I am homosexual, what the Bible says

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
NewSkeptic's picture
"But then I am 6ft tall and

"But then I am 6ft tall and 240 pounds."

Have you considered mixing in a salad now or then, just sayin'

Cognostic's picture
What I need to mix in is some

What I need to mix in is some exercise. Getting old sucks and sitting behind a desk all day grading papers does nothing for the love handles'. --- I would love to be 180 again;/ Perhaps if I pray?

boomer47's picture
" Getting old sucks-------"

" Getting old sucks-------"

--and 70- is not the new 60, it's still 70. One is still patronised by the young on a daily basis and remains socially invisible. . Fair dinkum, sometimes I just feel like belting them with my walking stick

The tragedy of getting old is that "inside every old person is a young person wondering what the hell happened" (anon) I blinked. These days, seems every time I blink another year has passed. Not real happy with that ..After all, there aren't all that many shopping days until Xmas.

One of the greatest truisms I've ever come across is "youth is wasted on the young"

On splitting up couples in hospitals ; My gay sis was not kept away from her partner who was dying from cancer. (public hospital though) Be interesting to see how that goes in religious hospitals in Oz now that gay marriage has been legalised .(ie able to be registered with the state, which all marriages must do to be legally recognised )

Both of my parents died in an aged care facility, and each had spent time in different institutions in respite care (mostly secular)
As far as I could tell, none of those institutions offered double rooms for married couples. I guess the need must be rare, and could probably be accommodated.

Mikhael's picture
It's nasty.

It's nasty.

I saw a post once that said morals is doing what's right no matter what someone says

Religion is doing what someone says no matter what's right

Sheldon's picture
"morals is doing what's right

"morals is doing what's right no matter what someone says

Religion is doing what someone says no matter what's right"

Wowee, brilliant. I'm going to plagiarise that shamelessly....

Get off my lawn's picture
This seems to be a quote from

This seems to be a quote from H. L. Mencken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken). I find two main variations:

"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/535224)

"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what is told regardless of what is right." (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7761013-morality-is-doing-what-is-right...)

...and the exact phrasing varies. I have no idea which one would be the original, but the first would seem to be the most likely, given that Mencken was an "unflinching atheist" (source: Wikipedia).

Sheldon's picture
@Fievel Mousekewitz

@Fievel Mousekewitz

Next time some religious bigot makes this cretinous assertion, ask them how many unruly children they have dragged to the edge of town to stone? Then politely, and with a smile, tell them to fuck right off, after they have wedged their bigoted religious beliefs firmly where a skilled surgeon and proctologist will be needed to get it out.

FievelJ's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Sorry to take so long.

One of the things I have stumped them with is, How did they fit so many millions of animals in one ark. There's also the Jesus Christ story, and how there would be artifacts left from his life.

I don't know what's after death, I don't have all the answers, but it is possible life just ends.
One ceases to exist. No more consciousness because the brain dies. No soul to go to a heaven. I don't understand why Christians are so convinced of this.

My Two Cents.

Kevin Levites's picture
I ran into issues like this

I ran into issues like this all the time.....perhaps because the social incompetence from my autism keeps me from recognizing certian things.

The reasons behind these policies (if you want to call them that) are as follows:

1) Nobody is ever born gay, because God doesn't make mistakes. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This is why homosexuality is a sickness, and--as a hospital--we can't endorse homosexuality any more than we should endorse smoking.
2) Homosexuality is often a result of children being molested, and--since homosexuals need to recruit--we can't allow homosexuals to be around sick people or children who are vulnerable. We must protect the other patients.
3) Homosexuals have specific health problems and a lowered life expectancy over their choices, so we are helping them by pointing them in the right direction......by forbidding them from seeing each other and feeding off of each others' sickness. Letting gay people see each other in the hospital is like letting a sick drug addict see other drug addicts who are currently using.
4) Drug addiction and alcoholism are rampant in the gay community, so of course we don't want people in the hospital who are very prone to stealing drugs. We aren't going to feed peoples' addictions.
5) Other patients will take their children and leave before treatment if they see a gay couple, as they don't want their children exposed to the dangers of homosexuals. We forbid gay people from seeing each other so that children can get the treatment that they need.

