"Sodom and Gomorah" Tories /Lib Dems

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sin doesn't exist.

(Don't get me wrong, Good and bad actions exist.)

Prove that sin does not exist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Prove that sin does not exist.

Morality is a product of our nature, it does not have an objective source.

Without an objective source, sin can not exist.

 

[Marius27]

Don't let a vocal minority change your views of Christianity that easily.

Well, unfortunately people like the poster he responded to really do make it hard to want anything to do with Christianity. The amount of hate and harm he's supporting, while pretending he's in line with God is absolutely sickening. Kinda marks it hard to believe the claim that being a Christian changes one's morality and compassion for the better. Seems to make it worse.

 

[Marius27]

The sample sizes are small , do not allow or account for the exceptions. The scans are not detailed enough to interpret the evidence properly. Also so what if a person is genetically disposed to homosexuality or not. That does not alter their moral requirement to resist it anymore than some one genetically predisposed to adultery or murder would be expected to master themselves.

The Bible does not support the notion that gays can or should be celibate for their entire lives. In fact, it supports the claim they can't. And being gay is not comparable to being a murderer. The insinuation is insulting.

You realise that if being gay is genetic then the possibility may one day arise that with a sophisticated enough understanding of our genetic structure a person could be reengineered to be hetrosexual.

It's theoretically possible, but I doubt it will be legal. I'm sure you'd be thrilled though. Maybe the day will also come when we can genetically prevent people from being drawn to conservative religious beliefs. I think that would be far more beneficial for humanity and would reduce quite a bit of hate and violence.

The real question is not whether a person is genetically predisposed to this or that sin but rather how they exercise their own moral accountability in dealing with that.

Disagreeing with your viewpoint does not make one immoral. Seeing as homosexuality is completely natural, a necessary adaptation for all species, genetically hardwired, and doesn't hurt anyone makes your viewpoint irrelevant.

The teaching of the church is clear the New Testament does condemn lesbian acts also as a symptom of extreme spiritual degeneration (Romans 1).

Wrong. Romans 1 is not condemning gays, otherwise Romans 2 is calling YOU gay. Saint Augustine even said Romans 1 is referring to heterosexual relationships.

 

[Marius27]

The bible allows for the execution of homosexuals who have practiced gay sex.

No, actually it doesn't. No one has ever been charged with a crime of homosexuality under Jewish law. Homosexuality cannot meet the burden of proof required under Jewish law. The condemnation of Leviticus is referring to pagan prostitution in the temples of the Canaanite gods. You a wrong no matter how much you believe you're right.

 

[Marius27]

Prove that sin does not exist.

Can't prove a negative.

 

[mindlight]

Why can't we be cosmically significant and originate from star dust? Why must we be cosmically significant in the first place? Given that we are that part of the universe that is able to think and ponder the rest of the universe, I would argue that we are indeed cosmically significant in at least one sense.

I believe we are cosmically significant and that God created ex nihilo the heavens and the earth before he created man. He created man from the "clay"...trace it back to first causes then maybe he created us from the same stuff that he made the stars from. So maybe we are created from star dust.

Why must.. is the wrong question. We are significant because the same God that inspired the scriptures tells us that we are. being made in his image saved by the sacrifice of Gods son and having a future potential in God all contributes to this impression of significance and worth. And yes this applies to homosexuals as much as to hetrosexuals.

Our consciousness would not be a valid reason for our significance as the little we do know has merely told us that we know next to nothing beyond the tiny bubble of space that holds our star , home and planetary neighbours.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I believe we are cosmically significant and that God created ex nihilo the heavens and the earth before he created man. He created man from the "clay"...trace it back to first causes then maybe he created us from the same stuff that he made the stars from. So maybe we are created from star dust.

Humans are not composed of Clay.

Why must.. is the wrong question. We are significant because the same God that inspired the scriptures tells us that we are. being made in his image saved by the sacrifice of Gods son and having a future potential in God all contributes to this impression of significance and worth. And yes this applies to homosexuals as much as to hetrosexuals.

Do you have any proof of this?

Our consciousness would not be a valid reason for our significance as the little we do know has merely told us that we know next to nothing beyond the tiny bubble of space that holds our star , home and planetary neighbours.

If that is so, then how do you claim to know so much about your God and his plan?

 

[mindlight]

No, actually it doesn't. No one has ever been charged with a crime of homosexuality under Jewish law. Homosexuality cannot meet the burden of proof required under Jewish law. The condemnation of Leviticus is referring to pagan prostitution in the temples of the Canaanite gods. You a wrong no matter how much you believe you're right.

This is complete nonsense. You clearly do not know the religion that you have put as your icon. How long have you been a Jew?

"The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality" by Gordon J Wenham

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is complete nonsense. You clearly do not know the religion that you have put as your icon. How long have you been a Jew?

"The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality" by Gordon J Wenham

I love how Christians try telling Jews what their beliefs are, and justify it by using a Christian Biblical Studies webpage....

