at the very least can be in public without flaunting his lifestyle, so it is puzzling to me why you would have as much sympathy for the homosexual as for the black man.
There is a characteristic that homosexuals fit, just like there is a characteristic black people fit. It'd be oppressive say that homosexuals must hide their true selves in society. Seriously, that shit leads them to suicide.
Black people are suffering more at the low point of their persecution than homosexuals were at the high point. Your comparison is completely invalid.
My comparison was about historical context. But you still cannot deny the discrimination homosexuals have faced in the past, and the fact that thousands were targeted in the Holocaust. Do they not deserve a break?
Blacks have lower incomes in general because their rights were obviously restricted up until late- skin color making them beacons for discrimination.
And if homosexuals have higher incomes, education and lower unemployment, why would you want them removed from society if they contribute more to the world? Would it not be in God's greater interest for society to flourish?
Should society ever be ready for that? If it is wrong today isn't it also wrong in the future? Do we not have good reason to ban those kinds of marriages today?
We don't have good reasons to ban those kinds of marriages.
And what is wrong today will change in the future.
Keeping African slaves wasn't deemed as wrong as it is now. Stoning people to death wasn't deemed as wrong as it is now. Society's views of morality are ever-changing.
It is not wrong simply because it produces inbred children, it is wrong because it violates our nature as well as the laws of God, just like polygamy, just like bestiality, just like transsexualism, just like homosexuality.
A “sin” is whatever a religion decides to label as a taboo action (like eating pork) and nothing more—just because something is a “sin” it does not mean that that action is immoral or something that can be made illegal in secular law. Homosexuality has no detrimental affect on society.
Actually, we should be more concerned with hate crimes of sexual-orientation bias, of which occur in 20.8% of hate crimes. Some of God's law are dated and morally bankrupt. My morals are developed enough to see this. Are yours?
They are all in the same boat, you can not enable one group without giving weight to the arguments of all the others.
Gay marriage consists of consensual adults, whereas pedophilia and necrophilia do not, leaving gay people on a slightly different boat.
And for the record, no one is getting in the way of a homosexual's right to happiness. They can have all the relationships they want. They can do whatever kind of commitment ceremonies they want to do. What they don't have a right to is public endorsement of their lifestyle. They don't have the right to make someone go photograph their "wedding" or make someone bake them a cake. They don't have a right to tax breaks and rights that the public willingly gave to married heterosexual couples.
Homosexuals are still not permitted to be as happy has heterosexuals. You cannot deny their higher suicide rates, and their general contempt for being denied equal rights.
If you could just put yourself in their shoes, that would truly be a godly thing to do.
Because society isn't ready for that.
There shouldn't be anything morally wrong for two (or more) consenting, sexually mature adult siblings to get married. They just lack the usual repulsion of having sexual relations with a sibling, like a gay man lacks the usual repulsion of having sexual relations with another man.
Our personal repulsion of sibling sex should not get in the way of their rights to achieve happiness.
After all, Noah's children and Adam and Eve's children practiced incest to multiply.
The only fear of incest couples, should be the conception of a genetically mutated, inbred child, but adoption will always be an option.
Gay marriage involves two consensual adults- adults of which are sexually mature and completely voluntary in the act of marriage.
Children are NOT consensual adults.
Dead people are NOT consensual adults.
Sheep are NOT consensual adults.
Robots are NOT consensual adults. (However, if AI becomes a reality in the future, why not?)
You know the word 'faggot'? The word faggot really means a bundle of sticks used for kindling in a fire.
Now, in the middle ages, they used to burn people they thought were witches, and they used to burn homosexuals too, and they used to burn the witches on a stake.
But they thought the homosexuals were too low and disgusting to be given a stake to be burned on, so they used to just throw them into the kindling, with the other 'faggots'.
You might wanna know, that every gay man in America, has probably had that word shouted at them being beaten up. Sometimes many times. Sometimes by a lot of people, all at once. So, when people say it, it kind of, brings it all back up- much like the word 'nigger'.
Statistically, women tend to take supporting roles, rather than leadership roles in their career choices.
We need leaders and supporters for society to function- leading is equally as important as supporting.
Leading is a masculine trait.
Supporting is a feminine trait.
Women birth and nurture children, this demonstrates supporting traits.
Women in leading positions tend to be more masculine women.
Women in leading positions are known to wear shoulder-pads to appear more powerful and intimidating.
Broad shoulders are a masculine trait.
Masculinity is not femininity.
Leadership kills off feminine compassion.
