What if the bible is right?

Yahshua went out of his way to say he was not Yahweh Elohim but his son.

What if we are in the days that prophecy speaks of?

Would you change your views?

Blessings... Miles

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again.

I have already accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savoir 50 years ago.

The ball’s in his court. If he’s as honest as everyone says he is then he would need to acknowledge that I did indeed do everything he asked of me and he never responded.

If the biblical God is true my first questions to him would be,…

Why all the confusion?
Why all the guessing games?
Why didn’t you respond like you said you would?
Why have you broken your promises?

Those would be my honest heart-felt sincere questions of the biblical God.

As far as my views are concerned, I don’t think views are important. I have an open mind. If God says that he didn’t use evolution to create us and he just planted evidence to make it look that way I can accept that. I would ask him though, why he felt it necessary to plant erroneous evidence to confuse us.

As far as my behavior is concerned I wouldn’t need to change a thing. I’ve said that many times before. I don’t turn to religion for moral values. I have a clear conscience, I feel no guilt or shame about anything that I’ve done in the past few decades of my life. Prior to that time I never did anything intentionally evil, any sins I may have committed were born of stupidity and were extremely minor in scope. But I have already repented those sins anyway. So what’s left to do?

I’m ready to meet my maker, whatever he/she/it turns out to be.

God cannot blame me for not believing in Middle Eastern mythology.

Why not?

Because I would not blame anyone for not believing it, and God says that we will be judged by how we judge others.

God doesn’t lie. Right?

Even by the biblical account of God I’m as ready to meet my maker as any man can possibly be.

However, I would be extremely disillusioned and saddened if the biblical picture of God turns out to be true.

Why?

Because that would mean that hell does exist and that the suffering will never stop!

Miles asks: "what if the bible is right"?

I definitely think that parts of the Bible are "right."

"Judge not lest ye be judged, do unto others, love one another, take pleasure in simple things, dance, sing, make a joyful noise, be like a child," etc. etc.

Lots of really good stuff in there. But to me there is also some that if it is true I don't care. I don't want it anyway.

It's the same as if you told me my grandmother is not actually my grandmother at all, just some random old lady and my real grandmother is a horribly mean, judgemental, rigid, critical woman who will only love me if I do exactly as she instructs...

Well I don't care it the sweet, intelligent, completely accepting old woman who has loved me my whole life is "truly" my blood relationtion or not. She's my grandma. I choose her regardless. And if my "real" grandma was rich and wanted to take care of me and mine financially and end all worries but the aforementioned conditions remained, then I would stay in a flea ridden motel with my loving grandma instead.

So if the parts of the bible that say my creator is a jealous, selfish, rigid creature who wants those who didn't do as instructed by the bible to go to a horrible place (hell) for eternity then I will just have to go to hell then. Because heaven doesn't sound that great on those terms.

But that's just one inerpretation, the worst one, of what the Bible really means. I know some christians who actaually have a picture of god that is not too dissimilar from mine... except for semantics...

So I guess when wondering if the bible is true, for me you have to break it down into more parts than that...

Onoasis,

No bible required, no interpreter needed, no false preacher should apply, if 'free will' and 'fee choice' exist as I sense they do, this post of yours represents their clearest expression.

In the end, regardless of the illusions false preachers (separate from one's connection to soul) will fabricate, soul has always known, knows now, and will always who's who, and what's what!!!

Forget the false preachers and the lies they spread (sometimes with the best of intentions), make quiet their noise, and trust the 'silent' wisdom of soul.

Truly inspired Anoasis!

Di (trying to catch up here)

"What is obviously NOT hypothetical is Christians are included in that statistic. For those, and I would bet money there are alot, who go on to have physical relations with others, and even to re-marry they will live the rest of their lives in sin.

There are three things I don't understand about that senario.
The first is why are those Christians allowed to be re-married, in a church by a pator, minister, or priest, when clearly doing is not only accepting the sin of the divorced, and the sin of adultery, and then committin a sin by illegally (according to God) binding the sinner once again in marriage."

>>> I agree... I believe the actual statistic for Christian divorces is up around 55%. To quote Maurice White "That's the way - of the world..." Just another example of man changing the Law to accomidate the desires of the majority. It doesn't change the original intent of right or wrong - just a means of trying to accomidate the desires of the many. Sort of like Henry VIII creating the church of England so he could divorce his wives whenever he wished.

