You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What scripture says that is everyone receives some kind of evidence that would lead that person to conclude that there is a God, or at the very least, push them enough in that direction to be led to Jesus Christ. It also says that rather than acknowledge it, some people suppress the truth God has revealed them because of sin. It is all too common that humans suppress the truth naturally and effortlessly when it reveals something which causes them discomfort.

Having received (supernatural) evidence that sufficiently proves to me that not only is there a God, but that His name is Jesus Christ, I have faith that all of this is true. I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for revelation they did not receive. I have also spoken with many people who have been given such evidence, such as @A10anis, who was shown supernaturally that God spared Him in a car wreck, but still denies God and refuses to repent.

As far as the rules go, no Christian expects the unbeliever to obey them. We expect that you hate Gods rules and would avoid following them whenever possible, except where they match up with the general morality of the culture. The point isn't really about following the rules, when it comes to why you should accept Jesus Christ. The point is that everyone has broken these rules, and that come judgment day, God will find you guilty for breaking them unless you have repented and turned to the Savior for forgiveness. Jesus Christ came to bring reconciliation with God, and forgiveness for our sins, so we could have a meaningful and loving relationship with God. It is our sins that separate us from Him.

>> ^Sketch:

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.
I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.

I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@shinyblurry
So is this an accurate description? Or is your version of god more/less "just".

This video is short on theology and big on popular atheist misconceptions about Christianity and the bible.
This is the justice of God:
Psalm 89:14
Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face
The foundation of Gods throne is righteousness. Most people like to think of themselves as good people, because in comparison to others, they are more compassionate, do more good works, etc. They think of themselves as having good intentions, even if their conduct has been imperfect.
Gods standard of good is much higher than ours; moral perfection. He doesn't consider moral imperfection with good intentions to be good; He considers it to be evil. He has also ordained that the wages of our sin is death. Because we have all sinned and fallen short, we are all guilty and headed for punishment.
God, however, doesn't want to punish anyone. He is longsuffering towards us and desires that all would come to repentance. On one hand, His justice requires that the law be enforced, but on the other He desires to be merciful to us and forgive us. What is God to do?
To solve this conflict between justice and mercy, God sent His only Son to Earth, to act as our substitute and take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He lived a perfect life, without sin, and was qualified to atone for the sins of the world. He paid the price for all sin on the cross, and made the way of reconciliation with God. Therefore, all who repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, will have their sins forgiven, and also obtain eternal life.
Those who refuse to repent and change their ways will be punished. Hell was not created for human beings, but those who wish to follow the ways of the devil instead of God will be eternally punished along with him in hell.
To say that someone would end up in hell for a lack of evidence is incorrect. God makes it plain to everyone what He requires of us, and if He hasn't made it plain to you yet, He will. You are only held accountable to the amount of revelation you have received. People do not go to hell because of a lack of evidence, they go to hell because they love their sin more than the truth and refuse to repent.

I leave it to others to read your diatribe and see for themselves that you actually concur with the video. Suffice to say; "Believe in me, and be saved. Or, reject me, and burn in hell for eternity." Why anyone would choose to be a slave to such a sick concept is beyond rational, free thinking, educated, 21st century humans. Here is another sick concept; A person can be good all his life but still damned for eternity for not accepting god. Yet a murderer, rapist etc, will be accepted into heaven if he repents and takes god as his saviour. God/gods are man made, if you cannot see that, you are a lazy thinker who does not deserve the brain nature bestowed on you.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@shinyblurry
So is this an accurate description? Or is your version of god more/less "just".


This video is short on theology and big on popular atheist misconceptions about Christianity and the bible.

This is the justice of God:

Psalm 89:14

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face

The foundation of Gods throne is righteousness. Most people like to think of themselves as good people, because in comparison to others, they are more compassionate, do more good works, etc. They think of themselves as having good intentions, even if their conduct has been imperfect.

Gods standard of good is much higher than ours; moral perfection. He doesn't consider moral imperfection with good intentions to be good; He considers it to be evil. He has also ordained that the wages of our sin is death. Because we have all sinned and fallen short, we are all guilty and headed for punishment.

God, however, doesn't want to punish anyone. He is longsuffering towards us and desires that all would come to repentance. On one hand, His justice requires that the law be enforced, but on the other He desires to be merciful to us and forgive us. What is God to do?

To solve this conflict between justice and mercy, God sent His only Son to Earth, to act as our substitute and take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He lived a perfect life, without sin, and was qualified to atone for the sins of the world. He paid the price for all sin on the cross, and made the way of reconciliation with God. Therefore, all who repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, will have their sins forgiven, and also obtain eternal life.

Those who refuse to repent and change their ways will be punished. Hell was not created for human beings, but those who wish to follow the ways of the devil instead of God will be eternally punished along with him in hell.

