Atheists Asking Questions - Closed Bible Thread

Newsite

This relates to the 'should the Bible be reviewed' thread - I wrote out a big long reply to Zombrex and then when I hit submit the thread had been closed. It's important to post it though I feel, especially as PDN's closing comment matched the sentiments of my closing comment exactly (even though I hadn't seen his post until after I finished my post, obviously).

Zombrex wrote: »

Who says it wasn't being better understood centuries ago when people were burning witches and waging holy wars?

'Holy war' is a flat-out oxymoron. Anyone who ever took part in war is potentially guilty of murder, and certainly guilty of enabling it - 'thou shalt not kill'. I do think that atheists (not saying you in particular) confuse the message with the people who pretend to proclaim it. If someone is fighting a holy war or off on a crusade and they claim to be a Christian, don't think 'oh look, hypocrites' - rather, think 'those people are distorting the message for their own means'.

It's not just 'religious' people who are guilty of this though. If you think about it, how many people who blame religion for war and for terrorism, etc, will turn around and say 'aren't those troops out in Afghanistan and Iraq so brave? Heroes'. Wrong! And they won't even see the double-standard.

Zombrex wrote: »

"Better understanding" just means re-interpreting the passages using the moral zeitgeist of the day. It is effectively the same thing as changing the Bible.

Absolutely not. It does not mean that and should not mean that. Let's take a very popular and pertinent example. Does getting a better understanding of the Bible mean leaving out the verses which say not to sleep around? Now that we're in the 21st century and casual sex is the done thing? Nope not so much. The message is the same now as it was 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago.

Zombrex wrote: »

Slavery is considered wrong so we must "better understand" the slavery passages in the Bible with that in mind, because it can't be as simply as God actually likes slavery, thinks it is great and we who say it is immoral are actually in the wrong.

Seeing as you're obviously keen on the idea that we 'reinterpret the passages using the moral zeitgeist of the day, you must be careful to not view loaded concepts such as 'slavery' through your own 21st century perspective (not that you can be blamed for that). You do know that the slavery of the Bible is not people being whipped in cotton fields? Did you know that slaves in ancient times were allowed to own and sell property? That they were treated as part of the master's extended family and that God's requirement for them to be treated fairly was reflective of the fact that he recognised that slavery was an inevitable outcome of the harshness of the economic situation of the time?

In those days, some people were so poor that they were glad to work for a master if it meant they weren't going to starve by being out on their own. Once a 'debt' had been paid (which they could repay through selling assets), they were free.

I spotted a couple of posts in a discussion on this on Boards from a while back - may have been in After Hours - where a regular on this forum was talking about the above. If you do a search on 'philologos slavery', it might pop up.

Zombrex wrote: »

Genocide is wrong so we must "better understand" the passages in the Bible where God orders genocide, because it can't be as simple as God likes genocide, thinks it is great and we are mistaken.

Rape is wrong so we must "better understand" the passages in the Bible where God orders his soldiers to take virgins from wars for themselves as plunder, because it can't be as simple as God thinks forced marriage and rape is perfectly fine and we need to lighten up about rape and forced marriage.

Which verses pray tell? Do you actually think that God condones rape?

Zombrex wrote: »

An actual change, saying flat out that some things in the Bible are just wrong would seem a far less arrogant move than all this mental gymnastics. Listen to William Lane Craig try to explain how it was actually better for the Israelites to kill all the children of their conquered neighbors if you want a good example (and laugh).

An actual change would be an atheist seeking to come to an understanding and actually ask questions for a change (this is so, so rare on these forums that the Ciaran guy who is asking questions on here at the minute sticks out like a sore thumb), as opposed to sneering and mocking and showing their scorn.

soterpisc

Oh come one/// PDN closed the thread.. Move on ..

Doc Farrell

Newsite might have a point here as quite a few late night posters don't seem to know the difference between the old testament and the New.

Also I would love to have a thread to put in questions of my own that don't really deserve their own threads.

It could just be a general crazy thread where the mods could cut and paste nonsense posts before/instead of banning trolls.

Just an idea, in the meantime I'm putting a few questions on paper that I hope to discuss online but I don't really want to start threads just to bring them up.

Anyhow, just my two pence worth. I'm awestruck by the tolerance levels of the mods!

Fanny Cradock

Given the history of the last thread - what with the disingenuous questions all that - its seems like bad form to create another thread dealing with the same topic only hours after the first one has been locked. The trolls aren't going to say "yeah, I get it now" and zombrex sure as hell isn't. They'll just be back and all you will have done create another environment for them to raise a clamour. It would have been better for you to wait a little time (you can save documents you know) and then post your thoughts.

