Who Here Chose To Be Heterosexual?

[Lon]

The graph below clearly shows that the decline of pirates has been due to global warming.
That or people simply choose to connect whichever unrelated things as and when it suits them.

Yeah right, we are all so concerned about pirates...

At least be relevant so your rebuttal has teeth instead of non-engagement desperation/deplorable debate tactics.

We Christians believe that for every action, there is an equal reaction. Oh yeah, that's science. Go figure it agrees with us. We call it consequences. Everybody but the atheist believes in this...

Don't then be surprised when answering to God for our behavior is removed, that we'd have 'ungodly' behavior. It is good science as well as good Christianity. Unfortunately for you, we have a good evaluation of bad atheism run amock and can, in fact, connect the dots, even if you cannot. Case in point:

Should a non-believer simply not criticise your scripture just in case you are offended?

You still don't know where you are, do you? You seem to go through life oblivious to the fact that your actions carry consequences. They do, in fact, whether you are oblivious and choose to deny them or not (good science as well as good christianity).

You can't just go grab a stupid idea off of your local atheist board and import it here uncritically just because you got nothing left... (it was stupid when they said it too).

I implore you again, to grow up and rise to the occassion instead of wasting our time...

 

[alwight]

Yeah right, we are all so concerned about pirates...

At least be relevant so your rebuttal has teeth instead of non-engagement desperation/deplorable debate tactics.

Well done anyway for spotting that pirates aren't actually the point.

We Christians believe that for every action, there is an equal reaction. Oh yeah, that's science. Go figure it agrees with us. We call it consequences. Everybody but the atheist believes in this...

Except that in your case you seem to draw your own conclusions based on your existing pre-conclusions rather than the material evidence or science.

Don't then be surprised when answering to God for our behavior is removed, that we'd have 'ungodly' behavior. It is good science as well as good Christianity. Unfortunately for you, we have a good evaluation of bad atheism run amock and can, in fact, connect the dots, even if you cannot. Case in point:

The case in point is that you simply and erroneously imo assume that without your beliefs humans are just incapable of being moral and honest, but then perhaps you have never found that out for yourself?

You still don't know where you are, do you?

Really? Clearly you think you know, rather as believers everywhere will think they know.

You seem to go through life oblivious to the fact that your actions carry consequences. They do, in fact, whether you are oblivious and choose to deny them or not (good science as well as good christianity).

Meaning that I shouldn't criticise or even mock your beliefs in case the consequences are that you don't like it?

You can't just go grab a stupid idea off of your local atheist board and import it here uncritically just because you got nothing left... (it was stupid when they said it too).

I implore you again, to grow up and rise to the occassion instead of wasting our time...

The only stupid thing here might be your conclusion that you can simply blame atheists and disbelief for all the ills of the world.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is Zeus a chrysostom sock?

 

[Lon]

Well done anyway for spotting that pirates aren't actually the point.

Except that in your case you seem to draw your own conclusions based on your existing pre-conclusions rather than the material evidence or science.

Only in your weirdo make-believe little world and the former Soviet Socialist Republic, etc. I suppose.

:nono: for me.

The case in point is that you simply and erroneously imo assume that without your beliefs humans are just incapable of being moral and honest, but then perhaps you have never found that out for yourself?

That's partially true, yes. Don't forget, however, that I think we are born with a broken sense of imago deo. Even to you, this should come as a compliment: that I don't see you as the insignificant accidental pointless speck you might see yourself as, but a being created by a Being who cares. Seems to have a nicer ring to me than "random-chance/monkey-boy-fish/face." Must be just me....

Really? Clearly you think you know, rather as believers everywhere will think they know.

Er, if I was on an atheist site maybe I'd be just as disdainful. I find them shallow and trite but again, I don't believe you came from a pointless existence, that your morals are supposed to be random, or that your offspring should be discarded if inconvenient. Who is actually an afront to whom, then? I'd think my oppositions sentiments would be a whole lot less offensive to you than your's to us. Don't cha think?

