Should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

[Joy4Uall]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

if you know it's an issue only to bigots, why feed them by pretending their idiocy should be taken seriously?

We need to examine their bigotry, not let it hide in the shadows - shine the light on the bigots.

 

[jillian]

My question is: should LGBT people be allowed to adopt kids?

I'm sensing a lot of Biblically-inspired hatred of gays on this forum, but I'm hoping that people of compassion and reason will rise to the occasion and reply "yes, they should be allowed to adopt kids!"

Maybe my hope in humanity is misplaced.

if you know it's an issue only to bigots, why feed them by pretending their idiocy should be taken seriously?

We need to examine their bigotry, not let it hide in the shadows - shine the light on the bigots.

its like trying to teach a pig to talk... it doesn't work and annoys the pig.

i don't need to examine why they're bigots. letting them know they're lowlife bigots is sufficient.

i also don't choose to give them a forum to justify their hate and then high five each other.

but thank you for responding.

 

[Joy4Uall]

You can't explain it then, eh?

Absolutely I can explain it.

The fact that they are in a homosexual relationship means that they value sexual gratification over everything else.

Their own sexual gratification is priority one, no matter how perverse or antisocial
their lusts may be.


People like that don't need to be raising children.

A person with that mindset is highly likely to molest children if it "turns them on".

if children turn you on, you're a pedophile. Period. Stop linking homosexuality with pedophilia, there is no link.
Homosexuals are no more to blame for following their sexual urges than you or I. Who cares what happens between two consenting adults?!

Mohammad had sex with little Aisha when she was 9 years-old.....was Mo a pedo?

Richard the first married a 6yr old

In those days it was not uncommon in the east or west

Even today some parts of the world still have girls marry as soon as they have their first period. Some are married young, and live with their in-laws but don't have sex till their first cycle.

In the US kids of 14 can marry with a judges approval

From all account Mohammed and Aisha were vary happy in their marriage

You are trying to normalize pedophilia.

Can you condemn ALLAH for not knowing that a person setting a ROLE MODEL for sex with kids (Mohammad) would not be a good role model for Allah's #1 role model of all time?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Again, that's condemning a sin. I already answered you on this very same page.

Romans 6:9-10 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Has literally nothing to do with homos.

I meant to pick the one below that, sorry:
1 Corinthians 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God is pretty straightforward. Not sure what's confusing you about that verse.

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

 

[Joy4Uall]

You can't explain it then, eh?

Absolutely I can explain it.

The fact that they are in a homosexual relationship means that they value sexual gratification over everything else.

Their own sexual gratification is priority one, no matter how perverse or antisocial
their lusts may be.


People like that don't need to be raising children.

A person with that mindset is highly likely to molest children if it "turns them on".

if children turn you on, you're a pedophile. Period. Stop linking homosexuality with pedophilia, there is no link.
Homosexuals are no more to blame for following their sexual urges than you or I. Who cares what happens between two consenting adults?!

Mohammad had sex with little Aisha when she was 9 years-old.....was Mo a pedo?

Richard the first married a 6yr old

In those days it was not uncommon in the east or west

Even today some parts of the world still have girls marry as soon as they have their first period. Some are married young, and live with their in-laws but don't have sex till their first cycle.

In the US kids of 14 can marry with a judges approval

From all account Mohammed and Aisha were vary happy in their marriage

Science shows us that adults having sex with kids causes mental and physical damage to the child - do you think that Allah would know that?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Being gay is not a sin!!!!! You have a morally warped god/prophet if it is.

Prove it.

No, see, how it works is that the person claiming that behavior that is perfectly legal, and behavior that does not harm you, is immoral, THAT IS THE PERSON (you) who has to prove that it's a "sin". Thinking people don't blindly accept ethics from 1st century barbarians who were so stupid that they approved of slavery, for example.

Pretty sure the creator of the universe is far more qualified to decide what's moral and immoral than a bunch of random people making laws, but hey.

So then of course we should LEGALIZE SLAVERY because god/Jesus accepted slavery (and never spoke out against it - tacit approval), but us "random people" have outlawed slavery, then, right!? Obviously their invisible friend in the sky knows more than we do.

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

 

[Joy4Uall]

and Christians are commanded not to hate anyone.

...

If you are so full of love (apparently), then you easily can join me in saying this prayer: "God/Jesus, I love Hindus so much that I beg you to let ethical Hindus into heaven and avoid hell. Thanks."

Can you do that?

I told you that we're commanded to love, not that all Christians love. As a matter of fact, not every human being that's sorted into a group shares the same behavior, despite how much you seem to wish they did.

