No matter how you cut it, BD, this is another failure of an argument. You cannot prove absolute, you cannot prove causation, and what you state occurs with gays occurs with straights... in MUCH larger raw numbers.
No, the facts demonstrate that it's irrelevant.You would like it to be irrelevant but the facts say different.
Most? Oh... I get it. It is OK for you to judge an entire group based on the behaviors of a few. There's a word for that...Why? Most are guilty, I am not above calling an ass an ass.
And everytime you say something so inaccurate, I will point it out. You don't like it? Oh, well.If you don't like it, oh well.
Then please re-explain what your "background noise" comment was referring.This has nothing to do with my comments about background noise as a response to her about it.
You mite want to read it again.
From reading what people write and how they write, and knowing my own level of religiousness. I might be wrong, but it's what I observe.How do you know you are one of the "Most religious" here? I mean did you do a survey? That is an awfully bold statement considering you have no idea what anyones level of religion, faith or belief is.
Just as is yours.Your interpretation of God is irrelevant to anyone else's.
Firstly, I'm not Christian... I'm Jewish. Secondly, in my religion we will reassess religious laws and alter them based on societal changes. Also, the Leviticus passage that most people focus on has, in Judaism, been interpretted to refer to prostitution within the context of homosexuality, NOT homosexuality itself. Now, THAT is my religious tenet and how the Bible has been interpretted by thos of MY religion. What YOUR religion says about it is irrelevant to me, but don't say "clear bible tenets" to me, because YOUR clear tenets are incorrect in my religion... and we use the same bible.This however does not mean basic tenet's of the Bible that are very clear cannot be stated or made correct. If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.
The remainder of what you said was irrelevant to your comment... all it was, was YOUR perception and belief which has zero to do with logic.If you are going to quote me, at least do it in context...
Logic must stand up to objective testing to be anything other than relative. If you are saying that faith is logical to YOU based on your experiences, I can agree with you. If you are saying that faith, as a general description, is logical, I do not.Faith can be logical. If for example I have witnessed things that have proving God's existence to me, it is no longer faith, but fact. This is very logical for me and many others. - Blackdog
So again faith can be logical. This is not saying faith IS logic as they are polar opposites. This does not mean that one cannot be grounded in the other as I said and showed an example.
OK.No one is doing this.
You need to present it better than. Your opening statement was the problem. I understand what you are saying NOW, but remember, this is relative to the individual.My statement was nothing of the sort. We were talking about logical reason for faith. Not proof of anything BY faith.
Again in context makes a world of difference.