Ciaran0

I wanted to post again before it was closed. Newsite, you touch here on some of the topics I intended to discuss.

Newsite wrote: »

'Holy war' is a flat-out oxymoron. Anyone who ever took part in war is potentially guilty of murder, and certainly guilty of enabling it - 'thou shalt not kill'. I do think that atheists (not saying you in particular) confuse the message with the people who pretend to proclaim it. If someone is fighting a holy war or off on a crusade and they claim to be a Christian, don't think 'oh look, hypocrites' - rather, think 'those people are distorting the message for their own means'.

You've got it spot on Newsite. Absolutely spot on! Holy War is entirely contradictory, seeing as God himself did say "Thou shalt not kill/murder".

Now if I may quote the Bible
"I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, .... Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
"Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" Exodus 17:16
"and Joshua did to them just as the Lord said to him: he hamstrung their horses and burned their chariots with fire … And they struck with the sword all who were in [Hazor], devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. … And all the spoil of these cities and the livestock, the people of Israel took for their plunder. But every man they struck with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed" Joshua 11:6

Some people are able to convince themselves that this is supposed to mean that they should go to war.

Newsite wrote: »

It's not just 'religious' people who are guilty of this though. If you think about it, how many people who blame religion for war and for terrorism, etc, will turn around and say 'aren't those troops out in Afghanistan and Iraq so brave? Heroes'. Wrong! And they won't even see the double-standard.

And some still won't see the double standard. http://www.prb.org/pdf04/59.4AmericanMilitary.pdf
go to page 25. Sorry its the only source I could get. It shows that the people military are predominately religious. And to be honest I don't know any atheists who approve of the Iraq/Afgahn wars, but its not a point which can be pursued.

Newsite wrote: »

Absolutely not. It does not mean that and should not mean that. Let's take a very popular and pertinent example. Does getting a better understanding of the Bible mean leaving out the verses which say not to sleep around? Now that we're in the 21st century and casual sex is the done thing? Nope not so much. The message is the same now as it was 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago.

Getting a better understanding of the bible doesn't mean anything like leaving out which verses don't suit society. It means interpreting them to suit society. Which people do. The whole reason I started the first thread was because of this. That maybe some of the verses should be removed?

Newsite wrote: »

Which verses pray tell? Do you actually think that God condones rape?

These verses unfortunately.
"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:15-18

It doesn't expressly say rape them, but you can get the gist. And please don't give the "It's taken out of context" answer.

"So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance." Judges 21:(not sure what number)

"And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished" Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB

Sorry, but there is quite a bit of rape going on here.

Newsite wrote: »

An actual change would be an atheist seeking to come to an understanding and actually ask questions for a change (this is so, so rare on these forums that the Ciaran guy who is asking questions on here at the minute sticks out like a sore thumb), as opposed to sneering and mocking and showing their scorn.

Many atheists hold their views to be just as important as your own religious views, and feel the need to express them. You cannot condemn the preaching of ones own views. I feel I'm after doing exactly what you talk about above, and I apologise if I come across as sneering or mocking, but I do try to keep objective, as we all should, if we are ever to come to a "better understanding" of each other, let alone faith.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

'Holy war' is a flat-out oxymoron. Anyone who ever took part in war is potentially guilty of murder, and certainly guilty of enabling it - 'thou shalt not kill'.

You accept though that there were wars sanctioned by God in the Old Testament, that resulted in the genocide of the opposing civilisations?

Newsite wrote: »

I do think that atheists (not saying you in particular) confuse the message with the people who pretend to proclaim it. If someone is fighting a holy war or off on a crusade and they claim to be a Christian, don't think 'oh look, hypocrites' - rather, think 'those people are distorting the message for their own means'.

Yes but who says they are distorting the message for their own means?

All Christians assume their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, and others who disagree with them are distorting the message.

To many Christians in the 18th century that idea that slavery was not acceptable to God was as much a distortion of the message of the Bible as you might feel someone saying homosexual marriage is.

Newsite wrote: »

Absolutely not. It does not mean that and should not mean that. Let's take a very popular and pertinent example. Does getting a better understanding of the Bible mean leaving out the verses which say not to sleep around? Now that we're in the 21st century and casual sex is the done thing? Nope not so much. The message is the same now as it was 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago.

3,000 years ago when the Israelites were starting wars with their neighbors, killing them or capturing them as slaves, all under the direction of God.