And so on.

This all should have been perfectly obvious to me. By not understanding these ideas, I have no common sense, and I'm hiding (like a coward) behind the letter of the law that says that I must be nonjudgmental. Being nonjudgmental doesn't entitle me to hurt innocent people by treating a gay partner like a real spouse when it comes to bringing people to the hospital.

If I really wanted to help people, then I should automatically understand this.....so I'm a bad paramedic who got into EMS for the wrong reasons, and should find another line of work where I can't hurt people from my lack of common sense.

After I got finished hearing all of this from the hospital and my managers, I felt like I was 2 inches tall......and most of my self-esteem went out the window.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Imagine if they had said:

Imagine if they had said:

5) Other patients will take their children and leave before treatment if they see a g̶a̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶p̶l̶e̶ interracial couple, as they don't want their children exposed to the dangers of h̶o̶m̶o̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶s̶ black people. We forbid g̶a̶y̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ interracial couples from seeing each other so that children can get the treatment that they need.

That is basically what they told me as a child; except they would have said black people in a more hateful way.

CyberLN's picture
They likely did say that at

They likely did say that at one time.

boomer47's picture
"That is basically what they

"That is basically what they told me as a child; except they would have said black people in a more hateful way"

Australia had the white Australia policy until 1975. We were as racially homogeneous as Japan is today. One seldom saw a black or asian face, nor did my city have visible Jewish population. Of course we DID have the aboriginals , but everyone just ignored them, because they were considered 'a dying race' . A lot of people got very upset when instead of dying out, their number increased significantly.

Although it is now known aboriginals existed in every part of Australia, to this day, we don't know their numbers on first white contact .Estimates vary from 300,000 to over 3 million.

I don't remember being taught many negative things about other races, but I somehow managed to learn the the most vile stereotypes. Coming from a chronically bog Irish catholic family, hatreds extended to protestants and the English.

When I was about 14, (about 1961) my very astute Canadian mother opined; "the only reason Australia doesn't have the same racial problems as the US is that we don't have the same numbers of black people"

Australia has always had a group to hate. Today it's Muslims, before them the Vietnamese , before them the Greeks and Italians and the Poms (brits) . We've come a long way,. However, still have a way to go before we judge people by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin, ethnicity or religious beliefs . (with apologies to Martin Luther King jun)

Addendum; Just had a thought,(that's two this week) In my opinion it's fine and dandy to be anti religion, or anti theist as ideas. To be anti the [billions of] people who believe, or to dismiss them as deluded /crazy is glib, intellectually shallow and bigoted.

Kevin Levites's picture
Thank you both for answering,

Thank you both for answering, and for the validation.

aperez241's picture
These hospital regulations

These hospital regulations are ridiculous and evil. Does it mean that if a person goes into the hospital with one of his/her friends, that friend will not be allowed to be with the patient if he/she is of the same sex? Because the hospital cannot know if these two people have a sexual relationship just by looking at them. There are a lot of people who live far from family or do not have one and friends is all they have.

LogicFTW's picture
Yeah one has to wonder how do

Yeah one has to wonder how do they screen for these things?

Fraternal twins is a thing, and actually not all that rare. 2 guys, (or girls) that look different, same last name, and typically look around the same age. It is not weird for close family members to want to be able to visit and hug, and in some cultures, kiss, (maybe even on the lips!) What about normal siblings that are only 1-2 years apart?

While a gay couple should not have to hide pda, (I think no one should have to hide this in any public setting!) It seems they could even do this under the cover of normal "family."

Obviously sex is not permitted for many reasons to any couple in a hospital setting, so.... How would they screen for this? Ask every single person that visits if they are married to the person, and if they say yes, and are not of opposite sex they bar them? What if they just ya know.. lie? Or perhaps they are a couple but not officially married. They can just say close friend which is true.