Compassion is valuable.
But lacking compassion is valuable when dealing with conflict.
Leadership involves dealing with a lot conflict.
Men's psychology and biology was molded to deal with conflict.
Women's psychology and biology was molded to harness what separates us from robots- empathy, compassion, etc.
These are strict generalizations but they hold truth.
There are submissive, emotional men and dominant, unemotional women- but you can say that these submissive, emotional men demonstrate feminine traits, and that these dominant, unemotional women demonstrate masculine traits. Know the dichotomy.
Do not dilute yourself with political correctness.
How something came from nothing;
Think of nothing as 0.
Think of all positive energy and matter in the universe, as +1.
Think of all negative energy, like vacuum energy, as -1.
Negative energy (-1) and positive energy (+1) co-exist in the universe, making: -1+1=0
The universe cannot exist without opposites.
We all exist in a distortion of 0. (0=-1+1)
It is not normal for a person (religious or non-religious) to lose sight of their values. If it should suit you, go ahead and be 'a waste', just so long as you utilise the strengths involved with the lack of moral concern. People have a tendency to be more analytical when their sense of morality and desire to please people has been thrown out the window.
And I'd assume a cause of such sexual wackiness could be involved with the ubiquitous presence of bullying/oppression and the suppression involved in their younger years.
Really, those kinds of people need therapy.
Other than that, I'd hope to see no bias against respectable fabulous gays like Carson Kressley.
Have they sinned? Yes, they have.
Was it their fault? No it was not.
Was it the tiger's fault for being a tiger? No it was not.
Was it a human's fault to breath oxygen so they wouldn't die? No it was is not.
Do you lack any sense of empathy? Yes you do.
Therefore, they deserve death.
I remember you previously stating that evil does not warrant more evil.
And even if the religion is illegal, this does not mean that they should not obey and believe it, if it is true and righteous.
But you're avoiding a main factor here; the population of North Korea is blocked off from the rest of the world. They follow what their leader tells them.
From childhood, North Koreans are fed fake stories that their leader is some kind of God.
If you were born in North Korea, and were told (ever since you were born) that all religion is bad, and you can only trust your leader, do you think you would deserve hell?
This being true, it is to me entirely illogical to suggest that there would be no overlap between what parents impart to their children. There is no reason why they could not impart overlapping "masculine" and "feminine" attributes.
I have not denied that there would be no overlapping between both attributes imparted on their children. What parents do around their children revolves greatly around who they are as a person, and where they sit on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity.
As an interesting side-note, the pure masculine understood as strength is actually a fairly contemporaneous development. Crying in men used to represent refinement and integrity, rather than feminine vulnerability or weakness. That the "pure" masculine/feminine varies temporally as well as culturally strongly suggests that they are primarily if not exclusively concepts, with fairly weak bearing on the actual complexity of individuals.
Crying is an action that releases stress and toxins which is shared among humans. It purely depends on your purpose of crying- keeping in mind that no man is 100% masculine, same with women and effeminacy.
Have you considered people that were born North Korea? They cannot leave their country. They do not have any contact with the outside world. They must only follow what their leader tells them to do. Religion is strictly illegal to the point that even the population is convinced that Religion is bad. Would you think they deserve Hell for being raised into a world in which their leader was the only moral guideline they had ever known?
It says the following: "the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city". No where in there is a level of volume. The only thing that the passage brings to the paradigm is that she was screaming for help, that she didn't want the sex.
Crying for help assumes she seeks someone to hear and acknowledge that she wanted to be helped, otherwise people would never have known and would stone her anyway. But in the real world, people aren't always there to hear her, or she isn't able to cry out. Crying for help= obviously vocalizing someone to come and help her- not that hard to understand.
Screaming implies a lack of consent. The verse is clearly saying that if she is not screaming, then she should be put to death, indicating that she was willing involved in the sexual relations.
... screaming implies, well to a normal human being, it implies that she wants help. When a human screams, it lets others know that something terrible is happening.
Basic human instinct.
Of course there are. That doesn't mean anything, though.
So God actually doesn't care that his Bible was responsible for the suffering and torment of people? xXLogicXx
To whom? Murder is murder, and should be punished appropriately. It was either punished in Christ, or will be punished towards them.
God should have been wise enough to consider that people may take his word at face-value.
Thats irrelevant. Jesus has offered a way out. If one wants to accept it, then good for this one. If not, then so be it. Credibility is irrelevant.