Meaning that I shouldn't criticise or even mock your beliefs in case the consequences are that you don't like it?

See, I'm trying to actually get you to a better state of mind and recognition (from my viewpoint). What are you trying to accomplish? Is it noble, just, and right? Is calling a book I deem as the roadmap for humanity a piece of fiction the best approach? Why are you here again? What was supposed to be the point? Is it noble, just, and good?

The only stupid thing here might be your conclusion that you can simply blame atheists and disbelief for all the ills of the world.

Not just 'atheists.' Or rather, more specifically 'practical' atheists who act as if they do not have to answer to a God. There have been a lot of them throughout history. Certainly more people have been killed and tortured by nonchristians and especially atheists this past century than every other prior to any religion. I recognize and accept my problematic Christian leaders of the past, it might be time for you to embrace a couple of your atheist ones, then go ahead and do the side-by-side comparison instead of sticking your head in the sand. For the third time, I ask that you grow up and better prepare yourself for an actual meaningful exchange on this Christian forum, that I might walk away feeling that my time wasn't wasted. Thanks ahead of time.

 

[alwight]

Well done anyway for spotting that pirates aren't actually the point.

Except that in your case you seem to draw your own conclusions based on your existing pre-conclusions rather than the material evidence or science.

Only in your weirdo make-believe little world and the former Soviet Socialist Republic, etc. I suppose.

:nono:for me.

My own “weirdo make-believe little world”, if that is what it is, owes nothing significant to any former Communist states I can assure you. I’m not too sure what it is that I’ve apparently made-up that can’t be tested materially or which relies on belief alone?

The case in point is that you simply and erroneously imo assume that without your beliefs humans are just incapable of being moral and honest, but then perhaps you have never found that out for yourself?

That's partially true, yes. Don't forget, however, that I think we are born with a broken sense of imago deo. Even to you, this should come as a compliment: that I don't see you as the insignificant accidental pointless speck you might see yourself as, but a being created by a Being who cares. Seems to have a nicer ring to me than "random-chance/monkey-boy-fish/face." Must be just me....

I’d probably like to be something more special and intended too, but I just don’t see any point in pretending I know it is something other than it appears to be.

Really? Clearly you think you know, rather as believers everywhere will think they know.

Er, if I was on an atheist site maybe I'd be just as disdainful. I find them shallow and trite but again, I don't believe you came from a pointless existence, that your morals are supposed to be random, or that your offspring should be discarded if inconvenient. Who is actually an afront to whom, then? I'd think my oppositions sentiments would be a whole lot less offensive to you than your's to us. Don't cha think?

Darwinian evolution however rather suggests that we are evolved beings and that having certain evolved moral values is rather more useful and productive for us as social creatures than mindlessly killing each other. Even having spiritual beliefs themselves are perhaps simply evolved traits, since humans everywhere seem to have their own particular versions of them. There is afaic no reason at all to think that our human moral values are simply random and arbitrary, that is simply not how evolution works. There is otoh imo every reason for religions to try to claim morality in the name of their particular god(s) as something absolute and not innate, relative and evolved.

Meaning that I shouldn't criticise or even mock your beliefs in case the consequences are that you don't like it?

See, I'm trying to actually get you to a better state of mind and recognition (from my viewpoint). What are you trying to accomplish? Is it noble, just, and right? Is calling a book I deem as the roadmap for humanity a piece of fiction the best approach? Why are you here again? What was supposed to be the point? Is it noble, just, and good?

Perhaps Lon if you were slightly more interested in what actually is true rather than what you might prefer to be true then you may understand me better. I have no doubt at all that the Bible does indeed contain much that is fictitious or allegorical perhaps. In fact it would be hard to imagine that such a book did not, but I don’t think I ever refer to it all dismissively as a “piece of fiction”, please point out where if I have.
Why exactly am I not allowed to question what it says, why must it be exempt from my scrutiny, will it not stand up to scrutiny?

