Atheism Discussion Thread

[New Emeline]

To me, ethics and morality is about doing as little harm as possible, and as much good. Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful are all 'good', because they make the world less shitty for all of us.

Just because we live in an uncaring void which is for the most part horrifically dangerous to us doesn't mean we have to be arseholes. Much like forest fires, only we can prevent the world from being shit.

From my perspective, most religion's gods are actually actively evil. They punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, punish infinitely for finite crimes, kill or order killing based on thoughtcrime and (worst of all) allow every single evil thing which has ever happened to occur, while having the power to predict, perceive and stop said things.

To use your analogy, not all forest fires are bad. In fact, forest fires can be good way to refertilize the soil.

Their point still stands.

[Eol Sha]

To use your analogy, not all forest fires are bad. In fact, forest fires can be good way to refertilize the soil.

Their point still stands.

I dunno. Not every deity is malicious or omnipotent. Also, I think its a dangerous thing to say that not using your power to help those who suffer makes you inherently evil.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

There are plenty of systems of ethics that don't come from religion.

I'm going to use this because it's a pretty good summary of the point. Yes there are systems of ethics that don't come from religion, but does that mean that we all want to live as Confucianists? Or under the ethics of Marxist autocracies? Personally I find a lot of problems in Confucianism, and not even my socialist self would have done well in Stalin's USSR or even modern China. So the question is less about ethics that come from religion, and more about ethics in general.

Here is one case: does morality come from society? I think most of us would tend to reject that idea, especially if the prevailing morality of our society considers homosexuality a sin and we disagree.

"Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful" are things that I think that everyone can get behind, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But what about something more specific, say (picking an extreme for the sake of argument) cannibalism? Is cannibalism morally sanctioned, or amoral? And in either case, why?

[New Emeline]

There are plenty of systems of ethics that don't come from religion.

I'm going to use this because it's a pretty good summary of the point. Yes there are systems of ethics that don't come from religion, but does that mean that we all want to live as Confucianists? Or under the ethics of Marxist autocracies? Personally I find a lot of problems in Confucianism, and not even my socialist self would have done well in Stalin's USSR or even modern China. So the question is less about ethics that come from religion, and more about ethics in general.

Here is one case: does morality come from society? I think most of us would tend to reject that idea, especially if the prevailing morality of our society considers homosexuality a sin and we disagree.

"Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful" are things that I think that everyone can get behind, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But what about something more specific, say (picking an extreme for the sake of argument) cannibalism? Is cannibalism morally sanctioned, or amoral? And in either case, why?

Cannibalism to me is wrong because it is highly unhealthy.
I'm assuming you're talking about consuming people after they've already died and consented to it while still alive in a will or something, not killing people to eat them.

[Haltoa]

I'm a devoted atheist due to junior school. Every Thursday at assembly until year 5, this teacher, ms jackson, forced us to sing these religious songs and she was clearly trying to indoctrinate us with this 'god is great blah blah blah ' stuff. Most of the time I didn't even sing the songs and just sat there thinking to myself, 'I hate god. I hate the church. STOP TRYING TO CONVERT ME MS JACKSON!' So, when she left, it was wonderful. So I'm still in my 'angry at religion' phase.

[Hammer Britannia]

"Why do I not believe in a god?" someone asked
"New Jersey" I replied. "No god would make that big of a mistake."

[Albrenia]

Their point still stands.

I dunno. Not every deity is malicious or omnipotent. Also, I think its a dangerous thing to say that not using your power to help those who suffer makes you inherently evil.

It does if you have the power to effortlessly, perfectly and safely prevent it without any possibility of negative consequences. Also, while willing to excuse 'grey area' sort of stuff, I don't see allowing a serial killer to torture a child to death (as has happened in the world) and just watching it happen as anything but utter, depraved evil.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

I'm going to use this because it's a pretty good summary of the point. Yes there are systems of ethics that don't come from religion, but does that mean that we all want to live as Confucianists? Or under the ethics of Marxist autocracies? Personally I find a lot of problems in Confucianism, and not even my socialist self would have done well in Stalin's USSR or even modern China. So the question is less about ethics that come from religion, and more about ethics in general.

