But holy god ordains it first, right? Don't even answer. I mean if ever, in the history of your life you would be incriminating yourself, this is it. I do give you some credit for not running from the questions. But the killing of the homosexuals by your god is exactly the same as the killing of infidels of other gods. When they are killing homosexuals around the world nowadays, it is morally good, right, and holy since their god is behind it?? Do you see any commonality there? If so, what is it?

Where did you get that dumb idea from? Please quote me where the Bible says that. (I'll save you some time: it doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.)

God never commands someone to be killed "for being different." Where do you get these dumb ideas, anyway? They certainly aren't from the Bible.

Oops!

FellaGaga-52 has shifted into rant mode again.

Where is my shock face...??

Found it!

Right. God commanded the stoning of homosexuals under the Abrahamic Covenant. However, the judicial laws under that covenant no longer apply to us today. Homosexuality is still a sin, but not of necessity a punishable offence by the civil authorites.

Nobody today is under the Abrahamic Covenant. So, the punishment for homosexual behavior (if any) is up to the government. Killing homosexuals isn't per se good, right or holy. It also isn't per se bad, wrong or unholy.

Where does the sentiment to kill homosexuals in the world come from? From man and his religions. Several of them. But they just can hardly stomach bringing themselves to say, “I think it is good and right that people were killed for being homosexual.” No, they always blame it on god. “It’s god’s will, god wanted it, the holy, loving creator of the universe wanted it.” This is just a huge cop out of the whole subject of morality.

Who wanted to kill homosexuals, like the guy in Colorado just did, in the ancient world? The holy, loving creator of the universe ... or bigots? Anybody that won’t entertain that question honestly and just blindly follows the dictates of the ancient world, renders themselves an agent of evil in the process. Crocodiles don't kill for being homosexual. Lions don't kill for being homosexual. Viruses don't kill for being homosexual. Nut cases, gods and bigots do. Just ask the true believer ... who blithely blames it on god without a thought in the world.

The whole fairy tale nature of the thing is clear to see. Imagine a mother and father BC with a child. Raise them, love them, teach them ... at coming of age they are gay. Now the prescription is that they deserve to be stoned to death. Put yourself in the real situation, not the fairy tale. The prescription to stone to death is evil, and the mindless parroting of the doctrine is also evil.

I have no problem saying it at all. Here goes: I believe that it was good and right that people were killed for being homosexual. It. was also good and right that people were killed for committing murder. It was also good and right that people were killed for adultery. If you'd like, I can post a comprehensive list of behaviors that it was good and right to kill people for.

Oops!

FellaGaga-52 has reverted back to rant mode.

Where's my shock face???

Found it!

Past tense? So it WAS good and right that homosexuals were killed. Is that meant to imply that it no longer is good and right to kill homosexuals? If so, what changed? I thought that God and God’s word via the Bible provided an objective and unchanging moral code for humans, or at least that is what most believers have always professed. I do not want to speak for you, so if you are willing to claim that Christian morality does indeed change over time, I certainly will consider your argument, but in that case I must ask: how do we know when it has changed? How do we know what the new rules are? The Bible certainly is no help; it is set in stone, so there must be some other source?

Homosexuality (among many other things, but that's the current topic) has always been a sin and always will be. What has changed is the penalty for homosexuality. The Abrahamic Covenant had moral, judicial and ceremonial laws. The Moral laws are universal; they apply to all persons (e.g. the Ten Commandments). The Judicial laws and the Ceremonial Laws applied only to the Jews.

Jesus Christ brought with him a New Covenant, sometimes referred to as The Covenant of Grace. Christ has cleansed all who believe in Him from their sins, making the ceremonial laws obsolete. The judicial laws are now obsolete at least in part because we are no longer governed by a theocracy.

Hope that helped.

You do not advocate for your soul. You allow your soul to continue to double down on appeasement and obedience while you stand in the background in willful ignorance.