The modern excuse for this is that it was a reflection of the time, not some sort of universal moral to keep into this modern age and once Jesus came along and expanded salvation to all it becomes irrelevant. But there is zero Biblical support for such an idea.

People who say this have effectively changed what the Old Testament states, through a convoluted process of double think and selective interpretation.

Newsite wrote: »

Seeing as you're obviously keen on the idea that we 'reinterpret the passages using the moral zeitgeist of the day, you must be careful to not view loaded concepts such as 'slavery' through your own 21st century perspective (not that you can be blamed for that).

Case in point ...

Should I not view such loaded concepts as "fornication" and "homosexuality" or "marriage" through my own 21st century perspective. Or is that different?

Newsite wrote: »

You do know that the slavery of the Bible is not people being whipped in cotton fields?

No actually it is. Some slavery in the Bible was not that, it was basically servants and relatively speaking these Jewish slaves didn't have that bad a life.

But some slavery was. Christian apologetics ignore this point and attempt to re-evaluate all slavery in the Bibel as if it is was all just this milder form of slavery exclusive for Jewish slaves.

Hence my charge that you are effectively changing what the Old Testament says.

Newsite wrote: »

Which verses pray tell? Do you actually think that God condones rape?

Well I don't think God exists. I think the men of the time didn't view forced sexual relations between a man and a wife as "rape", they saw it as the woman's obligations to her husband even if the woman was a prisoner of war. The idea that you cannot rape your wife existed up until last century even in western countries by the way.

Deuteronomy 20
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Newsite wrote: »

An actual change would be an atheist seeking to come to an understanding and actually ask questions for a change (this is so, so rare on these forums that the Ciaran guy who is asking questions on here at the minute sticks out like a sore thumb), as opposed to sneering and mocking and showing their scorn.

No, I see saying that slavery in the Bible was actually just poor people looking for work being taken in and treated well by the Israelites as changing the Bible.

But then I'm interpreting it wrong, aren't I

Zombrex

By the way, to the mods who get touchy around this subject (for obvious reasons, natch) I'm discussing it here because Newsite started the thread here.

I'm more than happy to discuss this in the A&A forum if it is felt that this topic is too sensitive for discussion here.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

By the way, to the mods who get touchy around this subject (for obvious reasons, natch) I'm discussing it here because Newsite started the thread here.

I'm more than happy to discuss this in the A&A forum if it is felt that this topic is too sensitive for discussion here.

The topic is perfectly valid and permissable. What is not permissable is for two or three atheists making mocking comments to one another with the deliberate intent to inflame the natives.

Newsite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given the history of the last thread - what with the disingenuous questions all that - its seems like bad form to create another thread dealing with the same topic only hours after the first one has been locked. The trolls aren't going to say "yeah, I get it now" and zombrex sure as hell isn't. They'll just be back and all you will have done create another environment for them to raise a clamour. It would have been better for you to wait a little time (you can save documents you know) and then post your thoughts.

Not jumping on you here, but I think your definition of 'bad form' might be different to the common understanding?

Also, I created the new thread immediately after the other one was locked - not sure where you're getting the 'hour after the first one has been locked'!

Zombrex is not a troll, neither was that Ciaran guy. Do you honestly think that I'm expecting them to go 'oh I get it now'? That's not how it works, no unbeliever is ever going to say that, it's impossible. But don't forget there are possibly dozens of other people who aren't as militant as the likes of Zombrex who may go and look into things themselves as a result of these kinds of posts.

I haven't 'created another environment' - this IS the environment.

Fanny Cradock

Newsite wrote: »

Not jumping on you here, but I think your definition of 'bad form' might be different to the common understanding?

It might be. How can I put it another way? I think that you were wrong in starting a new thread immediately after the previous one had been locked.

Newsite wrote: »

Also, I created the new thread immediately after the other one was locked - not sure where you're getting the 'hour after the first one has been locked'!

OK, so I didn't check the time signature. I apologise to everyone out there who was mislead by my egregious error.

Zombrex is not a troll, neither was that Ciaran guy.

Notice I never mentioned who I thought was trolling.

PDN

Can posters please leave it to the mods to assess who is, or is not, trolling.

Newsite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might be. How can I put it another way? I think that you were wrong in starting a new thread immediately after the previous one had been locked.



OK, so I didn't check the time signature. I apologise to everyone out there who was mislead by my egregious error.



Notice I never mentioned who I thought was trolling.

I think it's just the moderator in you coming out - I didn't see anyone else passing comment

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps. It's a difficult habit to kick.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

You accept though that there were wars sanctioned by God in the Old Testament, that resulted in the genocide of the opposing civilisations?