The couple would have to be a known gay couple before being even admitted for them to possibly be blocked.

Reminds me of the North Carolina transgender debacle, even if they did make it "illegal" for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice, how would they ever possibly enforce it? It is just hate speech made into law, the law itself for all practical reasons is completely ridiculous simply because it could not possible be enforced and would create more problems than it solves, even for the ignoramuses that want such a law in place.

Kevin Levites's picture
(directed at aperez241)

(directed at aperez241)

Much of this changed a few years ago because of Lisa Pond and Janice Langbehn.

In 2007, Pond and Langbehn were in Miami with 3 of their 4 children to go on a cruise when Pond suddenly collapsed with no warning.

It turned out that a blood vessel had burst deep in Pond's brain (probably from a congenital malformation), and she was brought to Jackson Memorial Hospital where she was placed on life support.

The staff at Jackson Memorial refused to allow Langbehn or their children to visit (as Florida is an "anti-gay state" per the charge nurse), and Pond died before her family and partner (they were a couple for 18 years) could say goodbye.

This was despite the durable power of attorney forms that Langbehn provided to the hospital staff.

Langbehn became an activist after this, and--quite correctly, in my opinion--sued Jackson Memorial.

Where it gets interesting is how the case played out in court over the years.

Healthcare wouldn't budge an inch and simply admit that such policies are barbaric and outdated.

So, Obama had to step in and hand down a ruling that states that hospitals must allow patients to decide who can and cannot visit.

13 years ago seems like ancient history, but Trump's administration is working in subtle ways to roll back these gains in order to curry favor with the Evangelical Christians.

This nonsense still happens on a regular basis now, except that hospitals have become very good at concealing it, as they see such things as an issue of what is right versus what is wrong.

Please see the below link from the Lambda Legal organization for further details if you're interested.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.lambdal...

P.S. A few days after I posted this, I edited the material to correct a few minor mistakes on my part, but this doesn't change any of my points.

Whitefire13's picture
Hey, I wouldn’t worry about

Hey, I wouldn’t worry about it unless you’re an Israelite... are you an Israelite? If not, don’t worry - join us, the defiled that have survived throughout the ages. My educated guess is that we, as a group will continue through a few more ages. My defilement lays in my choice of fabric. I’m menopausal so I’m past the whole “she got her period, ewww, she’s unclean” phase of life. Don’t forget... you’d get stoned for picking up sticks on a sabbath and being a bad kid. So if you’re not an Israelite don’t worry - we got your back.

qilin's picture
Homosexuality isn‘t a sin but

Homosexuality isn‘t a sin but a punishment inflicted by god because of disbelief (cf. Romans 1,21 ff) - you‘ve got only to repent and return to Him humbly, and your homosexuality will vanish… :D
(So much for the unambiguousness of the bible LOL)

Joy--'s picture
I’m not sure that’s fair.

I’m not sure that’s fair. The Bible also condemns adultery and drunkenness. Is that the same as fostering hate? I’m pretty sure it is meant to point out the immorality of a behavior. We might all know someone who has committed adultery and not hate them or consider them some kind of evil monster, while at the same time recognizing adultery is wrong behavior.

I understand you may disagree that homosexual acts are immoral, but that is something that could be argued regardless of the Bible or belief in God.

Tin-Man's picture
@Joy Re: "I’m pretty sure it

@Joy Re: "I’m pretty sure it is meant to point out the immorality of a behavior."

Howdy, Joy. Since you brought it up, I'm just curious to know what YOU think is immoral about homosexuality. Oh, and as far as...

"The Bible also condemns adultery and drunkenness. Is that the same as fostering hate?"

One: You cannot compare those with homosexuality. Getting drunk and committing adultry are CHOICES people consciously make. You make that statement as if homosexuality is a choice.

