shuamort said:
You're equating homosexuality with murder? Ok then, how does someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home affect you? Both are sins in the eyes of the Lord and the Bible. Would you like masturbation outlawed too because of your religious beliefs?
"You people?" "You people?" Way to judge, Mr. Christianity.
"Homos", You’re really teetering on that line of name calling there. Of course, the introduction of the word “homosexuality” into the bible is quite new.
What’s a drunkard? Wait, never defeated? Last time I heard he was killed on a cross. Let’s nail you to a cross for your beliefs and ask if you’re defeated or not. LOL
Don’t believe him. Don’t believe in the Bible. WAYYYYYYYY too many errors to make any sense. Wayyyyyy too many mistranslations, too many books deleted, too many books rewritten for me to belive in that hogwash.
Someone dying in Alaska doesn’t affect me either. Someone being murdered in Alaska on the other hand, well that’s a different story.
I don’t speak for all atheists and agnostics, and I’m sure all Christians are thankful that you don’t speak for them. There are things called mores. Look up the word if you don’t know it. There’s also people that can reason, rationalize, and philosophize for themselves withouth having being told what to think. I’m sorry that you need to be told what to think, what to believe, and that you need to be told what’s right and wrong by other people.
Where’s the contradiction? (I’m assuming that’s the word you meant)
Really, so Buddhists have no morals?
Do I believe masturbation is wrong? No.
Do I believe that sex between consenting adults is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating meat on Fridays is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating seafood is wrong? No.
Do I believe murder is wrong? Yes.
You have to be able to define what the “sin” is before you can determine if it’s right or wrong. Life isn’t black and white.
As far as the Bible says, yes, masterbation as well as murder as well as having homosexual sex as well as lying all fall under tha same category. They are all actions that show how unlike a perfect God we are. Any action against the will of God, I would offer to you, is a sin.
However, I would dissagree that morals and God's law are one in the same. Morals have to do with the treatment between man to man, in an attempt to live together and grow as a species. A man can be a moral man and still commit sin every other minute of his life.
Now, some believe we should base laws off of what is God's law versus what is moral. Some argue laws should be void of God altogether. Some argue that laws ought to be based off of morals. Naturally, the laws of our Country follow none of these to the letter.
For instance: we cannot say that all laws are based on what affects the people around you, because of seat belt laws and helmet laws and drug laws andother such laws that are in place solely for the protection of the individual. So to say something should or should not be a law based on its effects on others, while it can serve as a factor, it does not, by example, mean that it should or should not be a adopted by a law.
Further more, there is no evidence to support that laws are completely based on the Bible either, as I see no evidence in the Bible that addresses the right to bear arms in a militia. Finally, the laws that alcohol cannot be served at certain times on Sunday show us that laws are not completely void of religious aspects either. So to what standard are either of you basing your arguments? Cause I would argue that by saying laws are based on this or that, you are both wrong.
As far as the story goes in the Bible, which asside from the account of Josephus, who arguably is in the exact same league as Luke, is the only account we have of the life and death of Christ, and it certainly doesn't end on the cross. I would argue that if you nail a guy to a cross, burry him in the ground, and then three days later the guys you had gaurding his tomb are passed out, the grave is open, and there he is walking around, gaining even more followers, then yeah, I'd say he was rather undeafeted at the time. If you believe him to be crucified based on historical accuracy of the Bible, then do not try to exclude the further details of the story by disputing its historical validity.
Errors, right! God actually meant Jesus died for your hens, not your sins. Heaven is really just made up of a bunch of fowl.
You're getting on this person's case because they "don't know what is right or wrong without someone telling them?" And yet, you don't believe in natural law? Then is there such thing as wrong or right?