And yet Gods law has stood the test of time. You do not need to understand the mechanics of science to understand Gods commands.
Your history knowledge is sketchy. God's "Law" has been enforced differently, from one place to another, from one generation to another, and from one era to another, depending on the cultural priorities of the people enforcing it. Spare me how it's unchanging. It isn't unchanging. You emphasize one particular sin, repeatedly, over all others. In another era, a different sin--maybe making too many pictures of saints, for instance or painting pictures of pagan gods--would have resulted in public executions. It's difficult to take these claims seriously because they are too easily proven to be false.
That is irrelevant, the law is just and moral. It has nothing at all to do with our understanding of science, nothing at all.
So, when Galileo was prosecuted for the heresy of daring to suggest that the earth wasn't flat, and that the stars didn't rotate around the earth, was that science? Or just and moral law? See, just and moral are both subjective, not objective terms. They vary from time to time, place to place, and pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[50]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[51] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[52]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
I know that you are parrotting a set of beliefs. You keep repeating them, as if repetition will make them more true or logical. What you apparently don't realize is that these beliefs are based on circular logic and thus, are inherently fallacious from a logical perspective.
This is how it works...
Blackdog: "These rules are moral and just."
Catz: How do we know this?
Blackdog: Because God told us.
Catz: How do we know that God told us?
Blackdog: Because the Bible says so.
Catz: How do we know the bible is accurate?
Blackdog: Because the Bible says so.
The Bible cannot be used to prove it's own validity. So, your point is a logical fail. It's not even that it requires faith, but that logically, you cannot use the Bible to prove the truthfulness of the Bible. In what court of law, or any other system, would we take that sort of "proof" as rational and reasonable? NONE....except the realm of religion.
Now, you can keep saying this stuff repeatedly, but that doesn't make it logically true or factually true. And, it would be good for you to recognize that. There is no such thing as objective truth in the subjective realm of morality. ALL MORALITY IS INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE.
So, the only way to weigh it is to compare the effects. Is it more effective to condemn gays as sinners and throw stones at them? Or, to approach them in love, and tell them about hope?
Which would you be more likely to respond to?
Again yes it does, but we are not to condone or support immorality are we?
Is it condoning immorality to leave the fatties at church alone and not constantly harp at them about their gluttony? How many times, exactly, do you feel the need to throw someone's divorce in his/her face? There is the ideal, and then there is the practical reality that every single human being falls short of perfection every single day, and none of us is really in the position to judge other people. And, that judging isn't NECESSARY or EXPEDIENT for us or them. Our job is to be like Christ. Our job is to take up
OUR OWN CROSS and follow him.
Our job is not to tell other people that they aren't carrying their cross the right way.
And I have known enough to call BS on that. In fact I lived in a gay household, so is my anecdotal evidence as valid as yours? Or should we just except anecdotal evidence is not really proof of anything.
Okay. Call bull****. My perspective remains as valid as yours. YOu can't prove that it isn't genetic, but but you believe it isn't. I can't prove that it is genetic, but I believe it is. What makes your beliefs more valid than mine?
This still did not answer my question: Where is the scientific report saying that being gay is heredity or a gene?
I did answer your question, and let's put it like this: Even if there were a scientific report, you'd ignore it, because it conflicts with your "moral authority."
I tell adulterers they are sinners and need to repent, they don't go and kill themselves. I tell fornicators the same thing. They don't go and kill themselves. I also tell lier's, thief's etc exactly the same things.
Why do I find this hard to believe? Do you tell fatties to go and lose weight because their gluttony is dishonoring God? Feel free to provide evidence of this. A video clip would be fine.
It is more than just religion causing the problem. Soceity is not ready to accept the gay life style as moral or right. This is changing, but for now they are not.
Moral and right are subjective terms. There are places in the world where eating your enemy's liver is considered moral and right. So, please stop using these terms as if they are factual. They aren't. Moral and right is what YOUR RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY says it is, today. It could change tomorrow. It will definitely change in 100 years. 150 years ago, it was morally right to own black people as property. The church said so. So did the Bible. It was morally wrong for a white person to marry a black person (miscegenation). The white person and the black person could be prosecuted and thrown in prison for loving each other.
Was slavery morally right? Or, does what is morally right change over time? Or was slavery ALWAYS morally wrong, and thus, the Bible's stance on it is also wrong?
You tell me.
They ARE gay Christians who run the first 2 groups I posted.
Are they formerly gay, or currently gay?
Please don't take my comments out of context, I don't do that to you. Here is my statement...
You cannot continually sin and expect to remain saved. At some point you are obviously not repentent and that is what eventually seperates people from God.
But you do sin repeatedly, Blackdog. At least be honest about it. Is there a single day that goes by that you don't sin?
So, why are YOUR sins so forgiveable, but being gay is so UNforgivable? You're being inconsistent here, and I'm calling you on that fact.
If I thought you were worthless, I'd ignore you like I do most of the religious morons on here. (which, at this point, you might prefer--if that's the case, let me know)
This is not to pick on you or insult you as I did before. Please look in the mirror, can you tell me you still have faith in God? And believe whole heartedly Christ is your savior? If you can't, then you know what separation I am talking about.[/b] - Blackdog
I don't know. That's the honest answer. Do I still believe in God? Maybe. I try. Do I believe in religion? Not at all. I believe in Matthew 25. I lost my faith about 10 years ago, and was religiously abused by my ex-husband, who cheated on me repeatedly and used my faith to tear me down every single day.
Did I want to lose my faith? Oh my god, NO. It was the worst thing I've ever gone through in my life. I spent about six months crying and terrified. Do I hate God? Absolutely not. Do I hate religion? No, but I fear it. It was used to rip my heart out by the one person I loved the most in the world.
I don't know if there is a God, but what I do know is that--in this lifetime--the only way that I can truly KNOW HIM, face to face, is through the things he's made. Specifically, the people, who were made in his image. And, if I can't love other people, I certainly can't love God.
It's weird, though. I do care about this stuff. It makes me sad to see people of faith tearing down and injuring gays and lesbians out of fear. It makes me really sad. Frankly, I can't think of ANYTHING that is less Christlike.
However, having said all of this...your tactics here are ad hominem. Either my points are supported in scripture, or they aren't. Attempting to attack MY personal relationship with God in order to ignore the points I've made is pretty....UNchristian.
Care to answer? You don't have to and I will understand, but you will have made my point either way.
It isn't making a point to throw a stone at me and call me an unbeliever, dude. It's losing a logical argument.