To our atheist friends

Originally posted by FMF
[b]...you have no problem stating that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from them.

I did not state "that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from them". I said no such thing. You are attempting to project your superstition on to me just as we are discussing the validity of your superstition. In which post do ...[text shortened]... I stated a belief that God and the Israelites communicated in any way whatsoever? Be specific.[/b]

its not about either you or I, why you must continually drag it to the depths of a tabloid newspaper i cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he stated that he thought that adultery was immoral, and as we have been discussing,
ast some length, its place within the context of the mosaic law. As my question was
specific to that law, and he answered my question specifically, then what other reason
could he have for discussing it out with those parameters, just a casual generic
respon ...[text shortened]... out and just chanced to proffer some
comments in cyber space, feel you bum FMF and get a grip.

You're just dodging the question again. Where specifically did googlefudge state that "it is reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain from sexual immorality"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not about either you or I, why you must continually drag it to the depths of a tabloid newspaper i cannot say.

More dodging. In which post do you claim I stated a belief that God and the Israelites communicated in any way whatsoever?

Originally posted by FMF
You're just dodging the question again. Where specifically did googlefudge state that "it is reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain from sexual immorality"?

its not about googlefudge

Originally posted by FMF
More dodging. In which post do you claim I stated a belief that God and the Israelites communicated in any way whatsoever?

its not about you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not about googlefudge

You made a false claim about what googlefudge said.

Originally posted by FMF
You made a false claim about what googlefudge said.

its not about google fudge, its not about me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not about you.

You are dodging direct questions about claims that you are making about what other posters have said to you.

Originally posted by FMF
You are dodging direct questions about claims that you are making about what other posters have said to you.

its not about me, i have already issued an disclaimer stating that i retract any
inaccuracy of statement, in the past, at present and into he future.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What a quite remarkable thread.

Indeed it is.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would agree with this, but...

I don't care if homosexuality is genetically (or otherwise) predetermined or not, people are and should be free to choose
who they have a relationship with, and be free to love whomever they like.

If you do argue that sexuality is predetermined (and sexuality is too complicated to say that definitively at the momen ...[text shortened]... sin are not immoral, plus
who cares what god thinks, particularly given god doesn't exist.

Well, the science of gay predetermination is pretty clear, there are brain scans, for instance, that show clear differences in gays V straights in MRI and fMRI scans. But you are right about the idea creationists, fundamentalists would just poo poo such research.

I don't think there is ANY rational argument that would sway a fundie on this issue or much of any other rational V faith based discussions.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, the science of gay predetermination is pretty clear, there are brain scans, for instance, that show clear differences in gays V straights in MRI and fMRI scans. But you are right about the idea creationists, fundamentalists would just poo poo such research.

I don't think there is ANY rational argument that would sway a fundie on this issue or much of any other rational V faith based discussions.

really what do they show and how does that demonstrate a particular sexual orientation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually I have not crashed at all, you have been unable to demonstrate why the
simple request, by God, as written in the Mosiac Law and practised by the Israelites
was in any shape of form, an unreasonable request. So far it has been asserted
that, it was unreasonable because,

1. it limits sexual freedom to married couples and men and wome ...[text shortened]... xist irrespective of whether God exists or
whether FMF believes that they originate from God.

yes, and don't forget it's none of your damn business.

when you realize why it is unreasonable for someone to insist that you refrain from heterosexual activities, you'll learn why "it's none of your damn business" is a very good reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is also a justification for asking a person to refrain from adultery, it breaks up
families, or homosexuality, its unnatural, therefore Gods requirements are reasonable
on this basis.

adultery can be two unmarried couples -- no family break up there so your argument is destroyed.

adultery can be married couples who come to an agreement to share themselves with other married couples (swingers). -- once again no family break up and your argument is completely demolished.

seriously, is that all you have? it's kind of pathetic that you're sticking to your defunct arguments like a broken record.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No but i do think that its a reasonable request for children to be asked to be obedient
to their parents. The privacy argument is quite weak, making whiskey in ones home
is illegal, shall i tell the government that what goes on behind closed doors is none of
their business when the customs and excise man comes to inspect my still?

governments also have been prone to making unreasonable laws. just because something is codified as "law" does not mean it is just, or moral or reasonable.