Animal sacrifice was a method provided by God that allowed the guilty person to pass their rightful punishment onto the animal. When we sin we commit an offence against God, and since He is just He punishes that offence. Animal sacrifice was an expression of God's love and longsuffering for us, love and longsuffering which is ultimately expressed in His Son Jesus.

How are you not stigmatizing gays when you plainly state that homosexuality is sinful and is therefore an offense against God that ought to be punished by God? Saying that we all sin, hate the sin, love the sinner yadayadayada is just a BS copout.

All sin is stigmatized so i dont understand either.

When have I ever "attacked" homosexuals? I've explored the philosophical issues dispassionately.

The bigotry is all yours, friend. It's very very deep in your heart and its' very ugly. You hate people who don't share your views. You deeply hate religion.

My post isn't even about homosexuality. It's about your weird bigotry in attacking someone and making out like they're bad because they "marginalize" homosexuality. If you genuinely believe that it's a sin that's an abomination to God, and that the person's soul is in danger, it is highly moral to try and marginalize homosexuality. That's a perfectly reasonable and moral view, even if the idea of which it's based (the existence of God and the truth of the bible) is a false belief.

To that very reasonable comment you come back with "****ing bigot". A cowardly way to avoid getting called out on your own bigotry, but it's your choice. I can't help you to become less bigoted. You have to find the way yourself.

Nah you have and will show more hate to religion then i have. Your posts on Islam and Christianity are there to read.

I dont care about your posts. Mostly.

I did not do that to walkby that is in your imagination. I did say and believe he stigmatizes homosexuality and do think doing that causes harm. Just like he likely thinks my views on it cause harm. You allow for one but not the other. What hypocrisy.

I did not call you a bigot for that. I called you one for your abundance of work and output on the subject.


The only reason i responded is walkby. Dont want him to get the wrong idea. I do think you stigmatize homosexuals but at least you are not like the above guy. And he is an Atheist!

How is this different from other religious beliefs with respect to issues such as blasphemy or women's rights? For example, if your neighbor says nasty things about your deity and his prophet, the souls of your family members might be in danger. Is it reasonable and moral to want to marginalize or prevent your neighbor's free speech?

God is extremely clear that homosexuality is a vile abomination to him and evil. There is little considered worse. Other sins are less clear; gluttony, lust, fornication don't' get the same kind of treatment. You can't really be a consistent "magical" Christian (divine Christ kind of beliefs) and accept homosexuality.The bible is too clear, and Christ's message and "miracles" are meaningless without the meaning given to them by the old testament - which includes a raging murderous homosexual hating God.

It may be ridiculous but I didn't write the bible or put the words in God's mouth.

As for women's rights in say Islam, there is no requirement to treat women like ****, or you go to hell. Giving a woman freedom isn't' an abomination to God. It is an issue of Arab culture and pride and patriarchal preference, mostly, loosely joined with general religious ideas. The second class status of women in Islam is a real thing, but it's not a moral imperative like avoiding homosexuality is.

If God was adamanant that women allowed to roam free were going to hell, then of course it would be moral if those who genuinely believed this to be true kept women locked up.

To steelman your point, if God said you had to murder babies to save their soul, and cult members believed deeply that was necessary and murdered those babies for that reason, they'd be acting morally imo.

You forgot one important premise in your argument. Just because one thinks there is a god and that this is a sin against that god doesn't make it so. You are assuming they're correct in this belief. That is strange coming from someone like you. When did you convert to xtianity? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing... again?

So murdering animals whenever you sin makes this god of yours love you more? Sounds... barbaric.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying that the religious person, if they truly believe that homosexuality = horrible sin in God's eyes, is committing a moral act in stigmatizing and marginalizing if they believe that the act will save people's souls. It becomes even more moral and selfless if the pitchfork-wielders go after them for it, yet they persist.
Of course it's nutty. But if it's truly believed, the person is acting morally by stigmatizing and marginalizing homosexuality.

It's an act of humility, giving up something important/valuable to you in order to let God know that you're sorry. You could throw gold on the altar but the poor didn't have gold - they had cows and goats.

