Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

@No other gods

Jap, people like yourself bother me a great deal. Individuals who judge the choices and ways of others as inferior to their own. Oh, and it gets even more warped when done with an expression of sympathy and compassion...

That's the meaning of my words.

Please do forgive me if I leave it at that. Little that I have to say to such as thee. I dont suffer well, you see.

 

No, they haven't, really.

 

Not even that, I dare say...

 

I know my grammar isn't the best, but WTF?

God or the Scribes and Pharisees? When you go beyond the law, you are prone to screw up--which the scribes and pharisees did frequently. This did not end with the old testament, but a new caste of scribes and Pharisees arose. They were behind the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch hunts and many of the other things you bitch about in these "we hate Christianity" threads. Laws forbidding Homosexuality have came from God, who, contrary to your claims, has not changed his mind on His laws. Man can be wrong, but God is never wrong.

Yes, this passage refers to dress code for those officiating worship and ordinances. It was also historic, not a specific commandment.

Yeah. Why is our source bull bollocks but their claims simply unimpeachable?

It is also virtually impossible to memorize the whole Bible. The laws from the Scribes and Pharisees are merely historical.

WE're not changing our mind. Our side is right. No evidence to satisfy the other side, so they just get on the we hate Christians rant.

So people with a strong opinion on matters of ultimate concern that also realize the consequences of violating these moral laws bother you?

 

Please, Gnarf. Haven't you read what anyone has said in the past nth of these threads? It is completely the opposite. My beliefs CAN be proven false. Yours CANNOT. Even if I were to come up with undeiable evidence proving some major flaw in your beliefs, I'd be willing to stake quite a bit on the fact you would find some way that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Point to one place that I have said - or even implied or hinted at - the fact that I hate Christians. Until then, stop spitting such bull**** out. I do not have Christains. Unlike you, Gnarf, I don't generalise. You will never catch me saying that all X people are evil or sinful because of Y - whether it be Christains are evil and bad because of... what ever reason you wish, or homosexuals are bad because the bible said so.

Also, "Our side is right"? Isn't arrogance frowned upon by the bible? To make such a blank statement is nonsense. You have supplied even less proof to support your claims. All that you've attempted to do is twist and weasle your way out of everything that has been thrown at you so far.

But let me repeat, as I have said before in other posts, I do NOT hate any religous group. What I do not like is when people become so blinded by their religion that they do not question - when they KNOW without doubt that they and their beliefs are right. This applies to all groups in society, but from my experience seems to be particularly common amoungst religions.

It is against my morals to hate people just due to their beliefs. Oh sure, they're not Christain morals, but that does not mean they are not any less right or proper.


But now that I've got that out of me, my best friend back in college was grew up in South Africa, during the end apartite regime (and he was Christain, I might add). He use to claim that apartite was good because the blacks use to like it - it was doing them a favour. They liked their place and the protection apartite involved. The whites knew what was best for them. Luckily his opinion was quickly changed after he moved here, but what you are attempting to argue reminds me of this. You know what is right for the homosexuals - and by negatively desciminating against them, you're making them happy.

[Edited - Removed some of my more... heated comments, now I've calmed down a bit]

[ October 12, 2006, 08:57: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

Thanks Gnarff, for providing ample evidence why you shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone on this board. If this is truly your stance then it's best to just ignore you like any other ingorant fundamentalist who gives Christianity a bad name. This "we hate Christians" crybaby crap is the biggest strawman I think I've ever seen. This is the last post of yours I will ever read or respond to. I'd advise others reading this not to waste anymore time in this persuit either.



[ October 12, 2006, 10:18: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Gnarff, your side isn't right at all. Plenty of people have given you, and the rest with similar views, ample evidence/proof/whatever to show you that there is more to the equation than you or anyone else with similar views are willing to accept or admit. It is like trying to reason with...I don't know...I cannot find words to describe the frustration. I am not saying that the other side is particularly right neither, all I am suggesting is that there is far more to life than you are willing to see.