As to the "perpetual living in sin" of someone who divorces and remarries - that is Fundamentalist interpretation of the order of Voil's most avid objections. I've only seen this interpretation of re-marriage in the strictest of Fundamentalist churches (who for the most part are cults) and the Catholic Church. Of course, Catholicism has "anullment" to get around their defined issue. But essentially it boils down to the matter of interpreting the reason for the initial divorce - and the true intent of the remarriage. However - it defies reasonable logic; forcing someone who has remarried (fundie interpreted as perpetually living in sin) to now right that wrong by divorcing - (another wrong). Therefore - the interpretation of remarriage as perpetual sin as the meaning behind the biblical passages is what is in question. It is often the result of rationalizing a passage - rather than reasoning out what the bible says about mariage and divorce as a whole.

Abra;

You wrote:

"The whole idea of “sin” is to disobey God."

>>> I think this is the central point of any differences we may have on this subject. I define "sin" to be a wrongful act within the realm of an absolute truth, not merely based on a set of rules laid out to a specific group of people thousands of years ago. Most people think that if the bible does not address an issue - the idea of right and wrong on the matter is subjective. Why would this be? Doesn't that seem illogical to you? I would guess that in a Pantheistic view - right and wrong would exist within every context - totally outside the realm of any religious influence. It would have been a part of the origins of the species. Subjective interpretation would not determine the correctness of truth - only the length of time it would take to arrive at it. I do not see this being any different in Christianity. The bible is/was merely a means of helping those who worshipped the God of it to recognize that these truth's existed, and what consequences of defying those truths would arrise. Also - in the matter of controlling anarchy - certain behaviors that defied these truth's were to be dealt with by man himself. (rather than the natural order of as ye reap, so shall ye sow) Thus we have the "eye for an eye" etc passage. We maintain this even today. However we imprison the offenders, rather than eliminating them.

So - I would think that if we never had the bible - we would still have the idea of "sin". It is merely putting a definition on actions that defy the idea of absolute truth and what is right.

Abra - continuing...

"Let’s face the truth here. The biblical God is an almost impossible fantasy to take seriously in today’s enlightened world.

Like Dianna pointed out, Christians have no less rate of divorce, adultery, and other 'acts' of that they consider to be 'sins' than anyone else.

So much for the "power of belief". Obviously the vast majority of them genuinely DON'T BELIEVE in their religion anyway!"

>>> This follows through on my post to Dianna - I certainly agree that in today's society adressing the issues of right and wrong without being subjective about it is impossible, because society as a whole has a tremendous problem with not wanting to offend ANYBODY. We have seen this effect our law's exponentially just within our lifetime. But is this really reflective of an "enlightened" world, or of one that is giving in to the politically correctness of tolerance. That is not to say that being tolerant of one another is not a positive thing for a society to maintain peace and balance - but the line seems to be blurred as to the subjective determination of where to draw it. As to the matter of Christians being as much a part of the statistics of divorce, adultery, and other acts. It always appears that it is the non-christians who feel the need to point this out - as though Christians somehow believe themselves immune to these issues. Read the posts of Spider, Feralcat, Britty, Miquel etc. I often see that Christians are the first one's to admit being a part of these statistics - however the difference I see is that they don't claim that because they have participated in these "sins" that they should now not considered to be such. So it's kind of a strawman approach to the argument to point out that Christians are a part of the "problem". The point is - we KNOW that, and are simply sharing how our own experiences with the distructiveness of it weighs in on our not wanting it to be "justified" based on subjective reasoning.

As to the majority of people who go to church and do not believe that the God of their church even exists - you know my position on this matter. I question that they are even Christians in the first place - not that the tenents of Christianity are at fault.

I find this statement interesting. Most Christians I talk with believe that God’s laws and commandments were carved in stone, not just literally, but even figuratively meant to apply to all of mankind forever and not just meant for a group of people thousands of years ago.

To me, the very word ‘sin’ means to disobey a God. Outside of that context the word ‘sin’ has no meaning.

We can still talk about things we personally feel are ‘wrong’ but now we have indeed moved into the area of subjective reasoning.

You speak in terms of absolutes. I most certainly do not.

For example, it there a time when killing is appropriate? There are three possibilities,…

1) God says that it is wrong to kill, therefore any killing is a sin.
2) A human believes subjectively that killing is absolutely wrong period
3) A human believes that killing may or may not be wrong depending on context

I happen to be in Group 3.

