"H relying on his authority as a king, 2nd relying on Rabbinic statues, rather than strictly on Torah law. Both cases were an exception.

Sodomy and the punishment of Sodom and Gamora in the Torah, unlike commonly known misconception, is associated in the Torah with theft and robbery rather than homosexual relations.

 

[Andylusion]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

If we are going by the Jewish faith under old testament law, you put homosexual to death because that's G-d's law for Israel.
Doesn't really matter if it saves lives or not.

As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it.
So again... does not matter if it saves lives or not, we don't slaughter people for being homosexual.

The secular argument is really a non-stop contradiction. Because without G-d, life has no value. We're all just animals.

If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... then we can round out the Jews and deposit them at Auschwitz. If we determine it is better to let people live, for the good of.... whatever... then we can keep murders alive so they murder again.

It's just a non-stop contradiction without logic. We are just random accidents spinning out of control in the great nothing, and we all have no more value, than a group of Minks, set free by animal rights activists, that proceed to attack and kill each other for no reason.

Misguided Attempt to Free Thousands of Minks Goes Horribly Wrong

So to me, there is no real secular argument at all, either way. After all, even if you knew killing one person would save millions of lives.... so what? What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value? If that's all the value they have, because "I say so"... well that's canceled out by the guy who wants to kill them.... because he says so.

The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value. If you deny that authority, then all attempts at claiming life has value, is just phony circular logic.

 

[Vastator]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

If we are going by the Jewish faith under old testament law, you put homosexual to death because that's G-d's law for Israel.
Doesn't really matter if it saves lives or not.

As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it.
So again... does not matter if it saves lives or not, we don't slaughter people for being homosexual.

The secular argument is really a non-stop contradiction. Because without G-d, life has no value. We're all just animals.

If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... then we can round out the Jews and deposit them at Auschwitz. If we determine it is better to let people live, for the good of.... whatever... then we can keep murders alive so they murder again.

It's just a non-stop contradiction without logic. We are just random accidents spinning out of control in the great nothing, and we all have no more value, than a group of Minks, set free by animal rights activists, that proceed to attack and kill each other for no reason.

Misguided Attempt to Free Thousands of Minks Goes Horribly Wrong

So to me, there is no real secular argument at all, either way. After all, even if you knew killing one person would save millions of lives.... so what? What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value? If that's all the value they have, because "I say so"... well that's canceled out by the guy who wants to kill them.... because he says so.

The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value. If you deny that authority, then all attempts at claiming life has value, is just phony circular logic.

"Because without God, life has no value."

Nonsense. I and many others value life absent any proof of any God, and for many reasons.

"As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it."

Once again a la carte Christianity rears its head. The new testament purportedly quotes Jesus as saying his coming changes not a jot, or a tittle of the old law. Which means a true adherent would still be obliged to kill faggots. Fortunately most Christian's choose to ignore this prompt.

"If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... "

Which we always have, and likely always will. Abortion, war, law, and order,self defense... It was going on long before christianity, and will probably continue when Christianity is relegated to the same historical footnote as the Greek pantheon of Gods.

"What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value?"
Typically, they at least have value as members of one in group preference. Being tribal humans are hardwired to defend their genetic line so that it will continue into the future.

"The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value."

So God sets the price at the pump, the grocery stores, and thumbs the scales of Wall Street? Lol!

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

If we are going by the Jewish faith under old testament law, you put homosexual to death because that's G-d's law for Israel.
Doesn't really matter if it saves lives or not.

As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it.
So again... does not matter if it saves lives or not, we don't slaughter people for being homosexual.

The secular argument is really a non-stop contradiction. Because without G-d, life has no value. We're all just animals.

If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... then we can round out the Jews and deposit them at Auschwitz. If we determine it is better to let people live, for the good of.... whatever... then we can keep murders alive so they murder again.

It's just a non-stop contradiction without logic. We are just random accidents spinning out of control in the great nothing, and we all have no more value, than a group of Minks, set free by animal rights activists, that proceed to attack and kill each other for no reason.

