Bingowings said:
Now you are comparing homosexuality with cannibalism.
In the example I gave, there would be nothing wrong with cannibalism at all except in the case of the existence of a God such as the one you described in the post prior to mine.
Is there no depth you cannot dig this hole to?
The example I gave would, if it were at all related to how I view homosexuality, give a more positive view than my previously stated one, not a more negative one.
Either the Old Testament is written by men and a fallible bronze aged, desert dwellers reflection on what seemed to make sense to them at the time or it's the timeless word of an insane murderous deity to whom we are but toys to squash for his pleasure.
I don't understand why it has to be one or the other, Bingo, because it's neither.
The latter is not a deity I can bring myself to admire.
It is a Golem, a Devil if you will.
Why anyone would draw spiritual inspiration from such a character is as much a mystery to me as Nazism.
I agree with that entirely.
If it's a fallible human account it should not be evoked in discourse other than comparative mythology.This same is true of the latter books of the New Testament, written as they were by men raised in the tradition of the earlier text (or by God's own hand).
If it were a fallible human account I would agree with this also.
Either way they are poor primary sources (if indeed they can be described even remotely as such) for any form of opinion let alone political discussion (like the shrimp).
Agreed, but since neither way is true, your post is irrelevant to my points.