Here is one case: does morality come from society? I think most of us would tend to reject that idea, especially if the prevailing morality of our society considers homosexuality a sin and we disagree.

"Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful" are things that I think that everyone can get behind, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But what about something more specific, say (picking an extreme for the sake of argument) cannibalism? Is cannibalism morally sanctioned, or amoral? And in either case, why?

Cannibalism to me is wrong because it is highly unhealthy.
I'm assuming you're talking about consuming people after they've already died and consented to it while still alive in a will or something, not killing people to eat them.

Yes sorry, murder is another thing entirely. So if cannibalism is wrong because it is unhealthy, does that mean that we have a moral responsibility to prevent consenting parties from engaging in it?

[New Emeline]

Cannibalism to me is wrong because it is highly unhealthy.
I'm assuming you're talking about consuming people after they've already died and consented to it while still alive in a will or something, not killing people to eat them.

Yes sorry, murder is another thing entirely. So if cannibalism is wrong because it is unhealthy, does that mean that we have a moral responsibility to prevent consenting parties from engaging in it?

I would say no, no more than we should stop people from eating junk food. If cannibalism became widespread, I think we would have a moral responsibility to educate people on the dangers of it.

[Albrenia]

There are plenty of systems of ethics that don't come from religion.

I'm going to use this because it's a pretty good summary of the point. Yes there are systems of ethics that don't come from religion, but does that mean that we all want to live as Confucianists? Or under the ethics of Marxist autocracies? Personally I find a lot of problems in Confucianism, and not even my socialist self would have done well in Stalin's USSR or even modern China. So the question is less about ethics that come from religion, and more about ethics in general.

Here is one case: does morality come from society? I think most of us would tend to reject that idea, especially if the prevailing morality of our society considers homosexuality a sin and we disagree.

"Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful" are things that I think that everyone can get behind, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But what about something more specific, say (picking an extreme for the sake of argument) cannibalism? Is cannibalism morally sanctioned, or amoral? And in either case, why?

Killing to eat someone is immoral, particularly if there's other sources of food available. It's also rather unhealthy, but that's not so much an ethical issue as a health one.

Also, it's gross. That doesn't make it unethical or immoral, but I still don't like it and wouldn't do it.

[The Liberated Territories]

I used to be a theist but then I took a depressive existential crisis to the brain

what's up

Not sure what a "depressive existential crisis" is.

if you gaze deep into the abyss...

[Albrenia]

Not sure what a "depressive existential crisis" is.

if you gaze deep into the abyss...

...You get kind of bored and forget why you're staring into a hole in spacetime?

[New Emeline]

Not sure what a "depressive existential crisis" is.

if you gaze deep into the abyss...

Sometimes you see aliens! Or a really cool comet.

[The Liberated Territories]

if you gaze deep into the abyss...

...You get kind of bored and forget why you're staring into a hole in spacetime?

The same reason we graze our navels, boy.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Yes sorry, murder is another thing entirely. So if cannibalism is wrong because it is unhealthy, does that mean that we have a moral responsibility to prevent consenting parties from engaging in it?

I would say no, no more than we should stop people from eating junk food. If cannibalism became widespread, I think we would have a moral responsibility to educate people on the dangers of it.

Alright, well lets also address junk food since I mostly used cannibalism for the shock value. If we have a moral responsibility to address a health crisis like sudden widespread cannibalism, or sudden widespread obesity due to junk food, why do we have to wait until its a health crisis to educate people about the danger? Why would it not be moral to act sooner?

I'm going to use this because it's a pretty good summary of the point. Yes there are systems of ethics that don't come from religion, but does that mean that we all want to live as Confucianists? Or under the ethics of Marxist autocracies? Personally I find a lot of problems in Confucianism, and not even my socialist self would have done well in Stalin's USSR or even modern China. So the question is less about ethics that come from religion, and more about ethics in general.

Here is one case: does morality come from society? I think most of us would tend to reject that idea, especially if the prevailing morality of our society considers homosexuality a sin and we disagree.

"Being kind, honest, loyal and truthful" are things that I think that everyone can get behind, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. But what about something more specific, say (picking an extreme for the sake of argument) cannibalism? Is cannibalism morally sanctioned, or amoral? And in either case, why?

