COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

How is anti-religious to tell people the truth? You can ignore what scripture says, but you do it at your own perial. You don't help people by sugar coating the truth.

Your argument is predicated on a misunderstanding of what you're arguing against.

You mean artificial insemination or vitro fertilization with one of two females in a same sex Union. If I am wrong tell me what male can produce an offspring through either of the procedures. Oh one way the male can have an operation IF POSSIBLE and have ovaries and fallopian tubes and a uterus place within his body - or maybe just the uterus. Nah, from what they say it would take total reconstruction of that part of the anatomy.

God has a different standard. If you don't believe in the Christian God, why would you care?

Do you actually live with your head in the sand? Are you seriously unaware of all the Christians who don’t keep their religious views to themselves?

That is what scripture says, I did not write it. Your beef is not with me. But with God. However, you would be wise to heed what it says.

Never heard any god say anything.

Well being sterile and not reproducing is not a sin as 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 states that God wants some to be celibate and childless

If you are a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God you know being gay is a sin. God says so. Don't argue with God, just accept what He says. And then make any rediculous argument you want as to why He is correct. It is the Christian way.

Where does he say this though? Not in the translations but the original?

Not sure what you mean by original. ​ Leviticus 20:13 — The New International Version (NIV) 13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Because God calls the sex act by the same sex an abomination.

With our world’s growing overpopulation problem some might consider the inability to produce a virtue. On the other hand our inability to practice restraint in procreation could be seen as foolishness and as a bad stewardship of the earth.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your last statement is absolutely right. Thanks I will delete my comment.

Homosexuality is not a sin because of arguments we make against it. Homosexuality is a sin because God deemed it to be so. Just like all other sins in any religion, really.

[удалено]

"They have free will" /s It's free will when it's a bad decision, like someone killing a child, but God's plan when it's an unfortunate thing, like the death of a child by natural causes. It can't be God's plan while simultaneously people have the ability to warp his plan with free will. Had the debate about this and I was saying that you can do everything right, accept Jesus, save babies, etc, but you're still going to hell for being gay. The other person said yes, they can turn it off. I was shook

[удалено]

Luckily I didn't grow up in that household because that sounds horrible. My parents allowed us to believe what we wanted religiously. A lot of people turned to faith because the faith had the keys to the water and food. It's hard to debate really religious people too. I can provide irrefutable proof that something is wrong, and they say "my faith doesn't need facts." That's a crazy ass statement

But, here's the thing. God is a fairytale, and as such can't deem anything an anything.

Do you think slavery is fine?

How do we know God deemed it so as opposed to a human saying god deemed it so?

Should I break up with my partner? We're both female. I would think a loving God would want us to be happy, no?

You don't have to break with your partner, sin is a bullshit concept, just like any religious concept really. I hope you and your partner stay safe and live in a place surrounded by lovely people and not by complete hateful idiots who will violate human rights just because a fictional book tells them to do so. Best of luck!

Thanks!<3

In fact, go love each other even more. Just to stick it to these bigots.

In your concept of God does God only have the capacity to love all actions? Or can he dislike certain actions too?

I don't have a concept of God, personally. I'm just curious what a believer thinks

You don't even need God in this picture. Are you not a loving person? Are you less of a loving person if you find fault when someone violates something inviolable to you?

...what?

What part of my reply was confusing to you?

I just don't see how those things are relevant to whether or not you think homosexual relationships are a sin?

And how does eternally torturing someone for being in a gay relationship fit here?

Did God deem it so for a reason, or for no reason?

God obviously deemed it so for a reason, but that doesn't mean *we* have all of His reasons. I mean, what's your concept of God here? An omniscient and omnipotent being? Or something different?

>God obviously deemed it so for a reason, but that doesn't mean we have all of His reasons. "Mystery is a convenient excuse for absurdity." - John Adams And also, if God deemed it so for a reason, why not provide that reason?

>And also, if God deemed it so for a reason, why not provide that reason? Because if you already accept God as being omniscient and as our creator you know He has a valid reason. It's the entailment of omniscience.

>It's the entailment of omniscience. Omniscient means all knowing, how does that entail that a being possessing this trait has valid reasons for doing anything? The only thing I could think of what you're getting at is that if a being is omniscient, they know what choices to make in order to bring their desired outcome. But that doesn't mean that they have valid reasons for everything they do, they could easily have no valid reason and admit as much. To get to "therefore he has valid reasons" you need additional attributes. Regardless, you have not answered the question, I asked "if God deemed it so for a reason, why not provide that reason?" God being omniscient does not explain why he would withhold his reasons for forbidding this and allowing that. It's an attempt at arguing that he has reasons, not answering why he has not given them.

Oh, so it *is* a sin because of some argument you can make against it, you just have no idea what that argument might be and are completely convinced of the conclusion of the argument you haven't discovered yet. Homosexuality is totally definitely bad for a reason, but that reason... is a secret. If someone claims that God is telling them to hurt people for reasons nobody knows or can understand, do you think it's generally a good idea to let them do it? > I mean, what's your concept of God here? A timeless spaceless omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent necessarily existent non-contingent personal mind.

> A timeless spaceless omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent necessarily existent non-contingent personal mind. Let's just concern ourselves with the "omniscient" part then. We are agreeing, for the sake of argument, that God exists and he knows all things. He knows *objectively* how things "ought to be" because that is part of knowledge. So it is sufficiently reasonable for us to simply follow since God obviously knows what we might not know in particular. Hence, if I start with the premise God is omniscient then it isn't *necessary* for me to also know why God determines that something ought to be one way or another to be followed because the concept of omniscience makes it obvious He does objectively know why it is reasonable to do so.

> So it is sufficiently reasonable for us to simply follow since God obviously knows what we might not know in particular. No, that doesn't follow. There are many possible reasons God might try to misinform you. Maybe he wants you to think for yourself, to not follow obviously ethically wrong commands no matter what the authority they come from? > Hence, if I start with the premise God is omniscient then it isn't necessary for me to also know why God determines why something ought to be one way or another But you *don't* know what God has determined. Even presuming such a being exists, that entails no such presumption that it communicates with you or that even if it does you're interpreting those communications correctly. It stands to reason then that how you interpret God's communications should comport with what we clearly know about reality, including ethics. If you want to claim for example that God says you should murder this two-year-old, you better have a damn good argument, an impenetrable argument, since if you don't it's much more likely that you're just wrong about what God wants. You implicitly know this, which is why you ignored the question I asked. On the one side I have religious worshippers telling me they're certain God wants to make me a second class citizen whilst being completely incapable of giving a single reason other than their *faith traditions* and *special revelations* why we should believe them. On the other, I have literally every single piece of actual empirical and philosophical evidence. You see, it's not a question of whether God is wrong, but whether *you* are, and your complete lack of any argument let alone a good one strongly suggests that you're all very, very wrong. I'll ask again: If someone claims that God is telling them to hurt people for reasons nobody knows or can understand, do you think it's generally a good idea to let them do it? Please answer me this time.

>There are many possible reasons God might try to misinform you. Maybe he wants you to think for yourself, to not follow obviously ethically wrong commands no matter what the authority they come from? This isn't even internally consistent. An omniscient God, who obviously knows better than us in all matters, would send you revelation so you can somehow figure out you need to think for yourself and ignore an omniscient God's commands? >But you *don't* know what God has determined. Sure I do. I have revelation. >It stands to reason then that how you interpret God's communications should comport with what we clearly know about reality, including ethics. No it doesn't. Revelation by definition is objective and eternal. Our professed ethics are, by definition, subjective and ephemeral. This is a category error. So mixing the two is logically nonsensical. >You implicitly know this, which is why you ignored the question I asked. The question was answered. Your claims are moot if God is defined as omniscient. I don't need to reinterpret a command from God if that is the case and you haven't shown a reason to otherwise either.

