Dayton3/Tracker/Dayton Kitchen’s Greatest Hits

God doesn't factor time the way humans do.

As for the rest, I would assume that it was because the Hebrews were God's chosen people due to God's promise to Abraham.

as for at the end, why should God make it especially easy for people to obey and follow him?

You know how God factors time? Please elaborate.
Why shouldn't he make it easy to obey? Why does he care? Creates the whole universe but really cares if I fantasize about the lady next door while I fuck my wife? He can make galaxies but really gives a shit if I eat ribs on a Friday.

Where is anything about that in the Bible?

II Peter 3:8

And that is in the Bible.

New Testament for that matter.

For fuck's sake, pick another stupid rule in the Bible. No wonder you take it for real. You're so damned literal!

well no, It's a valid point in respect to SOME Biblical passages. We say, as a colloquial expression, that the sun "set" when it didn't scientifically and factually do so. In SOME cases that which people cite as Biblical contradictions with science are similar sorts of colloquial phrasing.

On the other hand, many apologists over-use this explanation in places where it does not really apply as well. Generally speaking, skeptics go to far attacking without having a full grasp of the intricacies of textual criticism, but likewise believers often make the same mistake in defense, and for the same reason.

Async, I believe, IS aware of those intricacies, but he does speak from a position of faith and that can't help but color some conclusions. Speaking from my own experience, for the most of my life I operated from the supposition that having believed in Christ, I was obligated to find an explanation for every problematic passage - particularly those in the OT. That's a pretty common phenomena. The mindset is that It's difficult to defend the authenticity of what you believe about Jesus once you sacrifice the credibility of, for example, Jonah and the big fish. I would never question Async's scholarship, and I choose not to directly slander his analysis out of respect, but I speak as a general phenomena, the potential for bias unawares certainly exists.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Still meaningless. And just the opinion of whoever wrote it. Where's the proof?

What would you accept as proof?

I can't think of any "stupid rules" in the Bible that are meant to apply to modern Christians.

Everything that you call a "stupid rule" were specific to that time period several thousand years ago meant to promote the general health and welfare of people of that era.

What benefit was there to murdering gay people?

In the Old Testament era there were frequent death penalties for various sins.

I would assume that the harshness against homosexuality was due all or in part due to the massive importance that was placed on family ties bound by marriage and validated by sexual intercourse between the marriage partners.

Anything seen as draining or diverting the sex drive of men (especially) from women would've been thought to be a betrayal of family and ones heritage.

No doubt you will disregard this of course

That seems rational enough for the Bronze Age in which this book was written.

Except we know about science now and with in vitro being a thing, you ain't even gotta have sex to procreate anymore.

And I don't know of any Christians who believe we're told to stone gays to death either.

At any rate, regarding procreation lots of people can't afford in vitro fertilization nor is it reliable as conceiving a child the traditional way either.

Meet American pastor Scott Lively.

Lively isn't the only American who's been urging Ugandans to "get rid" of the gays, either.

Of course, Inhofe and the others say they're against the idea of killing homosexuals, but they only seem to speak out about the subject after lots and lots of people have been bitching in the media, and not when the Ugandans tell them they want to kill homosexuals.

I don't believe them because they refuse to completely distance themselves from folks like Lively. One of the reasons Lively has such close ties to the Ugandan government is because Inhofe introduced him to the Ugandan government. Lively's made no secret of his desire to kill gays for years now, so Inhofe and the others can hardly claim that this is something new.

As for you, my believing that would require a demonstration on your part that you recognize homosexuals are human beings deserving equal treatment under the law. We already know that you don't want them to have equal treatment under the law, and that you don't recognize certain people, regardless of their sexual orientation, as being equal to yourself. So, do I think if a "kill the gays" law, or even a "jail the gays" law were passed in the US that you'd object to it, or even risk your life to protect those threatened by such a law? No, I don't.

You don't have to recognize people or others as "equals" in order to believe in protecting them.

I don't consider puppies and kittens as "people" or remotely equal to me yet I object to their mistreatment and I've even taken considerable risks to myself in order to protect them in the past.

If you don't see them as being equals, then you cannot fully appreciate what might be risks to them. You also are probably not going to commit to the same kind of resources to protecting them that you would people you consider to be your equals.

And yet you still abandoned a little old lady on the side of the road. Why? Because you didn't think that the issue was important, even though it was important enough to her to stop after you hit her car.

That's just what you'd assume.
I'd assume it was more likely just petty political defiance of societal norms of the Roman empire.
Although, I'm sure it was also partly "we need more live babies to make into dead soldiers", because the old testament is rife with an open "might makes right", mentality.

Nope, you sure don't, Lincoln certainly didn't.

But being enslaved wasn't the only problem African-Americans had. They couldn't vote (and thus had no say in laws which could impact them), and were denied various other rights (including the right to marry whom they wanted, if that person happened to be white). So, while Lincoln might have been better than many people in his time, he still falls well short of where we are today.

Lincoln wanted to give them the right to vote which is what motivated JWB to assasinate him.

Lincoln talked about doing a number of things, including sending them all back to Africa. What he would have actually tried to do (let alone accomplish) had he lived, is anybody's guess. JWB would have probably gone after Lincoln regardless because he was just that crazy. Nor, as history has shown, does giving blacks the right to vote mean that they would have been allowed to use it.

So we should outright dismiss abolitionist christians just because they didn't get the full picture?

No, but we should recognize that if you don't see someone as being your equal you're not going to do all that you can, or should, to protect them.

I see gays as my equal, but I'm not going to march or protest. Frankly, I don't have time for that. But sure, I'll vote in their favor.

Which is far more than Dayton would do.

You guys will never stop whining about such a trivial incident will you?

Because we don't know if it was trivial at all. We have only your word that the damage was "minor," and given your propensity to claim your hugely injured when someone insults you, but deny you've insulted someone else when you clearly have, any reasonable person is going to conclude that it probably wasn't a "minor" incident at all. You just say it was "minor" because you weren't the injured party.