Killing to eat someone is immoral, particularly if there's other sources of food available. It's also rather unhealthy, but that's not so much an ethical issue as a health one.

Also, it's gross. That doesn't make it unethical or immoral, but I still don't like it and wouldn't do it.

It is indeed gross. But if you and I were born into a society which practiced ritual cannibalism, would we still view it that way?

On a different note, if killing to eat someone is immoral, is killing an animal to eat it immoral? If it is moral, why is it okay and different than a human being? If it is not moral, why is it not okay? On what basis do we decide?

[New Emeline]

I don't really like or understand the conflation of atheism with hopelessness and nihilism. I'm an atheist, but for better or for worse I'm also an optimistic and hopeful person.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

I don't really like or understand the conflation of atheism with hopelessness and nihilism. I'm an atheist, but for better or for worse I'm also an optimistic and hopeful person.

I think that some people who lose their faith also end up losing themselves for a while. Atheists can be optimistic people or pessimistic people, everybody has ups and downs. But I think that I a lot of new atheists don't really know where to turn when they feel that way. That's part of why I'm so obsessed with spiritual wellness on this thread, I think that there is a place for it for atheists as well as theists but that a lot of atheists reject the principle out of hand.

[New Emeline]

I don't really like or understand the conflation of atheism with hopelessness and nihilism. I'm an atheist, but for better or for worse I'm also an optimistic and hopeful person.

I think that some people who lose their faith also end up losing themselves for a while. Atheists can be optimistic people or pessimistic people, everybody has ups and downs. But I think that I a lot of new atheists don't really know where to turn when they feel that way. That's part of why I'm so obsessed with spiritual wellness on this thread, I think that there is a place for it for atheists as well as theists but that a lot of atheists reject the principle out of hand.

I can definitely understand that. I was never religious in the first place, so I’ve never had to struggle with that particular aspect.

[Albrenia]

I don't really like or understand the conflation of atheism with hopelessness and nihilism. I'm an atheist, but for better or for worse I'm also an optimistic and hopeful person.

I think that some people who lose their faith also end up losing themselves for a while. Atheists can be optimistic people or pessimistic people, everybody has ups and downs. But I think that I a lot of new atheists don't really know where to turn when they feel that way. That's part of why I'm so obsessed with spiritual wellness on this thread, I think that there is a place for it for atheists as well as theists but that a lot of atheists reject the principle out of hand.

The input of the religious is very helpful to a thread like this, so all of your questions are not only welcome, but encouraged. At least by me.

[Albrenia]

I would say no, no more than we should stop people from eating junk food. If cannibalism became widespread, I think we would have a moral responsibility to educate people on the dangers of it.

Alright, well lets also address junk food since I mostly used cannibalism for the shock value. If we have a moral responsibility to address a health crisis like sudden widespread cannibalism, or sudden widespread obesity due to junk food, why do we have to wait until its a health crisis to educate people about the danger? Why would it not be moral to act sooner?

Killing to eat someone is immoral, particularly if there's other sources of food available. It's also rather unhealthy, but that's not so much an ethical issue as a health one.

Also, it's gross. That doesn't make it unethical or immoral, but I still don't like it and wouldn't do it.

It is indeed gross. But if you and I were born into a society which practiced ritual cannibalism, would we still view it that way?

On a different note, if killing to eat someone is immoral, is killing an animal to eat it immoral? If it is moral, why is it okay and different than a human being? If it is not moral, why is it not okay? On what basis do we decide?

Killing someone to eat them is immoral mainly because (as self-centred humans) it harms somebody for some ritualistic purpose. If you were stuck on a desert island and had no choice but starve or eat the other guy... I'm not sure that would count as 'immoral' or just 'amoral'. I put more value on the lives of humans than other animals, and on some other animals more than others.

Hunting animals is acceptable, provided no undue suffering is caused, and the killing is for a good reason, and not just killing to take a trophy to feel like a big man.

My ethics aren't perfect though, but they work well enough for me.

[Lower Nubia]

1."But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."

Doesn't sound like "condoning" rape for me.

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

This passage should be, as with similar passages of ancient Israelites' law, seen through the lens of a barbaric ancient culture. I believe that God gave them these rather primitive laws to accustom them to order and steer them onto the path of a more humane civilisation.

