rhutchin

The Bible says that homosexuality is sin and that people who participate in such things will be denied entry into heaven. The Bible instructs Israel (or any other society) to punish a variety of acts and specifies death as the punishment for some of these. A society is free to choose how to govern itself just as individuals are free to determine what they will do. I think society ought to make sure that people understand what happens to them after death and should use many methods (including using its penal system) to teach people what is coming.

Angra Mainyu

Lies?
No, I don’t think there should be a punishment for lying, in general, though in some specific cases (e.g., lying in court), there should be (and there is) a punishment.

However, I don’t think either of those actions is a sin. I don’t believe in sin, thus nor in punishing “sinners”. My point was a reply to your argument that you don’t try to impose religion. In other words, the punishments you advocate are based on religion.

That’s my point exactly. You advocate the execution of those who don’t believe in the Bible.
In the society you advocate, it’s “believe or die”. As if that weren’t bad enough, it’s not possible to choose to believe, under the threat of death. So, the threat seems to be “lie or die”. But then again, you also want to punish liars.


Despite the fact that many posters have explained why the Wager doesn’t work, you continue to argue that it does, and try to make arguments in support of that position. That is to defend the wager, as far as I could tell.

Still, whatever you call it, my point is the same.

I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, but I don’t want to repeat myself, and I may not attack creationism here, anyway, so I’ll leave that aside.

The fact remains that the wager doesn’t work. I can't say "belief is less risky than nonbelief, so I will believe". First, I don't think belief is in any way less risky.

But that's beside the point: let's consider a society in which nonbelief is riskier than belief - for instance, a society in which people who don't believe in Biblegod are executed. The fact is still the same: If I don't believe, I cannot choose to believe, so I would still not believe, despite the death threat imposed by society on me. Of course, I'd very likely lie and claim that I believe, as I'm not interested in martyrdom. But again, that wouldn't make me believe.

Johnny Skeptic

We could continue to debate what the Wager means, but let me put it another way. It is not possible for a man to become a Christian unless he loves God and does not object to what God does and allows. You would not be able to love God if you believed that he told lies. Decent people are not able to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities that are much worse than lying is. Once again, you have proven that you are clueless regarding what principles and morals are all about. You would never be able to love any other being with all of your heart, soul, and mind who committed the detestable actions and allowances that God commits, but in God's case, you have somehow been able to abandon your principles and morals.

seebs

Hey, Roger! Haven't seen you around before. If you think you can argue persuasively that the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns all homosexual activity, I would love to see it. I have a standing offer for a formal debate on this; thus far, no one's given me much of an argument on it.

djrafikie

No rhutchin, that is NOT what you have said at all. THIS is what you have said previously.

You are an advocate for a society in which we are all forced to live under Xtian fundamentalist rule, as I previously stated very clearly. you are an advocate for execution of homosexuals.
Stop trying to backtrack now you are pinned down.
You are only digging a deeper hole.

Essentially I find your attitude chilling and hateful.
Furthermore I find you willingness to alter it at the drop of a hat when the going gets heavy pathetic.

I made it clear to you that you had stated as I accussed. you continued to deny it.

Oh, and I'm sorry, I nearly forgot..
and again, just in case everyone else missed it..

rhutchin

So, what’s the point. We have a free society that votes in a democratic process for the system under which it will be governed. Under that system, I can be an advocate for rule according to Biblical principles. If you don’t want that, then vote. Recently, some states have been defining marriage to exclude gay marriage. I am an advocate for that action. I suspect you are not. You probably find these laws chilling and hateful. I win some states; you win some states. We both then live under the system that rules. You would probably move to a state that supports homosexual marriage if you didn’t already live in one because of your strong beliefs on this issue.

rhutchin

Just jumping in but ignore me if you don't find this useful.

The basic argument is that any sexual activity that occurs outside the marriage of a man and a woman is sin. So, the debate would not be that the Bible condemns homosexual activity but that the Bible condemns sexual activity outside marriage (of which homosexuality would be one form).

Here is a presentation of this position.

http://www.biblebell.org/sx.html

I am not aware of any unique points to make beyond those made there.

So, if you do get into a formal debate, you might start with a presentation along those lines.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: In your first post in this thread, you said:

God is free to do wrong things too, which he does in abundance. Decent people do not have to endorse those actions. In fact, decent people have no choice but to oppose those actions.

rhutchin

Yep, but then you would actually have to read it (which would stifle the debate).

People have a free will and can exercise that will as they desire.

rhutchin

Such is your opinion. People are free to choose. Some may agree with you; some may not.