To say that someone would end up in hell for a lack of evidence is incorrect. God makes it plain to everyone what He requires of us, and if He hasn't made it plain to you yet, He will. You are only held accountable to the amount of revelation you have received. People do not go to hell because of a lack of evidence, they go to hell because they love their sin more than the truth and refuse to repent.

>> ^VoodooV:

Once again, Bob demonstrates that he just doesn't get it...and commits another ad hom at the same time.
There is this wonderful thing called nuance. There's nothing wrong with the argument that the Constitution is a remarkable document. It was pretty freakin ground breaking for the time and still holds up on many issues even today.
But it is, still, just a document. You're kinda painting yourself into a corner when you attempt to elevate something like the Constitution or, say, the Bible to a...divine level.
Dictatorships are actually quite efficient government. Conservatives claim to love efficient government so you really shouldn't be so quick to poo poo on dictatorships. Of course, the problem with dictatorships is you can't always trust the dictator to do what you think is right. Nor is there a very good mechanism of change in dictatorships, short of changing dictators, but that usually tends to be fairly bloody.
Fortunately, the founders were smart enough to put in a mechanism that allows it to be changed. As history has shown, even the Constitution, like the Bible, got one of the simplest moral questions WRONG. Both the Constitution and the Bible are flat out wrong when it comes to the equality of its citizens. Fortunately, humans have this wonderful capability of learning things and....evolving (gasp). Even if the founders weren't smart enough to put in such a mechanism for change, guess what, change would still eventually happen, it just would have been bloodier. Hell, we STILL had a Civil War that killed a lot of people even though we had a mechanism to peacefully change our gov't. So again, the constitution means absolutely dick when enough people agree that it means absolutely dick.
Gov't back then, used to have the ability to revoke a business charter on a whim, aren't you pro-corporation types glad the Constitution isn't a static document?
I thought so.
Nuance is a wonderful thing, makes you actually think for yourself instead of blindly stumbling around, pretending that some dated document is divine, regardless of how well written it may be. Change is a bitch.


Shut up Bob was right and you are a bastard.

Once again, Bob demonstrates that he just doesn't get it...and commits another ad hom at the same time.

There is this wonderful thing called nuance. There's nothing wrong with the argument that the Constitution is a remarkable document. It was pretty freakin ground breaking for the time and still holds up on many issues even today.

But it is, still, just a document. You're kinda painting yourself into a corner when you attempt to elevate something like the Constitution or, say, the Bible to a...divine level.

Dictatorships are actually quite efficient government. Conservatives claim to love efficient government so you really shouldn't be so quick to poo poo on dictatorships. Of course, the problem with dictatorships is you can't always trust the dictator to do what you think is right. Nor is there a very good mechanism of change in dictatorships, short of changing dictators, but that usually tends to be fairly bloody.

Fortunately, the founders were smart enough to put in a mechanism that allows it to be changed. As history has shown, even the Constitution, like the Bible, got one of the simplest moral questions WRONG. Both the Constitution and the Bible are flat out wrong when it comes to the equality of its citizens. Fortunately, humans have this wonderful capability of learning things and....evolving (gasp). Even if the founders weren't smart enough to put in such a mechanism for change, guess what, change would still eventually happen, it just would have been bloodier. Hell, we STILL had a Civil War that killed a lot of people even though we had a mechanism to peacefully change our gov't. So again, the constitution means absolutely dick when enough people agree that it means absolutely dick.

Gov't back then, used to have the ability to revoke a business charter on a whim, aren't you pro-corporation types glad the Constitution isn't a static document?

I thought so.

Nuance is a wonderful thing, makes you actually think for yourself instead of blindly stumbling around, pretending that some dated document is divine, regardless of how well written it may be. Change is a bitch.

The laws in Leviticus do not apply to Christians; they were for Israel, for that time and place only. That was the Old Covenant, and Christians are under the New Covenant. In the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:10, I Cor. 6:9-10, and Jude 7 clearly identify homosexuality as a sin. So, immediately his diatribe about shellfish and menstration is a strawman, because none of that applies to Christians in the first place.

In regards to slavery, Dan is purposefully misreprenting the bible, because it does not endorse it. In the Old Testament, there are rules that govern the treatment of slaves in Israel, but in Israel, slavery was not the same thing as it was in modern times. Slavery there was essentially a kind of profession, where people would sell themselves into slavery to have daily food and shelter in exchange for their labor.

Dan is also deliberately misrepresenting what the New Testament says about slavery. For one, Paul did say there are no slaves:

Colossians 3:11

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all

The bible says that every person has intrinsic worth and value. It says that all people are made in the image of God and He doesn't love the poor man any less than the rich man. In fact very often it condemns the rich man.

