Can anyone give me a good argument against the amendment to the HRA – or for marriage equality – that doesn’t involve someone else following the rules of your religion or boil down to “It’s yucky and I don’t like it” or some bizarre sophist question like “If there were only gays, where would we be”?

Anyone at all?

Asking for proof of inexistence? Sorry, no, the burden is on those claiming, not those who don’t.
By this illogic, Thor and Mercury exist. Surely you’re not saying that… are you?

Just because quantum cosmology hasn’t answered the questions yet doesn’t mean that they’re not on the right track. And “not even close” is incorrect. They’re a heck of a lot closer than “God did it”.

The universe is “fine tuned” for the existance of life? Really? Is that why there’s nothing showing there’s any other life in the universe? Not saying there isn’t, but surely if the universe was “fine tuned” for life, there’d be evidence, no?

“Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.”

Absolutely incorrect. Scientists work off of data. Replicatable and observable evidence. This does NOT mean that they can’t have faith as well.

“Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.”

It absolutely has. Absolutely. This is a completely incorrect claim.

“Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.”

Evidence of this? You show none. However, we have AMPLE evidence that religiousness hasn’t always been a force for good.
Do we really want to compare atrocities?
And “the terrible twentieth century”?
What was so terrible about it?

“Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.”

Exactly the opposite. This is completely wrong. Science, as I mentioned, works off of data. The INSTANT the data refutes a theory or hypothesis, the theory or hypothesis is changed. This is the exact opposite of your claim. You are incorrect.

“Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.”

Again, you are wrong. Belief in something insubstantial and DISbelief in observable, replicatable data IS irrational.

“Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

This, as with the others, is just another incorrect attack on science, made out of fear of being wrong.

Here’s the thing…

If your side wasn’t trying to force your beliefs onto everyone else, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The whole thing is irrelevant, anyway, because other people shouldn’t have to follow the rules of your religion any more than you should have to follow the rules of Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism.

Yet, you haven’t gone back and responded to the rebuttal.
Nor have you here.

I guess we’re just supposed to let lies and misinformation stand.

Way to stand up for the things you say.

Literature is rife with books that start with some paraphrasing of ‘in the beginning’, the Bible just happens to be the longest running print and it did this in the beginning by having many of its early leaders commanded their followers to go out and eradicate through either assimilation or annihilation any other notions. Including of Yahweh’s sibling dieties in the Canaanite pantheon.

I never changed what it says, I just highlighted that what it says purposely omits what actual happened and writes its own story for it own purpose. But you can choose not to believe in history, but that does change what happened.

It is clear you will believe what the Bible says as the truth till God tells you otherwise, and that you will continue to use it to justify your own prejudice, just as those who championed apartheid and segregation did, and those who championed genocide did and those who championed slavery did. Just remember, when you do this, you miss out on the Bible’s spirituality, and it becomes just a tool.

I think you’re not open to having an honest discussion on the Scriptures and what they mean. There are some things in the Bible that make you go ‘hmmm.’ So it is very easy for you to also selectively pick Scriptures out of the Bible and manipulate them to support your point. Do I know everything in the Bible? No! Do I know everything in the Quran? No! I’m not going to pick our bad Scriptures in the Quran and say ‘see, you guys are bigots, haters, etc, etc.’ Especially if I don’t know the full meaning or background of the text. That is just simply wrong to do. Period! For anybody to use Scripture, that they don’t fully understand is wrong. The Leviticus Laws that you specifically talked about, the cutting of the hair, shaving, not eating meat, I know and studied this scripture. That is why I answered you it was given to the Jews. If you mention some other Leviticus Law Scripture, I may not have an answer because I may have not studied it. So I don’t disavow anything, not even the “inconvenient” bits as you put it. If, I understand it, I will attempt to explain it, certainly if you mislead Scripture. I didn’t use what the Bible says about Homosexuality in the old testaments in any of my comments.

My friend, you have to understand certain laws and rules were given to specific groups of people back in the Old Testament. By me saying that these laws do not apply to me, or today, is not me disavowing the significance of these scriptures for that era. I recognize them, I don’t understand all of them, but I will NEVER, disrespect Scripture, whether in the Bible or Quran to provide a point or to disapprove others, especially if I do not understand the Scripture in reference. So I am NOT one of these people, who pick and choose, to simply leave out inconvenient parts. But please respond to Berlinski’s view on scientific atheism.

Berlinski, writes in his book, “The Devil’s Delusion,” The attack on traditional religious thought, marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

Berlinski turns the scientific community’s (and their belief in evolution) cherished scepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions which he sums up perfectly.

•Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

•Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

•Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

•Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

•Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

•Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

•Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

•Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

•Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

You’re deliberately and willfully misreading it.

I don’t need a book of myths to tell me that pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality are wrong. I don’t need to go to church every Sunday to remind me not to steal, and to remain faithful to my wife. Most people also don’t need a church to have compassion, kindmess and humility; qualities noticably missing in many Christians, and other religeous groups.

You carry on scratching at extracts from an old book to justify your prejudices.

Plus, the bible thumpers love to bring up parts of the old testament in support of their anti gay agenda. Until they attempt to disavow the whole book.

There are TWO different crimes here. The first crime, resulted in the slave dying. The punishment was death. The other, the slave did not die, but the punishment resulted in financial loss.

The second crime still has to do with “a man that strikes his slave.” However, in this case the slave dies after the second dat. As you put it “if the slave dies on the third day, then his master may go unpunished.” Again, I believe this is a deliberate, gross wilful misunderstanding , misrepresentation of the text. When the text says “his master is not punished” this basically means his master was not put to death. But his master is punished. Slaves were worth money. If the master killed his slave he is punished by a financial loss which serves as the slave owner’s punishment. It does not condone any beating not ” just beating him or her severely.” It just shows two different forms of punishment for the same crime. We have similar laws , rules, and punishments in our society today. For the same crime, you can either go to jail or just receive a financial penalty, if you receive the lesser punishment or no punishment it does not mean that the courts condone your actions.

