That's because it was written by Israelites, and the Israelites identified themselves through circumcision. No other nation in the region practiced it so thoroughly at the time.

Does that mean you'd whip out your cock at the border to prove you were a citizen?

Yeah, that's a good way to rationalize self-righteousness with a philosophical position in which "righteous" has no meaning. It must be name calling.

This is stupid. There's no point in making the effort to put forth detailed arguments, because they've all been done before. Nothing changes. It doesn't matter that objections were answered and points were made; after the thread goes away we're all back to zero. I admit when I first joined, my arguments were nothing short of retarded, but my latest takes on this position just go unanswered and it's like they never happened. It would be different if someone had even once put forth a reasonable answer to my objections but it just hasn't happened. Ever. It all comes down to telling me exactly how moral behavior patterns come about, which has nothing to do with weather they have any sort of rational imperative. Obviously they do exist, that's not the issue. The issue is weather they have any rational basis out side of some kind of transcendental imperative.

People think "arbitrary morality" means "situationaly/sociality relevant morality". The simply describes an irrational basis for social interaction. The second invokes some sort of transcendental imperative.

Let me elaborate on what I mean by arbitrary morality. For the sake of argument I am assuming a universe with out the supernatural. For our purposes we have two different categories for actions. One benefits society, one destroys it, and everything we do falls somewhere between the two. The first is generally considered "good" and the other "bad". Or to put in another way, one propagates the curiously low amount of entropy on our speck in space, and the other acts to raise it. "Good" people put the good of society above their own personal compulsions, and people who only act only to directly benefit themselves are considered deranged psychopaths.

Religions rise up as a side effect of our evolving societal nature. They cause members of a society to act in unison toward a common goal, but that goal is not based on a rational mechanical understanding of the universe and is vastly inferior a society of individuals informed by such an understanding. People who cling to a fundamentalist moral system are simply obsolete.

The point I'm getting at is that we're simply stating facts. Different people display different behavior patterns for what ever reason. So what? Entropy rises, entropy falls. The ocean is blue, the grass is green. Some people rape little girls, some people hate gays, some people find cures for cancer. Ideas like unjust, cruel or immoral loose any real meaning. You can arbitrarily attach any label you like to any given behavior pattern. Good and bad fit just as well as yellow and green.

Some probably do. The biblical basis for homosexuality being wrong is more generally found in Romans, but that's beside the point. Old Testament law was comprised of the Civil, Ceremonial and Moral law. The Civil and Ceremonial law was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, Israel no longer being the chosen nation of God. What constitutes Civil, Ceremonial and Moral law is a not so simple however, though most of it is pretty clear if you take the time to study it. The point is, what you call cherry picking, is in fact much more complected.

God just allowed their sin to run its course as an act of judgment.

"received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." The perversion being the indecent acts that they committed, which reflects a NT disapproval of homosexual acts. The penalty wasn't being gay, but rather, this reference is talking about how men chose to reject God because they wanted to live in their perversion. God went ahead and let them reject him for their sin. It's not unlike a parent that lets a child do something wrong (because the child refuses to obey), and then the child experiences the consequences of making that choice.

I hate Martin Luther because he got the ball rolling on the notion that the laity should be able to understand and discuss theology and religious matters. Because of that, we've got this stupid discussion here.

God just allowed their sin to run its course as an act of judgment.

"received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." The perversion being the indecent acts that they committed, which reflects a NT disapproval of homosexual acts. The penalty wasn't being gay, but rather, this reference is talking about how men chose to reject God because they wanted to live in their perversion. God went ahead and let them reject him for their sin. It's not unlike a parent that lets a child do something wrong (because the child refuses to obey), and then the child experiences the consequences of making that choice.

Why can't religious people follow the clear example laid out here by God and let the gays experience whatever consequences they happen bring upon themselves? God didn't need help from any humans to get his point across then, and he doesn't now.