I do believe that there are times when the taking of a human life is appropriate. In fact, I very much advocated euthanasia for people who are suffering needlessly and requesting to be put to sleep. I would very much appreciate being put to sleep myself should I end up dying a prolonged painful death. There are other situations that I believe that killing is appropriate too, but I won’t get into that side-track here.

For me, NOTHING is ABSOLUTE. There are always exceptions to ever rule and philosophical principle. The context of any situation must be acknowledged with wisdom.



First off, I would say that the idea of right and wrong needs to be totally outside of the realm of any religious influence. If a person wishes to use their religion as a moral basis then they should do so.

However, at the same time I don’t feel that religion is required for either good morals or good choices of right and wrong. I have known too many atheists who have held very high morals and ideals on the notions of right and wrong. It’s perfectly clear to me that humans are capable of making ‘humane’ choices purely using their own logic and their own emotional judgments.

Religion does not guarantee good intentions. On the contrary throughout history we have seen ample examples of religious ideals being used in abusive and despicable ways.

It is perfectly clear to me that many atheists have better morals than many religions people.

How can that be Eljay?






I have always been against ‘judgment by technicality’. And this is really what you are suggesting.

Let’s say that a woman is being abused by her husband who is also sexually and mentally abusing his very young daughters. In one night of totally frustration, helpless, fear, AND in defense of her own children, she grabs her husband shotgun and blows his head off his body.

Sorry for the gore, but religious people who read the Bible should be used to gore by now.

However, the point is the lady killed an abusive sick animal. Sure, you can call him human if you want. As far as I’m concerned she may as well have shot a bear that had rabies. If you judge her on technicality alone she is guilty of sin! If you judge her on morality you’ll give her a medal.

WHAT??? GIVE HER A MEDAL!!! FOR MURDER????

Hey why not?

If she had called the cops and they came over and blew the man’s head off you’d give THEM a medal!

It’s all contextual Eljay!



Yes, and I totally disagree with this philosophy as well. I don’t believe it is our place to ‘punish’ criminals. That doesn’t mean that we should just let them walk free and do nothing. We still need to incarcerate them and deal with them to PROTECT the rest of our society. But THAT should be our focus. Not on punishing the criminal, but rather on protecting our society.

I personally reject the term “Capital Punishment”. It should be “Capital Protection”.

Take the case of the Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVey. He was put to death by lethal injection. Was that punishment? I don’t think so. Making him suffer life imprisonment would have been a much worse “punishment”, especially considered that he was a young man to begin with.

However, I was in agreement with the act of putting him to sleep. Not as “punishment” to him, but simply as protection for our society. We don’t need to have people running around who are going to be blowing up innocent people and children. It’s a matter of PURE LOGIC to me.

If we sincerely BELIEVE in an all-compassionate God then all we have done is sent Mr. McVey to meet his maker. LET God be his JUDGE, if this is what we are so passionate about believing! We didn’t ‘kill’ Mr. McVey, we simply handed him over to his creator!



Like I say, I don’t believe in ‘absolute truth’ ESPECIALLY in matters of moral judgments! Moral judgments are necessarily contextual.

You know this yourself. If you heard that someone shot and killed someone else. And that’s all you knew you might think they were a heartless murderer. But then you learn that his person was a police officer and he was protecting a kindergarten playground where a sniper was shooting the children then you’d have a TOTALLY DIFFERNET outlook on the act.

It’s all CONTEXTUAL Eljay. There are no absolutes.

I think that Dianna’s point was very well stated, and I don’t believe that you have properly addressed it here.

All you have stated is that Christians are the first ones to admit that they are sinners. But that doesn’t cut it!

The point the Dianna was making is that Christians want to put into LAW strict rules that forbid certain activities (like homosexuality) and punish them by LAW!

Whilst, in the meantime, they lay back in their easy chairs saying, “Sure, we commit adultery, and fortification, and sins of all manner. But we see not reason to put these things into LAW with real and physical PUNISHMENTS attached to them. We just admit they are sins. And that’s all we need to do!”

Can you not see the hypocrisy in this????

Christians want to punish others by LAW whilst they just carry on like a bunch of wild monkeys with no threat of legal action being taken against them. That’s a totally hypocritical point of view Eljay.



Well I’ll grant you that. But it’s often that hypocritical majority who is making the loudest noise about passing laws to control other people!

They call themselves “Christians” and thus the opposition to this supposed “Christianity”.