As for murdering animals, people have been doing that for thousands of years (and you do it every time you go for a non-vegetarian dinner) for something far less important than reconciling with God. Gluttony and the pleasure of taste. So I don't quite get your "murdering animals" angle.

The OT says plenty about the moral imperative of keeping women seconded class and have them subordinate to men in all things.

What I just cannot grasp is how Christians can reconcile their loving Jesus with his psychopathic dad and how and why they ascribe to some but conveniently not all of the acts and belief of this psycho.

Non-cult members believe these cult members in their beliefs go against fundamental human rights and dignities. To me the same applies to the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions wrt homosexuality.

He forgave people through it. God hates sin and we've corrupted His world with it and yet He still loves us. The situation we're in with sin is that severe though, it requires a penalty that severe. Jesus willingly took that penalty on Himself so if we believed we wouldn't have to. You might think that's barbaric, but can you also consider how loving it was given that God could have just wiped us out and done something else instead? He is omnipotent but has spent all this time making a way for us to be reconciled to Him and at great personal price. Do you not think that is loving?

Are you entirely sure about that?

I don't really know much about homosexuality, but I do know there are Christians who identified as gay in the past who have successfully changed their preferences. I also know there are a lot of people who have failed at this. There are even people who have decided to become celibate. So I may not know much about homosexuality but I do know there are Christians who have identified the act as sinful and successfully changed their behavior, so as far as what I wrote being a copout, I don't think that's accurate.

I'm entirely sure yeah, gl with your gay conversion therapy

Fair enough. Would you extend that sentiment to the Christians I mentioned in my post too though? Do you think they were deluded and entirely unable to make an informed decision about their own behavior?

Hi Everyone:

The answer to this question can be found here:

https://outreachjudaism.org/outreach...ews-for-jesus/

It will take a few minutes to read, but I think the most important sentence is:

Contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The Sin Sacrifice, repentance, and charity.

Best wishes,
Mason

So, if i was demented and thought that killing my friend would somehow "free" him of this worldly prison and release his soul into blah, blah. Then my killing him would be "moral" in your eyes?

Dude, this is such 1st grade thinking. Any adult realizes that they might be wrong, and therefore, doesn't do the act just in case they're wrong. Because if they are wrong, then they are needlessly hurting someone.

Geez... i thought you were already tuned into this.

I'm not really opposed to animal sacrifice if the meat is eaten. And as long as it's done quickly and painlessly. And yes, i know it's not always done that way at restaurants. But i don't eat meat at restaurants for two reasons: 1) I only eat free range, and 2) I cook/grill better than they do. I do not, however, make pasta, salads, etc. very well, so i enjoy a good restaurant attempt. But i digress...

I don't think they were deluded. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of these yielded to group pressure based on religious indoctrination.

I think religion has certain beneficial effects on people and societies but mainstream religion's position on this issue to me goes against fundamental human values.

To do a David Sklansky, if you're 93% convinced that he'll spend an eternity in hell unless he gets murdered, the moral thing to do is to kill him.
We don't apply this to animals. They "might" be not be that different to dumb humans, they "might" feel and realize what we do (there is strong evidence they do), yet we cage them and slaughter and rape them and take their children away forcefully all the same. You're not a vegetarian, so I guess you're not an adult, using your criteria?

No, I'm just above second grade thinking. Acting with decent odds in the face of some uncertainty is often the moral thing to do. Certainly when the one side is minor "stigmatizing", whatever the **** that means (is it a Grand Evil to nonviolently disapprove of people and lifestyles now?), and the other side is their immortal souls for eternity, it's a no brainer to stigmatize if you genuinely believe it.

Btw , my understanding is that according to proper Christianity, Christians are not supposed to stigmatize or marginalize or hate anyone. They are supposed to "love thy neighbor", love the sinner, hate sin", "Judge not", "Honor everyone". I realize some Christians fail at this.

You can stigmatize homosexual acts without stigmatizing homosexuals. That's what bible-following Christians do.

Like judge Roy Moore does.


You should stop making **** up.