 

[Marius27]

This is complete nonsense. You clearly do not know the religion that you have put as your icon. How long have you been a Jew?

"The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality" by Gordon J Wenham

Since Birth. You quote some evangelical Christian resource to discuss the Old Testament? Please. Nothing in the above article is accurate. Even Philo, in 35 A.D. said Leviticus and Paul were condemning pagan prostitutes. Saint Augustine and the early church fathers said Romans 1 was about pagan worship and heterosexuals engaging in non-procreative sex.

Once again, your beliefs are wrong.

70% of Jews support same-sex marriage. Most Jews do not view Leviticus as condemning modern day gays. Only Orthodox Jews have an issue with it due to lack of procreation, but even they are having a crisis in the community as Rabbis are admitting they're gay. And Orthodox Jews still live in the stone age just like conservative Christians.

 

[super animator]

Can't prove a negative.

Not this **** again, the burden of proof rest on the one making the claim. He recognized this and attempt to fulfilled it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not this **** again, the burden of proof rest on the one making the claim. He recognized this and attempt to fulfilled it.

He didn't talk about burden of proof in his statement.

 

[super animator]

He didn't talk about burden of proof in his statement.

I was talking about you trying to fulfilled that burden of proof by making an argument. Every time I see a "can't prove a negative" I always viewed it as a cop-out of burden of proof.


Regardless this thread is nothing more than you everyday general apologetic thread which somehow keeps popping up despite being disallow by the rules. It has nothing to do with politics anymore.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I was talking about you trying to fulfilled that burden of proof by making an argument. Every time I see a "can't prove a negative" I always viewed it as a cop-out of burden of proof.

It's not a cop out on the burden of proof, however it's pretty well impossible to prove the non existence of a being or whatnot (i.e. Santa Claus, or God).

In the argument I made, We are talking about sin, which is the violation of an objective moral code handed out by God. It's not an entity. Since we can demonstrate morality is subjectively based, that rules out an objective source, and therefore sin does not exist.

This line of reasoning is logically sound... For example, pretend the country had no criminal code, we could then logically deduce criminals don't exist using the same method. A necessary prerequisite does not exist to allow the existence of the thing you are talking about.... Luckily however, we do have laws, including a criminal code

Regardless this thread is nothing more than you everyday general apologetic thread which somehow keeps popping up despite being disallow by the rules. It has nothing to do with politics anymore.

We're discussing gay marriage in the U.K. and morality is a factor in it to some people. There's nothing intrinsically tied to apologetics in it.

 

[super animator]

Well, unfortunately people like the poster he responded to really do make it hard to want anything to do with Christianity. The amount of hate and harm he's supporting, while pretending he's in line with God is absolutely sickening. Kinda marks it hard to believe the claim that being a Christian changes one's morality and compassion for the better. Seems to make it worse.

That is if you let a single person view influence your perspective of Christianity that easily. Christianity isn't some single entity, it comes with different varieties, some extreme, some good, some just downright crazy.It varies by person to person.

 

[super animator]

It's not a cop out on the burden of proof, however it's pretty well impossible to prove the non existence of a being or whatnot.

To let you know I'm not interested in the argument that you made considering morality just a FYI. Just expressing my thoughts on the whole "can't prove a negative" thing that I keep encountering on the internet, which it not entirely correct. There are claims that you can falsified, while others either very difficult or downright impossible. If you can't disprove an existence than logically you can't prove it ether.
Regardless if a person makes a claim of a existence being non-existence than the burden of proof rest on the person making the claim. The burden of proof doesn't go away when the person makes, what you consider a negative claim. Nor does it make a negative claim correct by default until proven otherwise.

We're discussing gay marriage in the U.K. and morality is a factor in it to some people. There's nothing intrinsically tied to apologetics in it.

If it were true, it doesn't change the fact that were not allow to discuss the biblical more stance homosexuality.

Besides a person morals shouldn't dictate politics. A person standards of morals differ from person to person. We shouldn't let it dictate politics, because it infringes the right of the minority.

 

[Dave Ellis]

T If you can't disprove an existence than logically you can't prove it ether.

That's false. You can demonstrate the existence of anything that manifests in reality.

You can not demonstrate the non-existence of many things. For example, you can not disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, it's impossible. However, if the tooth fairy actually existed, it would be demonstrable.

 

[super animator]

That's false. You can demonstrate the existence of anything that manifests in reality.

You can not demonstrate the non-existence of many things. For example, you can not disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, it's impossible. However, if the tooth fairy actually existed, it would be demonstrable.

If we can demonstrate the existence than we demonstrate the non-existence of it via the process of falsification. Assuming we have a well detail claim that is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If we can demonstrate the existence than we demonstrate the non-existence of it via the process of falsification. Assuming we have a well detail claim that is.

Can you demonstrate the non existence of the tooth fairy?