Just as a note, I don’t mean to imply that anyone you may have mentioned specifically is a hypocrite. I’m speaking in generalities here. Anything I say only applies to the people it applies to. I’m not ‘accusing’ anyone of anything.

Abra wrote:

"1) God says that it is wrong to kill, therefore any killing is a sin.
2) A human believes subjectively that killing is absolutely wrong period
3) A human believes that killing may or may not be wrong depending on context"

>>> Actually I've always understood "murder" as being wrong - not "killing" as far as what God said. I always view someone's quoting "Thou shall not kill" as a commandment, the same way that they say there were 3 wise men - they are retelling what they've heard, rather than knowing because they've read. So since #1 has no basis in fact - I reject that.
#2 is purely up to the individual - and has nothing to do with God (some people believe killing an animal for food is wrong, but that does not make them "right") #3 seems perfectly logical to me. But I don't see what any of this has to do with God. This is one of the problems I have with your "proofs".

Though I believe ultimately everything exists within an absolute, man by nature functions subjectively - which oddly enough is an absolute unto itself. Doesn't mean it's right - it's just that subjectivity should not be the measure of right and wrong.



>>> Just because truth exists as an absolute doesn't mean only Christians comprehend it. Morality is merely the measure of right and wrong in terms of ethics and behavior, and is not "God dependent", merely "God judged". (As understood in a biblical context) Having "religion" doesn't make one rightious, and not believing in God doesn't mean one no longer has morals. And as to the examples of behavior of "religions" throughout history, I've always agreed with you on this matter, I've just never seen the acts of Religion as a representation of God, merely a mis-interpretation of Him.





Well - in my mind, I'd giver her a medal. But that doesn't mean I'm right. Society would convict her of murder - or at least bring her before a jury. And we both know she had other options available to her - though we could construct a circumstance where she didn't - like say, put her on a tiny island with no boat. However subjectively - she was justified. As an absolute - it's murder. And in the long run - we really don't know what mitigating circumstances brought about her reaction. So in terms of "judgement" of her actions, and whether we see it as justified or not - our perception is always going to be subjective based on what facts we have, and whether or not we believe those facts to be true.



We're in total agreement here.




However the original assumption of murder is what was subjective. It doesn't follow that there are now no absolutes.
Context is merely circumstancial, and subjectiveness exists because there is just no way to determine all of the facts given that we are not omniscient and omnipresent beings. We can only qualify by what we know. But that does not negate the mere fact that an absolute exists - it seems more correct to claim that we may not have the capability to attain knowledge of it.

(As a side note - this is my 1st attempt at this quote thing - I hope I got it right.

This has nothing to do with the ‘proof’ I offered at the beginning of this thread. That proof was based purely on what most people claim about the Bible (supposedly what the Bible itself claims).

It’s not unlike mathematics Eljay. A mathematician can only make ‘proofs’ within the context of the mathematical axioms (or premises). Take away those premises and the ‘proof’ has nothing to stand on.

In the same way, my ‘proof’ at the beginning of this thread was based solely on Biblical “axioms” or “premises”

I listed them,…

Premise #1: The act of sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Premise #2: The act of sex inside marriage is not a sin.

Those two premises are supposedly what the Bible holds to be TRUE. They are biblical ‘axioms’ or ‘premises’.

Assuming those biblical premises to be TRUE, I claim that the following conclusion must also be TRUE using Aristotelian logic.

Conclusion: Sin is dependent on context and motive and therefore cannot be just an act.

I am NOT saying that this is an ‘absolute’ proof of an ‘absolute’ truth.

I’m merely saying that this proof is valid assuming that ‘premises’ of the Bible are TRUE.

No subjective ideas req’d.

I will agree that this is open to some interpretation. Some people don’t even believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin!!! I’m not sure how they justify that using the Bible, but I have met religious people who feel this way.

I personally don’t believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But then I don’t believe in the Bible either, so I have no need to justify it there.

But isn't it the point that Dianna's post is objecting to the Laws that already exist, and wants them changed to NOT view homosexuality as "breaking the Law"? If this were not the case - why is it that a homosexual couple cannot get married in any State that they wish? I think it a stretch to think that all of the lawmakers - since the time of accepting the constitution - were religious biggots. So what are the laws that these "Christians" want to put into place that aren't there already? I did understand her point - I just didn't see her post as representing what you interpreted it as.