Two: So what if a person gets drunk? Why is THAT "immoral"? As long as that individual is not breaking any laws or harming others, who cares?

Three: As for adultry, I personally see that as an issue between the adulterer and his/her spouse. And even then, it depends entirely on the circumstances. Regardless, you still cannot compare homosexuality to adultry.

Four: YES, it IS fostering hate when individuals of a specific lifestyle are targeted as being immoral abominations deserving of immediate death and eternal punishment. Just a little FYI.

Edit to add: Oh, and why should I or anybody else give half a drop of rat piss what the bible says about anything?

Another edit: So, how many slaves do you own? And when was the last time you helped take an unruly child to the edge of town to stone it to death? Your bible seems perfectly okay with those, among other such practices. If you are walking to your car after leaving a restaurant and get attacked and raped, I'm sure you will be more than happy to marry the rapist who attacked you, right?

Joy--'s picture
“Howdy, Joy. Since you

“Howdy, Joy. Since you brought it up, I'm just curious to know what YOU think is immoral about homosexuality.”

I believe we can know right from wrong based on observation of the world we live in. From observation/reason/logic we can know that our sexual organs have a role/function/purpose. That function is not merely pleasurable. There is a procreative function as well. It doesn’t take a PHD to know the female vagina was designed to receive the male penis – that only women produce eggs and only men produce sperm, etc.

A more concrete example: Over 90% of gay men say they engage in anal sex. So, it is fair to say if you are a homosexual man you are having anal sex. This is a violation of nature. The anus was not intended to receive an object into it. It has thin membranes that are likely to tear/rupture/spread and harbor disease (Even the CDC declares anal sex as high risk sexual behavior). Unlike the vagina that produces its own lubrication and stretches and obviously was intended to receive a male penis. Can a person engage in this behavior? Of course. But is it right and good for man? Is it ordered behavior? I think it can be argued that it is disordered.

“You cannot compare those with homosexuality. Getting drunk and committing adultry are CHOICES people consciously make. You make that statement as if homosexuality is a choice.”

It has not yet been determined that there is a gay gene. However, even if homosexuality is not a choice, we human beings do have a choice regarding our behavior.

A person may be sexually attracted to small children – an attraction he/she did not choose. Clearly, however, that has nothing to do with whether said attraction is good/right/bad/wrong.

A person might even have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. This doesn’t mean he/she has no choice but to be a drunk. And it certainly doesn’t mean that if a person is born a certain way, then that must be good/right. Just because something might be said to come naturally does not mean that means its good/right.

“So what if a person gets drunk? Why is THAT "immoral"? As long as that individual is not breaking any laws or harming others, who cares?”

It isn’t in the person’s best interest. There might not be immediate/obvious harm or consequences, but social research can certainly show harm/problems with drunkenness. Man deserves better.

“As for adultry, I personally see that as an issue between the adulterer and his/her spouse. And even then, it depends entirely on the circumstances.”

I disagree. We should all be able to say adultery is wrong. That doesn’t mean we can’t sympathize with someone or even understand why they might have done what they did, but it doesn’t change the fact it is wrong behavior.

“YES, it IS fostering hate when individuals of a specific lifestyle are targeted as being immoral abominations deserving of immediate death and eternal punishment. Just a little FYI.”

Many people are religious who do not advocate killing homosexuals. So, it’s wrong to say believing a certain lifestyle is immoral is not in itself fostering hate.

A further example to illustrate: If a person is suffering from bulimia, it is ok for us to say the behavior is disordered. It doesn’t mean we hate the bulimic. It doesn’t mean we think he/she is a horrible person. It simply means we recognize the behavior as disordered and not in the person’s best interest.

“Oh, and why should I or anybody else give half a drop of rat piss what the bible says about anything?”

Did I say you should? The OP said the Bible fosters hate because of its position on homosexual acts. I disagree.

“So, how many slaves do you own? And when was the last time you helped take an unruly child to the edge of town to stone it to death? Your bible seems perfectly okay with those, among other such practices.”