Misguided Attempt to Free Thousands of Minks Goes Horribly Wrong

So to me, there is no real secular argument at all, either way. After all, even if you knew killing one person would save millions of lives.... so what? What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value? If that's all the value they have, because "I say so"... well that's canceled out by the guy who wants to kill them.... because he says so.

The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value. If you deny that authority, then all attempts at claiming life has value, is just phony circular logic.

"Because without God, life has no value."

Nonsense. I and many others value life absent any proof of any God, and for many reasons.

"As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it."

Once again a la carte Christianity rears its head. The new testament purportedly quotes Jesus as saying his coming changes not a jot, or a tittle of the old law. Which means a true adherent would still be obliged to kill faggots. Fortunately most Christian's choose to ignore this prompt.

Non sequitur, that's the law of Iron Age Israel, which is what Jesus was speaking of. And no, there would not have been any overt command to "kill faggots" or to enforce any other aspect the law of Iron Age Israel into the present day (e.x. prohibiting tattoos, wearing mixed fabric clothing, banning "idols" or "graven images", prohibiting working on the Sabbath, punishing adultery and fornication with death, and so forth).

Most likely it served as a primitive form of disease prevention, but beyond that I refuse to comment. Just as most arguments about "faggots" are just childish, emotionally driven sentiments which have little in the way of validity on any serious discussion of law, history, theology, and so forth.​

I believe Jesus also acknowledged the validity of the Roman law, or contemporary legal systems of his day and age (e.x. "Give to Caeser what is Caeser) in its and age.

I would argue that the difference is that Christianity is about God, a supreme, immortal being of the entire cosmos, not being a being of flesh - as opposed to "gods", which were effectively just physical beings or idols, made of flesh and bone who lived mortal lives and were respected more or less for simply being "powerful mortals", akin to modern day celebrities and the gossip and mythos which often surrounds them.

"What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value?"
Typically, they at least have value as members of one in group preference. Being tribal humans are hardwired to defend their genetic line so that it will continue into the future.

I won't get it this, but most wars and social conflicts are "cultural" (e.x. religious, political, national, ideological, etc), not "genetic" or "physical".

"The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value."

So God sets the price at the pump, the grocery stores, and thumbs the scales of Wall Street? Lol!

That's a non-sequitur, in that sense, value is what someone is willing to pay for it - an average Joe or Jane may find it silly that a millionaire would pay millions for a rare baseball card or collector's item, but to them it obviously has some value, or so that they deem it does. (And in practice, there are likely themes of consistencies In what many people tend to value, showing that it is not purely "random" without some prior logic to it).

However, this has nothing to do with value in any "inherent sense" - if, for example, you are objecting to killing people in the name of "religion", then hypothetically, even someone deemed this to be a "valuable" use of their time, you would be arguing that they were inherently "wrong" in choosing or selecting that particular pursuit in contrast with would you would otherwise deem to be more valuable, moral, responsible, or otherwise worthwhile pursuits and endeavors).

Even in the case of a a simple ideology or worldview, in which "value" is what people are willing to pay for it, one holds this worldview itself to be "inherently" valuable, and unsubstantiated without resort to circular reasoning, as opposed to other worldviews, such as ones which assert some theme or measure of objectivity into what kinds or types of things people naturally tend to value, or what people inherently should value over other lesser alternatives.

 

[Andylusion]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

If we are going by the Jewish faith under old testament law, you put homosexual to death because that's G-d's law for Israel.
Doesn't really matter if it saves lives or not.

As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it.
So again... does not matter if it saves lives or not, we don't slaughter people for being homosexual.

The secular argument is really a non-stop contradiction. Because without G-d, life has no value. We're all just animals.

If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... then we can round out the Jews and deposit them at Auschwitz. If we determine it is better to let people live, for the good of.... whatever... then we can keep murders alive so they murder again.