I didn't think you were. And generally you don't. But you get the sense from my posts how riled up I get when the so called "Christians" and their behavior is used to represent "believers" (and I use this term to represent those who see their Christianity as biblically based, and not religiously based) as a whole. I often post to point this out, rather than accuse you of doing this.

This is why I challenged the premise - to those who attempt exegesis through rationalization, your OP has validity. Thus what you have esentially proved is that making a conclusion and finding references to support the conclusion is logically invalid.



Yes - but when the premises are unacceptable, you are left with proof that only pertains to the premise. Your original premise was based on "how some view the bible", yet your conclusion infered that if you believe the bible - this must be accepted. This is where I feel you've shifted the middle. It is only a valid proof to those who believe that sin is how you described it, as opposed to those who agree that what you have described is sin, but not totally representive of such.



There are also those who think that sex "constitutes" a marriage, which is a far different interpretation to the "sex outside of marriage" concept. It now becomes a "sex without the intention of marriage" issue - which is a far different interpretation than merely stating any sex outside of marriage is a sin. It brings us to the whole "is bigamy a sin to God" question. It is against the Laws of man - but there's no commandment that says "Thou shall not be a bigamist" - it says "thou shall not commit adultery". Which is sex without the intention of marriage.

Well I agree that some morals seem to be self-evident. But others may not be so.

Take Dianna’s case of homosexuality. That might appear to possibly be ‘immoral’ to you or me because the very thought of being sexual with our on gender seems repugnant to us. However, does that mean that it’s a sin?

I personally find mayonnaise to be repugnant. Does that making eating mayonnaise a sin? I think not.

In much the same way I can see that while I may not find homosexually to be ‘desirable’ for me personally, I can’t really see where it should be a sin. If other people feel naturally attracted to their own gender and all is consensual and they are enjoying each other, then who am I to say that this is wrong?

It’s wrong for “me”. And not necessarily even as a ‘sin’. But rather it’s just something I’d rather not be associated with directly, in-person as a participant. But this shouldn’t lead me to pass judgments on whether it is ‘absolutely’ right or wrong for others.

In other words, I can’t see where there is anything ‘absolutely’ wrong with homosexuality. It’s a contextual thing. It’s ‘wrong’ for me, but may not be wrong for others.

In this way things become unclear with respect to being ‘absolute’.

I just can’t see moral values as always being ‘absolute’. That can only be ‘true’ if indeed there is a God who has decided what the ‘absolutes’ shall be.

Just like with mathematics. Religions are a set of axioms that people use for their ‘truth’, but that truth is only valid within that belief system.

And of course, if that God actually DOES exist, and is making the rules, well then there is an absolute in that dictatorship. It is the dictator who makes the rules TRUE!

If I believed in the biblical God then I would have to argue that his judgments are the final word. (just as Christians do!) I can understand that mindset. I’m just saying that I don’t believe that the Bible is in fact from God. And I also argue that it contains many inconsistences as my 'proof' in this thread points to.

It’s not that I denounce the existence of a god (as you know), but rather that I reject the Bible as being the word of God. I believe that the Bible is indeed the subjective opinions of men.

Well I agree that some morals seem to be self-evident. But others may not be so.

Take Dianna’s case of homosexuality. That might appear to possibly be ‘immoral’ to you or me because the very thought of being sexual with our on gender seems repugnant to us. However, does that mean that it’s a sin?

ANSWER: Yes.....its a sin....no you can sugarcoat it..and say God loves everyone....but a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin.


I personally find mayonnaise to be repugnant. Does that making eating mayonnaise a sin? I think not.

Answer: I can't even believe you could compare the two.


In much the same way I can see that while I may not find homosexually to be ‘desirable’ for me personally, I can’t really see where it should be a sin. If other people feel naturally attracted to their own gender and all is consensual and they are enjoying each other, then who am I to say that this is wrong?

Answer: If God had intended for man to sleep with man and woman woman he would of either created Adam and Adam or eve and eve....not the case...and very much scripture based....

Same as sleeping with another mans wife...now you might be ok with that and others might...But God is not ok with it.

It’s wrong for “me”. And not necessarily even as a ‘sin’. But rather it’s just something I’d rather not be associated with directly, in-person as a participant. But this shouldn’t lead me to pass judgments on whether it is ‘absolutely’ right or wrong for others.

In the eyes of God it is wrong....In my eyes I am not their judge and I happen to have alot of homosexual friends...they no where I stand on the issue but there still my friends.

and all the rest you said abra just a repeat of what you always say....just like me...so no need to comment.