You do realize that all people during that time, even the non believing pagans believed that as well, right? It was a barbaric time when people had no problem killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread or talking back. It was actually God’s people who began to hold their people to a higher standard. They are the ones who attempted to come up with some societal rules. They are the ones who said we should take care of our widows, not beat our slaves to death, etc. And eventually it would be Christians who took it even further and fought for the end to things like slavery all together. The Old Testament rules were an attempt to meet a barbaric culture where it was and take baby steps to eventually help people realize what love is.

“If you are walking to your car after leaving a restaurant and get attacked and raped, I'm sure you will be more than happy to marry the rapist who attacked you, right?”

Is that in the Old Testament? I’m unfamiliar with that. I would need to see some context. I can tell you, if I were raped and got pregnant, I certainly wouldn’t kill the baby for the crimes of his father, but that’s a topic for another thread :)

CyberLN's picture
Joy, you wrote, “You do

Joy, you wrote, “You do realize that all people during that time, even the non believing pagans believed that as well, right? It was a barbaric time when people had no problem killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread or talking back.”

Please provide appropriate data to back up this assertion. Don’t forget, Joy, that the planet was widely inhabited by people of many cultures, not just the Middle East. If you’re unable to demonstrate what you posit as fact, then it would be a good use of manners to retract your statements.

Joy--'s picture
“Joy, you wrote, “You do

“Joy, you wrote, “You do realize that all people during that time, even the non believing pagans believed that as well, right? It was a barbaric time when people had no problem killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread or talking back.”

Please provide appropriate data to back up this assertion. Don’t forget, Joy, that the planet was widely inhabited by people of many cultures, not just the Middle East. If you’re unable to demonstrate what you posit as fact, then it would be a good use of manners to retract your statements.”

In 5th-century BC Greece, thieves were called kleptai (the root of kleptomaniac), and in the worst case could be sentenced to death for their deeds. In the Roman Empire, too, stealing could be punishable by death

In the Sumerian culture 5200 years ago, there were laws regulating specific punishments for theft. . . . A person caught breaking into someone’s house could be killed on the spot.

Ancient Egypt also had laws and courts to deal with thieves. Those convicted were subject to corporal punishment, such as mutilation, flogging, penal servitude or death by staking.

https://www.historicallocks.com/en/site/h/locks-and-magic/taboos-and-mag...

The early history of death penalty laws dates back to the 18th century B.C. and can be found in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon. The Hammurabi Code, which was engraved on stone tablets for members of the public to see, prescribed the death penalty for over 20 different offenses.

The Draconian Code of Athens, in 7th century B.C., made death the lone punishment for all crimes (hence the use of the term "draconian" to describe particularly harsh penalties)

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/history-of-death-penalty...

CyberLN's picture
Remember, Joy, you used the

Remember, Joy, you used the qualifier “all”. How about the indigenous peoples of the americas and Australia, the people of Asia, etc.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Why do we keep getting

Why do we keep getting theists here who don't seem to know what the word all means?

CyberLN's picture
It’s as if imprecision is a

It’s as if imprecision is a recreational sport.

Tin-Man's picture
@Joy

@Joy

Oh-dear-lord... *face palm*... Honestly, I'm torn between laughing my ass off or puking my guts out at your level of ignorance and haughty self-rightousness.... Ugh... I would normally tell a person to get out and experience more of the world, but in your case I believe it best for everybody that you just stay home and remain secluded from the general population.

Pressed for time right now, but just wanted to let you know I will gladly be addressing some specifics of your sewage-laced post as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I feel rather confident others will be along shortly to comment on your ill-informed narrow-minded nonsense in his/her own particular style. Enjoy. I just hope there is enough of you left by time I can return... *chuckle*...

Oh, by the way, you sound awfully familiar. (And I mean "awfully" in a literal sense.) Sadly, though, we have had so many trolls recently that it is difficult to keep track of them all.