The only stupid thing here might be your conclusion that you can simply blame atheists and disbelief for all the ills of the world.

Not just 'atheists.' Or rather, more specifically 'practical' atheists who act as if they do not have to answer to a God. There have been a lot of them throughout history. Certainly more people have been killed and tortured by nonchristians and especially atheists this past century than every other prior to any religion. I recognize and accept my problematic Christian leaders of the past, it might be time for you to embrace a couple of your atheist ones, then go ahead and do the side-by-side comparison instead of sticking your head in the sand. For the third time, I ask that you grow up and better prepare yourself for an actual meaningful exchange on this Christian forum, that I might walk away feeling that my time wasn't wasted. Thanks ahead of time.

I really don’t think that anyone is killed in the name of something that isn’t believed in Lon. Wars are fought over doctrine whether it be religious, communist or fascist doctrine, despite what you may want to suggest here, there have never been wars fought simply in the name of “atheism” at least, why would there be?
Telling me to grow up and be more meaningful is just patronising Lon it isn’t an argument. This forum is about theology which, unless in ECT perhaps, is about religious beliefs in general. Should there be no discussion about why such beliefs exist at all, only specific doctrinal issues?

 

[xAvarice]

FICTION.

I said it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

FICTION.

I said it.

I agree, being unable to choose anything but lust and selfishness instead of going with what is naturally made is fiction pure and simple.

:cheers:

 

[Delmar]

So.... lets see now. Zeus gets a vacation but you can say he looks like a flaming queen and nothing is done? :rotfl:

Looking at this a few days later, another factor occurred to me. Zeus is actually proud to be a flaming queen.

 

[Eeset]

Looking at this a few days later, another factor occurred to me. Zeus is actually proud to be a flaming queen.

Delmar, you shock me.

 

[Delmar]

Ummm...yeah. "I've found favor in your eyes" and sobbing while embracing each other probably would be frowned on too. And yet that's what those two guys did. The man after God's own heart appears to have smitten another man's heart and it's all right there whether some folks like it or not...

Let's also remember Saul viciously attacked his son for bringing dishonor to his family.

Saul was mad at his son for being in agreement with Gods plan to give the throne to David. Powerful people get insanely angry when their legacy is jeopardized.

All in all: These two gents seem to have been very close, but there is ample room for speculation.

Yes, yes the wilder the speculation, the more room there is for it.

 

[Lon]

Darwinian evolution however rather suggests that we are evolved beings and that having certain evolved moral values is rather more useful and productive for us as social creatures than mindlessly killing each other. Even having spiritual beliefs themselves are perhaps simply evolved traits, since humans everywhere seem to have their own particular versions of them. There is afaic no reason at all to think that our human moral values are simply random and arbitrary, that is simply not how evolution works. There is otoh imo every reason for religions to try to claim morality in the name of their particular god(s) as something absolute and not innate, relative and evolved.

Um....no. If you are an evolved combination of minerals and water, so are rocks. If you are an evolved piece of crud, you are still a piece of crud. For me, your philosophy of life stinks and seems to be making a huge stink in society too. I know you are trying to distance from that, but most often he who smelt it hadn't dealt it. That guy is holding his nose because he knows (nose) better.

Perhaps Lon if you were slightly more interested in what actually is true rather than what you might prefer to be true then you may understand me better.

Here is why this will never happen: 1) You are completely and ignorantly convinced I am wrong and 2) I feel exactly the same if with even more conviction, that you aren't as intelligent or wise as I am. Such disdain has no cause-ways. I know that God exists, you need to learn that God exists and that's the end on my side of this conversation.

:think: Case in point:

I have no doubt at all that the Bible does indeed contain much that is fictitious or allegorical perhaps. In fact it would be hard to imagine that such a book did not, but I don’t think I ever refer to it all dismissively as a “piece of fiction”, please point out where if I have.
Why exactly am I not allowed to question what it says, why must it be exempt from my scrutiny, will it not stand up to scrutiny?

