Another thread filled with skeptic's convoluted rationalizations to justify why his belief is correct and why he has no need to change it. Imagine that.
Well, at least he isn't hateful about it.
Actually, the fact that the Bible speaks against homosexuality is part of what proves that it is of divine origin.
Sorry to say, but it really doesn't prove a thing.
Think about it logically.
Not trying to be rude, but watching you try to use logic is like watching a train go off the rails.
if there truly was no God, then they would have just said, "Yeah there is no God and we see that a lot of people enjoy homosexual sex so let's allow them to keep having it." The fact that they knew something was off about it shows it could not have come from human minds.
As expected, major logic fail. They didn't like it because the idea of a guy having sex with another guy was 'icky'. It had nothing to do with it being 'wrong' or 'sinful'. And also, the idea that homosexual sex is 'off' can't have come from human minds, but cars and airplanes and computers and rockets and submarines and the internet and (...), which are far more foreign to the human mind, did? The only reason you think this is logical is because it happens to support what you already believe.
I forgot to clear something up. God does not "hate" homosexuals anymore than he "hates" any other sinner.
He just wants them to repent of their ways and ask for forgiveness and go to heaven.
Which, of course, is why they get to go burn in hell forever if they don't "repent of their ways and ask forgiveness". Because the ultimate expression of love is to throw someone into a furnace if they don't do what you want them to. Or at least that's the impression I get from Christians.
Ah, but if God did that, then God would be Satan. See how that works? It would be Satan masquerading as God if "God" actually said that.
How convenient for you that you can automatically exclude anything said by 'God' that you don't agree with.
Since goodness is God's nature, there is no way God would ever say that rape is good. Euthrypo is a false dilemma.
Funny how he gave the Hebrews permission to commit mass rape and mass murder whenever they conquered a city. Actually, he didn't give 'permission', he ordered
them to; all the men right down to the infants and all the non-virgin women were slaughtered, and all the women and girls who were still virgins were prizes so their conquerors could fulfill their sexual desires.
I am sorry but it appears that some of you guys simply just do not get it.
The laws of fabric were in the OT, correct? Jesus did away with those laws.
Or at least that's the spin you're putting on "it is finished", so you can justify why all those Jewish laws were no longer valid the moment Jesus died.
Now you will say, "Aha! But skep! The verse against homosexuality is in the OT too! Does that mean you can throw it out?"
To which I would reply, "No, because Paul condemns homosexuality in the NT. Had Paul condemned clothing of mixed fabric, you can bet your bottom dollar that we Christians would be following that as well."
So because Paul thought homosexuality was icky, it must still be hated by God? Yeah, somehow I don't really buy into Paul speaking for God the way you do.
Lots of prophecies have been fulfilled. The problem is that the ones that have not yet been fulfilled have been dubbed "Failed" by the atheists.
It's really easy to 'fulfill' a prophecy, too. Just invent whatever attributes you need for your formerly-human 'divinity' to have, let simmer for a few years or decades, and voila. Bonus points if you took those attributes from some other (false) deity.
It doesn't unite 2 people together as 1. The vagina was made for the penis. The butt was not made for sex, it was made for pooping.
So...why put the waste disposal chute right next to the pleasure center? I mean, seeing as having it there allows for stimulation of the pleasure center through it. Wouldn't it have been better to make sure they were separate enough to prevent that?
Even heteros doing it is sinful. It makes a mockery out of the unification process known as sex.
Actually, the purpose of sex isn't to 'unify' two individuals, it's to allow the semen from a male to reach the egg from a female. This whole 'unification' business is an attempt to make sex seem like it's somehow more mystical than it actually is.
It serves a purpose. See, this a problem among evolutionists over the meaning of vestigial. Just because you can live without something doesn't mean they aren't important.
I think you'd better check the definition of 'vestigial' again. It doesn't mean something you can live without, it means a rudimentary or degenerate structure.
For example, I can get both my arms and both legs amputated and still live. Does this mean those are all vestigial? Not hardly.
As the arms and legs are not rudimentary or degenerate, I would hardly call them vestigial.
reboots the digestive system.
Look it up.
That's one hypothesis, yes. And hypotheses can be wrong. Quite easily, in fact. Maybe you'd better rethink this line of argument.
Same with the appendix, then. It serves a purpose but you could still live without it.
We are in agreement, then.
Actually, we don't know if the appendix serves a purpose or not. The "reboots digestion" thing is simply a hypothesis. A more recent one is that it acts as a safe house for 'good' bacteria to prevent the immune system from destroying them. But we don't know for sure if either is true.
Time for the evolutionists to find something that actually serves no purpose, yet we still have.
Actually, everything in the body "serves a purpose". The question is whether it serves a meaningful purpose, rather than being the vestige of something that served a real purpose at one point.
You are going off the deep end now. We are talking about organs that SERVE NO PURPOSE, yet still exist in the body. You haven't given one example of this yet. I will then assume we need everything in our bodies.
Actually, we don't need everything in our bodies. For example, the body suffers no ill effects from the removal of the appendix, for example. Most people actually benefit from the removal of the wisdom teeth. And nobody's ever figured out why we have a tailbone (easily explained by being the result of evolution from an ancestor organism which did have a tail)). Let's not forget the muscle groups that, at best, allow people to wiggle their ears (again, easily explained by being the result of evolution from an ancestor organism which needed to be able to swivel its ears). Oh, let's not forget the tonsils, which cause way more problems than they're worth.
I can go on, if you'd like.
So what? I already agreed to this. We are specifically speaking of organs that serve no purpose whatsoever that evolutionists use to try and prove their beliefs. If there is no such organ, then you can still believe there is a useless organ, but that wouldn't be called science.
As I just showed, there are more than a few organs which did serve a purpose at once point, but serve no purpose now. Well, unless you think having a tailbone serves some purpose.
I don't speak for God. I merely show you what is in the Bible. God did all the talking already. I just pass on the message. Does the messenger make up the message?
What makes you think the message is from God? I'm quite serious here. The whole Bible, from start to finish, could have been nothing more than a deception made up by these demons of yours to trick people into thinking that they aren't powerless, but to keep them from actually being able to do anything meaningful.
If you don't like that, how about propaganda to try to make people fear and worship a particular god (whether existent or not). I'm sure I could come up with plenty of examples of this that came straight from the Bible.