Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

I agree with a lot of things you say in your message. Some problems with this: I don't like it either, but surely you are aware that the idea that black people are the sons of Ham, an idea that prominent Creationist Ken Ham still adheres to, was used to justify racism toward and even slavery of people of color.So yeah, the criticism while repugnant, is quite apt.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no doubt that he adheres. Here is Ham's position from AIG. Note that Ham denies that his belief is racists, and I take him at his word, but he does embrace the descendants of Ham stuff.

quote:

---

Some of these atheist bloggers claim we are racist because we discuss that certain people in Africa are descended from Noah’s son Ham. But they fail to explain that we teach that many different people groups descended from Ham, including the Chinese.

---

First of all, Africans are from among the first people, so the idea that there are descendant's of Ham via Noah is complete nonsense.Secondly, the Bible does speak of curses being visited upon the generations of folks, and the curse on Ham is certainly Biblical. Like many Bible beliefs that folks have espoused, this one can be argued against, but so are some things that folks currently believe, such as the Trinity doctrine for which equally strong counter-arguments can be made. What is the case, however, is that folks did defend racism and slavery on the basis of what can be read in the Bible. It is further the case that the Bible, from cover to cover, is silent about any opprobrium for slavery.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What is this supposed to mean? Did not Ken Ham agree that Africans and Chinese were descendants of Ham? Did I attribute anything more to him than that? Did I accuse Dr. Ham of racism?I note that Dr. Ham denies that there is a curse of Ham. Yet we can read something that appears quite different in Genesis 9:25. The question is whether or not folks did actually interpret the Bible as saying that, and whether that interpretation can be textually justified. Of course, it is possible to pick holes in that interpretation, but that is true about other currently mainstream doctrine. That's fine. Of course, a good part of the discussion here is about whether folks are mis-interpreting the Bible to justify yet another notion about wedding cakes. I understand that you are not doing that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except that every sect, each believing who knows what has a multitude of counselors. You cannot resolve this stuff by voting.

None of which is any guarantee of identifying the truth. In fact, the danger in your approach is confirmation bias. You search until something seems true or resonates.Reading a lot is great. But in the end, it must be the text the is decisive.

You just cannot disagree in a civilized fashion, can you?I cannot say that I always learn something when I read the Bible or a commentary, but that is what I endeavor to do.

Describe a position on abortion that does not result in dictating religious beliefs on someone. Once again you've gotten to the armpit of the matter while looking for its heart.ABE:Once people figure out that having religious beliefs does not allow you to change the behavior of others, these seeming conundrums go away.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Legally aborted fetuses are generally not viable with the exception of those few folks who are unfortunate enough (i.e. about to die) so that they qualify for a late term abortion.The real point is that there is no way to make abortion murder without some particular reason to declare a fetus a human being. The science does not cause us to do that; the ultimate reasons are religious.

If the original question were valid, then I would ask whether you had adopted any children back when you were younger.But imo the question is really not fair for at least the reason that I already gave jar. Almost no aborted fetuses were viable. One of my wife's buddies is an 85 year-old woman who married a man of similar age several years ago. A few months before her marriage, the elderly lady was showing off this enormous diamond boulder on her engagement ring. I suppose some meddling fool should have told the lady that she was incapable of having babies. Common sense should tell you that marriage was not for her.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Removed to comply with Phat's request. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In short, you are speaking of some version of common sense that does not require either logic, justification, or even much sense.Just no.

I think it can argued that a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter. I think it can be argued that using condoms is a conspiracy to commit murder.Yeah, you can argue all of those things. But your arguments should not be taken seriously.

Sure. And I'll consider you to be a person who makes up bad definitions on the fly.

The question I would have is whether such statements are the least bit meaningful.
Geometry is another subject that does not provide morality standards. But that does not argue against using it to figure out where your property end and your neighbor's begins. Some folks may have such ideas, but they are not required by, nor supported by science anymore than slavery is required by the Bible. Total shite.

People believe a lot of stupid, wrong, and in many cases, destructive ideas based on their impressions of science and theology. Just about anything including pseudo-scientific claptrap easily satisfies as a point of departure for gullible or evil folks. That happens to be what the evidence says. And it turns out that you can still follow Jesus while believing in evolution. Apparently something other than science is to blame here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.