Joy--'s picture
“Oh-dear-lord... *face palm*.

“Oh-dear-lord... *face palm*... Honestly, I'm torn between laughing my ass off or puking my guts out at your level of ignorance and haughty self-rightousness.... Ugh... I would normally tell a person to get out and experience more of the world, but in your case I believe it best for everybody that you just stay home and remain secluded from the general population.”

Care to be a little more specific? What exactly did I say that is ignorant AND what exactly did I say is self-righteous? Sounds like someone thinks if he can’t refute the argument, he’ll simply attack the person.

“we have had so many trolls recently that it is difficult to keep track of them all.”

I’ve never really understood the troll accusing thing. Why if someone disagrees with them is there this need to simply call them a troll? Counter my argument if you can with logic and reason. Being unable to does not make me a troll. Although, I can understand if that’s all you got that’s all you got. It’s easier to dismiss an argument than demonstrate why its wrong.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - The Old Testament rules

Joy - The Old Testament rules were an attempt to meet a barbaric culture where it was and take baby steps to eventually help people realize what love is.

Ludicrous.

Tin-Man's picture
@Oh... Joy.... (By the way,

@Oh... Joy.... (By the way, remember, YOU asked for this...)

Hi. Me again. Returning, as promised, to address your disturbing infatuation with (and the condemnation of) the sexual practices of two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, or (in some cases) in secluded outdoors areas, or even in bathroom stalls in various clubs throughout the world. Oh, and let's not forget the untold number of swingers clubs scattered here and there. (Just trying to cover all the bases. Wouldn't want you to feel cheated in your sanctimonious quest.) So, anyway, geeeee.... Where to begin?... Hmmm... Oh, I know...

Re: "From observation/reason/logic we can know that our sexual organs have a role/function/purpose... It doesn’t take a PHD to know the female vagina was designed to receive the male penis – that only women produce eggs and only men produce sperm, etc."

Well, thank you very much, Dr. Obvious. How did I EVER miss that over the years? I know, I must have fallen asleep during that portion of Health Class in sixth grade. Oh, well. One is never too old to learn, right? Let's seeeee.... What's next?... Ah, here we go...

Re: "Over 90% of gay men say they engage in anal sex. So, it is fair to say if you are a homosexual man you are having anal sex. This is a violation of nature."

Say WHAAAAAAT????... You mean to tell me that one man sticks his penis up the anus of another man??? NO WAY!!! And here I was all this time thinking gay men just cuddled and played patty-cake with each other.... *addressing forum*... HEY! How come none of you bozos told me about this sooner?!?... Oh, well.... *shrugging shoulders*... To each his own, I suppose. Still, I admit I am curious as to how that is a "violation of nature." Please... Do enlighten me. Anyway, moving right along...

Re: "The anus was not intended to receive an object into it."

Humph! Tell THAT to my doctor... *rubbing backside absentmindedly*...

Re: "Unlike the vagina that produces its own lubrication and stretches and obviously was intended to receive a male penis."

Hey, genius! Ever hear of KY Jelly? Flavored anal lube? Vaseline? Spit?... Oh, and if my anus does not stretch, then how the hell would you explain some of the ginormous turds that sometimes exit it??? Sometimes need a hatchet and a plunger to get those damn things flushed.

Re: "Can a person engage in this behavior? Of course. But is it right and good for man? Is it ordered behavior? I think it can be argued that it is disordered."

So, who exactly are you to determine what is "right and good" for two consenting male adults? Oh, I know. You must be a highly trained and experienced psychologist or sociologist, right? And what in the blue blazes of Jesus-piss flavored snow cones do you mean by "(dis)ordered behavior"??? And who cares if you "think it can be argued"? Basically, all you have is just a personal opinion. And you are fully entitled to that opinion, I must say. But(t), the irony is, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and many of them smell like shit. Hmmm... Let me try this real quick. I think it can be argued that you are a delusional ninny who has a warped propensity for sticking her nose into the private(s) business of others in an effort to elevate her self-worth by assuming to be of some imaginary higher level of moral superiority. But(t), hey, I could be wrong... *shrugging shoulders*... Next...