Life is a hugely complex situation, no two peoples individual life experiences will ever be the same. Not only is morality contextual, the human condition is too. Not everyone lives in the same metaphorical universe you live in, just the same as not everyone lives in the same metaphorical universe that I do. Life is not a set of black and white rules where one deviation automatically damns someone for all eternity. More often than not, life is not that simple. If life were as simple as following the rules set out in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas, then there would be universal peace. Life is infinitely complex, no set standard of rules can ever apply to every single person in every single situation that they could ever conceivably encounter in the 100, 000 years or more of human existence. Every culture and every society has rules that are particular to that group of people, and when one says "You need to follow our rules in every situation", it becomes problematic. The only guide you need for living a good life is the conscious awareness of the human condition, from the very dawn of human history right through until the present. Seeing yourself as you truly are is what will 'save' you from a life of non-caring.

 

I suppose I have done my share to create an aggressive tone, and I do apologize for it. Although not to the "religious" posters. It is clearly not that they are steadfast in their beliefs that's causing the grievances. Interesting spin. Gnarfflinger illustrated it nicely.

All those who refuse to measure up to their little control deal must suffer being declared as existing outside of moral and merit. What an absurd arrangement of our time as it is expected that they get away with unveiled slander - are shown respect even - because, incidentally, it is a religious impetus that *reduces* the worth of others so. Really, I dont quite get it... And I know how much respect I have for those who scoff at the very concept of it.

 

@Aldeth:
Wow, yeah, I'd say things are different.

@Equester:
And no where does it say anything about uncelan meaning sin. In Leviticus 15 God says a man having a 'discharge', meaning diarrhea or unhealthy urethral discharges from infection, is unclean. Does that mean getting sick is sinful? If he spits on someone, that person must wash their clothes and is unclean until evening. Does that mean that being spit on is sinful, but only until evening? That the sin of being spit on is somehow removed automatically when the sun sets? No, it means they were talking about disease and contagion and containment policies.

The problem isn't with anyone's english skills, but with your logic in assuming unclean=sinful.

I don't ignore anything, but I do look to understand things that, on the surface, don't make much sense. There's more to things than the english translation. Again, context is critical. How can you not understand that?

@Clixby:
I find your analysis of this arguement infuriating, just like the argument itself. By the way, that means I agree with you.

As for God Almighty, I've seen nothing to suggest He isn't (i.e. He's never promised to do anything He hasn't) and plenty that He is more powerful than I can readily define. He claims to be Almighty, and I see no evidence to refute this, so I believe it.

@Dendri:

I would have admired your restraint and prudence if you had actually left it at that.

I think they're wrong. How about yourself? You certainly seem to be looking down on me for thinking the way I do, which is exactly what you're accusing me of.

So basically you're mad because we follow our faith instead of yours? Its faith that leads you to believe that homosexuality is fine, after all. And people like you have done just as much mud-slinging and the like around here, I don't know about where you live.

There's a joke. I've given more respect than I've recieved here, and in America in general being 'religious' is as much of an insult as being 'liberal'. When they say kids can't pray by themselves in school, that's not respect. When they say religious clubs can't meet on school property, even when they just want to study the Bible by themselves after school, that's not respect. When pastors are arrested for preaching against homosexuality (not here, but in other nations), that's not respect. You haven't shown much respect with your posts. Check yourself before you start criticizing others. And yes, that is biblical.

@Susipaisti:
There have been other issues coming up, and some of the issues mentioned are still in debate, but the opposition seems to spend most of its time re-hashing arguements that have already been shown to be without merit.

@Rotku:

Not in the modern condition, they can't. And many of them can't at all, by science. 'There is no God', just the opposite to 'There is a God'. 'There is no free will', same. 'Homosexuality is not a choice', well, with free will in question, is anything? But even if we assume some things are a choice, there's not enough evidence out there one way or another to prove anything.

Maybe not, but Dendri has been pretty open in his contempt.

Lol. Actually, not boasting in God. So 'My God's bigger than your's is' is just fine.

I never said it would make them happy, not unless they fully follow God, and I'm not about to force that on anyone. I'm not even saying I don't want them allowed to have civii unions, I'm just saying I'll teach my kids its a sin, and if anyone asks me, I'll tell them the same.

@Nataraja

Wrong. Plenty of people have given things they see as evidence, and we have proceeded to show that it isn't the evidence/absolute evidence they think it is.

That's good. And I'm not saying I can prove them wrong, just that they can't prove me wrong.

An assumption, not a proven claim. Sorry, but that ammounts to Gnarf's "Our side is right."

@Beren:
Thank you, and points well taken. I'll try to contain my frustration.