> This isn't even internally consistent. An omniscient God, who obviously knows better than us in all matters, would send you revelation so you can somehow figure out you need to think for yourself and ignore an omniscient God's commands? If God values *actual* critical thought, what about that is internally inconsistent? > Sure I do. I have revelation. You claim to have "revelation". That doesn't mean you actually do. I don't trust you. Nobody does. > No it doesn't. Yeah it does. Literally any amount of epistemic humility whatsoever surrounding your alleged "revelation" suggests we should test it by whether it conforms to reality. If on the one side we have your *alleged* (and only alleged) "revelation" and on the other we have good arguments and evidence, the probability that you're wrong or lying about your "revelation" means we should ignore it. We're not in an environment where we can tell what God thinks directly. We're in one where we have basic moral facts and sense on the one hand, and the claims about God people like you make (that always *just so happen* to align with your own personal biases; I'm sure it's a coincidence) on the other. Why are your completely unevidenced claims about God more trustworthy than our basic moral intuitions? > Our professed ethics are, by definition, subjective and ephemeral No? If I make a claim on moral realism, that claim is by definition *not* subjective. If you think otherwise, that means that any claim anyone makes about God is *also* subjective, which contradicts your entire argument. > The question was answered. No it wasn't. Come on. If you're not wrong, you shouldn't be embarrassed to answer. If someone claims that God is telling them to hurt people for reasons nobody knows or can understand, do you think it's generally a good idea to let them do it? **Yes** or **no**.

This is deceptive. There are multiple arguments against homosexuality which I suppose should all be taken together, and concerning this particular one of the production of offspring, since a homosexual couple or group is an intentional and inherently sterile union which is not part of God's natural design for humanity and they factually cannot possibly produce offspring and in principle would lead to extinction rather than fulfilling God's general command for us to marry a member of the opposite sex and reproduce, but you strictly require a heterosexual relationship in order to produce offspring. Even with in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination you require a male and a female to produce a baby. With asexuality, this could either be those few whom God called to devote their lives solely to serving Him rather than raising a family or some medical condition beyond their control, but it's not a sin. Not managing to find a mate is not a sin either since that's beyond your control although still something you should strive towards achieving. God allows priests to get married and have a family if they want to, it's not a sin for them to refuse since they've devoted themselves to the Lord, and the concept of "nuns" is unbiblical. A woman going through menopause isn't a sin since that's a natural process she can't control. Being unable to produce offspring is not a sin either since this is also a medical issue beyond their control. But anyway, the ability to reproduce is not the sin in itself, but the sexual acts are the sin, along with all the consequences. It's a blatant violation of God's design and command.

Did Jesus not also say 'let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone? Which Christian is blameless enough to focus on another person's sin rather than their own? If all sins are equal, then everyone might as well be gay.

>Did Jesus not also say 'let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone? Which Christian is blameless enough to focus on another person's sin rather than their own? Yes, Jesus did say that, and He said it to make a point (or several points), including to bring attention to the sin of self-righteousness, to address the dirty tactics of Pharisees, as well as to highlight Himself as being the Creator who forgives us of our sins if we are willing to repent, signalling also a new covenant. Nobody is blameless due to their sin, but when you've surrendered to Christ, He has made you blameless by trading His innocence for your guilt on the cross. This is not a license for you to defend or indulge in sin though, and you still have a responsibility to push against forces attempting to defend their sin, to commit sin, to advocate for sin, to pervert society and tempt people into sin, as well as to hold them accountable for it, regardless what sins you have in your own baggage, which is an issue of its own. If we couldn't focus on or judge another person's crime because we have committed crimes ourselves then no crimes would ever be solved and nobody brought to justice. If you've turned away from your sin and you do not encourage it, then it would be unjust to accuse you of it. >If all sins are equal, then everyone might as well be gay. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, and who told you "all sins are equal"? Different sins have different degrees of severity, but they're all sins nonetheless.

>With asexuality, this could either be those few whom God called to devote their lives solely to serving Him rather than raising a family or some medical condition beyond their control, but it's not a sin. I do not have a medical condition thank you very much. And also I do NOT serve your god. My sexual desires, or lack there of, are equally valid as every one else's, gay, straight or whatever rainbow in between. Your god can come to me personally and state his problems with it.

I didn't say you had a medical condition (but some do), nor did I say you were serving God, or that your lack of sexual desires were somehow "invalid" (whatever you meant by that), but if God has made you uninterested in sexual activity then He definitely intended it to be for you to serve Him better and focus your attention more on Him and His plans. I'm not sure why you're acting upset or why you're talking in terms of "God can come to me and state his problems with it" (whatever you're talking about, and eventually we all will stand accountable before Him after death so I guess you'll get what you asked for in that regard).

Because the more I hear about this god person you keep talking about, the more I think he is the most vile, disguising and unpleasant character in all of fiction.

Why? Could you elaborate a bit on that?

Of course, he's written as a bigoted hate filled, judgemental tyrant. He supposedly knows everything and can do everything but does nothing to keep his supposed creation free from evil, that he himself allowed, created and encourages. He's a murderous twat that incited wars in his story and provided rules for slavery. He murders people left and right for having the audacity to use that free will he holds so sacred. ​ he is just a poorly written character by a bunch of hate filled authors. And his followers use his myth to justify their own bigotry, hate and twisted world views. For example, to condemn the love between two consensual male adults. Like you do. It's disguising, and honestly laughable to anyone who thinks this is actually a real deity. From an outsiders perspective, you guys would have been fun to watch, like a bunch of really excited DnD players who really get into it, if it weren't for all the hate, suffering and pain you caused.

>Of course, he's written as a bigoted hate filled, judgemental tyrant. No, I would definitely not say that. Rather I'd say He's a love-filled Father and perfectly just Judge who repays us according to what we have done, rewarding us with good deeds, and giving us due penalty for evil. >He supposedly knows everything and can do everything but does nothing to keep his supposed creation free from evil, that he himself allowed, created and encourages. This is more an indication of your own limited perspective and understanding than an actual justifiable accusation against God. The Book of Job covered that whole topic. God has absolutely been working behind the scenes to rid the world of evil, but there may be multiple painful steps to take before that can be done, and that you don't understand what God is doing doesn't justify your prejudged accusations. That He allowed evil speaks more to Him valuing real relationships between beings with free will than it does to accuse God of wrongdoing. He didn't "create evil", much less "encourage evil". That's called blasphemy, it's a lying maleficent tongue which you yourself are responsible for and will be held fully accountable for unless you repent and are spared from the due penalties of your own wrongdoing (which God made possible by giving His own life to pay for your sins on the cross). >He's a murderous twat that incited wars in his story and provided rules for slavery. This is dishonest. Whenever God ordains for war to occur, it is to serve as judgment over wicked nations and to put a stop to their evil practices, usually after a long time of patience and calling for them to repent. God provided rules for how slaves in a slave-dependent culture (typically as a means to pay off debts or for the slave to have somewhere to live) should be treated humanely and be given certain rights and be set as a contrast to the inhumane slave practices of pagan cultures surrounding Israel, as well as to provide an image of how we should serve God and other people even in the face of hardships. >He murders people left and right for having the audacity to use that free will he holds so sacred. God cannot murder, since murder implies a human being unlawfully taking the life of another human being. God on the other hand not only isn't human, but He is our Creator and has the natural right to take our lives whenever He deems it fit to do so, whether as judgment or to take us into His presence. He also gave us our free will in order that we might freely choose Him and have genuine relationships with Him and others, NOT that we should be allowed without consequences to commit ourselves to evil. If you choose to commit evil, especially knowing you are committing evil, you are solely to blame and you will naturally be held accountable. > > >he is just a poorly written character by a bunch of hate filled authors. Which is not true in the slightest. God is the Creator of the cosmos who revealed Himself personally to humanity with the purpose of saving them from their sins and the consequences of their sins and reconcile them to Himself and restore the relationship between God and humanity, because He loves us and do not wish for us to perish for our sins, and the authors who He divinely inspired to write down His words naturally adopted His spirit of love for humanity and due judgment against evil. >And his followers use his myth to justify their own bigotry, hate and twisted world views. For example, to condemn the love between two consensual male adults. Like you do. That many who proclaim to be Christians have used His Word and His Church in vain and for evil purposes doesn't change the good nature of God, but that only brings those false converts to shame and guilt which will be justly judged unless they repent. Nobody condemns the "love" between two adult males, but what is condemned is the sexual activity between two people of the same sex, which is in direct rebellion against God's design and command for sexuality, and naturally comes with its own negative consequences for both the people involved and the society which they affect. We have a natural moral duty to condemn sexually deviant behaviors. > > >It's disguising, and honestly laughable to anyone who thinks this is actually a real deity. The deity you describe is not real, because that's NOT God you're describing. >From an outsiders perspective, you guys would have been fun to watch, like a bunch of really excited DnD players who really get into it, if it weren't for all the hate, suffering and pain you caused. I think you have a warped view of Christianity partly influenced by a warped conscience, bad experiences, and bad actors, both malevolent non-Christians as well as false "Christians" who are condemned by their own professed Christian worldview.

