TreeBeard

I never said his 40% was any more reflective of the attitudes in general. I’m saying that, in general, Canadians are a liberal values people, with some exceptions. If they vote to get rid of Trudeau because they’re sick of him, that doesn’t mean the country has swung hard right. They were well funded under Harper and they still reflected the values of their listeners/watchers/consumers.

That’s the only thing I ever hear about BC…. how much Alberta hates them. Meanwhile, I think they’ve been running balanced budgets for many years and unemployment rate is less than most of the country, including AB. Sounds terrible.

No. The evidence of that is a Trudeau win x3. A particular direction by a government with 40-50% support is not reflective of Canadians as a whole. No. The CBC is a reflection of the people who consume that media.

Where are they in power? BC? Have they done anything that could be construed as “anti business” in BC?

It makes sense that this thread was posted to the “religious” section of the forum.

You think a 40% of the vote win by the Cons will cause a dramatic shift in attitudes toward conservatism in Canada, so much so that “the left” will suddenly become a minority and be shunned by these people and their new-found values? You certainly are optimistic.

I’ve lost track of how many elections Trudeau has won and how many leaders the Cons have gone through…

It’s their birthright.

I realize their current rule…. But what gives them their authority to rubber stamp our laws and command the loyalty of our soldiers?

You believe that people should rule over others based on their bloodline?

No, you didn’t explain why you ignore the punishment part of the verse. Or are you in favour of the death penalty for homosexual acts? Maybe you don’t want that part of the verse ignored?

The bible isn’t consistent about the punishment though, is it? You ignore the punishment part of the verse. How do you decide which parts to ignore?

I think it’s helpful to know who the racists are, don’t you?

There was no explanation. Only assertions. You believe God changed the punishment for gay acts, but He didn’t change the fact that the gay acts themselves are a sin? How did you decide the punishment part of the passage would be tossed out, but you would keep the first part? Leviticus 20:13 — King James Version (KJV 1900) 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. You’re saying God will never command anything of people again? He did it once, and that’s it? How do you know?

Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command something because it is moral? In the quote from @blackbird above, this would fall into the former: something is moral because God commands it. It was moral to kill gay men back then, but apparently, isn’t moral to do so now. It follows that God could command people to kill gay men again tomorrow, like He did in Leviticus, and it would become a moral action. @blackbird - is there anything you wouldn’t do that God commands you to do? If you would be so lucky as to have God command you to kill your own child, like He did for Abraham, would you? (I predict the answer will be “God would never do that”)

I have no idea what 5 year old morality you’re talking about is. I guess you now acknowledge that the bible does say to kill gay men, but you think it changed in the NT for some reason? In terms of biblical morality, I’m not even sure what that would mean, and most Christians can’t even agree among themselves upon biblical morality. So, it seems like a pretty lousy guide.

i thought you said the bible didn’t say to kill gay people…? Now your argument is that they had their justifications for doing so . However, my issue is not that people killed each other for bad reasons 3000 years ago. My issue is that people believe this is a divinely inspired book that we should base our morals on today. A divinely inspired book from an all-loving god who is still teaching us to do good based on the book.

He said it didn’t mean what it said. Which is rather silly. Why did men write this, or why did God inspire this? The first, I think we can answer. If it’s the second, then it’s open to interpretation.

Retract your demand for me to retract? Or do you deny what Leviticus says?

You don’t think this would just lead to squabbling by these smaller groups? First Nations certainly fought (literally) with each other over land and resources. Do you think this is a bit of ignoring reality in favour of an idealized version of these groups’ interactions?

All we need to do is read the bible…. It says “men”. This is how scholars have interpreted it. There hasn’t really been any other interpretations of it that I have seen, but I stand to be corrected. So, making up interpretations outside of the general consensus and saying “impossible to prove either way” is not true at all. You don’t just get to make up nonsense and then claim “prove me wrong, you can’t”.

This is nonsense. No one I have ever read has had your particular interpretation. But, even if I grant that, my question about the morality of the killing still applies. Which was the point.

Even if I grant this, my question was about the morality of killing men, as per Leviticus. Was it moral when God said it in Leviticus, but became immoral later?

Leviticus only mentions men. It says nothing of children. I think you are just making this up to suit your beliefs.

No, things in the “normative range” are not “bad”. Otherwise, I guess I’d hate myself? But things outside the “normative range” are not bad either. Like being left-handed, while not being normal, is also not bad.