You missed the verse before that, which suggests the VICTIM should be killed as well. The second verse also condones forced marriage.

Secular feminist movements have done far more for women's rights than the Bible.

I've finally chimed in, the straw that broke the camels back so to speak, this illiterate nonsense must end and this quaint little argument continued verbatim throughout the halls of atheistic biblical thinking must be thrown into the fire of proper thought. I mean honestly, is verse 25 of Deuteronomy 22 related to the previous verses? Thus the condemnation of the rape should be praised, not sidelined by the mutually exclusive verses above at any rate. You should of said: "That verse is wonderful, however, what about the preceding verse?" Instead of lumping verse 25 into what you understand to be a vile chapter. You take, take, take, never give, give, give. If there be an ounce of decency it must be swallowed up in favour of something more insidious.

Seeing, however, that you mention verses verses 13-22 of Deuteronomy 22, let's discuss them and see how in reality your little delusion, is just that.

ANE states are dependant on proper management of inheritance, otherwise family ownership of land can be parsed off to others, maligning the original community owner and thus threatening the very community itself and the family. Which thanks to the lack of resources during this period, means a lack of welfare qualities, so they will most likely starve to death, unless they can become indentured servants. The reason the punishment is harsh is because threatened virginity upsets the succession, claimants begin to multiple and that directly risks and affects the community. Then there's the final point, the biblical laws outline the maximum, harshest sentence which can be given for a crime, this is a common theme of all legal systems at the time, the Mishnah which followed it provided a more comprehensive set of legalities which could also be followed, which means more likely and not that a payment would be required for the crime. Of note is the fact that you miss verse 19:

"And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."

Which illustrates the claim must be checked so is hardly accepted de facto from the accusers mouth. That the wife is to be prided even after accusation and that he must pay the equivalent of a slanderers fee.

2. I cannot find any verses stating that humans are not all of equal worth. Quite the contrary.

"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

What about the verses where he says that non-Israelites can be slaves, while Israelites can't?

Both can be slaves, the Israelites can be slaves for up to 7 years, unless they like their master, for which they can enter into lifetime servitude. One problem with this comment is the equivocation. All can be slaves, yet, what form of slavery? The Atlantic slave trade? Concentration camp slaves? Or slaves to the rich man? I mean, what? What? which one is it? Going to make a statement like that define the slavery rather than gain readable brownie poinst by illustrating that the word slave is used in the bible and therefore abusing peoples imaginations to equate that to the greatest human atrocities. Rather than say the a potentially more tempered version.

Also, some of the verses in the Bible are complete discrepancies. The above Bible verse contradicts a verse in Corinthians requiring women to be silent in church. Requiring men and women to have different roles, without any basis on biology (there is nothing in a priest's duties which requires having a dick), is plain sexist.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, give a man a keyboard and he'll write nonsense till the keys fly off. What level of thought, pray tell you, possessed you to think that comparing a particularly strict (and incorrect perspective but I mean.. ) "interpretation" of 1 Corinthians 14:34, because that's all it is, would be a valid argument? Men and women have different roles because of a complex set of historical factors which simply cannot be summed as "beyond biological". There many be no duties which specifically require a priest's penis, but the position of being a communities pastoral carer requires time, which women of the 1st century would most certainly not have assuming they had children (which would be exceedingly likely), which brings us to a curious phenomena of Tradition, if there have never been female Bishops or priests, can we put one in that position? Seeing as the Church has certain historical criteria it must fulfill to answer that question the simple answer is a no.

Yet women have had many equally high ranking positions within the Church, one need only see their later roles in monastic settings (for which they were often the fount of dynastic wisdom). Other curious qualities: if the bishop is to be Christ's representative on earth can a woman partake of that direct symbolic likeness? For such a sexist church many women have become saints over the period of the Church's history, which are ranked higher than a bishop, nay the Pope, himself, for which prayer may be asked in intercession alongside the only person known to fulfill the role of sanctification or theosis, the most important goal of all Christians, a woman. Mary.

3. Homosexuality is a sin.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

As for your claim that it is not a choice - I have to disagree. We have all been granted free will, we are not simply machines abiding by programming. Even genes do not control our behavior, merely influence it.