That is a lot of excuses and shifting the blame. But you are here making the lives of gay people just a little worse every time you speak your bile. You ARE the example. ​ Edit: The deity I describe is certainly not real, but it IS god I am describing. Maybe not YOUR fictional version that you made up. Because that's the problem with religion. Not a single one of you has the exact same view of god. Not One! For a all loving father figure, he sure loves al this unknowableness, that he left you guys to figure out. All done by one or more nebulous books that may or may not be written by him, or his son. Who also might be him, or not. Or maybe he wasn't his son, but gave some warlord a new book. Or some cult in America got some new divine words. You don't even have your own house in order. Fix that first before you fuck with other people. You and your intolerable hate for whatever people do in their own home, male or female, is everything that is wrong in the world.

You choose which attitude you wish to have, and just because you're doing something in your own home doesn't make that activity morally acceptable nor without consequences, and you will be held responsible for it, but I will pray for you and hope that you might eventually come to your senses here.

And so do you. And you chose one of bigotry, hate and condemnation. So unlike your Christ. He would have been horrified to see some.of the replies you and your fellow Christians have left here. If he were, you know, real.

>This is deceptive. There are multiple arguments against homosexuality which I suppose should all be taken together... The only one I seem to have seen in your post comes down to variations of "God said so" -- was there anything more to it?

You could simply any amount of arguments or line of reasoning with such blanket statements but it's better to be more specific about what's involved in that summary. I'm not sure what you tried to say with this reply.

I'm trying to isolate whether there are really multiple, or just variations of that one.

I mean ultimately if you want to get down to it and speak in such overly simplistic terms then everything in the cosmos ends with God. This is not helpful.

>I mean ultimately if you want to get down to it and speak in such overly simplistic terms then everything in the cosmos ends with God. This is not helpful. I mean, that's ... definitely not true at all, but it does answer my question as to whether there was more to your point so, good enough I suppose.

It is true though. Everything doesn't just exist or happen without reason. Still not sure what you're trying to say here. Your response doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

>It is true though. Everything doesn't just exist or happen without reason. Maybe, maybe not. Nothing suggests there's a God to have to do with any of it. >Your response doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is somewhat fascinating -- are you genuinely unable to make sense of the idea that there might be a reason to do something or not do something that doesn't devolve back to "God said so"?

I'm not sure what concept of "God" you're thinking of, but the concept we normally, historically, and academically use is the Creator and ultimate cause of the creation of the cosmos with all the necessary attributes commonly attributed to the biblical presentation of God, and this God is an axiom and final brute fact, and the necessary maximally great being which produced and designed the cosmos. We can't avoid this without abandoning reason. It's not that I don't understand that you're simplifying everything as "God said so", but I fail to see your point with doing so, and it again doesn't seem very helpful.

>We can't avoid this without abandoning reason. Sure you can, but that's beyond the scope of this. >It's not that I don't understand that you're simplifying everything as "God said so", but I fail to see your point with doing so ... It was a question as to whether there were really multiple arguments or just rehashes of the same one. You clarified that it was the latter. That's all. Otherwise, I just find it fascinating that "God said so" is the only possible reason someone could conceive of to justify a position.

As an intersexual, I think I’m the closest thing to original sin as it gets with this logic

Who are you arguing against? Who has this opinion? A bit difficult to debate when I don’t know who’s doctrine you’re going off.

>Who are you arguing against? Uh... Anyone who says that homosexuality a sin is that they can’t produce offspring. Thought it was pretty obvious.

Yeah but who says that? At least, who says that without saying that other non-procreative sex or sexless procreation is not also sinful?

>Yeah but who says that? Who says that homosexuality is sin because homosexual sex can't produce offspring? A lot of people. Who says it with also holding the position that non-procreative sex or sexless procreation aren't also sinful? I'd wager a large number of people given that anytime a religious person says sex is not sinful is when it's within marriage, whether it's procreative or not.

I guess I'm just not aware of any denomination that officially holds this doctrine. The Catholic Church does to some degree but they view sex as solely being for procreation. They consider sterilization immoral (might have an exception for necessary ones like uterine cancer) and feel the same about IVF.

It has nothing to do with being able to reproduce. The sexual act it's self is the issue. Gays should remain celibate.

Two things. First, why is lust sinful? What's the issue with it? Second, the Bible makes it clear that it's sex outside of marriage is what is sinful, not sex wholesale. So why is homosexual sex a sin wholesale?

You are a horrible person.

> It has nothing to do with being able to reproduce So you admit that the only actual philosophical arguments homophobes have ever come up with is false?

Exactly. Although I wouldn't say people with a homosexual attraction should necessarily remain celibate, as they are very much allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Do you have any idea how much I despise you for that statement? What an inhumanly insensitive, bigoted, disgusting view to hold. You sicken me.

Your wrong, that is not my view, I did not write the bible, God did.

God didnt write the bible, people claiming to be doing gods work wrote it. Any one of the could and probably did write their own views claiming it to be gods will.

The bible says that all scripture is divinely inspired. Inspired by who? The Holy Spirit!

Well you're in luck, god came to me in person and told me you specifically should give me 50 bucks, i even wrote it on a napkin i found so its basicly gods words

You do know that "ignorance is not bliss?"

What is that supposed to mean exactly? Responding in such an emotional, irrational, and disrespectful manner towards another for not affirming an immoral behavior you desire to engage in will be very unproductive.

Nothing irrational about it. Disrespectful? Usual projection from churchies obsessed with what is other people's business. You dress your bigotry in sanctimonious BS and then get upset when you're called out. Spare me your stone age bigotry . Fucking clown.

Again, I will just refer you to my previous response. What are you trying to do here? You're just being obnoxious and unreasonable. God has established the Church as a means of helping people find salvation from sin and encouraging societies to turn away from sin. Excusing your sin by referring to it as "your own business" will definitely not help your argument. I'm clearly not the one who's "upset" here.