@Everyone:
As for Gnarf's now-famous "Our side is right" bit, that's nothing more than a avid show of support. I won't say this was the right context to have it in, and it really didn't add anything to the arguement, but if you take it in the whole context, he's just expressing frustration at how the anti-religious posts have repeatedly ignored our arguements.

 

nice try nog, you ignored god saying, this is the animal which you my not eat

4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to

Paragraf 4:4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof:

then he makes a list of which animals are not to be eaten, which include the pig, even though it fills the criteria for mammels normaly to be eaten, is prety clear to me and the jews that the pig is not to be eaten according to god. guess the breakout fraction of the jews, called the christians chose to ignore this.

which puts in another point, the jews read these rules on the original language and to them the pig is not to be eaten, just like the muslims, because the muslims follow the exact same rules.
Guess does two major religions, including the ones who still read it on the original language (the jews) most undestand it wrong.

 

Now that is wrong
As much as I critises religions, people have as much right to practice religions as they do to have homosexual relationships, to go to school, or to vote. You know something is truely wrong when religious clubs can't meet in schools... (and of course when religous and liberal are used as insults).

Yeah, I understand that, and that is fine with me (well, not teaching children religous beliefs, but that's a different topic). My comments above were more aimed towards Gnarf.

Hmm, now here I must disagree. Believing something extreme doesn't exist is not the same as believing it doesn't. This takes us back to Aik's purple ninja space monkeys living on the moon, or what ever it was. The idea that homosexuality is not a choice can be tested through scientific processes. And the idea of free will isn't something I believe in strongly - it is a belief that has resently (in the last few months) that has developed due to me questioning my beliefs.

 

Well in Denmark its not directly illegalt to preach against Homosexuality, as you are practising your freedom of speech, but we do have a law against discremination on religon, race and and sexual way. So you can get sued and/or arrested for speaking to hatefull public. since its a lack of respect for others people way of life.
On the other hand i do support freedom of speech and choice, whcih include religion, im currently studieng Archeology (with greece and rome as my core) on the university of copenhagen, there we have a room said aside, to practise all relegions and to generaly relax. So currently there is a small Christian corner of it, Muslim corner, Jewish corner and i believe buddistik corner.
its a nice place to come, just to relax, for some people to pray and general talk/discus stuff.
And the only reason this place works is respect. because its a place of worship for 4 major religions and for atheist of religeus people of other believes to come.

This has nothing to do with the threat, just wanted to share this experience from my life, to shed light on my believes and views.
While i do respect religions i reserve the right to question them.

 

@NOG...Morality is contextual, it is a proven fact. Take, for example, the Ik people in Africa. Their morality is vastly different to most peoples morality, but it works for them. There are many many examples of where what is considered immoral in one society is considered moral in another, therefore morality is contextual. Morality is culture specific and there are no moral truths in the world, nor in any statements such as "Do not kill."

 

@ NOG

We're not (at least I'm not) trying to convince you that your side is wrong. I've just been trying to establish that there's plenty of room for doubt or alternate interpretations. You seem completely unwilling to do so.

That's precisely what many of us have done with you as well. But your opinions on the matter remain absolute with no room for alternate interpretation or even a concession that these alternate interpretations can indeed be viable. Hence, 8 pages of pointless back and forth. What you two see as refuting our claims, we see as you merely restating your original opinion again and saying "see, you're wrong." That's hardly a refutation.

None of us have been satisfied with your refutations because they just flat out aren't good enough for us. It's not because we're anti-religion, we just don't accept "the bible says so," especially since the bible is not the be-all end-all of religious truth for a number of reasons.

What Nataraja said is absolutely right - there's much more to this than either of you are willing to admit. It's not all black and white, cut and dried. Clearly you're unwilling to admit that other interpretations of religious scripture are valid. All we're asking (at least, all I'm asking) is that you acknowledge that others are entitled to their own logical interpretation.

You two claim that God's stance on homosexuality "is 100% clear," but obviously it's not that clear or we wouldn't be having this debate. We're not stupid - we know what 'clear' means. And I'm sorry, but there's more than enough room for a reasoble doubt on the bible's sections regarding homosexuality. It's something you're going to have to deal with.

What I consider righteous is the persuit of a strong, guiding faith - rather than a blind, unquestioning one - and using that to lead a good life and teach through example. That's something I appreciate and even envy, and for those of you who can't seem to reconcile reason with religion, I can't identify with you. I think you do your faith and your fellow man a disservice by being so hard-headed about what you think God wants from us.