Oh my fucking lord, that's been scientifically debunked. Homosexuality is a complex genetic trait. Also, the relevant verses were composed in ancient Jerusalem and their injunctions against homosexuality were most likely down to the biases of some rabbis. Historians have proven the Bible is not "God-breathed".

What the actual horseradish sniffing, limp-wort licking, wall paper paste guzzling drivel are you talking about?! Homosexuality has at most genetic traits which increase your affinity for homosexual tendencies, genes are not the masters of our minds, such rampant determinism is ridiculous. One can have genetic traits which increase affinity for Alcohol, gambling, rape, but these must be acted upon, and many who have them, have done none of these things. Homosexuality is an exceedingly complex web of pathological, environmental, and genetic factors. Current observations suggest the only pathological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a slight increase to the size of the hypothalamus for which it is currently understood to be a development throughout childhood. Logically we would expect nothing less, than ones own experiences or desires to shape the qualities of our brains, if it is not congenital, at least. One is not born gay, one is not born straight, we merely have the components to reproduce (which could be seen as innate heterosexuality), for babies do not have sexual drives, we're not freudians.

Historians have proven the Bible is not "God-breathed".

"Pack it up boys, 2,000 years of scholarship disproved by elephant hurling on the internet!"

It is not the realm of historians to hypothesise the nature, or intrinsic quality, of the production, only that a production was made: that it exists, was copied, was read and used. Only if one assumes a naturalistic position on history can it be said that a historian could ever have such knowledge, all of which is unfounded.

And why would a good God care where people put their dicks provided everyone's a consenting adult?

We're all so glad that you've made up another sentient beings mind up for them, what is your will, your authority, to judge what others should care for? A large collection of works has been produced on why God has condemned specific actions, including homosexuality. Your only criteria for what was legitimate, however, seemed to be consent, and oh boy, am I glad governments don't agree with you.

4. I fail to see when does God allegedly "call for killing of innocent people". He has, however, sentenced sinners to death, yes.

Like where God calls Jewish armies to kill civilians?

This has been discussed many times on the CDT.

5. A spiritual being is above carnal, human urges. Likening God to humans in the Bible is probably an attempt at understanding the infinite Creator. As for the 'genocides'... well, see the above. Civilisations like the Canaanites were worshipping horrible deities, such as Moloch who required child sacrifice. Obviously, such actions are against God's law.

"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable."

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”"

And finally, is God truly "omnibenevolent"? Of that I am not sure. Certainly He is benevolent, and the above arguments suggest He may be omnibenevolent. Obviously the early methods He used with humans are questionable, but let us not forget that God is also just. Perhaps this justice disqualifies the notion of omnibenevolence? Or perhaps it is a part of it? Nevertheless, here is a verse worth contemplating:

"I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."

Still, it can simply refer to God bringing calamity upon those who disobey Him.

And I'm done. Chances are I shall not post here anymore, for "Bad company ruins good morals."

1. God conjures up a shitton of water and floods the whole of Earth, killing trillions of innocent animals, just because some humans pissed him off. And how did the biosphere return to normal like it's Tuesday?
2. God sentences people to infinite time burning in hell for finite crimes. The Ministry of Love in 1984 was less brutal. Couldn't he just make sinners burn until they truly repent?
3. Even if he exists and is impossible to fully understand, for the sake of argument, we could figure out some things about him. Like, at the very least, he isn't Harambe. Similarly, we can figure out that he sets some double standards in the Bible which invalidate his benevolence and justice.

1. Though I don't necessarily care for your first point, due to the variety of opinions on the literalness(?) of the event, it must be said that the planet is our kingdom, for which all live and die upon it. It was our responsibility to maintain peace and order, we failed.

2.This criticism is only valid assuming you stick to a more fundamentalist evangelical understanding of hell, a more nuanced version has been discussed countless times on the CDT, thus utilising this criticism is unfounded.