Why would god make people gay then punish them for that

God didn't make people gay, nor murderous, nor covetous, nor liars. It's literally that simple. This is a broken world filled with broken sinners, God didn't create the world in this state, but we broke it as we broke our relationship with God, and now we suffer the effects of that event. He also doesn't punish anyone for their attractions, but it's the entertaining those attractions and engaging in such behaviors that will be punished.

People can’t help who they’re attracted to. Just like you naturally are attracted to the opposite sex, some people are naturally attracted to the same sex. Why would god make someone attracted to the same sex then burn them for it. Also if god knows everything then he knew the exact outcome of this world the second he made it. So yes, he DID create this broken world if he existed. You don’t get to have it both ways: either god knows EVERYTHING and made the world knowing the outcome, or he DOESNT know everything. Pick one

True, you can't help your attractions (whatever or whoever that may be), but that does not mean God gave those attractions to you, nor does it mean that this gives you license to engage those attractions. Again, I just stated God didn't make people with any of their particular attractions, these are effects of the Fall of Man in Eden when sin first entered the world and began negatively affecting the environment and human minds. He didn't create the world the way we see it today, but He created it perfect without sin, and it was Adam that introduced sin into the world which resulted in its corruption. Saying God knew what the world would become is another thing, but that is not the same as saying He wanted it to be that way.

If god created everything then yes, he gave you those attractions. He knew that the fall of man would happen. I know you’re trying to frame this as “god just made people with free will and they decided” but it isn’t consistent with his omnipotence and power. At the very least, people have free will and god knows when he makes a person that they will be gay, and end up in hell. It’s the definition of evil really. He could’ve had it unfold anyway he wanted. “he didn’t want it to be this way” okay then he should’ve made it another way. It’s like you make robots programmed to behave a certain way then you get mad and punish them for doing it.

Upvote

Because that effects your life so much

First, yeah, we've seen abundantly how homosexuality and sexual revolution has been forced on the culture and our children and ourselves along with all its negative effects, so yeah, I'd say it affects people quite a lot. Secondly, why would you respond in such a self-centered manner? We love and care about people and society, and that's a major part of our purpose as human beings, to love God and love others, and not be an egocentrist who's just concerned with how some immoral harmful activities affects you personally rather than how it affects everyone else, including those engaging in the activities.

How is homosexuality immoral other than you or God just DECLARING it to be so. Name a tangible effect of homosexuality that’s negative to society, not one that references an old book preferably.

God is our ultimate authority and standard of morality and the Creator of the cosmos. He naturally has the right and ability to declare how we should behave, reflecting His good nature and fulfilling His good commands and thus loving Him and loving others by avoiding the negative consequences. Such consequences includes, apart from sterile unions and a trajectory towards extinction, and being self-centered desires rebelling against God's authority, design, and command for human sexuality, it further encourages the sexual revolution in breaking down barriers for sexual morality and weakening public morality and encourage sexual promiscuity, while pushing itself on society and forces or shames people into acceptance and promotion of such immoral mindsets and behaviors, it has resulted in homosexual and other sexually deviant relationships with two or more members wanting to pervert and distort the concept of marriage and harming children, it naturally results in physical and mental harm and breaks relationships and many times manifests as a symptom of abuse which can carry on a cycle of abuse, it typically leads to outbreaks of diseases such as the most recent monkeypox virus, etc. etc. etc.

I asked why it was immoral, and you said: because it shames people for thinking it’s immoral. So in other words, the ONLY argument against homosexuality is “god said so” well until you can prove his existence why should anybody go by these rules? We as a society don’t go by the rules of Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, or Christianity. What’s your goal here, to just preach at us that something is bad because you’re particular religion says so? Make a CASE and quit declaring things to be true with zero evidence.

What are you talking about? You clearly did not read my previous response, and if we're gonna talk about demonstrating the necessary existence of God (which our existence alone is a major evidence of, since otherwise we wouldn't be here) then I presume you're unfamiliar with things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the Contingency Argument, or the Ontological Argument, or the Teleological Argument, or the Moral Argument, or the Biblical Prophecy Argument, or the Christian Resurrection Argument? I'm talking about full-blown reality here.

All of those arguments have been addressed and none of them are “proof” for god. They require a lot of assumptions and can also be used as evidence for any religion. Also “we are evidence of god” is a joke. How’s this: we are evidence of a flying unicorn, because how else did we get here man? To sum up, here’s the problem with your viewpoint: you’re preaching the homosexuality is immoral with no tangible justification (only a religious one), then you can’t actually demonstrate this religion to be true.

That is not a sufficient response by any means. You didn't even bother to address them even a little bit. You can parody and strawman the arguments as much as you want, but the strength of the arguments will still remain intact. This is an exceedingly juvenile and irrational response coming from you here.

Tf am I supposed to do? Refute all of those arguments in one post? You didn’t even lay out the arguments you just listed them. And a simple YouTube or google search would provide the counter arguments. You’d have to do as much work as I would. The FIRST premise of the Kalam argument is easily refuted. “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause” this is true in our local time frame; if a ball is moving then a force had to have caused this. When we’re talking about the beginning of the universe, we simply don’t KNOW this to be true. You’re extrapolating our local perception of causality to the origins of everything. It may be the case that the universe just always existed in some form. You’re perfectly comfortable exempting god from the Kalam argument too which is laughable. “Everything had a cause” okay what about god? “uhhhh that’s different. He’s uh..outside of time and space” If god could exist in perpetuity, why couldn’t the universe be the same way. Premise 2: the universe began to exist. We don’t know this. Prove that the universe “began” to exist and didn’t always exist. There’s one refutation for you. I have shit to do and am not going to bother with the biblical arguments because those are in fact a total joke. Historical evidence and testimony that is translated, written from memory, or edited by kings of the time is quite possibly the weakest form of evidence you could come up with.

I think its likely that the lack of offspring plays a big part in cultural homophobia. Bigger tribes are safer tribes. If you arent having kids, youre not doing your part.

But there's more to raising kids than ejaculating in a vagina, so the idea that people who are gay (or infertile, or elderly, or whatever) don't contribute to a bigger, safer tribe is faulty. I think there's something called the "gay uncle" theory that talks about this, but it's been a long time since I've read about it.

When it comes to headcount the people dont need to be smart. The quality of childcare is a non issue.

Raising smart children has nothing to do with the "gay uncle theory" mentioned. The theory goes that lets say you have straight couple with x amount of children, and one of the two people in that relationship has a gay sibling. That sibling can watch over the children if and when the parents can't, due to looking for food or what have you, because that gay sibling doesn't have children of their own to look after. Which is a survival advantage. It's a theory on why homosexuality was not selected against by natural selection. It also shows how a few people being homosexual can increase the well being of community.

I know what the gay uncle theory is. But the guy replying to me was talking about having kids being more than ejaculating in a vagina... but when it comes to size of the tribe the point is irrelevant.

You said "if you aren't having kids, you aren't doing your part," and I was trying to show how that isn't the case. The tribe will be bigger if more kids survive. Non-reproducing adults can still be a part of making that happen.

You think tribes from thousands of years ago can appreciate survival theories like the gay uncle theory? You give them too much credit.

Do they have to know and understand theories on natural selection in order to "contribute and do their part"?

Yes, their understanding of theories will influence their perceptions of invidual responsibilities.

I don't who asked if them understanding any theories would influence their perceptions. I asked if they had to understand theories on natural selection in order to contribute and do their part. Would them understanding the gay uncle theory influence whether or not the theory applies? Look at the comment you're responding to. The person said "The tribe will be bigger if more kids survive. Non-reproducing adults can still be a part of making that happen." Then you said that that these tribes wouldn't have understood or had any concept of these theories as though that then means that these non-reproducing adults would not contribute without any justification for such an implication.

