"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Godscreated]

 I agree with you, I've wondered for quite a while if love and hate to some here are nothing more than words to play with.

GC

If'n you gotta dash some infants against the stones, why wouldn't you be loving the sinner and hating the Original Sin while doing it ??

 You have worn that verse out, I explained to you quite a while back that in that Psalm the man was grieving over the loss of children and women by the enemy of Israel and He was wanting God to repay them by doing like wise to the enemy. Like I said you are the biggest cherry picker here and I believe you intelligence level in understanding the Bible has every thing to do with it. here's hoping you do not do the same in the rest of your life, robbing the mind is a terrible thing.

GC

[Foxaèr]

Is vorlon a cherry picker or are theists simply willing to excuse any and all horrific acts of god via apologetics?

[Amarok]

 You have worn that verse out, I explained to you quite a while back that in that Psalm the man was grieving over the loss of children and women by the enemy of Israel and He was wanting God to repay them by doing like wise to the enemy. Like I said you are the biggest cherry picker here and I believe you intelligence level in understanding the Bible has every thing to do with it. here's hoping you do not do the same in the rest of your life, robbing the mind is a terrible thing.

GC

And you are the number 1 excuse maker douche

[vorlon13]

Is vorlon a cherry picker or are theists simply willing to excuse any and all horrific acts of god via apologetics?

Oh, let's see them tie this one up like a pretzel !!!

Deuteronomy 7 (KJV)
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

[Amarok]

Is vorlon a cherry picker or are theists simply willing to excuse any and all horrific acts of god via apologetics?

Oh, let's see them tie this one up like a pretzel !!!

Deuteronomy 7   (KJV)
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

Let the gymnastics commence

[polymath257]

Emphasis mine.  I cannot see such views as anything but hatred.

There is certainly those who are hateful and it should be condemned!  However that you cannot see anything else, is your own shallow short coming.   If you can’t think that some thing is wrong without hating the person, I think that is your issue, and you shouldn’t push it on others. As I said, it explains a lot. I’m starting to question if some here understand what love and hate even is?

OK, exactly what do you think it wrong with being gay? If you take any of your statements and apply them to the issue of miscegenation (sexual relations between races), would you have the same conclusions, or would you see them as bigoted?

So, for example, if someone claims, based on the BIble (re: Ham and his descendants), that marriage between races is immoral, would you see that as bigoted or not?

BTW, I am on the side of it being bigoted.

[SteveII]

So, your position is that if there is a God that created the universe, who is responsible for every concept that ever was and every person that ever lived, he is immoral--because your morality derived from your subjective experience and opinions during a timeframe that would not even appear as a blip in just the history of the universe says so. Color me surprised.

I'm saying that if such a being existed, then its values may or may not be in line with what humans need, so we need to figure things out for ourselves.

And that it is immoral to do otherwise.

You are erecting your own version so you can knock it down (there is a phrase for that). Remember, we are not discussion whether the belief is true, we are discussing what is that belief--because it is constantly mischaracterized. The belief is:

1. God exists as the greatest conceivable being. 
2. God's character is the standard for Goodness (from 1)
3. He has revealed himself in nature, scripture, the person of Jesus, and as the Holy Spririt
4. We were created for a purpose (from 3)
5. A big part of that purpose is wrapped up in morality. (from 2 and 3)
6. Our morality is based on God's commands (from 5)

There is no room for your "figure it out for ourselves...immoral to do otherwise". That is your belief--not a Christian's belief.

[polymath257]

I'm saying that if such a being existed, then its values may or may not be in line with what humans need, so we need to figure things out for ourselves.

And that it is immoral to do otherwise.

You are erecting your own version so you can knock it down (there is a phrase for that). Remember, we are not discussion whether the belief is true, we are discussing what is that belief--because it is constantly mischaracterized. The belief is:

1. God exists as the greatest conceivable being. 
2. God's character is the standard for Goodness (from 1)
3. He has revealed himself in nature, scripture, the person of Jesus, and as the Holy Spririt
4. We were created for a purpose (from 3)
5. A big part of that purpose is wrapped up in morality. (from 2 and 3)
6. Our morality is based on God's commands (from 5)

There is no room for your "figure it out for ourselves...immoral to do otherwise". That is your belief--not a Christian's belief.

Precisely why the Christian belief is immoral.

[SteveII]

There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

And this is tradition, not definition. Marriage is a government recognition of a bond between two people who announce that bond to the world.

Where do you get that? You couldn't be more wrong. Marriage predates government in every culture--ever. 

---

You still are not getting it. Your analogies suck. You bring up individual rights to argue whether a definition older than history itself be set aside and a whole new definition put in it's place. No oppression of rights. No one is trying to limit one's abilities to do anything or to pursue anything. The definition is just not available to homosexual relationships. 

You can argue whether the Christian position is right or not--but that is not what is typically done. Usually it is a litany of mischaracterization, demonizing because of a fringe group, straw men, red herrings and your false analogies to shift the debate because anger is a tool the left loves to pull out. Those on the left don't even know they have been co-opted into the hate/anger game. Wake up. Have a civil discussion with someone whom you disagree and learn why they disagree. That is intelligent way.

But it *isn't* a definition older than history. In fact, non-monogamous relationships and relationships between those of the same gender were probably much more accepted before the rise of monotheism. It was *your* tradition that changed the definitions!

Again, you are making things up. Yes, in certain cultures homosexual relationships was acceptable--but I don't recall that it was ever called marriage. Every culture in the world, ever, had the concept of marriage. 

---

Some definitions do. Most do not. Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition? Yes or no: are the wrong?

It isn't a change of the definition. And yes, they are wrong to be bigoted and not allow perfectly healthy, loving relationships between those who don't agree with their BS.

Yes, it very much a fact that it is a change in definition. 

This is very interesting. Post after post after post, you atheists continue to prove that you don't understand the main Christian position while trying to prove that you do!! Your angry echo chamber seems to be impenetrable.

[polymath257]

And this is tradition, not definition. Marriage is a government recognition of a bond between two people who announce that bond to the world.

Where do you get that? You couldn't be more wrong. Marriage predates government in every culture--ever. 

---

But it *isn't* a definition older than history. In fact, non-monogamous relationships and relationships between those of the same gender were probably much more accepted before the rise of monotheism. It was *your* tradition that changed the definitions!

Again, you are making things up. Yes, in certain cultures homosexual relationships was acceptable--but I don't recall that it was ever called marriage. Every culture in the world, ever, had the concept of marriage. 

---

It isn't a change of the definition. And yes, they are wrong to be bigoted and not allow perfectly healthy, loving relationships between those who don't agree with their BS.

Yes, it very much a fact that it is a change in definition. 

This is very interesting. Post after post after post, you atheists continue to prove that you don't understand the main Christian position while trying to prove that you do!! Your angry echo chamber seems to be impenetrable.

Oh, we understand the Christian position. We understand that religion wants to co-opt the concept of marriage to themselves. But marriage is simply a way to form family bonds in the context of a society. Today, that is reflected in government sanction. Those bonds can be between people no matter what their gender and *have* been in many cultures. YOU want to make it specifically a religious thing based on being able to reproduce (and then make exceptions for opposite gendered couples that cannot or choose not to).

Whatever form of marriage existed before governments was simply a societal recognition of the bond between the individuals. Such bonds do NOT require opposite genders.