Emmm yes, I do accept that The difference, though, is that God is Sovereign. Man is not.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but who says they are distorting the message for their own means?

All Christians assume their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, and others who disagree with them are distorting the message.

Not quite as neatly packaged as you would like it to be to fit in with your agenda (no offense). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who knows well that 'thou shalt not kill' applies to all scenarios, and that war in the name of religion is still war, and is no exception.

Zombrex wrote: »

To many Christians in the 18th century that idea that slavery was not acceptable to God was as much a distortion of the message of the Bible as you might feel someone saying homosexual marriage is.

3,000 years ago when the Israelites were starting wars with their neighbors, killing them or capturing them as slaves, all under the direction of God.

The modern excuse for this is that it was a reflection of the time, not some sort of universal moral to keep into this modern age and once Jesus came along and expanded salvation to all it becomes irrelevant.

I've already explained about the slavery aspect, and the other thread will give more info too. But if you're saying that someone who says that the Bible says that homosexual marriage is fine would be way off track, and that would be obvious to anyone looking at the Scripture objectively.

Zombrex wrote: »

But there is zero Biblical support for such an idea.

I don't know how you've arrived at that assertion. You seem to be missing the entire reason for the coming of Christ.

Zombrex wrote: »

Case in point ...

Should I not view such loaded concepts as "fornication" and "homosexuality" or "marriage" through my own 21st century perspective. Or is that different?

The position on fornication and homosexuality is crystal clear through both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The rules on slavery were for a particular point in time, instruction on how slaves should be treated in light of how they fitted in to the circumstances at the time.

Zombrex wrote: »

Deuteronomy 20
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

'You may take her as your wife', 'you may take these as plunder for yourselves' = 'rape'? Ah come on now, even you agenda-driven atheists should know better

Sonics2k

Allow me to ask this. (And no it's not a troll question).

If God made all Men, and as Newsite has pointed out, the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. Then why exactly, would he make homosexuals?

Surely, no all-loving being with infinite compassion would create such a thing as homosexuality in hundreds of creatures on the planet (homosexuality is found in animals and humans), but then condemn all of them to hell?

Now, this person could otherwise be an incredible person, kind, hard working, obeys the laws of the land and the like, but falls in love with someone of the same gender, has a family and does everything else the exact same as a straight person.

What God would do this and then condemn them to hell?

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

Allow me to ask this. (And no it's not a troll question).

If God made all Men, and as Newsite has pointed out, the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. Then why exactly, would he make homosexuals?

Surely, no all-loving being with infinite compassion would create such a thing as homosexuality in hundreds of creatures on the planet (homosexuality is found in animals and humans), but then condemn all of them to hell?

Now, this person could otherwise be an incredible person, kind, hard working, obeys the laws of the land and the like, but falls in love with someone of the same gender, has a family and does everything else the exact same as a straight person.

What God would do this and then condemn them to hell?

May I add to that - and I am also serious, not trolling -

If mankind was made in the image of God - why are there two genders? Does 'mankind' only mean men or is God as much female as male? Is woman also made in the image of God - if not - whose image is she made in? If so, why can't women be priests?

Homosexuals - did God make a mistake? How can an all powerful God make a mistake? If it is a refraining from temptation issue(love the sinner hate the sin kinda thing) why would a merciful God do that to one of his creations? Why does homosexuality exist in animals - are they required to avoid temptation too?

If Eve was created from Adam's rib - why do men have the same number of ribs as women?

In Jewish tradition Lilith was the first woman - created equal to Adam - why is she not in the OT based as it is on Jewish sources?

If Adam and Eve were truly the very first man and woman and they had two sons - who did their sons breed with?

How do we know animals don't have souls? Does the soul exist in the 2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees?

Now I have my own opinion on these questions but would like to hear the views of Christians - and for the record I am not an atheist but I am extremely agnostic and would tend more towards Buddhist concepts of a life force then Jewish/Christian/ Muslim belief in an actual God.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If mankind was made in the image of God - why are there two genders? Does 'mankind' only mean men or is God as much female as male? Is woman also made in the image of God - if not - whose image is she made in?

Male and female are both made in the image of God. Scripture is explicit on this - Gen 1:27. One one view, there are two genders because one would be insufficient to image God.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If so, why can't women be priests?

A whole other question. And, although I’m a Catholic, it’s a question on which I’m not particularly in sympathy with the official Catholic position, so I may not be the best positioned to explain it.