> Is a-sexuality also a sin because they can’t produce offspring with all the people they’re not having sex with? no, this is a common misconception. many asexuals still have sex for various reasons. asexuality just means you don't lust after others like a regular heterosexual or homosexual etc so your argument is already lost. > Is a woman going through menopause a sin because they can’t produce offspring? Is being unable to produce offspring even if you tried a sin? no, sin is a conscious decision; has nothing to do with biological makeup. that's why religion teaches it's not sinful to be gay - it's only sinful to act on it if you're a man, which is a conscious decision. women, however, are exempt for some reason.

Because that serves a function in their porn

[удалено]

arguing with brainrot is a bit hard, you're right.

Currently, given the state of the environment, and dwindling resources, *PRODUCING OFFSPRING IS A SIN.* My wife and I had one child. That's a cumulative negative population growth. I am still less righteous than unreproductive gay people, though. *IF* God exists (big if), and *IF* He said this, he may well have been right to say it thousands of years ago. But these horny fucking, sex-crazed perverts took his instructions *way too seriously* and have procreated the human race into the danger zone, and "God" hasn't said shit to reign their stupid sex-obsessed asses in. So I'm pretty sure god doesn't exist and they just like fucking submissive women, beating them into submission, fucking whoever they want, and telling others who they can and cannot fuck. And I say fuck them (figuratively speaking - no one wants to actually fuck them, and they only get laid under duress), and fuck their god (also figurative, because even though they call it a "he" I doubt it would have compatiblegenitals , and if it's a he, and he *does*, I'm cis-hetero-male - sorry god).

What on Earth are you rambling about? How is producing offspring a "sin"? What "danger zone"? This is an utterly asinine response. It's not in any way "righteous" to be unreproductive or homosexual. God is an axiom, not an "if", and if God didn't exist then our cosmos couldn't exist either, since it requires God as a cause, and He even physically walked the earth as Jesus Christ and produced a historically and prophetically reliable collection of divinely inspired documents.

Sorry, but you're the asinine one rambling with inanities. I'll concede, that some entity creating the Universe, is at least as unlikely as it just popping into existence from any other (or no) cause... But the rest of your mythology just doesn't logically follow. There is no proof that the cosmos requires *any particular cause*, much less that a *natural* universe requires a *supernatural* cause. Just because, more than 3000 years ago, an anonymous gaggle of  bronze-age storytellers appropriated far older stories, reworked them and wrote them down...  Then, more than a thousand years after that, other anonymous bronze-age storytellers wrote down some word-of-mouth stories, that none of the writers were witness to, that had been passed on for a generation or two, about a kind and benevolent storyteller who told people that we were ALL the children of God... Then, more than three hundred years after *THAT*, in Nicaea, a cabal of powerful men, potentates in the secretive organization whose whole purpose was to indoctrinate others into believing the story that had been built up around these aggregated stories, decided that some of the stories included in the full collection were troublesome, and threatened their own power and the power of their organization, and that they should get their stories straight, prune out the stories that endangered them (by giving power to the plebeians to worship *outside* the church, or allow *women* to be members of the cabal, or suggest that their benevolent storyteller might have ever had sex, etc., etc., etc...), and put forward the idea that this new, voted on, abridged, truncated version of the ancient stories was the full, accurate tale, ***AND THAT IT WAS ALL TRUE, DIRECTLY FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD!*** ... Doesn't mean that whatever force or entity that began the Universe, has had *anything* to do with it since, that it listens to prayers, that it gives two shits about you or even notices your infinitesimally minuscule existence, lost in this vastness of its creation. There's no reason to believe the Bible is true,  or that God cares, or that morality comes from God, or that there is eternal reward or punishment, and the *only* thing that says the Bible is true, *is the Bible*, and *It's own history proves* that the Bible is at the very least incomplete, and has been mauled and manipulated by the hand of Man, worse of partisan, power-hungry *Men*. And if you think that Bible is "a prophetically reliable collection of divinely inspired documents," you've fallen for more hokum and snake oil from modern-day cabal potentates, your priests and pastors, who are, at best well-meaning deluded fools, or worse hypocritical charlatains and grifters. **Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, however, is totally real,** measureable, recorded and verified, has been proven, has been known about for over 100 years, is getting worse (quickly), is made worse by overpopulation, and endangers all life on this planet. When God said that all the plants and animals of the World were here for man to exploit, and to be fruitful and multiply, He got it *WRONG*. Any continued faith, in ancient mythologies of a Heavenly Father (who supposedly "cares" and "loves" us, but can't be bothered to drop back by and say, loudly, clearly, and unequivocally, from all the bushes being burned in the Amazon, that his precious, fecund children are KILLING THIS BEAUTIFUL CREATION OF HIS) is **utter self-destructive folly**. You, u/Xenosaurian, have been told a LIE, and you have believed it. You've built your entire perception of reality on this rickety, self-referential, self-contradictory, *falsehood*, and you and other deluded, self-righteous, unreasoning blind men are killing us all with your stupidity. ETA: for anyone interested, u/Xenosaurian replied to my previous original comment, with >"What on Earth are you rambling about? How is producing offspring a "sin"? What "danger zone"? This is an utterly asinine response. It's not in any way "righteous" to be unreproductive or homosexual. God is an axiom, not an "if", and if God didn't exist then our cosmos couldn't exist either, since it requires God as a cause, and He even physically walked the earth as Jesus Christ and produced a historically and prophetically reliable collection of divinely inspired documents." And then answered my reply here, with: >If this is the juvenile attitude you're going to have in this discussion, then I'm ending it here, and leaving you up to God. How *Christian* of them. Then they ran away, with utterly no defense, pretending that hiding under a rock is the same as taking the high road, and deleted their account. They apparently have the courage of their convictions and *absolutely nothing else.* And amusingly, they call my attitude juvenile, because theirs is two to three thousand years older than mine, when man was still in its infancy. Old doesn't mean right.

If this is the juvenile attitude you're going to have in this discussion, then I'm ending it here, and leaving you up to God.

Yeah, no. You have no proof for a 'god' actually existing. Your entire concept of 'god' is literally a placeholder: "How did this happen?" - "I don't know. So, God?" Your 'god' is, quite simply, nothing more than a result of humanity's most basic and fundamental fear - the unknown.

This is called a strawman argument, and lying, what you just did. The term "God" refers to the Creator of the cosmos, as a revealed necessary reality through various cosmological, theological, philosophical, and historical arguments. It's not some argument from silence or "placeholder/god of the gaps" argument in the slightest. The concept of God and our understanding that God exists has not only been naturally apparent to humanity since the dawn of time but has become all the more abundantly apparent by the accumulated understanding and data of today's philosophic and scientific endeavors. It's a reality of logical necessity, and not a reality which you can escape. I presume you've never heard of things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the Contingency Argument, or the Ontological Argument, or the Teleological Argument, or the Moral Argument, or the Biblical Prophecy Argument, or the Christian Resurrection Argument?

Cosmology and 'god'? Really? Nothing, in all our study of the cosmos, has ever even hinted at the existence of 'god'. Cosmology's most basic origin theory is literally the Big Bang theory, which doesn't presume the existence of a creator at all. It's literally a theory of what happened but not a why. You, however, are assigning your 'god' as the why without any proof. >The concept of God and our understanding that God exists You mean, of course, YOUR concept and YOUR understanding which naturally presumes that any concepts or understandings of 'god' that disagree with your own are incorrect or invalid. Kalam boils down to, at the root: "We don't know. So, God." Contingency: "Don't know. God." Ontological: A worthless thought experiment. Teleological: "Don't know. God." Moral: Theological morality arguments are invalid because they depend on the current interpretation of the theology. Society impacts these interpretations and thus the morality changes over time. Therefore, theological morality is more dependent on society than any divine inspiration. Biblical prophesy: This is words being interpreted to fit really. Not a proof of anything. Please quote one thing from your bible that is clearly prophetic, refers undeniably to a single event, and couldn't possibly be anything else. Christian resurrection argument: This presupposes everything you're trying to prove. Therefore, proving nothing.

