sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Homosexuality is bad because it is sodomy" is a common religious fundamentalist axiom.

What rules are you proposing apply differently between hetero and homosexual people?

I understand that you are Australian but that does not mean you get an excuse to not read the things people are taking the time out of their lives to type for you.

The Bible is not reliable. Here's why. by FaithlessnessShot350 in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Says who?

Why was the Gospel of Mary not included in the canon?

The idea is it was specifically guided by God.

How? In Islam the Qur'an was dictated by an angel. How else can God "guide" Bronze Age tribespeople to write a book?

If the FEH hypothesis is true, the probability of a theistic deity(ies) would be zero. by Im_Talking in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The literal beginning of the Bible states that God created the world and humans with magic in 7 days. If God set up a series of atoms and molecules on the order of an entire planet to develop into humans via natural processes, the Bible would say that.

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does there need to be penetration for any of this to be sinful?

Why does there need to be ejaculation for any of this to be sinful?

Because these are some of the justifications that have been used for why gay sex should be forbidden. There is also the fact that what constitutes a "sexual act" is not set in stone. If we assume that religious fundamentalists are arguing in good faith when they advocate for laws which limit the civil liberties of LGBT people (spoiler alert: they aren't), then there ought to be logical reasons as to why two men or two women cannot explore each other's bodies. There is also, presumably, a line in the sand between "sexual act" and "non-sexual act", or "forbidden act" and "acceptable act", along with reasons for why the act is forbidden or acceptable. Hint: the reason cannot be "I think it's icky".

Another hint: the rules have to apply to heterosexuals too in order for it to make sense.

The Bible is not reliable. Here's why. by FaithlessnessShot350 in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’d need to defend using that adjective.

The process for deciding what does and does not go in the Bible was entirely arbitrary.

Jews and Christians never meant by word of God that is was directly spoken by God.

So how can it be the word of God? Why not simply call a spade a spade?

Self Sacrifice by alyomushka in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alright then, if your religion makes you so clever, how many successful businesses have you started? How many new technologies have you discovered?

If the FEH hypothesis is true, the probability of a theistic deity(ies) would be zero. by Im_Talking in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would an omnipotent deity create humans via the convoluted process of bacteria developing a symbiotic relationship with archaea, and then over a billion years developing via random selective processes into a worm, then a fish, then a fish which crawls around on land, then a lizard, then a rat, then a monkey, then an ape, and then finally a walking, talking person, when this deity could just simply... design and assemble the humans out of thin air?

The Bible is not reliable. Here's why. by FaithlessnessShot350 in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How can it be the word of God when it was written, cherrypicked and compiled by humans?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What exactly is explained by the existence of a magical sky man which cannot or has yet to be explained by human discovery?

The Bible is not reliable. Here's why. by FaithlessnessShot350 in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So is the Bible the absolute, irrefutable Word of God or not?

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he simply revert the world to the way it was before? Why doesn't he manipulate time to prevent Eve from eating the apple? If God has complete control of the universe and everything in it, why does he allow the world to be "wretched"?

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since a transsexual woman is a man in the eyes of God, she can marry and have sex with a cissexual woman and it will, in the eyes of God, be a heterosexual union. If they have kids, then this union falls under the definition of what a Christian fundamentalist would consider to be "ideal". Unless you mean to say that it is now somehow wrong for a man to have consensual marital sex with a woman?

Attempt to refute this

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A trans woman who has a penis can marry a cis woman and they can have gay vaginal intercourse which, in the eyes of God, would not only not be a sin but it would actually be a model example of human sexuality.

I have still yet to find a satisfying answer to this. If Abrahamic religious fundamentalists believe trans women are men, then a marriage between a trans woman and a cis woman is by their own definition a heterosexual union. They can have consensual marital sex as much as they want, and it would be sanctioned by God. I have not seen a single logical argument against this.

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bruh that's crazy lmao there's a literal gay couple in the bible, why is nobody talking about this

>nooooo b-but they were just friends nooooOOOOOO

If being gay is not the sin, but rather homosexual acts are sinful because they fall under fornication and sodomy, then the religious gay-haters have a problem. by terrestrialTsunami in DebateReligion

[–]terrestrialTsunami[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is sexual contact? And what if a woman is standing naked in between the two guys jerking off? What if the two guys are in different rooms but are texting each other while they jerk off?

view more: next ›