I am not a general pain on atheist boards. I don't like jack-hammer work. That's someone else' forte~. I don't have the patience of working at something so hard all day and getting nothing but blisters. I love that there are people on TOL that love this kind of work. I don't like it because I don't know how soft or hard to be in such an exchange. The only thing I can do is throw down the hammer that says "I know God exists and you don't" and hope that the spike in the road will cause a crack that an earthquake can eventually break through. Most of you guys are so hard and obtuse I wonder that you even dwell on these sites.

I really don’t think that anyone is killed in the name of something that isn’t believed in Lon. Wars are fought over doctrine whether it be religious, communist or fascist doctrine, despite what you may want to suggest here, there have never been wars fought simply in the name of “atheism” at least, why would there be?

I think you naive, here.

Telling me to grow up and be more meaningful is just patronising Lon it isn’t an argument. This forum is about theology which, unless in ECT perhaps, is about religious beliefs in general. Should there be no discussion about why such beliefs exist at all, only specific doctrinal issues?

I agree. If you know why then I've not kept it hidden. I am cynical that I accomplish much with atheists. Some rocks are harder than others and I'm not much of a blue-collar unless we were talking outside of the intellectual community (I can swing a pick and jack-hammer but I'm not crazy about them). Jesus told His disciples to shake dust from towns where people wouldn't listen. I don't want to prematurely shake but such requires assessment along the way and so I look for something worthy of time spent on any particular effort. You are a hard rock, my friend.

 

[alwight]

Darwinian evolution however rather suggests that we are evolved beings and that having certain evolved moral values is rather more useful and productive for us as social creatures than mindlessly killing each other. Even having spiritual beliefs themselves are perhaps simply evolved traits, since humans everywhere seem to have their own particular versions of them. There is afaic no reason at all to think that our human moral values are simply random and arbitrary, that is simply not how evolution works. There is otoh imo every reason for religions to try to claim morality in the name of their particular god(s) as something absolute and not innate, relative and evolved.

Um....no. If you are an evolved combination of minerals and water, so are rocks. If you are an evolved piece of crud, you are still a piece of crud. For me, your philosophy of life stinks and seems to be making a huge stink in society too. I know you are trying to distance from that, but most often he who smelt it hadn't dealt it. That guy is holding his nose because he knows (nose) better.

I can assure you Lon that inanimate non-living things have no capacity at all to evolve by means of natural selection.
The value of a person is imo not to be found in the constituent parts (crud) but in what is a highly complex and evolved being capable of self awareness and empathy. You perhaps don’t like Darwinian evolution because it explains life today without having to include God or a supernatural, sorry about that. Darwin didn’t like that part much either btw, but when reality and evidence comes a’calling some people are simply compelled to notice, while others it seems do their utmost to ignore it in favour of what they want to believe.
Moral values along with sexual preferences are to a large extent, built-in evolved innate traits afaic, despite what I, you or religions might prefer was true.

Perhaps Lon if you were slightly more interested in what actually is true rather than what you might prefer to be true then you may understand me better.

Here is why this will never happen: 1) You are completely and ignorantly convinced I am wrong and 2) I feel exactly the same if with even more conviction, that you aren't as intelligent or wise as I am. Such disdain has no cause-ways. I know that God exists, you need to learn that God exists and that's the end on my side of this conversation.

:think:Case in point:

How specifically do you “know” God exists Lon?
I have no absolute certainty that you are wrong and don’t claim to have any special knowledge, even if you think you do. However based on there being no specific “God” evidence that I have recognised then I do think that in all probability you are in fact totally wrong.