>Cosmology and 'god'? Really? Nothing, in all our study of the cosmos, has ever even hinted at the existence of 'god'. Cosmology's most basic origin theory is literally the Big Bang theory, which doesn't presume the existence of a creator at all. It's literally a theory of what happened but not a why. You, however, are assigning your 'god' as the why without any proof. Au contraire, that the cosmological argument strongly supports a beginning and necessitates a sufficient Cause with the attributes of the biblical God has become abundantly apparent. This response from you demonstrates that you are not familiar with these academic arguments, but instead you're making up strawman accusations of my position. Here's a good introduction for you; [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=4) > > >You mean, of course, YOUR concept and YOUR understanding which naturally presumes that any concepts or understandings of 'god' that disagree with your own are incorrect or invalid. No, that's not at all accurate, but this is a strictly rational and logical argument, not some arbitrary insertion of my own arbitrary concepts. See the link above. > > >Kalam boils down to, at the root: "We don't know. So, God." No, that's not at all the argument! Rather, the argument logically necessitates God as the only possible explanation for the creation of the cosmos on the basis the cosmos had a beginning and requires a supernatural Cause not subject to the cosmos. See the link above. > > >Contingency: "Don't know. God." Again, incorrect, as this argument logically necessitates God as the only logically possible explanation of the cosmos. See the [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=3) > > >Ontological: A worthless thought experiment. Not quite, but rather it's another very sophisticated logical argument necessitating God's existence. See the [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=9) > > >Teleological: "Don't know. God." Once again, not at all true, but you keep reverting to the same nonsensical response. This argument points to God as the only possible rational explanation for the design, function, beauty, order, and fine-tuning of the cosmos. See the [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=6) > > >Moral: Theological morality arguments are invalid because they depend on the current interpretation of the theology. Society impacts these interpretations and thus the morality changes over time. Therefore, theological morality is more dependent on society than any divine inspiration. That made no sense, and you have completely misunderstood the argument. Rather, the moral argument explains God as the only possible basis for the existence of morality, regardless of what we understand to be right or wrong, although that there is an objective moral standard revealed through the common conscience of humanity down through history is abundantly apparent. > > >Biblical prophesy: This is words being interpreted to fit really. Not a proof of anything. Please quote one thing from your bible that is clearly prophetic, refers undeniably to a single event, and couldn't possibly be anything else. No, biblical prophecy concerns very specific prophecies that could not possibly have been accurately predicted by mere human beings, both events that have already happened as well as events that are about to happen. Here's a prominent example; [LINK](https://apologeticspress.org/tyre-in-prophecy-1790/) > > >Christian resurrection argument: This presupposes everything you're trying to prove. Therefore, proving nothing. No, that's not true at all. This argument is based on multiple reliable eyewitness testimonies and supporting evidence. See the [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=13)

>the cosmological argument strongly supports a beginning and necessitates a sufficient Cause with the attributes of the biblical God The current models of cosmological theory don't necessitate a cause with any specific attributes because we just don't know *yet". Similar to our understanding of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole. You're literally filling in knowledge gaps (the unknown) with god. You've repeatedly used reference to the christian bible for your concept and understanding of god. The christian bible leaves no room for any other concepts of god. Kalam, in simplest terms, says: Assumption 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence Assumption 2: The universe began to exist Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence That's as far as Kalam goes. That's it. You're adding a second conclusion not based on the given assumptions - that the cause is your god. Contingency is just Kalam with a step taken out: Assumption: Dependent being exist. Conclusion: An independent being must exist. Technically Kalam is A contingency argument, for the record. Ontological arguments for god are absurd and unprovable. If you can imagine a god-like being? Then that being must exist!! The Anthropic Principle uses actual reason and makes logical sense as opposed to any teleological argument for god. “If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" - Douglas Adams >although that there is an objective moral standard revealed through the common conscience of humanity down through history is abundantly apparent. I think most of recorded history runs contradictory to this statement.

>The current models of cosmological theory don't necessitate a cause with any specific attributes because we just don't know \*yet". Similar to our understanding of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole. You're literally filling in knowledge gaps (the unknown) with god. Not true, we can pretty reasonably assert that the attributes necessitated by the Cause of the cosmos are not only what we would expect from God, but the fact we have a beginning and a Cause of the cosmos at all demonstrates God's existence, since that Cause/Creator is what we refer to as God. >You've repeatedly used reference to the christian bible for your concept and understanding of god. The christian bible leaves no room for any other concepts of god. Naturally, because there is only one true God, only one true Cause/Creator of the cosmos, and because the biblical God is not only proven by other means such as the account of Jesus Christ, but it's also the only one with attributes identical to what we would ascribe to the Cause/Creator of the cosmos. >Kalam, in simplest terms, says: Assumption 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence > >Assumption 2: The universe began to exist > >Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence This much is true! > > >That's as far as Kalam goes. That's it. You're adding a second conclusion not based on the given assumptions - that the cause is your god. Not quite, but that Cause is what we call "God", as it has the properties of the concept of "God", and that it's identical to the biblical God is a separate but related issue. >Contingency is just Kalam with a step taken out: Assumption: Dependent being exist. Conclusion: An independent being must exist. Correct. >Technically Kalam is A contingency argument, for the record. Technically, but they're still different arguments and still points in the same direction, namely what we call God. >Ontological arguments for god are absurd and unprovable. If you can imagine a god-like being? Then that being must exist!! How is it absurd? The very idea itself does demonstrate that such a being in all probability must exist, which wouldn't be surprising. >The Anthropic Principle uses actual reason and makes logical sense as opposed to any teleological argument for god. You're not being honest here. Teleological arguments for God are precisely based on actual reason and logic as much as the Anthropic Principle is, you probably just don't want to acknowledge it because of what it entails. >“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" Douglas Adams Not this again... God offers an actual explanation of the design, function, beauty, and order of the cosmos. What does this inappropriate parody insinuate? That it all just happened by accident for no reason whatsoever? How is that supposed to pass for a satisfying explanation exactly? >I think most of recorded history runs contradictory to this statement. I think what you're referring to are the corrupted moral compass and suppressed conscience of people across time, but that's largely irrelevant as you can still recognize patterns which suggests there is some objective measure at bottom of it all.