You have just admitted you have closed your mind off to other points of views, and have no value for logic. Credibility is irrelevant??? Who says that.
Why is it so difficult for you to be unbiased? Can you at least pretend? Emotion is not trustworthy, and you are swimming in the thick of it. You feel you are to be right- that is emotion, and emotion is the opposite of logic.
What about it?
You denied that it merits death, when you said it merits death. xXLogicXx
Thats not rape. Thats clearly saying in the paradigm that she was a willing participant. No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death.
Ignorance. There, I have said it.
The Bible is not literalistic. Old Testament law, and the Bible for that matter as a whole, was considered, historically and contemporarily, to be paradigmatic, which is to say that they took a general notion and applied it to other situations. If it says not to commit adultery, it didn't mean solely "adultery" but actually all forms of sexual immorality. The same is this. The notion is that of her being a betrothed virgin having sex in the city willingly, and then her being executed because of it.
No where in the verse does it infer or suggest that she was raped, that she didn't give consent.
It does say that if she didn't scream loud enough... she should be stoned.
What does screaming imply? Connect the dots.
I know that you believe the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, but there are people out there who have murdered people by taking the Bible literally.
What would God have to say to them?
Simply because people don't think 2+2=4, it will still equal 4.
Have you forgotten you have neither more or less credibility than the one who follows Muhammad?
Killing is not equivalent to murder.
You just said it merits death.
Here, I will quote you, "They have sinned. This is what merits death."
No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death.
It states that if she didn't scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death.
2 asterisks before and after what you want to bold
k thanks
"They can convert"
Can YOU convert? Of course not. How would you expect them to do the same?
"What about it?"
People out of reach are Non-Christian, therefore they are sent to hell. You have read the name of this debate, right?
"How is this rape? She was a willing recipient of sexual relations. Rape is not equivalent to sex. Do not confuse the two."
This verse does not consider various factors such as 'what if no one could hear here scream because people were not around to hear her?' you did read the verse properly, right? How am I confusing rape with sex, when the verse is clearly about when a man has sex with a woman without her consent? It says that if she did not scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death- this verse does not consider the possibility that the rape victim could be a mute- and perhaps women WERE stoned to death because of their inability to scream while getting raped.
"What people outside of the box?"
You keep repeating that Jesus is the way. What if he wasn't the way? There are people out there who consider Muhammad was the way- would you ever consider them and how they think?
Need I explain more?
"Evil should not be repaid by evil."
You just said it merits death.
"No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death."
I've already gone over this.
Btw, how do you use bold writing?
"They can still be Christians."
What do you mean? Can you still be Muslim if it was actually the way out? Consider that.
"That is irrelevant. Jesus is still the way out."
That is irrational. Be rational and consider the people who have not been indoctrinated in a Christian dominant society as you have. Muhammad is still the way out- it is all the same, with equal credibility.
"And they don't have a way to Christ, but that doesn't negate them having sinned, meriting them death."
This debate is about Christians and Non-Christians. People out of reach from Christianity are still Non-Christian because they do not fall under the definition of 'the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.'
"No where in the Bible does it state that we should stone rape victims. And even if they think Christianity immoral, that does not reject Jesus being the way out. If anything it means that they are rebelling against God and should have death."
Read Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
You are thinking in a box, instead of considering the psychology of people that exist Outside of that box. I urge you to consider the Psychology of people who exist out side of that box.
"And even if they think Christianity immoral, that does not reject Jesus being the way out. If anything it means that they are rebelling against God and should have death."
Would you murder someone who thought that stoning a rape victim is immoral?
"They have sinned. This is what merits death."
Broad statements. Broad statements everywhere.
'My mother deserves to die because she was repulsed when the found out that rape victims should be stoned to death. Her natural act of repulsion was seen as an act of rebellion against God despite her repulsion was greatly justified by all of humanity.'
What a lovely existence.
Please say you're trolling.
I guess I'll have to explain these points myself, seeing as you lack the capability.
I am arguing on the premise that; Being sent to hell because you're not Christian is harsh because:
It is not the fault of many non-Christians due to these factors:
- They were born into a family that did not follow Christianity; all their life they have been told to trust an other religion, making it unlikely for them to accept Christianity as the One True Way.
- There are many religions that claim the same things as Christianity; how do you know you have placed your trust into the correct one, with all this uncertainty?
- Some people are born simply out of reach from Christianity; say in the past when Islanders had no idea of the Bible, and instead worshiped their own Idols.