Re: "However, even if homosexuality is not a choice, we human beings do have a choice regarding our behavior."

... *double face palm*.... *groooooan*... Aw, geez... Fuck me with a cactus running naked through a sawgrass field wearing flip-flops. Did you HONESTLY just go there with that? You DO realize, I hope (but seriously DOUBT), that even if it IS a choice, one consenting adult male wanting to have sex with another consenting adult male, or MORE than one such male, or with a mix of consenting adult males AND females is STILL..... NONE.... OF.... YOUR.... BUSINESS. And if you don't want to see such activities, then deactivate your Porn Hub account.

Re: "A person may be sexually attracted to small children – an attraction he/she did not choose. Clearly, however, that has nothing to do with whether said attraction is good/right/bad/wrong."

You really should work on your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof). How/Why are you trying to compare the activities of CONSENTING ADULTS to those of pedophiles who prey upon non-consenting vulnerable children??? Seriously? If you don't know the difference, then PLEASE keep yourself locked away in whatever cave you currently reside.

Re: (In response to a person getting drunk) - "It isn’t in the person’s best interest. There might not be immediate/obvious harm or consequences, but social research can certainly show harm/problems with drunkenness. Man deserves better."

Oh, get the fuck over yourself already, Miss goodie-two-shoes... *rolling eyes*...

Re: "We should all be able to say adultery is wrong."

Yes, we should. And you are fully within your rights to say so. What you do NOT have the right to do, however, is force your opinion(s) on others and trample all over their rights to think differently. Sure, I agree there are cases when adultery can be looked upon as being wrong. But unless it is an incident that involves me or a loved one directly, then - quite frankly - it is none of my damn business. And regardless of what I may think about that incident, it is strictly my personal opinion at that point. So, again, while you are absolutely entitled to your personal opinion, that does NOT give you the right to make your opinion "The Law of the Land." Comprende?

Re: "Many people are religious who do not advocate killing homosexuals."

Hey, GENIUS! YOUR VERY OWN BIBLE ADVOCATES IT. So, basically, those "Christians" who do not advocate the killing of homosexuals are not properly following their bible to its fullest extent. CLUE, already... *shaking head in bewilderment*...

Re: "The OP said the Bible fosters hate because of its position on homosexual acts. I disagree."

Then you obviously have never read your bible.

Re: Your hysterical attempt at justifying slavery...

Bwaaaaaaa-haaaaaaa-haaaaaa!!!!.... *deeeep breath*.... Bwaaaaa-haaa-haaa-haaaa-haa-haaaaaaaaa!!!... *collapsing to floor*... *curling up in fetal position*.... Bwaaa-haaa-haa-haaaa-haaaaaaa-haaaaaaaaaa!!!.... *attempting to catch breath*.... help.... medic....

Re: "Is that in the Old Testament? I’m unfamiliar with that. I would need to see some context. I can tell you, if I were raped and got pregnant, I certainly wouldn’t kill the baby for the crimes of his father..."

For starters, you totally avoided answering my question, which was, “If you are walking to your car after leaving a restaurant and get attacked and raped, I'm sure you will be more than happy to marry the rapist who attacked you, right?” Instead, you attempted a VERY lame deflection with your remark about not killing the baby. Ugh....
Secondly, how is it you claim to be a Christian, yet you know jack shit about your own holy book??? (Oh, sorry. No answer from you necessary. That was meant as a rhetorical question.) Anyway, how about trying Deuteronomy Chapter 22, starting at Verse 13. If you lobby hard enough, I'm sure you can put those laws into practice somewhere in a country nearest you. Oh, wait... There are ALREADY countries that have those laws on the books. So, by all means, please feel free to relocate to one of them since you are such an avid follower of your bible.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.