(May 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm)Abishalom Wrote: No it doesn't tell Christians to "murder homosexuals". This is your perversion.

Oh, I see now. I must have misunderstood "both of them shall be put to death".
I'm so perverse for assuming that killing someone against their will is murder.

I think what the trollish OP was getting at-and what Abish wants to press home-is atheism's intolerance for unmitigated stupidity. At least, that is how it seems to be going so far.

I think I've been very tolerant of it so far. Two posts in and I haven't called him a cunt or anything.

(May 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Look, if the answer to my very simple hypothetical is going to make you look like a bigot, maybe you should reconsider your view instead of trying to sidestep it in that way, which is what you are doing.

I don't think you're in a position to tell someone to "reconsider there views" unless you're one to take your own advice. Hypothetically, if there was a death penalty for homosexuality would you be a homosexual. I could easily say no because I'm not a homosexual? Obviously it's a choice not a "disease". But if 2 men chose to engage in homosexual activity and were caught in the act by 3 guys (must be awkward), despite the "couple" knowing the penalty. What do you think should happen, given that there is a death penalty in place? Of course, they would have to go to trial and have substantial evidence against them. I doubt a hotel room could legally have security cameras in individuals rooms. So it's their words against the homosexuals. Good luck with that.

Quote:However, for the purposes of pushing you into an answer, the two men were having sex in a hotel room. Somebody overheard them through the door and rushed to get the hotel management. The manager, the assistant manager and the complainant break the door down and catch them. There we go, it happened. Now, care to answer my question? Or do you want to have a go at finding another way to skirt the issue?

Anyway, the whole point is that most people probably weren't getting the death penalty. I know you just want to keep hitting your point "well it's in the bible" just so you can continue to lash out at God, but it's just not going to work like that. Realistically those homosexuals would have their door locked and the windows shut and tv on and they were probably in the penthouse so the manager couldn't really hear them in the first place and the assistant was out to lunch. And they have their right to privacy, so nobody's getting in the hotel room. They'll probably live the rest of their lives as homosexuals. So get over it.

(May 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm)Aegrus Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm)Abishalom Wrote: No it doesn't tell Christians to "murder homosexuals". This is your perversion.

Oh, I see now. I must have misunderstood "both of them shall be put to death".
I'm so perverse for assuming that killing someone against their will is murder.

I never called you perverse. You claiming the bible tells Christians to "murder homosexuals" is a perversion. Let's just say hypothetically some guys/girls witness 2 homosexuals in the act. We are not suppose to kill them. Got it? They are suppose to get a trial and they MUST have AT LEAST 2 witnesses and evidence to even get a conviction. So in reality not many people were getting the death penalty. Okay?

So, once again we have "peaceful, all-loving" christians coming out of the woodwork to say that the bible ISN'T immoral because killing people in certain ways WASN'T murder, it was legal and therefore moral...once again proving that christians do not understand the difference between ethics [adherence to national/tribal/corporate law] and morals [measure of equality, fairness, and justice in sense of philosophy]. Yes. Killing people in those ways for those crimes back then was ETHICAL. But was it moral? No. We look back on the way people were stomped on and trampled on and butchered and any decent human being will say it was heinous, disgusting, and barbaric. When you bring up the bible, suddenly it was totally OK because this god that there is no proof of said it was ok.

Well, christians, you'd better hope I don't start hearing voices in my head telling me to cut all your throats because by your arguments, that would be a valid legal and moral argument and I could piss on your graves and it would be A-OK, because "god told me so."

Your arguments do little to convince me that I should ever just "be quiet" and "let christianity spread." The more you idiots try to morally justify the slaughter and slavery so lavishly and lovingly described in your book of barbaric nursery rhymes the more convinced I am that I need to not only protest your immorally-based bullshit, but that I need to start engineering the total fucking demise of your entire damn religion.

You might want to stop shooting yourselves in the foot and get off your dogmatic BS and just accept that your book was man-made.