3.There are a number of qualities God cannot be, God cannot be a tree. Even an eternal tree, though it could exist, does not in and of itself have the ability to have thought and sentience, without illogically (that is, without foundation) adding more human characteristics to the tree, to the point where the tree is no longer able to be differentiated between itself or a man (or atleast, a powerfully cognitative being, of which we ourselves are the only analog we have to make that assessment). Therefore certain qualities of God, assuming we're to be logical with our deduction, must place him without: body, material and time. He must also be sentient (for a god that creates nothing is not a relevant god), unchanging and the essence of being itself.

He sets no double standards, He is logically tempered to His other characteristics, God's omnibenevolence is not separated from that of his Justice or mercy, but it is tempered and understood within them, thus God's omnibenevolence, cannot contradict his Justice. Therefore, for God to give you bliss in life (or the next life ), go and sin no more.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

I think that some people who lose their faith also end up losing themselves for a while. Atheists can be optimistic people or pessimistic people, everybody has ups and downs. But I think that I a lot of new atheists don't really know where to turn when they feel that way. That's part of why I'm so obsessed with spiritual wellness on this thread, I think that there is a place for it for atheists as well as theists but that a lot of atheists reject the principle out of hand.

I can definitely understand that. I was never religious in the first place, so I’ve never had to struggle with that particular aspect.

Neither was I, I was raised without religion in our household. But I've also experienced depression and disillusionment, and I've seen ex-religious people struggle in ways that I haven't always been prepared to help with. And I love religious people who are driven to help others. But I've also always thought that there should be ways that atheists can help in these situations, and I've found that we tend to be a little lacking in that category. There's always the positive nihilism argument, but that doesn't work for everyone.

I think that some people who lose their faith also end up losing themselves for a while. Atheists can be optimistic people or pessimistic people, everybody has ups and downs. But I think that I a lot of new atheists don't really know where to turn when they feel that way. That's part of why I'm so obsessed with spiritual wellness on this thread, I think that there is a place for it for atheists as well as theists but that a lot of atheists reject the principle out of hand.

The input of the religious is very helpful to a thread like this, so all of your questions are not only welcome, but encouraged. At least by me.

I'm actually quite atheist, my interest in ethics, morality, and spiritual wellness comes from an atheist viewpoint. But I'm also glad that you're open to religious input, I try to be as well and I have rarely regretted it. I've studied Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and spoken with leaders from various sects of all them. I'm also familiar with Buddhism and no small amount of New Age spirituality.

So when I ask questions about whether or not its moral to eat animals, I'm trying to establish what morality is and what it means for atheists. Since we have no book or doctrine to point to for our understanding of things like "good" and "evil," I think that it is necessary to establish those things for ourselves, and that "be a good person" is simply too vague to function in that regard.

[Albrenia]

We're all so glad that you've made up another sentient beings mind up for them, what is your will, your authority, to judge what others should care for? A large collection of works has been produced on why God has condemned specific actions, including homosexuality. Your only criteria for what was legitimate, however, seemed to be consent, and oh boy, am I glad governments don't agree with you.

Funny how most of the civilised world is coming to agree with them though, making gay relationships not only legal, but their marriage legally condoned. It's not an unfair statement that the Creator of the Universe caring about if dudes do other dudes is hilariously foolish.

[New Emeline]

We're all so glad that you've made up another sentient beings mind up for them, what is your will, your authority, to judge what others should care for? A large collection of works has been produced on why God has condemned specific actions, including homosexuality. Your only criteria for what was legitimate, however, seemed to be consent, and oh boy, am I glad governments don't agree with you.

Funny how most of the civilised world is coming to agree with them though, making gay relationships not only legal, but their marriage legally condoned. It's not an unfair statement that the Creator of the Universe caring about if dudes do other dudes is hilariously foolish.

If God really 1. existed and 2. cared he/she/it should have said something by now...

[Albrenia]

He sets no double standards, He is logically tempered to His other characteristics, God's omnibenevolence is not separated from that of his Justice or mercy, but it is tempered and understood within them, thus God's omnibenevolence, cannot contradict his Justice. Therefore, for God to give you bliss in life (or the next life ), go and sin no more.

False. God has plenty of double standards. He declares that we should not kill, yet slaughters all the firstborn of Egypt when he wishes to. There is no Justice in the killing of the innocent to get at a guilty regime, there is no Love in allowing people to suffer in torment for eternity.