What you and Gnarff lack, that we find so frustrating, is doubt. Doubt demands more information, more study, more reflection, more humility. You two have no doubt that your way is the only way. That's pride in piety's clothing. Your absolute certainty of your moral correctness and religious superiority is what drives people from faith and what makes "religous," as I believe you said earlier, a dirty word.

@ Beren

Noted, and I apologize for any specific rulebreaking. But I absolutely stand by my statement. I've also spent the last 8 pages being respectful, but that last one was just the last straw. I'm not trying to beat everyone into agreeing with my position, I'm trying to find common ground, reconsiling religious scripture with the real world. I will continue to do so in as peaceful and respectful a manner as I'm able, but I have my limits.

 

NOG...

Yes, I know. Believe me when I tell you that I dont feel better for having reacted, um, poisonous? But consider, there are many sensitivities involved in discussions about religion. Blunt statements should be avoided. Same with giving impressions that those poor souls who dont follow your path are immoral by default.
You may feel that the Bible holds all the wisdom and guidance you need in your life, but many do not, for whatever reason. Your conviction that it is the only guide for us will not turn anyone's head either. We all have to find a way for ourselves. Please reflect on that.

If you allow others their place in life, they will be more accepting of your position. (If, however, you give a rat's ass for everything not related to the Bible then I'm so wasting my time here...) You cannot force homosexuals, non-theists, polytheists, liberals *gasp*... or believers of science in the defensive by stripping away what has meaning for their existence - and then be surprised and hurt when a hostile response is triggered. Nor will it help you to point to your faith if someone gets irate. Emotions were stirred, and it's because their set of values and the teachings of your faith dont match to begin with. Your religion wont be of much assistance to placate the offended.

 

Actually, I agree with that. Unless it's a parochial school of some type that openly supports a certain religous viewpoint, then I don't think people should have Bible study groups in a public school. When you look at how fanatical some religious viewpoints have got in the last couple of decades, especially with the divide between Christianity and Islam, I see this as a just another way to increase violence in public school - and it's not like we have any shortage of violence in public schools these days to begin with.

 

Ok - I haven't read the whole thing - pages 4-7 seems to have escaped me, but a couple of things can always be brought up. (Sorry if this has been posted in the pages I haven't read).
__________________________________________________
Laura Schlesinger is a well known radio personality in the US who gives advice to callers.

A little while back she advised a caller referring to Leveticus [3rd book of Moses] 18:22, that homosexuality is an abomination and can therefore not be tolerated under any circumstances.

What follows is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an anonymous American citizen.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to teach people to live according to God’s laws. I have learnt a lot from you, and now I’m trying to share this knowledge with as many people as I am able. Should someone for example attempt to defend homosexuality, I just remind them that in Leveticus 18:22 it is clearly stated that homosexuality is an abomination. Nothing more to talk about there.

Now, however, I’m looking for some guidance as to how I should live according to God’s laws.

1. Every time I burn a bull as an offering , I know this shall be of a sweet savour unto the Lord. (Leveticus 1:9). I’m having a problem with the neighbours.

2. I wish to sell my daughter into slavery (Exodus [2nd book of Moses] 21:7). In today’s climate, what would be an appropriate price?

3. In Leveticus 25:44 it clearly states that I may keep slaves as long as they are bought from a neighbouring country. Now a friend of mine maintains that this is only true for Mexicans and not Canadians. This is where I need guidance. Can I own Canadians?

4. I have a neighbour who insists on working the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 is very clear on this, he should be killed. Am I morally responsible if I do this myself?

5. A friend of mine is of the opinion that even though it is an abomination to eat fish and shellfish (Leveticus 11:10), homosexuality is worse. I do not agree. Who is right?

6. In Leveticus 21:20 it clearly states that I must not approach God’s altar if I have poor eyesight. I have to admit that I’m short sighted and I use glasses. Must I have 20/20 vision, or do we have some margin here?

7. Most of my friends go to the hairdresser. They have their hair cut on the sides, and trim their sideburns. This is clearly a sin according to Leveticus 19:27. How should they be punished?

8.I have read in Leveticus 11:7-8 that I may not touch the remnants of a dead swine as it is unclean to me. Can I still play [American] football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He sins against Leveticus 19:19 because he has more than one crop in the same field. His wife is no better as she wears clothes made from two different types of materials (a mixture cotton and polyester). He also swears a fair bit. Is it really necessary to gather the whole congregation to stone them to death (Leveticus 24:10-16)? Would it not be just as easy to burn them at a family gathering the same way as we do with people who sleep with their relatives (Leveticus 20:14)?