I have no doubt at all that the Bible does indeed contain much that is fictitious or allegorical perhaps. In fact it would be hard to imagine that such a book did not, but I don’t think I ever refer to it all dismissively as a “piece of fiction”, please point out where if I have.
Why exactly am I not allowed to question what it says, why must it be exempt from my scrutiny, will it not stand up to scrutiny?

I am not a general pain on atheist boards. I don't like jack-hammer work. That's someone else' forte~. I don't have the patience of working at something so hard all day and getting nothing but blisters. I love that there are people on TOL that love this kind of work. I don't like it because I don't know how soft or hard to be in such an exchange. The only thing I can do is throw down the hammer that says "I know God exists and you don't" and hope that the spike in the road will cause a crack that an earthquake can eventually break through. Most of you guys are so hard and obtuse I wonder that you even dwell on these sites.

I’m sorry if you are a delicate flower and only want to agree with fellow Christians for comfort and don’t want to confront such things as real evidence and reasoning, while it seems that bald assertion is all you have, oh well, life is tough sometimes.

I really don’t think that anyone is killed in the name of something that isn’t believed in Lon. Wars are fought over doctrine whether it be religious, communist or fascist doctrine, despite what you may want to suggest here, there have never been wars fought simply in the name of “atheism” at least, why would there be?

I think you naive, here.

Then by all means please do enlighten me.

Telling me to grow up and be more meaningful is just patronising Lon it isn’t an argument. This forum is about theology which, unless in ECT perhaps, is about religious beliefs in general. Should there be no discussion about why such beliefs exist at all, only specific doctrinal issues?

I agree. If you know why then I've not kept it hidden.

I don’t quite know what you are agreeing with here.

I am cynical that I accomplish much with atheists. Some rocks are harder than others and I'm not much of a blue-collar unless we were talking outside of the intellectual community (I can swing a pick and jack-hammer but I'm not crazy about them). Jesus told His disciples to shake dust from towns where people wouldn't listen. I don't want to prematurely shake but such requires assessment along the way and so I look for something worthy of time spent on any particular effort. You are a hard rock, my friend.

No I'm no rock, I too am a delicate flower:jessilu:who doesn’t really know what you’re on about here either.
I generally don’t tend to use atheist forums much because I only end up agreeing with people, which can actually be rather boring.
Perhaps my being here is making it hard for you and your beliefs, should I leave?

 

[Lon]

I can assure you Lon that inanimate non-living things have no capacity at all to evolve by means of natural selection.
The value of a person is imo not to be found in the constituent parts (crud) but in what is a highly complex and evolved being capable of self awareness and empathy. You perhaps don’t like Darwinian evolution because it explains life today without having to include God or a supernatural, sorry about that. Darwin didn’t like that part much either btw, but when reality and evidence comes a’calling some people are simply compelled to notice, while others it seems do their utmost to ignore it in favour of what they want to believe.
Moral values along with sexual preferences are to a large extent, built-in evolved innate traits afaic, despite what I, you or religions might prefer was true.


How specifically do you “know” God exists Lon?
I have no absolute certainty that you are wrong and don’t claim to have any special knowledge, even if you think you do. However based on there being no specific “God” evidence that I have recognised then I do think that in all probability you are in fact totally wrong.

I’m sorry if you are a delicate flower and only want to agree with fellow Christians for comfort and don’t want to confront such things as real evidence and reasoning, while it seems that bald assertion is all you have, oh well, life is tough sometimes.


Then by all means please do enlighten me.

I don’t quite know what you are agreeing with here.

No I'm no rock, I too am a delicate flower:jessilu:who doesn’t really know what you’re on about here either.
I generally don’t tend to use atheist forums much because I only end up agreeing with people, which can actually be rather boring.
Perhaps my being here is making it hard for you and your beliefs, should I leave?

You were right that I was being patronizing but what else is/was left here?
One huge non-engagement mess, Alwight. We get accused of mind reading all the time but this one isn't even a good guess nor was it listening to a word I said, so no, you get to be a rock today. We'll reserve flowers for those who are swayed somewhat by the wind.