This covenant only lasts a short time, not indefinitely:

The Son drinks with you in union, forgiving the sins of the many. But then he stops drinking, breaking the union.

The new wine which represents the new union can only be poured in new wine-skins.

Don't kill. Love your neighbour. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Let him without sin cast the first stone. Etc. Nothing fundamental in Christianity appears to suggest it is right to kill or punish gays.

The will of the sovereign is supreme. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until 1967 punishable by castration or imprisonment. That is the condition of sovereign protection, to obey laws. Paradoxically, laws that are wrong often need to be broken in order to be changed. Jesus himself was seditious, or perceived as such, against the sovereign power.

Very well said. The power to proscribe actions is the purview of the civil authorities. Homosexuality is not any more or any less a sin based on how the civil authorities choose to deal with it (if at all).

So to be clear, the list of those for killing people for being gay, now or then is: nut cases, some gods and their followers, and bigots. Funny that grouping ... no?

We are long past the point, in this debate and in history, where the sacrificing of agency can be reasonably considered moral. In fact, we know that is exactly what creates a hellish world.

So the injunction "I believe it was moral to kill people for being gay" is this exact brand of immorality ... the one that relies on just whatever some ancient text says and refuses to think independently about it. Almighty God was for killing homosexuals thousands of years ago, he never changes ... hmm ... is there a problem in any of this doctrine??

No, "we" do not know that (unless by "we", you are referring to the voices in your head).

You have an uncanny ability to be wrong about almost everything. The Bible isn't just "some ancient text." Even the most ardent atheists who are scholars of ancient texts would almost certainly find your take here stupid. (I suspect Professor Bart Ehrman would literally laugh-at-loud at your a simple-minded take.)

No.

God said homosexuals should be killed ... not the civil authorities. According to the Bible. Now just who is that doing the writing there ... a holy loving god or the bigoted, ignorant, prejudiced people of the society of the day? I wonder. They wield their immorality and blame it on a perfectly moral god, so it can't be questioned. What a con game. And here we are 2000 years later, and they are still well short of the Dark Ages with their morality, blamed on god but coming from themselves.

You have an uncanny ability to be wrong about almost everything. Death by stoning for homosexuals took place under a theocracy.. At that time, there was no distinction between civil and religious authority. Which was what theocracy literally is.

False Dichotomy Fallacy Alert! Actually, a holy and loving God inspired certain writers to write God's Word.

Another (mini) rant by FellaGaga-52.

Where's my shock face?

Found it!

The soul will always choose the boundaries of rationality and compromise their rightful inheritance rather than go through the identity crisis required to cross the threshold. The degree to which the human individual believes in his soul is the degree to which that human individual will deprive his soul of those boundaries.

The human individual who, using willpower, allows himself to be led outside of the boundaries of rationality despite the resistance of his soul - that human individual knows the living Son of the living God and he will know life.

[QUOTE=Chuckychess;57923852]You have an uncanny ability to be wrong about almost everything. Death by stoning for homosexuals took place under a theocracy.. At that time, there was no distinction between civil and religious authority. Which was what theocracy literally is.

False Dichotomy Fallacy Alert! Actually, a holy and loving God inspired certain writers to write God's Word.

Another (mini) rant by FellaGaga-52.

Where's my shock face?

Found it!

[/QUOTE


Death by stoning was a prescription of the theocracy originating from the will of god, right? Quit dodging. God is behind the value of killing people for being homosexual. You're a troll and you keep proving it. And your religion is a troll of society and of morality, but you are too surrendered to it to realize that. With that kind of surrender, one is 100% to become a true believer in whatever religion they are exposed to, thus making their belief in any particular religion meaningless and worthless, for the same reason that mindlessness is, or for the same reason that a parrot repeating something is worthless for its truth value.

Those who resist against what I speak to are filtered out, but the ones who believe enough to overcome the fear, they will hear. And they should listen.

I haven't dodged anything. I already said several times that God prescribed the killing of homosexuals. Are you even paying attention to what I write?

