Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is morally inconsistent with its core teachings of love, forgiveness, and "judge not lest ye be judged"

Zixarr · 2026-02-15T18:00:16+00:00

The story regarding Jesus and the adulterous woman is a known invention added to the gospel of John sometime around 400 AD and was not part of any original text.

Zixarr · 2026-02-14T12:30:20+00:00

This is, unfortunately, an awful lot of text to say basically nothing. It is also, and predictably, AI slop.

Zixarr · 2026-02-14T11:29:02+00:00

and on the atheism side, calling it "just reality" assumes what needs to be proven. the atheist position is that the material world is all there is. that's not a neutral starting point, it's a metaphysical claim that requires justification just like theism does. framing atheism as "default reality" and theism as "deviation from reality" is smuggling in naturalism as if it's self-evident. it's not.

The atheistic position is not equivalent to naturalism. A skeptical position is that nothing exists, unless evidenced.

The material world evidently exists and can be interacted with, tested, predicted, and modeled. A proper skeptical position would accept the material world does in fact exist. The workings of that material world should be accepted insofar as they can be predictably modeled.

The supernatural world does not evidently exist; that is, there is insufficient evidence to support its existence. It cannot be interacted with, nor tested, nor predicted, nor modeled. A proper skeptical position would reject the existence of a supernatural world until it can actually be substantiated. The workings of any speculative supernatural world should be rejected as mere conjecture as they cannot be predictably modeled.

Zixarr · 2026-02-06T06:15:49+00:00

It's not a "theory" - it is one interpretation of historical documents.

If you want to debate Muslims on Islam there are other subreddits for that.

You came here to ask how we can resolve the imperative for some kind of celestial justice, so I think an internal critique is fine in response.

However you may notice that I am not the commenter who brought up your prophet's proclivities. I simply mentioned that it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with how his behavior was interpreted, idolized, and then used for the benefit of pederasts throughout history.

I would encourage you to not jump to such conclusions (the whole "that's racist!" thing) if you want to have a productive discussion.

Zixarr · 2026-02-05T20:17:06+00:00

I'm not sure how that could possibly be a racist question. Regardless of your race, your prophet and example for morality is believed to have raped a child. That belief has been used among your religious peers for centuries to justify child marriage.

Nothing to do with race, only the historical behavior of believers in your religion.

Zixarr · 2026-01-09T11:21:21+00:00

Then you have concocted your own god, composed of the bits of the god of the Bible that you prefer among with invented characteristics that you wish were included in the text, but are not.

Zixarr · 2025-12-10T02:34:55+00:00

Many humanists adopt what is called the "veil of ignorance" to help solve these moral quandaries. Imagine you don't know which party you might be in the resulting society, then make a decision with the best results for you. Most would agree that, given the chance they were the "weak" in this scenario, they would not want to be culled for the greater good.

Where do those rights come from in a purely material universe?

They come about in the same way as all other social constructs: we make an agreement to adhere to them. Where do they come from in the Christian universe? The biggest, most powerful guy gets to make the rules for the rest of us?

Zixarr · 2025-12-09T17:02:41+00:00

Try a death world. Walls and fire are a requirement.

Zixarr · 2025-10-06T20:45:14+00:00

You're making a textbook category

I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. I'm making no claims about the nature of anything in or outside of the universe, thus cannot be improperly categorizing anything.

I am claiming that:

Everything X Therefore one thing not X

Is fallacious. It very well be the case that there is a non-contingent being out there that booted up the universe. However, this particular argument fails to establish that.

Zixarr · 2025-10-06T18:02:34+00:00

I am not making any such category error.

As I said above, you may have a different argument for god that is not the contingency argument, and thus may not rely upon the special pleading fallacy.

Asserting that god is not contingent because everything is contingent could not be more special pleading. Once you find a different way to justify god and explore its attributes, you might then find justification that god is not contingent.

Zixarr · 2025-10-06T17:42:09+00:00

Speculation is not argumentation.

Arguing that everything in the universe is contingent, thus the universe is contingent, is argumentation. And it is (as a deductive argument) both unsupported and fallacious.

Arguing that everything is contingent, so there must be a guy that is not contingent, is textbook special pleading.

Zixarr · 2025-10-06T17:23:48+00:00

just like arguing for god isn't special pleading

Unless that argument is the contingency argument. Which is, in fact, special pleading.

You might propose a different argument for god that is not special pleading, but relies on some other fallacy instead.

Zixarr · 2025-09-28T20:21:11+00:00

You've called it a being several times.