 

[alwight]

You were right that I was being patronizing but what else is/was left here?

You could try responding to a few of my questions occasionally Lon.

One huge non-engagement mess, Alwight. We get accused of mind reading all the time but this one isn't even a good guess nor was it listening to a word I said, so no, you get to be a rock today. We'll reserve flowers for those who are swayed somewhat by the wind.

It's a two way thing imo, not just that you simply tell me that your God exists so therefore I must believe you. :nono:
What I will believe tends to require at least some tangible evidence, sorry but that is just how it is.

Anyway did you choose to be heterosexual?
Not me btw.

 

[Lon]

You could try responding to a few of my questions occasionally Lon.

It's a two way thing imo, not just that you simply tell me that your God exists so therefore I must believe you. :nono:
What I will believe tends to require at least some tangible evidence, sorry but that is just how it is.

Anyway did you choose to be heterosexual?
Not me btw.

You already have a non-engagement tenor and condescension for these topics. Such would be pearl casting, no? "Why" and "bother" come to mind but I've been very upfront with you that I'm no good at breaking rocks, and I've tried softening them too. A rock is a stone is a hard place. You'll either be crushed or we'll give up. For me, I can't see much else. I'm as immobile that God exists as you seem to be that He doesn't and I believe even moreso. He has made Himself real to me, that's enough for me to say. It doesn't matter that such wouldn't work for you because we are both condescending in this particular case and think the other foolish (Psalm 14).

 

[Delmar]

Delmar, you shock me.

:idunno:

 

[alwight]

You already have a non-engagement tenor and condescension for these topics.

That's just an opinion not an argument.

Such would be pearl casting, no? "Why" and "bother" come to mind but I've been very upfront with you that I'm no good at breaking rocks, and I've tried softening them too.

Your apparently unquestioning continued belief and witnessing isn't an argument either, why then specifically should I believe as you do, because you do?

A rock is a stone is a hard place. You'll either be crushed or we'll give up. For me, I can't see much else. I'm as immobile that God exists as you seem to be that He doesn't and I believe even moreso. He has made Himself real to me, that's enough for me to say. It doesn't matter that such wouldn't work for you because we are both condescending in this particular case and think the other foolish (Psalm 14).

I'm quite sure that if your God exists then He could convince me in a heartbeat and no one else need ever know how. I simply want to accept what is actually true, not the various supernatural things as believed by various others all around the world.
I've never claimed to know that God or gods doesn't/don't exist.

I believe that human sexuality is genetic, not sin. I believe that heterosexuality is not something I chose.
I believe homosexuals who say that is how it was for them too.
What do you believe?

 

[Lon]

That's just an opinion not an argument.

Okay and so what? We are individuals so what works for me probably will not work for you but it is of a personal nature, probably like your own fleece. That and take a look at the verses given below. It'll be a good exercise for you.

Your apparently unquestioning continued belief and witnessing isn't an argument either, why then specifically should I believe as you do, because you do?

...because this level of skepticism already says "no." Read two scriptures:

Luke 16:19-31 and John 20:24-29 then James 1 and Mark 6:4&5, and then answer one very simple question for me: What one thing would it take for you? Do you have to be one who would put His fingers in? If so, what will you tell Him about your use of time until that day actually happens? What would it take? You should have an answer, if not, it is because you are unreasonable (cannot be reasoned with). That, specifically, lends to a lot of my condescension with quite a few agnostics and atheists.

I'm quite sure that if your God exists then He could convince me in a heartbeat and no one else need ever know how. I simply want to accept what is actually true, not the various supernatural things as believed by various others all around the world.

You don't have to share but you do have to evaluate in the grand scheme of things whether your request is reasonable AND whether it has already been answered in scripture or not. For instance, David Attenborough thinks there cannot be a god because kids in Africa have parasites on their eyes and he cannot fathom a god in his world that would allow (design) such a thing. It is sad he missed Sunday School where that was answered.