I know you have studied these sorts of problems in depth, so I’m sure you can help me. Thank you for reminding us that God’s words are unchangeable and forever.

With kind regards from a loyal disciple and fan.
__________________________________________________

Now I have no idea if she actually exist, and as has been pointed out earlier some of these things are guidance and not laws. Fine, but it does draw attention to (as others also have) the fact that some of those passages considered laws in the old testament are out of date.

According to God's word here slavery is perfectly acceptable, though I'm fairly certain that any and all of you would join me in condemning any priest who preached this from the pulpit today?

Working on a Sunday being a capital offence will also take quite a few unsuspecting shop assistants by surprise, I can tell you, when vengance strikes.

Stoning does seem a little out moded too, but I am fairly certain that not even the most ultra conservative sects call for this anymore for taking God's name in vain in the present day?

Sooo, things have changed, like it or not. Not I guess from some of the posts. However, reality is that to apply laws (and justice?) from 2,000+ years ago in todays society does not only seem more than out of place, it appears plainly absurd.

On the flip side of course all religions are belief systems. The religions have their ways and interpretations on God's word, however inconsistent or absurd they may seem to people on the outside.

Unfortunately of course it's their ball, and they can go home with it should they chose. At the moment they chose not to play ball with homosexuals, even though some of those homosexuals would consider themselves devout, they are not allowed to play.

Therein lies the difficulty for me. I'm not a player in this game. I will object if they start bouncing the ball on the side of my house (and I frequently do), but I'm not sure it's in my place to tell them who they should play with either. I feel for the kids that no-one seems to want to play with, but it's not a game I can genuinly referee.

 

Ah, but you see, those laws don't count.

 

@Equester:

No I didn't. Reread my post if you don't believe me, but I didn't.

Well, when God tells you to do something, like He told Luke, you tend to do it. If that means God changed His rules for some reason, so be it, God can change His rules. Man can't change God's rules, but God can.

@Rotku:

I didn't mean the general approach was logically equivalent, I meant you can't scientifically prove God doesn't exist any more than I can scientifically prove God does, it just isn't a matter of science. You can't prove there is no free will any more than I can prove there is free will.

Only to a certain extent. We can tell that there isn't a direct, 1-to-1 relationship with any scientific criteria. Not all the people that have those genes in question are homosexual, only some are. Not all the people with certain chemical imbalances are homoesxual, only some are. So we can say there's no evidence it is directly forced on anyone by their genetics or environment, but the question now is do these things combine to force homosexuality. There is also the question of do they combine to make homosexuality more likely, but it still seems to have other factors (like choice). Science can only take us so far at the moment, and it is not nearly far enough to make an absolute, or even 'most likely case' conclusion.

@Equester:

I have no problem with you questioning me, so long as you listen to the answers I give. At the same time I have no problem with atheists. I'm eager to start conversations on beliefs with them, but I won't force such conversations, nor will I get 'in your face' about it.

@Nataraja:
This depends on what you mean by morality. If you mean 'what is actually right and wrong' then you can't prove morality is contextual and you can't prove there are no moral truths in the world. If you mean what a society judges as right or wrong, then you are absolutely right, it is contextual, but that's not the morality I'm talking about.

I believe there is an absolute code of right and wrong. If you break it, you are in the wrong, regardless of outside factors or what anyone thinks. At the same time, it is a complex code that involves situational variables. It isn't 1+1=2, but more like sin(A+B)+R^4=cos(R*P)/(A*R*P)^(2*B). You have to plug in the variables to get a specific answer, but certain things (like A =/= 0) are always true.

@DR:

And here's where we're hitting a problem. Most of the time those comments only show that there's no way to scientifically prove I'm right, which I can admit. I can also admit that, from your perspective, there is a lack of evidence supporting my claims. I cannot admit you may be right, however, because of personal experiences that aren't admissable here. I KNOW God is real and the Bible is right, but the things that proved it to me aren't things I can show you. I am even willing to admit the possibility that I am actually wrong, but it would take a LOT of evidence to make me believe so.