Yes! And I've said that several times already. Please try to keep up.

Not at all. I believe what I write. And I think you do, too.

Oops!

Another rant by FellaGaga-52!

Where's my shock face?

Found it!

Yeah, I have a problem with getting things wrong. Right at the top of the list is my consternation and resulting disbelief over the following:

1. Why would a god of love be for killing homosexuals (like nut cases and bigots are)?

2. Why would a god of love be for genocide (like Hitler and Pol Pot were)?

3. Why would a god of love be for infanticide (like Herod was)?

4. Why would an omniscient god of love be for blood sacrifice (like barbarians are)?

5. Why would a god of love who sees all things create people who he knows will end up in hell fire (for his entertainment?)?

6. Why would a god of love and righteousness torture a man at the behest of the devil?

7. Why would a god of love blithely traumatize people (as if the whole stories were being made up by someone ignorant of what trauma is, say like, primitive man)?

8. Why would a god of love and wisdom demand obedience, when in fact independence and courage are far more virtuous?

9. Why does the religion value faith so manipulatively?

10. Why the game of hide and seek (the classic children's game, but now, dubiously, applied to metaphysics by religion)?

11. Why would an omniscient savior not be able to write?

12. Why would an omniscient god not include some things in the Bible that were unknown and unknowable by man at the time, say, some information about our DNA, our neurotransmitters, that the sun that he made works by fusing hydrogen into helium (he could have even said thousands of years ago, "These elements will be in your periodic table in a few thousand years by Mendeleev") .... etc. etc. etc. Instead of any of a billion awe inspiring prophecies and revelations, we get "wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm like god. What's going to be happening in the coming centuries is wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, man against man, many false religions ... Hello. That makes me a prophet, right?



Come on. All that is just off the top of my head. There are countless other objections. The whole thing is set up to evade reality testing, and thus the great emphasis on just believing instead of using any such standards as we use for everything else. All of that is easily answered if it isn't real and/or if man made it up. Instant totally answered. As to why god imitates the worst of man like this, well, that's just man blaming his shadow on god. Like Jung said.

Your twelve questions are excellent ones.* And they all have good answers.

But since you have a history of not engaging what I write to you in any meaningful way, I'm not going to spend over an hour answering all those questions for you, since more likely than not your "response" to my efforts will be to launch into one your typical rants.

So, I will answer one of those questions. You get to choose which one I will answer for you. If you engage my response in a thoughtful manner, then I will answer another one of your questions.

Fair enough?

*Actually, several of the questions literally make no sense. So my answer to those questions will be to explain to you why the question at hand makes literally no sense.

COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY ALERT!!!!!!

And we go to the Bible to prove that the Bible stories are true. Likewise, we go to Harry Potter to "prove" that they flew around on quidditch sticks. An omniscient human being wanting to be followed could have written the worlds most spectacular books. Instead: nothing. He did some scratching in the dirt instead, that is if you can believe the story. Meh. Infinite meh.

You asked: "Why would an omniscient savior not be able to write?"

I answered my showing to you that he was able to write, and even quoted chapter and verse where he did write. And, the verses didn't say he "scratched", it said he "wrote." Which means he wrote at least one word.

You didn't ask, "Why didn't the omniscient savior write some spectacular books?" You asked why He was not able to write (at all).

Anyway, after you acknowledge that answered your question #11 successfully, we can move on.

Thanks.

You really don't get that you can't use the story to verify the story claim. You whiffed on the whole Harry Potter analogy. You don't get to say you have verified that they were actually flying around playing quidditch because you checked the story and that's what it says. "See, it's right there in print. Case closed." LOL. That is the tack that you just took with the Bible. Lots of other ancient religious texts say lots of things, and in order to verify and substantiate them, according to you, we just need check their ancient text. If it says it and I choose to believe it, that verifies it. That is just indoctrination, and blind indoctrination at that. Or else you wouldn't dare use the Bible to substantiate anything about the claims and stories.