But I can say this; the justifications which the defenders of this position do not include a claim that males, but not females, are made in God’s image.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Homosexuals - did God make a mistake? How can an all powerful God make a mistake? If it is a refraining from temptation issue(love the sinner hate the sin kinda thing) why would a merciful God do that to one of his creations? Why does homosexuality exist in animals - are they required to avoid temptation too?

Again, I’m not the best person to answer this. But the Catholic position is, first, God can’t make a mistake, ever, in any matter. Secondly, homosexuality in animals has no moral implications. Animals are incapable of moral (or immoral) actions. Thirdly, it’s not established that God creates anyone as homosexual (since the factors which determine sexual orientation are unknown). But, to the extent that identity is determined by culture (and I think everybody will agree that that is a very large extent) then identity, including sexual identity, is created by humans, not by God, and homosexual identity, if seen as “wrong”, can be seen as an outworking of our fallen nature, rather than as a creation of God.

(No, I’m not convinced either. But there are some ideas in there at least worth exploring.)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If Eve was created from Adam's rib - why do men have the same number of ribs as women?

The glib fundamentalist answer is that you can remove one of my ribs (or any number of my ribs) and my children, male and female alike, will still all have the usual number of ribs. The effects of surgery are not genetically heritable.

The less glib and more thinking answer is that the “created from Adam’s rib” language is mythic and poetic. There wasn’t an actual rib involved.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In Jewish tradition Lilith was the first woman - created equal to Adam - why is she not in the OT based as it is on Jewish sources?

Because the OT is a much older source. Lilith doesn’t turn up in the Jewish tradition until the Babylonian exile (round about 550 BCE), and even then she’s a demon. She doesn’t become established as (a) human or (b) Adam’s first wife, created at the same time as Adam, until about 800 years after Christ. But the Book of Genesis, which contains the creation account, had probably reached its final form (i.e. the form we now have) before the Babylonian exile, and in any event reflected preceding written and oral traditions which were much, much older than that.

So, why is Lillity not in the Book of Genesis? Because none of the numerous people who, over a long period, composed, compiled, wrote and edited the Book of Genesis had ever heard of her.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were truly the very first man and woman and they had two sons - who did their sons breed with?

Again, this is mythic and poetic language. The Genesis accounts don’t discuss this - wives just turn up when required - because they assume that the reader knows how mythic stories work. Some fundamentalists will tell you that Adam’s sons married their sisters, a dispensation permitted by God because the circumstances made it necessary, but I don’t think this is a mainstream Christian view. Others will suggest that Adam and Eve may have been the first humans created, but not necessarily the only humans created; God could have created further humans so that Adams children could find unrelated spouses.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do we know animals don't have souls?

We don’t. We just have no reason to believe that they do.

For what it’s worth, Genesis presents humanity as being created in a radically different way from the rest of creation, including all the other animals. The rest of creation is brought into being simply by an immediate act of divine will but, when it comes to humanity, God (a) pauses to plan, (b) forms humans out of clay, i.e. out of something previously created by God and (c) breathes life into humanity with his own breath. The Hebrew word which represents “breath” in this account in other contexts is translated as “soul” or “spirit”.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does the soul exist in the 2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees?

No, not at all. It has nothing to do with DNA. It makes more sense to find the soul in the aspect of humanity which is an image of God.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Allow me to ask this. (And no it's not a troll question).

If God made all Men, and as Newsite has pointed out, the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. Then why exactly, would he make homosexuals?

Surely, no all-loving being with infinite compassion would create such a thing as homosexuality in hundreds of creatures on the planet (homosexuality is found in animals and humans), but then condemn all of them to hell?

Now, this person could otherwise be an incredible person, kind, hard working, obeys the laws of the land and the like, but falls in love with someone of the same gender, has a family and does everything else the exact same as a straight person.

What God would do this and then condemn them to hell?

God didn't create homosexuality. Nor did he create stealing. Nor did he create alcoholism. Nor did he create stamp collecting.

Nevertheless different human beings are drawn to certain activities more than others. We can argue all day about how much of that is down to nature or nurture - but that is, in the context of this thread - pretty irrelevant.

Christians believe we live in a fallen human world, very different from the perfect world that God created. Therefore. the argument that says "I feel a propensity towards certain acts - therefore God must have made me this way - therefore the acts towards which I feel a propensity must be morally acceptable" is plainly unreasonable and incoherent.

PDN

Actually, upon reflection, it appears that this thread is becoming a catch all for questions by atheists & non-Christians - but we already have a thread for that purpose: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056276998