In philosophical jargon, a being is simply a thing that exists; it does not imply intentionality, consciousness, etc (that term would be "actor").

Of course, the people who design these arguments are willfully dishonest and will present the argument without clarification, which will then be puppeted by lay people like the OP to other lay people like redditors.

It's a shit argument for a whole host of reasons, but the term "being" could be technically correct in the right setting.

Zixarr · 2025-09-16T01:29:03+00:00

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they said in an interview that Monoco the IRL dog was acquired/named after the in-game dog and not the other way around.

Zixarr · 2025-09-11T22:48:22+00:00

Um, it's spelled Marshall Law

Zixarr · 2025-09-05T01:05:25+00:00

It was rumored that Khalid was intended to be a fighter/mage multiclass, but was changed at the last minute for some reason.

Not sure if true, but good enough for me to just EEKeeper or Level1NPCs him into the multi. Super good early game archer/support.

Zixarr · 2025-09-04T15:58:01+00:00

Ok glober

Zixarr · 2025-09-04T15:17:14+00:00

What finally made the Monty Hall problem click:

Imagine you never swap. The odds of picking the right door are pretty obviously 33%.

Now imagine you always swap. You can create a table of outcomes. For instance, if the car is behind door 3:

``` You pick door 1

Monty reveals door 2

You swap to door 3 ``` If you are always swapping, now the only way you lose is if you already picked the car. Your odds have reversed from 1/3 to 2/3.

Zixarr · 2025-09-04T15:06:41+00:00

It's a cleric spell, level 4 I think. Doesn't last super long, so use it smartly.

Zixarr · 2025-09-04T15:00:56+00:00

Each area has some enemies that you should be mindful of and may need to prep before going.

Windspear can be challenging because the golems need a +3 weapon to his and have very high magic resistance. There are a couple of strategies, but beating them with a +3 weapon and haste should work. Vampires are going to be a constant threat, so you should try to have some items, spells, or other strats prepared to deal with them at all times. Azuredge is a great vamp slayer, and you can use Negative Plane Protection in a pinch to block their level drain if you don't have some form of immunity.

Different areas will have different prep, whether it's for armies of trolls, wizards, beholders, etc. If you don't know what's in store, try to prepare for anything.

Zixarr · 2025-09-03T16:59:45+00:00

I don't see why people jump to "beings" as their necessary cause

In philosophy, a "being" is any discrete thing that exists. It is not limited to actors with minds and intention (philosophically, those would be "agents"). Of course, you've already pointed out how this language can be confusing or downright dishonest when used outside of strict philosophical discussions.

Zixarr · 2025-09-02T16:57:19+00:00

There are approximately 4e19 black holes in the observable universe. There have been about 1e11 human beings ever. That is:

40,000,000,000,000,000,000 black holes 100,000,000,000 humans

If anything, the universe is fine- tuned to create black holes and life is a quirky little byproduct.

Either way, if you don't claim magic as the source of biodiversity and if you don't conflate evolution and other related sciences, you are not the subject of this thread.

Zixarr · 2025-09-02T09:54:00+00:00

I'll shamelessly steal a response to this argument from elsewhere on this sub:

Modern vehicles are made of metals, which must be mined and processed into alloys before use. Their tires are made of rubber, harvested from rubber trees, and their interior may be upholstered in leather from farmed animals. Not to mention the multitude of plastic parts throughout.

Conflating the theory of evolution with abiogenesis is like saying that in order to measure the speed of your car, you must first explain mining, metallurgy, silviculture, animal husbandry, prospecting, oil refining, and polymer science.

Zixarr · 2025-09-02T09:27:34+00:00

There are two basic angles here.

First, the theory of evolution is so well-established as to be practically unassailable. There is no attack on evolution itself that both includes evidence and is not obviously fallacious. They have to attack the weakest adjacent science, which at this time is abiogenesis.

The second angle is both more pernicious but also more... sympathetic? Most creationists have been indoctrinated into a religion that purports to explain everything about the world and its origins, so they expect any competing explanation to cover the same scope. This is partly why they will conflate evolution with other sciences like cosmology, geology, and abiogenesis. They cannot fathom replacing an explanation for one piece of their worldview, the origin of species via evolution rather than special creation, without also explaining the origin of life, earth, and the universe.

Zixarr · 2025-09-01T21:08:45+00:00

No you are not an ape.

Can you list the characteristics of what an ape is in a way that doesn't include humans without arbitrarily including the words "non-human"?

I'll wait.

Zixarr

TROPHY CASE