09 Nov '10 04:58>
Originally posted by duecerA few pages ago Suzianne argued that the decision was not based on ignorance. Care to take it up with her?
rejecting the gift of life when you can esily have it is mind numbingly ignorant.
Originally posted by duecerI guess that's the problem with theists, when they get in a tight spot they just go all vague and resort to a spot of 'theolodgobabble'.
I guess thats the problem with athiests, when they don't like the answer they make up their own...😞
Originally posted by Proper KnobI said what I needed to say in one sentance but if you like I can offer some further elucidation. Lets begin with the story of Abraham, Lot and the city of Sodom. Most Christians take the condemnation of Sodom as a condemnation of Homosexuality. This is a false assumption. What made Sodom reprehensible was that they raped visitors and outsiders, both men and women.
I guess that's the problem with theists, when they get in a tight spot they just go all vague and resort to a spot of 'theolodgobabble'.
Duecer, i'm asking for a straight answer. You claim to have, after a period of reflection, come to the conclusion that God has always been merciful. That same God in the OT comdemned people to death by stoning and bu ...[text shortened]... uld you please enlighten me, within a paragraph or two, how you've come to that conclusion.
Originally posted by duecerThanks deucer. I'll get back to this tomorrow.
I said what I needed to say in one sentance but if you like I can offer some further elucidation. Lets begin with the story of Abraham, Lot and the city of Sodom. Most Christians take the condemnation of Sodom as a condemnation of Homosexuality. This is a false assumption. What made Sodom reprehensible was that they raped visitors and outsiders, both men and ...[text shortened]... he first stone" If he was theologically incorrect, they would have stoned him along with her.