The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

The majority of Christians disagree with your rigid, literal interpretation of scripture re the evils of homosexuality.

It is not an "interpretation" of scripture, it is what the text actually says. And what majority? Have you polled all the Christians in the world?


No, I was responding to your silly claim about Jesus not mentioning homosexuality, like that meant he approve of it. Which is nonsense.

[Charles]

That certainly goes for quite many who call themselves Christians. They reject the actual content and message of the Bible in favour politics and inhuman law made to serve the interest of themselves over the stranger, the children and others in need.

[Tassman]

It is not an "interpretation" of scripture, it is what the text actually says.

And what majority? Have you polled all the Christians in the world?

I was quoting Pew Research. The majority of Christians in the US nowadays accept homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. It's not for me to doubt their sincerity as Christians... 'll leave that to you Evangelicals.

No, I was responding to your silly claim about Jesus not mentioning homosexuality, like that meant he approve of it. Which is nonsense.

I would suggest that his lack of mentioning homosexuality, as opposed to him forcefully equating divorce with adultery, indicates that it wasn't as important to him as it is to you...and some Evangelical cake shop owners.

[Tassman]

That certainly goes for quite many who call themselves Christians. They reject the actual content and message of the Bible in favour politics and inhuman law made to serve the interest of themselves over the stranger, the children and others in need.

Yes, the bible is used to support their personal prejudices...pre-existing values guide its interpretation.

[Roy]

Nothing, except in your little mind.

Read the rest of this:

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/some-s...l-eschatology/

According to Matthew, that speech and the transfiguration were just six days apart.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for Jesus to be saying, in effect, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before..." next week. Kinda lacks impact.

[seer]

You are not making sense Tass, yes the death penalty was applied in the Mosaic civil code for adultery, because we no longer do that doesn't make adultery moral. Do you think adultery is moral? Things are moral or immoral despite what civil penalties we may or may not apply.

I was quoting Pew Research. The majority of Christians in the US nowadays accept homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. It's not for me to doubt their sincerity as Christians... 'll leave that to you Evangelicals.

Well I certainty doubt their fidelity to Scripture.

I would suggest that his lack of mentioning homosexuality, as opposed to him forcefully equating divorce with adultery, indicates that it wasn't as important to him as it is to you...and some Evangelical cake shop owners.

So I guess rape and child molesting weren't that important to Him either. Christ came to fulfill and keep the law of God, and that law included prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

[seer]

Yes, the bible is used to support their personal prejudices...pre-existing values guide its interpretation.

That is a lie Tass, I gave you the texts, they are not ambiguous.

[Mountain Man]

So? If atheism is true then why ought I care about the consent of others?

[seer]

I was quoting Pew Research. The majority of Christians in the US nowadays accept homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. It's not for me to doubt their sincerity as Christians... 'll leave that to you Evangelicals.

BTW Tass, it is the more devout Christians who study Scripture and attend services more regularly who believe that homosexuality should be discouraged - by a wide margin.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/

[Mountain Man]

The point is that nobody has to disbelieve in God just because of what his existence implies. For people who don't like the consequences you speak of, it is just as easy to deny that God's existence implies them.

I'm not sure how such an argument would look. "I accept that God exists, but I deny that he is the ultimate judge of man's moral conduct"? Seems it's easier for one so inclined to simply reject God up front and avoid such back-breaking mental gymnastics. Rather, the usual premise is to reason that one is good enough that God won't judge them, or won't judge them too harshly; it's not uncommon to see atheists appeal to this as their "just in case" escape hatch, i.e. "Surely God would never send an honest doubter like me to hell!"

[lilpixieofterror]

According to Matthew, that speech and the transfiguration were just six days apart.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for Jesus to be saying, in effect, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before..." next week. Kinda lacks impact.

Yep because we all know ancient people had the same expeditions modern people do.

[Charles]

So? If atheism is true then why ought I care about the consent of others?

Perhaps, as a Christian (at least by name), you could explain the Christian perspective on this... Or perhaps the Christian perspective is to say "So?"

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps, as a Christian (at least by name), you could explain the Christian perspective on this... Or perhaps the Christian perspective is to say "So?"

This just shows what a philosophical dunce you are. See William Craig's "Can We Be Good Without God?"

[Doug Shaver]

If atheism is true then why ought I care about the consent of others?

Because not caring will have consequences that you'll want to avoid if you're rational.

[lilpixieofterror]

Because not caring will have consequences that you'll want to avoid if you're rational.