It's just a non-stop contradiction without logic. We are just random accidents spinning out of control in the great nothing, and we all have no more value, than a group of Minks, set free by animal rights activists, that proceed to attack and kill each other for no reason.

Misguided Attempt to Free Thousands of Minks Goes Horribly Wrong

So to me, there is no real secular argument at all, either way. After all, even if you knew killing one person would save millions of lives.... so what? What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value? If that's all the value they have, because "I say so"... well that's canceled out by the guy who wants to kill them.... because he says so.

The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value. If you deny that authority, then all attempts at claiming life has value, is just phony circular logic.

"Because without God, life has no value."

Nonsense. I and many others value life absent any proof of any God, and for many reasons.

"As a New Testament Christian, we are here to save people from sin, not condemn them in it."

Once again a la carte Christianity rears its head. The new testament purportedly quotes Jesus as saying his coming changes not a jot, or a tittle of the old law. Which means a true adherent would still be obliged to kill faggots. Fortunately most Christian's choose to ignore this prompt.

"If we are all just animals, then the only value we assign to it, is the value we want to assign to it in the moment. If we determine it is better to kill people, for the good of... whatever... "

Which we always have, and likely always will. Abortion, war, law, and order,self defense... It was going on long before christianity, and will probably continue when Christianity is relegated to the same historical footnote as the Greek pantheon of Gods.

"What value do those lives really have other than you thing they have value?"
Typically, they at least have value as members of one in group preference. Being tribal humans are hardwired to defend their genetic line so that it will continue into the future.

"The only reason anything has value, is because an authority greater than man itself, says it has value."

So God sets the price at the pump, the grocery stores, and thumbs the scales of Wall Street? Lol!

Nonsense. I and many others value life absent any proof of any God, and for many reasons.

Right, and others don't. What makes your random opinion, more legitimate than someone else's opinion that does not?

Nothing. It just one man saying this matters, and another man saying it does not.

Once again a la carte Christianity rears its head. The new testament purportedly quotes Jesus as saying his coming changes not a jot, or a tittle of the old law. Which means a true adherent would still be obliged to kill faggots. Fortunately most Christian's choose to ignore this prompt.

Christ paid the price to free us from the curse that the laws in Moses’ Teachings bring by becoming cursed instead of us. Scripture says, “Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.” Christ paid the price so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to all the people of the world through Jesus Christ and we would receive the promised Spirit through faith.

-Galations 3:13​

What Jesus said was true. The law was fulfilled. Just he paid the penalty, by putting himself in the place of the condemned.

Which we always have, and likely always will. Abortion, war, law, and order,self defense... It was going on long before christianity, and will probably continue when Christianity is relegated to the same historical footnote as the Greek pantheon of Gods.

LOL..... I have a special message from Charles Spurgeon. See Spurgeon was a preacher in the mid 1800s, and during that time the anti-Christians, atheists, and agnostics, were claiming back then that Christianity would die out, and cease to exist. In fact many believed that by now today, that Christianity would not exist. Spurgeon has a little message, just for you my friend, and all those who think as you do.

He who would place himself in front of a fast moving railway car will be crushed and would be just as foolish as you who are opposing the gospel. If the gospel is true, remember that truth is mighty and must prevail. Who are you to attempt to stand against it? You will be crushed. But let me tell you, when the railway car runs over you the wheel will not be raised even an inch by your size. For what are you? A tiny gnat, a creeping worm, which that wheel will crush to less than nothing and not leave you even a name as having ever been an opponent of the gospel. Let all the infidels in the world know assuredly that the Gospel will win its way, whatever they may do. Poor creatures…their efforts to oppose the gospel are not even worthy of our notice. And we need not fear that they can stop the truth. They are like a gnat who thinks he can quench the sun. Go tiny insect and do it if you can. You will only burn your wings and die. Likewise there may be a fly who thinks it could drink the ocean dry. Drink the ocean if you can, o fly. More likely you will sink in it and it will drink you.
​

We need more preachers like this today.