In my comments, I have never taken a position on this subject, but I have simply challenged you on your comments referencing the Bible which you give the impression you don’t believe in.

In all of my comments, I have not taken a position on this subject. I simply challenged the comments you made regarding Bible Scripture of which you are not telling the truth and spreading lies based on your lack of understanding.

Also, I am not picking and choosing, as you put it, what I want out of the Bible. You asked a question about the Leviticus Laws, cutting of the hair, shaving, etc. I answered you. Those laws were given to the JEWS specifically for that time period. I can’t put it any more simpler than that. Some Jews today still follow these laws, and you would see a lot of Rabbis today with the long beards and uncut hair. These laws were the first thing the Jewish children were taught in school .
What you and others are doing with Bible Scripture, when you are against it, but you use it anyway to support your point or condemn the faith is a gross wilful misunderstanding , misrepresentation, distortion, insult and travesty to something that people hold sacred.

“Christians are compassionate, open-minded and kind. You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind.” I emphasize the last part, ” You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind.” In doing this you commit the very error of which you accuse Christians and other religious groups of doing.

You degrade and attack Christians (and religious group) and, I am sure, the attempt us to intimidate Christians into abstaining from the political realm and social structuring of our culture—based on their religious beliefs. You degrade the Christian lifestyle which includes the right to disapprove of homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, polyandry, pornography, etc. Also, you incite prejudicial action against Christians with your ill-informed misrepresentations of Christianity. It is not bigoted, narrow-minded, or hate speech to say we follow God and believe that homosexuality, pornography, pedophilia, rape, adultery, etc., are all wrong. Call me whatever name you want, it doesn’t scare me.

All I ask, since you clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible and Bible teachings, is PLEASE, leave something that is scared alone when showing support for homosexuality. Not everyone who quotes from the Bible is a Christian on here, and not everyone (including yourself) has studied the Bible Scriptures enough to quote it. Make your case for homosexuality, I may support it, but leave those things that are sacred to the Church and to those that believe and understand the Scriptures. The worst thing you can do is spread LIES about the Scriptures based on your misunderstanding of the text.

What it does is, ” When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, HE SHALL BE PUNISHED. The person being punished is the slave owner and the punishment was being sentenced to death.

In the second part, “But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” This basically means, based on Biblical studies and not my interpretation, that since the slave did not die there is nothing to be avenged, in the form of death for the owner. However, financial loss serves as the slave owner’s punishment.

You can’t justick that bits thst are convenient for you. That makes you a hypocrite, which is fine. That’s what most of you bible-thumping backward myth-believers are: the biggest hypocrites. You pick and choose what you want out of the bible according what’s convenient on that particular day.

You call yourself Christians. you aren’t. Christians are compassionate, open-minded and kind. You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind. You call yourself Christian, but you aren’t.

The five that did not vote were: Craig Cannonier [OBA], Bob Richards [OBA], Nandi Davis [OBA], Glenn Blakeney [PLP], and Suzann Roberts Holshouser [OBA]. The first four were absent, and we seem to recall that Ms Roberts Holshouser was in the Speaker’s chair at the time.

The Premier was in London, Minister Richards was in the House earlier but by the time this vote happened he had left to catch a flight to London for the meeting. Ms Davis and Mr Blakeney were absent the entire day, we have no idea why, but there was a prior notification of this on the Order Papers.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” Ex 21:20-21 (ESV)

JD, you’re reading the text and making a statement as if the Bible says, “You can beat your slave to death.” But it does not. The text does not condone the beating of the slave at all. Rather, the text is describing what the punishment is for beating one’s slave to death. That is, the text actually CONDEMNS beating a slave to death. In the one case, the slave owner is punished by being put to death. In the other case, which is an unintentional death by beating, the slave owner is punished in terms of his own financial loss from having beaten his slave to death. The implication is that he did not intend to kill his slave, but was still wrong in beating the slave. Otherwise there would be no mention of punishment in either case. But as it is, there is a punishment in both cases here for beating a slave to death. In the first case of intentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner is likewise to be put to death. In the second case of unintentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner’s own foolish financial loss serves as his punishment.

Perhaps you should try studying the text next time on your own (not an atheist site that references the text), or reading some commentaries, or reading the text without understanding, and you won’t make such silly mistakes, reading the text the exact *opposite* way from which it is to be read.

Peace

These Leviticus Laws was written to Old Testament JEWS!! JEWS PEOPLE, JEWS!!Leviticus is written specifically for the people of Israel, containing laws and rules for Israel to obey as they prepare to occupy the land of Canaan. The people of Israel are being told not to act like the “pagans”. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel’s priests. This prohibition of homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality.

So ignore the Leviticus Laws, if you are not Jewish than most of these laws DO NOT apply to you. In fact, if you read Genesis 9:4 it specifies that men are allowed to eat meat.

As far as Christians condemning homosexuality in this day and age there is at least two mentions in the New Testament that clearly state that homosexuality is sexually immoral, indecent, and goes against the will of God.

1 Cor. 6:9-10 “9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

If you do not believe in God (Jesus) or any God for that matter, and you support homosexuality than that is your right. I will not condemn you to hell because you support homosexuality. When Christians, or whatever religious group speaks out against homosexuality, based on their belief in God, and the sacredness of the Holy Bible or the Quran, in the defence of their faith how dare non-believes call these people bigots, ignorant, and whatever disrespectful name you can think of, simply because someone disagrees with your stance on the issue. We should be allowed to disagree while still allowing the other person’s point of view to be held with impunity.