I've never claimed to know that God or gods doesn't/don't exist.

Agnostic/extreme skeptic would be the title then. The difference between you and I is that I 'wanted' to believe. It didn't mean I had to turn off my brain, but God had a lot more to work with than He does with skeptics by nature.

I believe that human sexuality is genetic, not sin. I believe that heterosexuality is not something I chose.
I believe homosexuals who say that is how it was for them too.
What do you believe?

It is even counterproductive for darwinism...

 

[alwight]

That's just an opinion not an argument.

Okay and so what? We are individuals so what works for me probably will not work for you but it is of a personal nature, probably like your own fleece. That and take a look at the verses given below. It'll be a good exercise for you.

Now you’re just being patronising again.

Your apparently unquestioning continued belief and witnessing isn't an argument either, why then specifically should I believe as you do, because you do?

...because this level of skepticism already says "no." Read two scriptures:

Luke 16:19-31 and John 20:24-29 then James 1 and Mark 6:4&5, and then answer one very simple question for me: What one thing would it take for you? Do you have to be one who would put His fingers in? If so, what will you tell Him about your use of time until that day actually happens? What would it take? You should have an answer, if not, it is because you are unreasonable (cannot be reasoned with). That, specifically, lends to a lot of my condescension with quite a few agnostics and atheists.

It seems then Lon that you cannot provide specific testable evidence only trot out snippets of arcane scripture? Is your own belief simply the result of such words in a book?
All you actually need know here is that if your God exists and wanted me to discreetly know it I could/would know it without any fuss or resistance. Yes tangible evidence (holes) is what I would expect from you rather than your blind faith, why would it not be? You however don’t seem to reason your beliefs with me only assert them. I am perhaps like a naughty child to you who simply won’t do as I’m told and accept what you tell me on trust, as presumably you have been told, trusted and apparently have credulously accepted.

I'm quite sure that if your God exists then He could convince me in a heartbeat and no one else need ever know how. I simply want to accept what is actually true, not the various supernatural things as believed by various others all around the world.

You don't have to share but you do have to evaluate in the grand scheme of things whether your request is reasonable AND whether it has already been answered in scripture or not. For instance, David Attenborough thinks there cannot be a god because kids in Africa have parasites on their eyes and he cannot fathom a god in his world that would allow (design) such a thing. It is sad he missed Sunday School where that was answered.

Try to understand that non-believers do not worry too much about your “scripture” let’s instead have something rather more practical, such as testable evidence.
I’m rather sure that David Attenborough is, like me, highly sceptical that a supposedly loving caring involved God would have arranged things as they are, despite what any Sunday school ever taught you Lon. DA explains reality while religions everywhere seem to make up their own versions.

I've never claimed to know that God or gods doesn't/don't exist.

Agnostic/extreme skeptic would be the title then. The difference between you and I is that I 'wanted' to believe. It didn't mean I had to turn off my brain, but God had a lot more to work with than He does with skeptics by nature.

What you did then presumably was to believe the convenient religion you were raised to believe.

I believe that human sexuality is genetic, not sin. I believe that heterosexuality is not something I chose.
I believe homosexuals who say that is how it was for them too.
What do you believe?

It is even counterproductive for darwinism...

That’s far to simplistic imo, actually that isn’t true anyway if only that homosexuality is a fact of life. Darwinian evolution throws up many complex and subtle strategies that work on the genetic level if not for individuals. It isn’t necessarily the case that one individual being gay presents an instant dead end for any “gay gene”, particularly if the same genes are present and successful in his sister.

 

[Lon]

It seems then Lon that you cannot provide specific testable evidence only trot out snippets of arcane scripture? Is your own belief simply the result of such words in a book?

Yup, and I'm no dummy so ask yourself 'why' now.

Granite named himself a rock for a reason. Learn from your peers, even.