When you (not you personally) quote the Bible and I tell you that's not what it actually means, and I tell you why, and I show you evidence why, and you then say, 'but it clearly says ...', I feel I have proven your claim wrong and you have ignored me, or even said my arguments about context are meaningless (Equester). When you try and say the Bible contradicts itself or my practices, of course I'm going to quote the Bible as my defense. When you claim that the Bible is not relevant to modern times, or it is wrong, or it has been mistranslated or changed, then I go to outside sources to refute such claims.

Name me one topic in specific and why what I have said already isn't good enough. You say 'the Bible never says homosexuality is wrong' and I show you where it does. You say 'But the Bible changes its rules all the time/you ignore plenty of them' and I show you how we're not ignoring them, but you're reading a different meaning than was intended. You say 'The Bible claims women are inferior to men' and I show you how it doesn't. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why. If you don't think my arguements are convincing, tell me which ones and why.

I won't admit it if they aren't. When the books of the Bible were written, the author intended to communicate one set of ideas. If you are drawing another set of ideas out, then you are misinterpreting the scripture and I won't tell you you could be right because you aren't. I've even explained how you're wrong and what mistakes you have made, and you seem to ignore me.

God's stance is clear in the original context, and it doesn't take that much work these days to find out what that context is. You see a passage as murky and vague and maybe talking about homosexuality because you don't know the context. I then tell you the context, show you how it really is clear with no bargaining room when you know the context, and you ignore me.

No there isn't. Ok, lets take a quick look at this. AT LEAST twice in the Bible, God says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality (men lying with men as they would with women or men burning in their lusts for each other, I think those two are pretty clear) is a sin and He hates the act. No where does it even HINT that the act may be acceptable in God's eyes, not even close. The closest thing is some other passages thay may be condemning homosexuality or they may be condemning something else, but they're condemning something. So, God says its wrong AT LEAST twice and never comes close to saying its right. That doesn't leave much room for doubt. You can doubt the Bible is right, or that it is relevant today, but you can't claim it is unclear about what it says. If you disagree with me, find one passage, ONE PASSAGE that may be condoning homosexuality as an acceptable practice for Godly people.

Here's the most common problem we seem to have. You see evidence that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. I see evidence that goes hand in hand with the Bible in the original context. You claim I'm distorting things by applying a context, but you're applying a context, too. The difference is I'm applying the context it was written in to get the original meaning out. You are applying the modern context and get out gibberish. I am not blind or unquestioning in my following of my faith. If I were, I wouldn't have found out as much as I have about the original context. I would also see a legitimate complaint if I were applying different contexts to get different meanings, if I were just randomly making up contexts to get the meaning I want, but I'm not. I'm saying 'This was written to these people, and they would read it as this because of this.'

You doubt God. I doubt men. You have never given me any reason to doubt God, but He has given me plenty of reason to trust Him. You asking me to doubt God at this point would be like me asking you to doubt your parents' claims that you were their child and they didn't steal you out of a stranger's crib. You have plenty of reason to trust them and no reason to doubt them. Are you going to doubt them?

@Dendri:
I have not claimed that my beliefs are absolutely right without making the consession that I can't prove it to you. I haven't claimed any acts are wrong without adding that either 1.) the people are still loved or 2.) that this is my belief and I can't force you to agree with me. I don't force my beliefs on you. I've spent the last few pages telling you what I believe and why I believe what I do. I haven't attacked any groups and I haven't stripped away what others hold dear.

On the other hand, I think a few blunt points must be made. Many condemn Christianity for condemning others, but the fact is my religion claims they are wrong and I won't change just because it makes you uncomfortable. If you accept that I think it is wrong, and don't get offended when I say, in a legitimate discussion on the topic, that I believe it is wrong, then we can avoid a lot of this.

Also please note that my complaints haven't been about people attacking my position, but about people seemingly ignoring arguements and needlessly repeating themselves as if it were a new point. It is the lack of logic that has been demonstrated here that I find most offensive.

@Viking:
These area all clearly laws for the nation of Israel. Trying to apply these today would be like trying to apply the laws of Iran in America. Many of them also have other issues behind them, such as personal cleanliness, avoiding contamination, or technologial limitations of the day. God doesn't expect you to stone your neighbor for adultry (that goes in with 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'). God also expects you to obey the laws of the land you are living in, so long as they don't directly contradict His own (such as the nations that say you can't preach the gospel). As has been said before, God does expect you to think, He gave you a brain for a reason. Also note that Laura never suggested stoning homosexuals.