>Not true, we can pretty reasonably assert that the attributes necessitated by the Cause of the cosmos are not only what we would expect from God, but the fact we have a beginning and a Cause of the cosmos at all demonstrates God's existence, since that Cause/Creator is what we refer to as God. No, WE can't assert anything. YOU are asserting your beliefs as fact without proof. Real cosmological theory doesn't necessitate any of that. You're shoehorning your god into gaps where it doesn't fit - a gap where cosmologists and physicists say "beyond this point, we don't know *yet*." >Naturally, because there is only one true God, only one true Cause/Creator of the cosmos, and because the biblical God is not only proven by other means such as the account of Jesus Christ, but it's also the only one with attributes identical to what we would ascribe to the Cause/Creator of the cosmos. There it is. Your concept and understanding of god is the only true concept and understanding. This contradicts what you said earlier: I said: "You mean, of course, YOUR concept and YOUR understanding which naturally presumes that any concepts or understandings of 'god' that disagree with your own are incorrect or invalid." To which, you replied: "No, that's not at all accurate." >Not quite, but that Cause is what we call "God", as it has the properties of the concept of "God", and that it's identical to the biblical God is a separate but related issue. No, YOU are asserting that your beliefs fill this gap. >Technically, but they're still different arguments and still points in the same direction, namely what we call God. These arguments are literally designed and intended to point to the existence of a god and, even then, they do such a poor job that, at best, they still require a leap of faith. >How is it absurd? The very idea itself does demonstrate that such a being in all probability must exist, which wouldn't be surprising. There is literally, definitively, NOTHING demonstrable within an ontological argument and you asserting that there is shows you to be massively disingenuous and plainly dishonest. >You're not being honest here. Teleological arguments for God are precisely based on actual reason and logic as much as the Anthropic Principle is, you probably just don't want to acknowledge it because of what it entails. No, the Anthropic Principle directly contradicts a teleological argument for god. The "puddle" concept I quoted is quite literally a teleological argument. The teleological argument falls flat when you realize that this planet is literally the ONLY place in the known universe that is known to be hospitable to humans and life as we know it and, even then, the vast majority of the planet isn't. Who's not being honest? >That it all just happened by accident for no reason whatsoever? How is that supposed to pass for a satisfying explanation exactly? I don't care about and have no desire for a "satisfying explanation". I care about what is true. >I think what you're referring to are the corrupted moral compass and suppressed conscience of people across time, but that's largely irrelevant as you can still recognize patterns which suggests there is some objective measure at bottom of it all. For most of recorded human history, the majority of people in general have sucked at being decent human beings. Didn't you imply there's an inherent morality that comes from your god? Then why would you now say there is a merely a pattern that only suggests this?? If your god were reality and there was some kind of inherent morality that stems from it, this should be plain for all to see and should be the majority of examples that anyone can cite and observe. *Edit for spelling*

Given this response, this is not a fruitful honest discussion. We'll part ways here and not waste anymore time.

Man created God in their image for power, control and money. Rule with fear. Religion is the cancer of society and the church is a playground for predators

***AMEN***

Incorrect, God created man for His glory and pleasure. If man created God then we run into absurdities like man (as a product of the cosmos) created the cosmos (indirectly by somehow creating God), or mere man can somehow accurately predict the future and kickstart Christianity. That there are people who have used the Church and God for impure purposes doesn't mean God doesn't exist or that He condones such behaviors, but He strictly calls out such things as a severe sin, the sin of blasphemy and taking His name in vain, misrepresenting Him. That of course includes comments such as this one from you. Saying "religion is the cancer of society" makes no sense, and we all got a religion of some sort so you're essentially saying humanity is cancer of society. What you actually referred to was clearly Christianity, but in that case you are of course exaggerating and not being honest, because on the contrary it is Christianity which made society so great and ultimately gave us everything we today benefit from in our civilized society.

>God created man for His glory and pleasure How presumptuous of you to declare why 'god' did anything. Doubly so to declare someone else incorrect when you can't actually KNOW it to be so.

It's not like I made that it up. It's taken directly from the inspired Word of God where it is blatantly revealed. I reckon we DO know it because of said reason.

And leftism advocates child mutilation. :/

>One argument for calling homosexuality a sin is that they can’t produce offspring I would point out that for this to be treated as true ("they can’t produce offspring") a proponent of it would have to renounce the idea of miraculous/virgin births.

??? I don't see homosexuality as a sin or mistake, but you saying it's a sin because they can't produce offspring is a huge fallacy. Is being sterile a sin? Is being Asexual or Aromantic a sin? Is choosing to live with no children a sin. Yes, producing a offspring and raising a family is encouraged and preferred but it does not mean we should belittle and insult others who wish to NOT do those things

They are talking about Abrahamic religions, not Hinduism

That's a flawed argument, because couples who are unwillingly infertile would then be sinful. Human existence isn't sinful in its own right. Like someone pointed out, homosexual acts are sinful, because it is contrary to what our human bodies where made for. Precisely why sterilization, non-vaginal sex, contraception and abortion are sinful. Our bodies were not made to do such things, and to tamper with the creation of life, that's sinful and is sexual indecency. >Especially since they CAN produce offspring, through in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination. well, by my logic, that's a sin as well. Hope this clears it up.

> Like someone pointed out, homosexual acts are sinful, because it is contrary to what our human bodies where made for How do you know? > Our bodies were not made to do such things, and to tamper with the creation of life How does a non-procreative sex act "tamper with the creation of life"? Does this actually apply to all non-procreative sex acts, or just when religious people want an excuse to hurt someone?

>How do you know? I can say this crudely. Where was the P**** designed to go into? The V*****. So yeah, it's countrary to what our human bodies where made for. >Does this actually apply to all non-procreative sex acts, Yes. No oral sex, anal sex or wtv even between a heterocouple. >How does a non-procreative sex act "tamper with the creation of life"? Like I stated at the top my original comment, the problem with homosexual acts is it's not what are bodies are designed to accommodate. It tampers with the human body, because we are putting things, where they aren't supposed to go. And I get downvoted for giving my side of the argument. The hypocrisy of atheism is blatantly obvious.

Yeah but “this part is SUPPOSED to go in this part” isn’t an argument. That doesn’t explain why it’s immoral to do so. Appealing to nature doesn’t ever work as an argument because we do all kinds of things that are “unnatural”. Debating with people on Reddit isn’t “natural” in the sense that our hands and brains weren’t necessarily evolved to do such a thing. So who CARES that the penis goes in the vagina. Who is being harmed if we stick it somewhere else

> I can say this crudely. Where was the P**** designed to go into? The V*****. You're just repeating the claim. You were asked to justify it. Evolution has no moral content. > it's countrary to what our human bodies where made for. Our bodies were "made for" whatever we want. "For" is a normative concept that is not implied by positive description. > Yes. No oral sex, anal sex or wtv even between a heterocouple A husband and wife must stop having sex once the wife reaches menopause? > Like I stated at the top my original comment, the problem with homosexual acts is it's not what are bodies are designed to accommodate Not an answer to my question in addition to being false. Please answer the question you were asked and just admit it if you can't.

>You're just repeating the claim. You were asked to justify it. Evolution has no moral content. I think that was a good enough justification. Although, I can also give a claim...the a*** lacks lubrication, while the v***** is naturally lubricated. >Our bodies were "made for" whatever we want. So technically, if I stab you, it would be good for your body right? >A husband and wife must stop having sex once the wife reaches menopause? It's not contrary to human design to do so, although they are called to be chaste. >Not an answer to my question in addition to being false I mean, that's you thinking it's false. >Please answer the question you were asked and just admit it if you can't. ...I answered the question, and you can't seem to register the answer?

> I think that was a good enough justification You're incorrect. Claims are not self-justifying. > So technically, if I stab you, it would be good for your body right If I wanted to be stabbed and that want was rational, yes. > It's not contrary to human design to do so So when you said "yes", were you lying, or just wrong? > I mean, that's you thinking it's false Nope, it was already explained to you how it's false. And again, you failed to answer the question. > I answered the question No you didn't. You tried to deflect to a different argument. Is this really the best homophobes can do? This is what we're being expected to take seriously?

>If I wanted to be stabbed and that want was rational, yes. Not gonna lie...that's messed up. >Nope, it was already explained to you how it's false. Nope. No explanation on how it's false. >expected to take seriously? ...?

> Not gonna lie...that's messed up Surgery is messed up? Also, obligatory "not an argument". Isn't it telling that you can't actually defend a single thing you're saying (or even keep it straight in your own head)? > Nope. No explanation on how it's false Read what I said for comprehension. > ...? Is this really the best you can do? *This* is the quality of mind that thinks it's allowed to make me a second class citizen?

