Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

That's nice.



It matters with regards to whether the proposition that the deity described by the bible and Christianity condemns the acts, regardless of sexual orientation or not, regardless of whether any such deity actually exists.

This is an example of moving the goalposts -- recasting a simple question about a proposition and its logical inputs into a question about what matters existentially.

Nope, it is a false equivalence your using, being gay, and having gay sex are not exactly the same thing of course, but to condemn people for having gay sex equates to condemning them for being gay. 

Which things am I asserting are equivalent, in your eyes?

The condemnations of homosexuality in the bible are immoral to me, whether a deity exists or not of course. However to say "only god's opinion matters, and all else is moot" then claim that deity's existence is not relevant, is what I would describe as moving the goal posts. 

Well, in the first place, your paraphrase of my words is inaccurate, as I made clear that god's opinion is the only one that matters wrt the question at hand, which by necessity entails a hypothetical. We can't constantly be interrupting literature class to obnoxiously mutter about how Huck Finn was a fictional character, so he didn't actually have any motivation for his acts. That's just being a Philistine.

Regardless, where did I move the goalposts from, and where did I move them to?

I am an atheist, it's a given I don't believe those condemnations or anything in the bible is the opinion of any deity.

Okay.

[Belacqua]

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

It's possible you're being a tad anachronistic here. The Bible doesn't condemn being gay, because the concept of being gay didn't exist yet. It doesn't say anything about "innate sexual desires."
The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century.
What the Bible condemns is sodomy. 
The ancient world had different categories. They didn't distinguish between gay and straight, they distinguished between the one who puts it in and the one who gets it put in. Generally the one who put it in was not looked down on, no matter where he put it in. The one who had it put in, if he was a man, was considered to be overly weak and passive. Not a "real man." 
Julius Caesar would not be mocked for fucking male slaves, but he would be mocked for getting sodomized and liking it.
Interpretations of the Bible according to modern categories are anachronistic. And I'm aware that lots of Christians do this too.

[arewethereyet]

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

It's possible you're being a tad anachronistic here. The Bible doesn't condemn being gay, because the concept of being gay didn't exist yet. It doesn't say anything about "innate sexual desires."
The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century.
What the Bible condemns is sodomy. 
The ancient world had different categories. They didn't distinguish between gay and straight, they distinguished between the one who puts it in and the one who gets it put in. Generally the one who put it in was not looked down on, no matter where he put it in. The one who had it put in, if he was a man, was considered to be overly weak and passive. Not a "real man." 
Julius Caesar would not be mocked for fucking male slaves, but he would be mocked for getting sodomized and liking it.
Interpretations of the Bible according to modern categories are anachronistic. And I'm aware that lots of Christians do this too.

Have there never been things that were named after existing for a while or does everything come prelabeled?

[Sheldon]

I disagree, to say gay sexual desire is fine, as long as you live a lie, and deny who you are by never acting on it, is a condemnation of being gay. It tells gay people there is something wrong with them if they act on on their innate sexual desires. Sex between consenting adults who happen to be gay harms no one, that's a simple fact. 

It's possible you're being a tad anachronistic here. The Bible doesn't condemn being gay, because the concept of being gay didn't exist yet. It doesn't say anything about "innate sexual desires."
The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century.
What the Bible condemns is sodomy. 
The ancient world had different categories. They didn't distinguish between gay and straight, they distinguished between the one who puts it in and the one who gets it put in. Generally the one who put it in was not looked down on, no matter where he put it in. The one who had it put in, if he was a man, was considered to be overly weak and passive. Not a "real man." 
Julius Caesar would not be mocked for fucking male slaves, but he would be mocked for getting sodomized and liking it.
Interpretations of the Bible according to modern categories are anachronistic. And I'm aware that lots of Christians do this too.

I'm not interested in discussing your version of gay, thanks.

[Belacqua]

It's possible you're being a tad anachronistic here. The Bible doesn't condemn being gay, because the concept of being gay didn't exist yet. It doesn't say anything about "innate sexual desires."
The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century.
What the Bible condemns is sodomy. 
The ancient world had different categories. They didn't distinguish between gay and straight, they distinguished between the one who puts it in and the one who gets it put in. Generally the one who put it in was not looked down on, no matter where he put it in. The one who had it put in, if he was a man, was considered to be overly weak and passive. Not a "real man." 
Julius Caesar would not be mocked for fucking male slaves, but he would be mocked for getting sodomized and liking it.
Interpretations of the Bible according to modern categories are anachronistic. And I'm aware that lots of Christians do this too.

I'm not interested in discussing your version of gay, thanks.

Fair enough. I'll add history to the list of things you don't want to learn about.

The less you know about a subject the easier it is to maintain a strong opinion.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Fair enough. I'll add history to the list of things you don't want to learn about.

This assumes it's anything worth learning about (It isn't )

The less you know about a subject the easier it is to maintain a strong opinion.

Yeah he know more then enough and thus can have a strong opinion

[Astreja]

God is not "damning" us anymore than a judge "damns" a criminal to prison; while it's not an entirely wrong word to use it seems to almost entirely fundamentally miss the mechanic at action and place some blame of the judge and not the criminal.

Except that it's a bit of a reach to call all of humanity criminals, and totally beyond the pale to utilize eternal punishment.

I cannot think of a single situation in which it would be appropriate to punish anyone for eternity. It is simply not possible to commit a crime that would merit such a fate. IMO, any god that would stoop so low is infinitely evil, and suffering from a severe lack of imagination as well. Even for the most heinous crimes committed by mortals, I can think of at least three saner and more humane alternatives.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God is not "damning" us anymore than a judge "damns" a criminal to prison; while it's not an entirely wrong word to use it seems to almost entirely fundamentally miss the mechanic at action and place some blame of the judge and not the criminal.

Except that it's a bit of a reach to call all of humanity criminals, and totally beyond the pale to utilize eternal punishment.

I cannot think of a single situation in which it would be appropriate to punish anyone for eternity.  It is simply not possible to commit a crime that would merit such a fate.  IMO, any god that would stoop so low is infinitely evil, and suffering from a severe lack of imagination as well.  Even for the most heinous crimes committed by mortals, I can think of at least three saner and more humane alternatives.

To be fair, I would damn the Bay City Rollers to eternal punishment, but that's just me.

[Deesse23]

[Sheldon]

I'm not interested in discussing your version of gay, thanks.

Fair enough. I'll add history to the list of things you don't want to learn about.

The less you know about a subject the easier it is to maintain a strong opinion.

I'm taking a point off your sententious bullshit, as you failed to mention Plato or Aristotle.