(May 6, 2012 at 9:17 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: So, once again we have "peaceful, all-loving" christians coming out of the woodwork to say that the bible ISN'T immoral because killing people in certain ways WASN'T murder, it was legal and therefore moral...once again proving that christians do not understand the difference between ethics [adherence to national/tribal/corporate law] and morals [measure of equality, fairness, and justice in sense of philosophy]. Yes. Killing people in those ways for those crimes back then was ETHICAL. But was it moral? No. We look back on the way people were stomped on and trampled on and butchered and any decent human being will say it was heinous, disgusting, and barbaric. When you bring up the bible, suddenly it was totally OK because this god that there is no proof of said it was ok.

Well, christians, you'd better hope I don't start hearing voices in my head telling me to cut all your throats because by your arguments, that would be a valid legal and moral argument and I could piss on your graves and it would be A-OK, because "god told me so."

Your arguments do little to convince me that I should ever just "be quiet" and "let christianity spread." The more you idiots try to morally justify the slaughter and slavery so lavishly and lovingly described in your book of barbaric nursery rhymes the more convinced I am that I need to not only protest your immorally-based bullshit, but that I need to start engineering the total fucking demise of your entire damn religion.

You might want to stop shooting yourselves in the foot and get off your dogmatic BS and just accept that your book was man-made.

You sir have created an elaborate strawman. Either you lack comprehension or you did not actually read my post. Obviously you have your own views that you will hold regardless of what I say. So we'll just leave it at that.

(May 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 9:17 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: So, once again we have "peaceful, all-loving" christians coming out of the woodwork to say that the bible ISN'T immoral because killing people in certain ways WASN'T murder, it was legal and therefore moral...once again proving that christians do not understand the difference between ethics [adherence to national/tribal/corporate law] and morals [measure of equality, fairness, and justice in sense of philosophy]. Yes. Killing people in those ways for those crimes back then was ETHICAL. But was it moral? No. We look back on the way people were stomped on and trampled on and butchered and any decent human being will say it was heinous, disgusting, and barbaric. When you bring up the bible, suddenly it was totally OK because this god that there is no proof of said it was ok.

Well, christians, you'd better hope I don't start hearing voices in my head telling me to cut all your throats because by your arguments, that would be a valid legal and moral argument and I could piss on your graves and it would be A-OK, because "god told me so."

Your arguments do little to convince me that I should ever just "be quiet" and "let christianity spread." The more you idiots try to morally justify the slaughter and slavery so lavishly and lovingly described in your book of barbaric nursery rhymes the more convinced I am that I need to not only protest your immorally-based bullshit, but that I need to start engineering the total fucking demise of your entire damn religion.

You might want to stop shooting yourselves in the foot and get off your dogmatic BS and just accept that your book was man-made.

You sir have created an elaborate strawman. Either you lack comprehension or you did not actually read my post. Obviously you have your own views that you will hold regardless of what I say. So we'll just leave it at that.

Oh, do I now? Then why don't you explain to me what it was you were trying to get at because it was a very confusing jumble of half-thoughts and partially-completed points, so if you could just touch up on it, that would be terrific, thanks.

Quote:I'm so perverse for assuming that killing someone against their will is murder

Well,actually it isn't in most societies. Murder is usually defined as "the UNLAWFUL taking of human life". Hence capital punishment,war,killing somebody who tries to rob you,are not murder,but voluntary euthanasia IS murder,because it's unlawful.. Claiming a moral authority they do not possess, some believers try to change the definition to include say abortion.

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. Some are lifted almost verbatim from Hammurabi's code (ca 1772 bce). When Mosaic law was codified, it served several purposes; maintained the status quo, maintained order and social cohesion,and gave the Jews a powerful sense of identity and specialness which helped them survive as a people for several thousand years.

In most societies ,laws and customs change even say in 100 years or so; EG we no longer allow slavery or child labour,women are equal under the law,and most civilised countries have abolished capital punishment .


Problems arise when people are too ignorant,lazy or stupid to master critical thinking.Such simple folk insist on claiming such scribblings were handed down by a transcendent being, are universal,absolute and unchanging.(THEIR interpretation that is) These beliefs are demonstrably false.