In my world, of raising children, working, existing in a community, wandering the beaches, whatever I do...

Sin is intent to cause harm.

Sin is a conscious decision to act in a manner that can and/or will have far reaching harmful results and knowing this..the intent to cause harm.

Loving and supporting, emotionally, spiritually, physically, another human being, irrespective of gender, status, or anything else, is the intent to do good.

The rest is ancient semantics...

to me.

Hey Jess.

I still just don't like the *word* sin itself... too wrapped up with going against god and repercussions of going to hell....

I can't seperate it.

But I agree, I don't understand why god or anyone else would ever care what we do if it's not harmful.

And if an action does harm others then we should do everything possible to avoid it. Of course sometimes we have to choose between levels of harm, e.g. inaction on our part may allow harm to continue as in Abra's child abuser example.

Jess & anoasis - You have both summed up totally, in a few short words, what all the books of the Bible, in 50 different languages, can not seem to make clear. It does boggle the mind to imagine that words from a gods mouth to a human ear, would not be so simple and beautiful and easy to remember, and easier still, to pass on, without requiring constant re-interpretation.

Eljay wrote:
“”But isn't it the point that Dianna's post is objecting to the Laws that already exist, and wants them changed to NOT view homosexuality as "breaking the Law"? If this were not the case - why is it that a homosexual couple cannot get married in any State that they wish? I think it a stretch to think that all of the lawmakers - since the time of accepting the constitution - were religious biggots. So what are the laws that these "Christians" want to put into place that aren't there already? I did understand her point - I just didn't see her post as representing what you interpreted it as.””

President Bush, changed the words of that define marriage very recently. It was the enactment of that law “at the federal level”, that dissolved the marriages that states has previously allowed. The words “between one man and one woman” blew previous state laws out of the water, because states can not defy or make laws that do not work in conjunction with federal code. Bush did this because he is a Christian, because his thoughts on the subject are consistent with “Christian beliefs”. (Forgive the umbrella statement but when the majority of a group fall under a label and hold a single belief in common – it declares that heading to be an umbrella)

You argue that there is a subjective difference when defining ‘context’, but we have argued before that ‘inaction’ against a wrong deed, is the same thing as approving of the wrongful deed.
THAT, goes along with the shelter one chooses to take under the “umbrella”.

If one allows a wrong action against humanity, than one must be in agreement with the action.

Of course you could argue, that statement requires review of ‘context’, but when ample time has been given and no action has been taken I believe the context is proven by silence and no less true.

Eljay also wrote:
“”I think it a stretch to think that all of the lawmakers - since the time of accepting the constitution - were religious biggots. So what are the laws that these "Christians" want to put into place that aren't there already? I did understand her point - I just didn't see her post as representing what you interpreted it as.””

Abra was correct you did not understand my post. He clearly and precisely represented what I was addressing.

The quote above can only have been spoken in ignorance. I’m not calling you a name, we all have areas of ignorance. So let me lead you out of the dark. First let me bring to your attention, that it took one hundred years and a bold leadership under JFK, and an assertive activist M.L. King to FORCE this country to accept blacks, women, and handicapped people as equals. They did this by creating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At that time, Gay and Lesbian people were still considered mentally ill and capable of only a deviant quality of love. A 30 year woman could be picked up off the street on her way to work, and locked up in an asylum because a parent discovered evidence linking their daughter to homosexuality. NATURALLY, no one would have included the homosexuals in the Civil Rights Act. CONTEXT MY DEAR MAN! In fact the homosexual witch hunt conducted in the late 50’s early 60’s by the federal government within the government cause many to go deeply into hiding – in the dark ‘closet’ – the skeleton that remained secretive, and silent, sullen and depressed.

We are no longer living in 1964. But we are still living with the same stigmas, and they stem from the bias of the Christian faith.

That means that the unconscionable has happened, our laws are tainted by a single religious view. And that religious view is based on a single sin while all the other sins, regardless of ‘context’ are nearly inconsequential.

So with all that said – please explain to me why, Christians view only one sin with more disdain than all the rest. So much so, that the only consolation they can even accept is a FORCED reduction in the quality of life of millions of humans, just because of ‘one’ particular sin.

Now you argue that ‘context’ is subjective – then one last question, why don’t Christians allow everyone to live their lives, follow their own paths of belief, commit and come terms with their own sins. Clearly your argument determine that there is only one ‘Subject’ who can and will determine the context and it’s justification.