- The sketchiness of the Bible; people may take verses such as "you must stone rape victims, for it is Law" repulsive and immoral, and may most likely reject Christianity because of it. (But you cannot blame them, because stoning rape victims is commonly frowned upon.) Not to mention people who may take the words of the Bible literally, and may actually practice stoning rape victims, which must be an act worthy of Hell.
Since it is not their fault that these situations have occurred, sending these people to hell is a harsh action.
Are you being serious? Re-read my argument again. It states that 'Jesus offering a way out' is not enough to save people, because of the untrustworthiness of the bible due to verses like 'stoning rape victims', and because of how people are born into non-Christian families may most likely reject Christianity for them not being indoctrinated in a Christian family- which therefore concludes that it is Very Harsh to send non-Christians to hell, because it isn't even their fault.
Now please, dispute that argument properly. It goes more indepth. I'm still wondering why I had to write this.
He has not made his case clear enough, when you consider hundreds of other religions offering a way out and children being born into those religions instead of Christianity- either simply not knowing about Christianity for the rest of their lives, or rejecting Christianity because they were not indoctrinated in a Christian family.
... And also because of the sketchiness of the Bible, when it demands people to stone rape victims by law, which leads to people actually doing that stuff, because apparently they missed the "context" of what that "law" told them to do- despite the fact that God should have been wise enough to consider that people may take his words at face-value and actually stone people to death or make people reject the religion because of how immoral it sounds- which means more people going to hell, because of a minor mistake God forgot to consider before the Bible started to mass produce.
You have just spoken about his lament that comes after his stating of deception by God, instead of addressing the actual main part of the verse in question.
"You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived"
He says 'you' addressing God, 'you deceived' so he states that God had performed the action of deception (deception means 'to lie or mislead' or to act with dishonesty) 'you deceived me' Jeremiah states that God has taken an action of dishonesty upon Jeremiah, 'you have deceived me, lord' Jeremiah further states that it is the Lord God that took this action upon him 'you have deceived me, lord, and I have been deceived' Jeremiah admits that God's action of dishonesty had mislead him. Jeremiah was mislead by God.
To be truly unbiased, you must pretend that you are undecided in your decision to be Christian or Non-Christian. And you must read the arguments of both sides to make a decision.
For me, something just isn't connecting on this side.
I am certain you must be familiar with the bible verse that states that stoning a rape victim to death is law?
Although you may say this verse was taken out of context, what would God have to say to the victims of people who actually stuck to the bible's word and followed the practice of stoning rape victims?
God's ambiguity and subtlety of words actually caused needless physical and mental torment among humans, because he was not intelligent enough to predict that some humans may take his words at face-value.
But what you are highlighting is the deviations that occur in the mixing of the two. Both sides, in the purest of forms as seen as black and white, are strictly opposing- this difference was more perceivable in the society of the past. Masculinity with no deviation with femininity is all about logic and strength. Femininity with no deviation with masculinity is all about creativity and empathy. Can you see how both sides are completely opposite, but completely equal? No human can be 100% masculine or feminine because that is just not possible, but logic and creativity are still categorized in completely different places. A man acting with compassion or seeks no conflict is still following some form of femininity- the dislike of conflict- despite masculinity's proficiency in dealing and thriving in conflict.
I am not denying that either genders can perform each other's roles- I am highlighting how in modern society, these roles may switch positions. This is neither good or bad, unless there is a balance of them.
Men tend to be built more muscular to deal with physical conflict. It's undeniable. But if there is a man who cannot deal with physical conflict, there must be a woman who does. Same applies to same-sex couples.
Excuse me for assuming you weren't a hipster unlike 90% of the believers in God/s. I was debating on the premise that God was a perfect, compassionate being that valued every single individual life and that the death of someone suffocating by breathing and eating through the same hole would be contradictory. But since you don't follow that common belief, we have nothing much to say, since I am open to the belief that we may have been created by imperfect beings other than JEBUS.
In the name of maintaining balance in the universe, of course both parents must! They should assume different- yet equal roles in raising a baby.
The mother must nurture the baby and teach it how to be kind, and the father must protect the baby and teach it to be strong. If there was any imbalance to this system, the baby will grow up to be an underdeveloped individual...
But in modern society, these roles sometimes swap sides, depending on the parents since the barriers of gender roles are shifting.
There are a lot of logical arguments for stupid design- the physical fallibility of the human body (breathing/eating from one hole=suffocation) making it easy for us to needlessly die, which therefore leeches at the legitimacy that we were made by something "intelligent".