As a matter of fact, your request makes no sense. People are only allowed in heaven if they believe in and love the Lord, and because said Lord loves everyone so much, he gives them the choice of whether or not they'd like to live in heaven with him. The hindus you mentioned, and atheists for that matter, have made their decision.

People in "lost tribes" don't particularly GET to hear Jesus' message, but they burn anyway - clearly your invisible friend in the sky is not fair, is not equitable.

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

 

[Joy4Uall]

I meant to pick the one below that, sorry:
1 Corinthians 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God is pretty straightforward. Not sure what's confusing you about that verse.

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Prove it.

No, see, how it works is that the person claiming that behavior that is perfectly legal, and behavior that does not harm you, is immoral, THAT IS THE PERSON (you) who has to prove that it's a "sin". Thinking people don't blindly accept ethics from 1st century barbarians who were so stupid that they approved of slavery, for example.

Pretty sure the creator of the universe is far more qualified to decide what's moral and immoral than a bunch of random people making laws, but hey.

So then of course we should LEGALIZE SLAVERY because god/Jesus accepted slavery (and never spoke out against it - tacit approval), but us "random people" have outlawed slavery, then, right!? Obviously their invisible friend in the sky knows more than we do.

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

and Christians are commanded not to hate anyone.

...

If you are so full of love (apparently), then you easily can join me in saying this prayer: "God/Jesus, I love Hindus so much that I beg you to let ethical Hindus into heaven and avoid hell. Thanks."

Can you do that?

I told you that we're commanded to love, not that all Christians love. As a matter of fact, not every human being that's sorted into a group shares the same behavior, despite how much you seem to wish they did.

As a matter of fact, your request makes no sense. People are only allowed in heaven if they believe in and love the Lord, and because said Lord loves everyone so much, he gives them the choice of whether or not they'd like to live in heaven with him. The hindus you mentioned, and atheists for that matter, have made their decision.

People in "lost tribes" don't particularly GET to hear Jesus' message, but they burn anyway - clearly your invisible friend in the sky is not fair, is not equitable.

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. God gives you two choices; Separate yourself from him forever, or live with him forever. I explained this several pages ago, you apparently have a very short attention span, and a selective memory.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I meant to pick the one below that, sorry:
1 Corinthians 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God is pretty straightforward. Not sure what's confusing you about that verse.

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God is pretty straightforward. Not sure what's confusing you about that verse.

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

 

[Joy4Uall]

No, see, how it works is that the person claiming that behavior that is perfectly legal, and behavior that does not harm you, is immoral, THAT IS THE PERSON (you) who has to prove that it's a "sin". Thinking people don't blindly accept ethics from 1st century barbarians who were so stupid that they approved of slavery, for example.

Pretty sure the creator of the universe is far more qualified to decide what's moral and immoral than a bunch of random people making laws, but hey.

So then of course we should LEGALIZE SLAVERY because god/Jesus accepted slavery (and never spoke out against it - tacit approval), but us "random people" have outlawed slavery, then, right!? Obviously their invisible friend in the sky knows more than we do.

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

 

[Joy4Uall]

If you are so full of love (apparently), then you easily can join me in saying this prayer: "God/Jesus, I love Hindus so much that I beg you to let ethical Hindus into heaven and avoid hell. Thanks."

Can you do that?

I told you that we're commanded to love, not that all Christians love. As a matter of fact, not every human being that's sorted into a group shares the same behavior, despite how much you seem to wish they did.

As a matter of fact, your request makes no sense. People are only allowed in heaven if they believe in and love the Lord, and because said Lord loves everyone so much, he gives them the choice of whether or not they'd like to live in heaven with him. The hindus you mentioned, and atheists for that matter, have made their decision.

People in "lost tribes" don't particularly GET to hear Jesus' message, but they burn anyway - clearly your invisible friend in the sky is not fair, is not equitable.

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God is pretty straightforward. Not sure what's confusing you about that verse.

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

Pretty sure neither is out of the realm of possibility for an entity that created a universe and all therein.

I already proved your second "point" wrong several times.

See, I'm here to prove your attacks wrong, I personally don't care what you believe in, or don't believe in. Should you end up in Hell, it's not my problem, it's a choice you made. I'm not telling you to believe, I'm countering your ignorant attacks on something you never bothered to understand.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I told you that we're commanded to love, not that all Christians love. As a matter of fact, not every human being that's sorted into a group shares the same behavior, despite how much you seem to wish they did.

As a matter of fact, your request makes no sense. People are only allowed in heaven if they believe in and love the Lord, and because said Lord loves everyone so much, he gives them the choice of whether or not they'd like to live in heaven with him. The hindus you mentioned, and atheists for that matter, have made their decision.