(May 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm)Abishalom Wrote: I don't think you're in a position to tell someone to "reconsider there views" unless you're one to take your own advice. Hypothetically, if there was a death penalty for homosexuality would you be a homosexual. I could easily say no because I'm not a homosexual? Obviously it's a choice not a "disease". But if 2 men chose to engage in homosexual activity and were caught in the act by 3 guys (must be awkward), despite the "couple" knowing the penalty. What do you think should happen, given that there is a death penalty in place? Of course, they would have to go to trial and have substantial evidence against them. I doubt a hotel room could legally have security cameras in individuals rooms. So it's their words against the homosexuals. Good luck with that.

Anyway, the whole point is that most people probably weren't getting the death penalty. I know you just want to keep hitting your point "well it's in the bible" just so you can continue to lash out at God, but it's just not going to work like that. Realistically those homosexuals would have their door locked and the windows shut and tv on and they were probably in the penthouse so the manager couldn't really hear them in the first place and the assistant was out to lunch. And they have their right to privacy, so nobody's getting in the hotel room. They'll probably live the rest of their lives as homosexuals. So get over it.

See, if you'd answered my original post with 'I am an idiotic bigoted cunt', we'd have saved a lot of time wasting.

You seem to be suggesting that all laws are just, and that disobeying laws is worse than putting into practice laws that are, by any normal measuring stick, unfair. With this being the case, how can anyone effect change? Take your statement that 'Hypothetically, if there was a death penalty for homosexuality would you be a homosexual', and now imagine it like this - 'If there was a jail sentence for black people sitting at the front of the bus, would you sit at the front of the bus if you were black?'. Would you say that black people should have just taken their lot and got on with things? Or do we indeed have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'd love to know your opinion.

You are a bigot, and I wonder if you're willing to admit it. Either that or you're just trying to get a reaction. Your final remark that 'So not many people would be getting killed. Okay?' screams of an attention seeker looking for a response. Obviously it is not ok if one person, two people, a few people, or a million people are put to death for being homosexual - I ask again, do YOU think it is? Do you feel it is morally correct for someone to be killed for that? I've asked you once already and you've skirted the issue enough. Tell me what YOUR opinion is.

---

Oh, and as a footnote - I don't know why you're suggesting I should reconsider my view, perhaps you could clarify what you meant here. My position on the subject is quite clear, and I can justify it very easily. I don't think anyone should be punished in any way for their sexuality, because it's nothing to do with anybody else and doesn't affect anyone else.

If you can give me sound reason to divert from that view, I certainly will reconsider. Best of luck, bigot.

Quote:There are 613 commandments in the Torah. Some are lifted almost verbatim from Hammurabi's code (ca 1772 bce).

Please provide the evidence that clearly demonstrates that action, and you would need it to catch the Hebrews in the act of copying.

Nothing in the Bible is taken from any secular source. Remember that hammurabi came long after Noah and his sons, who lived by God's law long before Moses wrote anything down thus if anyone copied it was Hammurabi from the righteous people who lived at the time.

God punished murder long before any secular society outlawed it.

As for my OP, I have been on many atheist forums and it doesn't take long for them to ban me when they see I will not budge from my beliefs. They do not want to hear anything contrary to their views and they will get rid of those not telling them what they want to hear. if atheism is so good, why do those who subscribe to that way of life, act worse than the religious people they accuse of doing bad things? Why aren't they better? Why do they go to court and force others to take down religious artifacts or gifts? All your actions show is that atheism is not tolerant and you will act like bullies when you want. At NO TIME do we see athiests acting better than God, Jesus or their followers. We always see them acting worse.

We do not even see them putting their ideals into practice when they get the opportunity. They do not like 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' yet, they do not practice anything better but again go to court to force their secular ways on society.

You have no argument on this subject. If atheists were tolerant, then we woul dnot see these court cases, we would not see their protests about religoon and public spaces, etc. Think about it.