I hate Martin Luther because he got the ball rolling on the notion that the laity should be able to understand and discuss theology and religious matters. Because of that, we've got this stupid discussion here.

If a gay man hit on me, I'd RAPE him!!!

Hating on a group of people because a 2000 year old book tells you to makes you a bigot.

Find a label that fits, 'religious' and 'Christian' don't. Assuming that all religious people, or all Christians, are bigots - and that IS what you do when you use that label to refer to bigots - MAKES YOU A BIGOT.

Do you got that?

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Yeah, way to dodge the bullet, Sarn.

Don't get the wrong impression. I don't hate you. I rather like you actually. I just think you're terribly misguided and kind of a bigot. What bothers me most isn't even your ridiculous views but the very clear fact that you are unwilling to challenge them. This is evidenced by not only this thread but many others.

;903527']Yes?

Ok, I'll respond to this for two reasons. First, you have a misconception about how I act, and second, you weren't an *** this time.

So, I rather like you too, Emon. I'm glad we're friends. But you're wrong about me not being willing to challenge my views. If I ever think I may be wrong about something, then I'll do the research necessary to clarify my belief. However, I'm not going to sit here and argue with people about this stuff for the following reason: These sorts of issues do not really matter in the grand scheme of my salvation. I'm quite sure that when I get to heaven, God is not going to look at me and say "Sorry Sarn, You thought homosexuality was a sin, but really it's not. I know it's a confusing issue, but you should have put more effort into it. Off to hell with you." I guess this is dodging the bullet, to some degree. But frankly, I don't enjoy getting caught up in these unimportant issues when I could be doing something more productive.

So, that said... I personally believe homosexuality is a sin. Regardless of whether or not it's a chosen lifestyle or there's a genetic predisposition, I will always believe it's a sin, because I've *already* done the biblical research on the subject. It's important also to note though, that I believe treating someone inappropriately because they struggle with a certain sin is MUCH worse than doing that sin. And thus, I don't condone bigotry, and it saddens me to hear that you think I act that way. I treat everyone equally regardless of whether they succumb to homosexuality or not (ask Vinny if I've ever been mean to him, or treated him cruelly because of his sexual preference, if you don't believe me), because I know that I am guilty of sins of different nature, but of equal magnitude, and it is God's job to convict the sinner of the wrong, not mine. (He's a lot better at it.)

Lastly Emon, thank you for toning down your attitude with your more recent post. I do have a tendency to take unpopular positions on these issues, but that doesn't mean I haven't considered other possibilities. Either I've 1) already done the research and formulated my opinion of a subject or I 2) haven't, and say as much when I discuss it. :p If the 2nd, then I won't take a clear position. For example, you may hear me say "I don't think homosexuality is genetic because of..." but you will not hear me say "homosexuality is obviously not genetic because of..."

It's important also to note though, that I believe treating someone inappropriately because they struggle with a certain sin is MUCH worse than doing that sin.

And thus, I don't condone bigotry, and it saddens me to hear that you think I act that way.

Bigotry is the WotM and probably not the one to use here. But you still see others' lifestyles, which aren't even their own choice, as "wrong" which is what bothers me. You may tolerate homosexuals but you don't respect their lifestyle and that's what I have a problem with. Because to me, the reason you have for not respecting said lifestyle is arcane, illogical and born out of bigotry by people who wrote the Bible a few thousand years ago.

hahahaha, people who have strong opinions about a subject they are not personally affected by and therefore have no reason to have a strong opinion about

Does hating bigots make you a bigot?

As long as I'm not persecuting people because of their different beliefs (which I don't believe I do).

that's all we can really expect, and that's fine.

hahahaha, people who have strong opinions about a subject they are not personally affected by and therefore have no reason to have a strong opinion about

I'm indirectly affected through friends, and since when does one need to be personally affected to care about basic civil liberties?

I'm indirectly affected through friends, and since when does one need to be personally affected to care about basic civil liberties?