People in "lost tribes" don't particularly GET to hear Jesus' message, but they burn anyway - clearly your invisible friend in the sky is not fair, is not equitable.

Romans 1:18-25
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

WHICH god? What if they believe in the all-powerful Krishna - that should suffice, right (as long as they are ethical and do good works too), right? Or is Jesus kinda stuck on himself?

It's not about works. .....

But that would be more fair, more equitable, more just...rather than just being about which unproven invisible dead guy a person happens to "believe" in.

Actually, you've been speaking against the Old Testament for 24 pages, and now you suddenly support it? The Old Testament WAS based on works. Gentiles couldn't get into Heaven because it was based on works, so God sent Jesus to make it a choice. You can believe and live with God forever, or don't, and separate yourself forever. God made is significantly easier to make that choice.

Or, in your own words, the Old Testament was not "fair". That's why we have the New Testament.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Pretty sure the creator of the universe is far more qualified to decide what's moral and immoral than a bunch of random people making laws, but hey.

So then of course we should LEGALIZE SLAVERY because god/Jesus accepted slavery (and never spoke out against it - tacit approval), but us "random people" have outlawed slavery, then, right!? Obviously their invisible friend in the sky knows more than we do.

Ding already curb-stomped that argument, and not speaking out against something isn't condoning it. You need to learn the difference.

If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".
Scientific Humanists would have, if they were in that position, of course, so that does put them at a higher level of compassion, a higher level of love, than even Jesus (who did say some good things, we agree.) I'm sure that 5 to 50 years from now someone will come along and improve on Scientific Humanism....so it's good to have a flexible, growing, improving overall belief system.

You clearly didn't read the post, the slaves were people who sold themselves into slavery, and considering its their own life and their own body, nobody did, and nobody should have told them otherwise.

Not only that, but if you haven't noticed, Jesus came to open the gates of heaven to more than just Jews, not to right all perceived wrongs. Even if that were a valid argument, and the slavery wasn't self-inflicted, it wasn't his mission.

This statement is as true as the statement "2+2=4":
If Jesus was caring enough to take a mere 15 seconds out of his life to say the following, then the world would clearly have been a better place: "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if he did that, Pumpkin?

You clearly didn't read what I said. Slavery was voluntary. They did it to pay their debts.

I'd also like to point out that only Christians listened to Jesus. Even if he wanted to prevent people from paying their debts through voluntarily becoming slaves, it wouldn't have abolished slavery.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

No, Scientific Humanists don't need an invisible friend to tell us right from wrong - we do "what's best for humanity", and that's a great starting point.

No, as a matter of fact, they do what they THINK is best for humanity. For example, I'm sure Hitler thought that killing Jews was best for humanity, as he thought they were the Globalist establishment.

And I'm sure that the JIHADISTS, who are following their god's wishes even more closely, even more piously, even more religiously than YOU probably follow your particular religion (I'm not saying they are good to do that, however), think that their particular god's policies are better than Scientific Humanist policies....but, uh, they are obviously wrong (are leading us into WWIII.)

Actually, if their God were the one true God, creator of the universe and all therein, who would a single random person on the internet be to question them? Hypothetically, of course.

Because the Qur'an says to wage Jihad against non-believers, you and I both agree that Allah is not real, correct?

I'm not here to discuss Allah, I'm only pointing out that the creator of the universe makes the rules.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Gays are not "unrighteous"! Gay activity is perfectly legal in sane/caring nations....apparently the magic place up in the sky is not a sane/caring nation, so I wouldn't want to go there - my ethics won't let me.

Legal and unrighteous are different words. Legal only requires a civilization that agrees with the activity in question, righteous requires a creator that agrees with it.

ZEUS and WOTAN have created rules too, and have the same level of evidence as your particular unique god, so you might want to listen to them....uh, and the 5000 or so OTHER GODS.

Have a great afternoon.

A 24 page thread and after using it to bait and attack Christians through the entire thing, when someone finally takes the bait, your best argument, after being countered for nearly all 24 pages is "WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO THERE!". You may want to take your 'debating' skills to pre-school, they're more your speed.

I "don't believe" because of many sound logical reasons:
1. talking snakes and walking on water are not real.
2. The Bible/Quran are not from a loving god (as advertised) because they say to kill gays.
3. Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Wotan can't differentiate themselves from the other 5000 gods with a court-room level of evidence, of course.
.....
100.....

Pretty sure neither is out of the realm of possibility for an entity that created a universe and all therein.
......

Prove that of the 5000+ gods out there that YOUR PARTICULAR UNIQUE GOD is the one who created it all, and not one of the other 5000 gods.