Are they really not? Even If I was an atheist, I would be questioning the ethical status of homosexuality. They're likely causing sociological problems. There probably isn't any evidence to back this up and possibly for a good reason, fear. If someone came out with evidence that homosexuality is bad for society, they would get persecuted.
also being gay wasn't socially acceptable for most of the 20th century... I'm sure if there was evidence pointing to serious sociological problems then some scientist/researcher back then could've published it without being "persecuted".
How do we know this? Did you read the points the atheist brought up in the link I provided?
Sure, their may not be any evidence of sociological problems from homosexuality, but like I said before, the scientists may be afraid the gay lobby will come after them if they came out with evidence. Also, it may still be too early for any evidence to emerge. Plus, there are so few gays in the world.
Gehenna. I'll put aside the sin thing and just address your point about evidence. This is a serious problem and you don't seem to get it. In a debate or discussion context, if you want to make a point you have to back it up with evidence. You consistently just say "well there's not any evidence but" and then continue to make your point. PLEASE FIND EVIDENCE OR CONCEDE THE POINT
When you say the Bible, you mean excluding most of the crazy Old Testament laws, right? And if so, what's the point of having the Old Testament if so much of it is ignored?
It's history. You shouldn't forget about the past just because we don't live in it anymore. Otherwise, the New Testament is left with a bunch of plot holes. It would be like leaving out the Revolutionary War in American history. Besides, God hasn't changed His mind on sin.
But doesn't it just seem really annoying and vague that God laid down all these rules in the Old Testament just to say "nah those don't matter" and give a whole new set of rules in the new book...
By the way Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, so why is it a sin?
They do matter, and He doesn't give a new set of rules. They are simply repeated in the New Testament. Why we don't or shouldn't kill people anymore for most sins is because of Jesus. Jesus said He came to "fulfill the law", and He did.
We shouldn't be sending people to Hell. We should be leading them away from Hell. Besides, we are no better than them, technically.
OK, so the bits about killing people are no longer valid. But what about the rules themselves. Do they still apply? Working on a sunday... so you don't get killed for that anymore, but is it still a sin?
Going to church is highly recommend, but God understands if you have to work on Sundays. You don't have to go to church to worship Him. Yeah, so, not going to church is not a sin, if you have a good reason.
This seems really vague. What constitutes a "good reason"? If it's a bad reason it's a sin? My problem with sins is that they're so FKING VAGUE. Laws should be clear so people know what to do.
Also sins are just silly in general. But enough about sins, I have a new question. Why did God give us free will?
The vagueness is that "good" or "bad reason" is subjective. Some people might say being sick is a bad reason, others might say sleeping in is a good reason.
On the topic of free will, I completely get it. God wants us to live our own lives and not interfere. Except wait, he drowned nearly the entire species cause he didn't like how they were acting?
Why would an illness be a bad reason and sleeping in be a good reason to stay home from church? It doesn't make sense. You can't help it if you're sick, and sleeping in just shows you're lazy.
At the time of the flood, the world was beyond redemption. I believe Noah and his family, who were the only ones still loyal to God, could never convince the rest of humanity to break from their evil ways and turn back to God.
The Bible says the wickedness of mankind was great on the Earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually, and the Earth was filled with violence. The state of the Earth at the time was definitely much worse than it is now.
We can behave ourselves, if we try, but most people don't even try. People may say it's hard, but we only make it hard.
What I believe is God has backup plans. What God's original plan was before "the fall of man", we will never know here on Earth.
You haven't really answered my question. The idea of God having a "plan" and the idea of us having "free will" are contradictory, are they not? Plan implies God has control over our actions, which he apparently doesn't because free will... Also you didn't say why God would KILL EVERYONE because he didn't like their actions... That defeats the point of free will.
God has a plan for all of us without interfering with our free will.
I did say why God wiped out the Earth. They were beyond redemption. Noah and his family wouldn't have been able to convince the world to turn away from their wicked ways.
There's still plenty of Christians in the world to sway people away from the wages of sin. Thousands of people are saved everyday. God does not need to intervene. The world is not beyond redemption, yet.
Wait, so you're willing to completely flip your worldview, just because it says so in a book? I've mentioned the flat earth thing before and we agreed, flat earthers are idiots. The world is obviously round. So do you live in a subjective reality, where the only things you believe are based on the Bible? Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
If the Bible said something so obviously inaccurate as "the earth i flat", you wouldn't do the OVERWHELMINGLY LOGICAL RESPONSE and say "huh, maybe the Bible isn't always right"?
This is... so depressing. You cannot think for yourself! You just live your life by this goddamn stupid book, you don't even try to think for yourself! You don't look at the evidence, you don't consider other viewpoints and you're not open to changing your mind. If certain people (say, politicians) behaved like that, the world would go to sht.
Imagine Hillary Clinton proposing a new tax plan in a debate and then all the experts produced studies explaining why it wouldn't work, and she just says "oh well I don't believe in evidence"
You probably wouldn't vote for her, and rightly so.
1. Why would Hillary say that? Why not the guy you voted for, Trump, who once claimed the unemployant rate was several times higher than it really was? Just sayin'
2. The point isn't what you can imagine. The point is - the evidence tells us that the Earth is round. Changing your views because of a book with no evidence is retarded.
It's like you don't believe in objective reality... you don't care what's true or false. You're happy believing something that could be a complete lie.
1. Well, it matches Hillary's persona, as she is indeed a crooked person, like what Trump said, and yes, Trump might say something similar, as he is bombastic and exaggerative.
2. I was simply stating my trust and belief in God's word. The Bible doesn't say what shape the Earth is. Ardently anti-science Christians, particularly the flat-Earthers, point to the Bible mentioning the "four corners of the Earth" as it saying the Earth is flat. That doesn't prove anything.
"Ardently anti-science Christians". Like yourself? You know the scientific consensus on evolution is as strong as that on the spherical earth, right? If religion didn't get in the way, 98% of the population would believe in evolution and the other 2% would be conspiracy theorist wackos who believe in flat earths and are anti-vaccine.
Comments on Profile Post by 19Cameron91