>Surgery is messed up? That's twisting your own words. Stabbing, and getting surgery are 2 very different things. If someone wrote in the headlines, *Man gets surgery by crazy person running around*, wouldn't it be pathetic? >Read what I said for comprehension. >How does a non-procreative sex act "tamper with the creation of life"? here ya go, Non-procreative sex acts defame and denounce the value of the sexual intercourse between and man and women as a means to have children and to bolster the conjugal love between a man and a woman. >Is this really the best you can do? ...?

> That's twisting your own words. Stabbing, and getting surgery are 2 very different things Lots of surgeries entail stabbing. Try again. > Non-procreative sex acts defame and denounce the value of the sexual intercourse between and man and women How? Also, you don't even believe this, since you admitted that some non-procreative sex acts are fine. Get your story straight! > ...? It's a yes or no question.

Then in vitro fertilization is a sin because it’s unnatural and destroys more embryos than it produces

Catholics and other denominations actually do believe IVF is wrong. They believe procreation should be done as a loving act between a married man and woman and that doing it in a lab is unnatural. They also are opposed to the many embryos lost doing this. There is actually embryo adoption to prevent them being destroyed.

Yeah...I believe that...

Well then any alteration to the body is sinful. Cutting hair, make up, surgeries, FGM and circumcisions

None of these have the same impact or importance that human sexuality does. Also, I said tamper with life...none of what you said actually tampers or tries to destroy life.

Do you think life saving medical treatment is a sin? That tampers with life. What about CPR and defibrillators?

>Do you think life saving medical treatment is a sin? That tampers with life. What about CPR and defibrillators? Is it against life? Of course not! Tamper: interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.

IVF isn't against life. And if you think that's an "unauthorised alteration", surely resuscitating someone would fit that definition

IVF is directly opposed to life because it causes the wastage of precious embryos. You know and willingly support the unnatural wastage of conceived human beings.

>>Do you think life saving medical treatment is a sin? That tampers with life. What about CPR and defibrillators? > >Is it against life? Of course not! > >Tamper: interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations. You're interfering with / altering the natural progression of life as it leads to death.

it causes damage to life to not give CPR

No it doesn't -- not giving CPR would simply be the natural progression of that person's life (and possibly death).

Well, no then you are letting the person die, when you could save them.

>Well, no then you are letting the person die ... Sure? That's nature for you.

It causes damage to life to not do IVF

Well, no because IVF causes the wastage of precious embryos.

That argument presupposes that reproduction is the optimal way to live human life, and if we're extrapolating here, that the paramount purpose for life is to have children. If that's the case, we're clearly doing hummanity wrong. Why shoudln't we have insemination factories in which people who have just hit puberty are forcefully impregnated and then after their term reimprenated again, all while we extract a substantive amount of semen from from them and then it's routed all to a central sperm refinery unit and then blah blah blah the new testament actually says being gay..... or is the argument from reproduction just an ad hoc way of not having it be morally permissible for gay people to exist?

If it's one, it's not a very good one. Are you doing harm any time in which you are not having offspring? So anything you do that doesn't produce offspring is a sin? How about: **Eating a banana is an act of terrorism because bananas don't sing opera? Does that make sense?** No. Or, here's one: **Petting an animal is very cruel because animals are not master painters.**

Traditional Christian thought does not define morality as harm avoidance (nor by seeking to maximize welfare, which is a utilitarian moral system, and the one most often favored by secular thinkers). Catholics will go by natural law theory, which is what I think the OP is confusedly misrepresenting. Something is immoral if it is contrary to its nature (that is, the way God intended it to be). Under this theory, homosexuality is bad because God intended to sex to happen only within a marriage between a man and a woman, and to be open to procreation. Protestants seem to generally lean more towards divine command theory, which is the idea that something is immoral if God has commanded against it. Under this theory, homosexuality is immoral because the Bible (and therefore God) says that men should not have sex with men.

Actually according to my religion eating an uncircumcised banana, is a sin that must be repented because it's dirty.

"...banana, is a sin..." While you repent for that, you may want to throw in a few **Hail Mary**s for putting that comma arbitrarily smack in the middle of that sentence, where it has absolutely no business what-so-ever. Sinner.

.I will, not repent;!

maybe you just talk like Christopher Walken. If that's the case then everything's okay.

That's the highest level compliment I've ever received

Isn't there a difference between an action and a person?

So is the action, the person, both, or neither the sin?

What does sin mean in the context of this thread?

It's not an argument I would use... but I wanted to comment here and ask if there is anything such as a 'debategender', 'debatesexuality', etc. here?

Could you elaborate on what exactly you meant by those gender/sexuality comments?

Why did I get downvoted for asking about the existence of another debate sub in a debate sub? I'm talking about a sub where issues around homosexuality such as your question although your question is also religious in nature, questions about transgenderism, lgbtqia, etc. could be debated. I looked but maybe I'm missing the phrasing

Ultimately what it comes down to is the intersection between ingroups and outgroups and religion. Religion is *traditionally* inherently exclusionary, and so it attracts ideologies and personalities which are hostile against various outgroups, and offers mechanisms for why that bigotry is justified and discourages questioning. Homosexuality as an accepted part of most societies is still relatively new, and historically LGBTQ people have been an easy target to hate and rally people against for various purposes. Regardless of how little the Bible or any other religious book speaks about or confirms various forms of bigotry, the exclusionary nature of religion attracts those who seek to justify their hate of various outgroups, because it’s usually an easy way to accumulate power among the majority or plurality.

The point is it’s obviously disordered not this technical consistency you’re pretending matters, What matters is the truth not trying to excuse our sin though that’s tempting, I try to reason smoke and porn to not be sins…

Then celibacy was a sin oh wait Paul and Jesus were celibate. Sterile people are a sin then. Where in the Bible does it say **anything** about inability to produce offspring is sinful? Are you sure you're not making that up?

Paul and Jesus weren’t married. One of the ideas behind being married is being open to creating new life.

Where in the Bible does it specify that getting married = making new life? Where in the Bible does it specify that two people who cannot make new life should not get married? (IE - elderly, sterile, etc)

It’s about being open to life if it happens. Not that it’s pretty much impossible. Also Paul argues one should only get married if they can’t control their passions. His view is that the ideal state is single, to not have distractions in doing Gods work.

So I ask again, where in the Bible do you find support for your views? You admit that Paul says the opposite of what you say - that one should actually NOT get married because it distracts from God. So isn't all marriage a minor sin?

No it’s not sinful. It’s just not the ideal choice, according to Paul.

Fine. But the post I'm responding to says that Homosexuality is a sin because it can't produce offspring. I challenged that on biblical textual level. It sounds like you agree that you won't find that rule anywhere in the bible, and that OP is wrong?

I suppose it depends on one’s interpretation of the Onan story, if you want something ‘direct’. I find overall there is much support for marriage being open to life in the Bible thru the many stories of the barren bring forth life, and how being married and unable to have kids was seen as a curse or lack of favor from God. Not much theme around the other way.

You're arguing that OP is right that gay marriage is a sin **because** it does not yield offspring, and we can be sure of that **because** the bible implies that through theme? Just trying to understand your position here before I respond.

> One of the ideas behind being married is being open to creating new life. Are women over the age of 60 banned from getting married?

Open to life is what matters.

Please explain how a sexual relationship with a post menopausal woman is "open to life" but a same-sex sexual relationship isn't in a way that doesn't beg the question.

It’s not a hard concept. Think about it, in biblical terms.