Dan also deliberately misrepresents what Paul wrote in the letter to Philemon, because it is the exact opposite of what he implied! Paul told Philemon to let his slave go, and if need be, Paul would compensate him out of his own pocket. Paul told Philemon that his slave had far more value as a free man, and what he said was actually a command to let him go.

Philemon 1:14-21

But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you count me a partner, receive him as you would receive me. But if he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, put that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self besides). Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in the Lord. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even beyond what I say

As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general. It doesn't matter if its true, or if it even makes any sense; people who bash Christians and the bible are instant heros here. A pretense of tolerance and equality is brought up when these subjects come up, but hypocritically Christians are always exempt, and often there is a "string em up" mentality as we see in this thread. That the sift denies this was inappropiate, especially at a conference about anti-bullying, is the least surprising thing I've seen today.

Let's face facts..if it were a Christian speaker saying things in a similar tone and manner to a group of homosexuals, it would be as if the world had ended, and many here would be calling for the speaker to be crucified.

@shveddy

What happens, typically, is that a person born into a Christian home grows up with their parents religion, and believes in it because they were taught it as truth. They have no foundation for their own faith, and they look at Christianity as a sort of checklist. As in, go to church, follow certain rules, read the bible, etc. If they've got all of those checked off, they're a Christian.

These people typically start to fall away in their teenage years, when they start encountering the skepticism of the world towards Christianity and the bible. Lacking any internal reasoning for their own faith, probably never even having deeply considered it, they are vulnerable into indoctrination into other belief systems, like secular humanism. Particularly secular humanism, since it has the most sophisticated arguments against Christianity.

These were people who had a religion; they were not born again. They never knew Jesus Christ personally. To know Jesus is to be supernaturally transformed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don't know Jesus, you are not a Christian, and never were.

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.

First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.

Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.

Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.

No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.

You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.

You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...

...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

>> ^bareboards2:
No I don't. I have you on ignore. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop folks from quoting you so I can't help but catch a glimpse. I read what folks say to you, so I have a hint.
I was just curious if you would actually listen to a scholarly and thoughtful bible lesson, tied to a profoundly moving statement from the personal experience of a gay Christian who has suffered because of traditional Christian attitudes towards gays.
Not surprised that you haven't listened to it. Was hopeful that you had.
I'm done here.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^bareboards2:
Actually, no, I don't read your posts. Haven't for months.
I was just curious if you would listen to the whole thing.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^bareboards2:
@shinyblurry.
One question.
Yes or no answer. Please don't elaborate.
Did you listen to this video all the way to the end?

Not yet..if you had been following the thread at all, which it doesn't look like you have, you would have seen where I said that I planned to listen to the rest of it when I had the time.


Apparently you do



I've listened to some of it. I'm sure it sounds scholarly to you, but to someone who studies the bible, it has thus far been pretty superficial. At this point I'm not very optimistic that he is going to present a sound exegesis. Since he said he has spent thousands of hours researching this, I am a little surprised that there isn't that much substance to his presentation. So far it has been more an appeal to emotion than anything else.

No I don't. I have you on ignore. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop folks from quoting you so I can't help but catch a glimpse. I read what folks say to you, so I have a hint.

I was just curious if you would actually listen to a scholarly and thoughtful bible lesson, tied to a profoundly moving statement from the personal experience of a gay Christian who has suffered because of traditional Christian attitudes towards gays.

Not surprised that you haven't listened to it. Was hopeful that you had.

I'm done here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^bareboards2:
Actually, no, I don't read your posts. Haven't for months.
I was just curious if you would listen to the whole thing.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^bareboards2:
@shinyblurry.
One question.
Yes or no answer. Please don't elaborate.
Did you listen to this video all the way to the end?

Not yet..if you had been following the thread at all, which it doesn't look like you have, you would have seen where I said that I planned to listen to the rest of it when I had the time.


Apparently you do

Here is the link to the study which had a broken link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2242700

Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

You asked for data which supported my conclusions, which I provided. You've attempted to explain some of it away, but the conclusion is still well supported; that homosexuality does harm to the individual, the community and society in general.

Neither have I been preparing for this. I knew that in general my conclusions were accurate due to research I have seen in the past, but I did not do the specific research until after you asked me to provide the evidence. I researched all of that in under an hour.

What I see in your response is the intolerance that you are accusing me of. You casually throw out the term homophobia as if I am on a crusade to persecute homosexuals. Did you fail to notice that I was asked to join this thread? You may also have thought to ask for my opinion, which is that I don't see homosexuality as a necessarily worse sin than lying, cheating, stealing etc. The fact is that we're all sinners and I don't think one sinner is any better than another. I have empathy for homosexuals; I see them as people made in the image of God. I'm sorry to say that some christians have fallen into the satanic trap of homosexual persecution but I see all people as worthy of respect and love, as the Lord taught us. To love our neighbor as ourselves.

>> ^curiousity: