Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

I’d hypothesize that all cultures in recorded history to date have been religious. Is that true? I can’t think of any atheist-dominated cultures per se. With the possible exception of recent communist states. And those didn’t and haven’t lasted long enough to truly tell, but they certainly show signs of a notable lack of any morality.

(P.S. I wish American schools would cover them in more detail, but I think I’ve heard that indigenous South American (and African?) cultures did indeed allow bestiality, necrophilia, etc.)

Of course, like I said, as a Christian, I have another answer as well. There is one objective truth, and all people are created in the image of God, and God is in ultimate control of all, so all people are still flawed bearers of His image. Atheists reject this idea out of hand. What are they left with?

(Note: To avoid confusion: I am still confused as to why atheists have morality. Without something like the Bible to ground me, I could easily overcome the pitiful dregs of conscience that humans are left with. (You know, the ones I say are due to a flawed reflection of God’s image and atheists say are “conditioning” and “heredity.”) They’re not a basis for squat: just corroboration for the Bible.)

Report comment to moderator

You don’t strike me as a person who could be persuaded to kill homosexuals. I suspect that in person you are a civil and sensible person with a lot of nonsense in your mind.

If you had a homosexual child, I suspect you would do the decent and sensible thing, though with a lot of anguish. Vicki (VS) (no longer alive) told me that she had a child living without marriage and with children. She had not rejected her child.

I suggest you read Chapter 31 of Huckleberry Finn.

Read about John Newton, a British captain who had carried slaves, had been himself a slave, and then became an abolitionist.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb050/is_4_71/ai_n28965931/

When other Puritans feared and persecuted Indians, how did Roger Williams became a Christian who “waged” and made peace with Indians? When other Puritans hung Quakers, Roger Williams criticized them intensely and invited them to live in peace.

Your instincts strike me as good ones. Your indoctrination struggles against your instincts. I suspect you realize this and struggle with this conflict much more than you are willing to admit here. But I don’t know. Perhaps you are as rigid and indoctrinated in person as you present yourself in your comments.

Report comment to moderator

Not very consistent.

What is the “pro-homosexual crowd?” I believe in tolerating homosexuality if it is nor violating other reasonable legal and ethical behaviors (rape, etc., and in allowing homosexual relationships without calling it “marriage.” I have never said that homosexuality is wonderful. I have never urged people to be homosexual.

I have said that I have known people in polyamorus relationships that and I have said that legal arrangements should be tolerated for people in such (subject to exceptions above). Joel acts as if he has never heard me say this. Now you are engaging in the same behavior.

As I have said, I see this similar to toleration of Christianity.

I don’t think Christianity is true. I don’t think Christianity has demonstrated the ability to run society. I don’t advocate persecuting Christians or banning Christianity. I think Christians should be allowed to publish books and magazine and create web sites and build churches. If homosexual/polyamorous consenting adult humans are not allowed to form civil unions/domestic partnerships, non-Christian countries should be allowed to prohibit prosetylzing.

I see no more reason why a country should allow Christians to proselytize their youth than you see to allow people to form legal unions per above. Why is proselytizing a “basic right?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Perhaps you might try being friendly; perhaps I might be more inclined to take your side in your irrational and questionable expectations if you take my side with mine.

Report comment to moderator

Yes, it is inconsistent to advocate for legally redefining marriage for homosexual advocates but refusing to legally redefine it for polygamy advocates. Both groups can claim to retain the standard of consent between adults who claim to be in love. I like Jesus’ standard instead:

* “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus–making it clear that from the beginning, marriage was intended to be one man and own woman (two becoming one).

Take care, NJL.

Report comment to moderator