10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong"

Oh shi- and here I thought I should be looking out for STDs... :x lol

There's plenty of reasons.
B4 marriage - there's a lot of potential for emotional damage, and sex was supposed to be only for the husband and wife who are "one flesh"
Bum sex - uh... I can honestly say I've never searched the Bible to see is anal sex was wrong :x. I don't know what the Bible says about that, but I do know that I would never have anal sex with my future wife simply because 1... I think it's gross (personal preference. butt = smelly Therefore != sexy lol) and 2... if you get just a little too rough or forget to use lubricant or something you can seriously hurt the uh... recipient.
Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.
Reproduction only - God never said "thou shalt have sex only the purpose of popping out babies". it was meant to feel good, for the couple.
Final destination - ... ? what? I'm not really sure what you're saying here lol.

Well yes, condoms might apply in other religions, but I'm not very clear if the Bible itself is against contraceptives. There's one passage in the old testament where a guy "pulled out", but he was killed (I think) b/c he disobeyed a direct commandment from God in a time where God still spoke directly to the people. Sounds extreme, but we're talking about spitting in the face of GOD. God made us, He could simply destroy us if He wanted.

Oh shi- and here I thought I should be looking out for STDs... :x lol

Yes, that's what I said too.

B4 marriage - there's a lot of potential for emotional damage, and sex was supposed to be only for the husband and wife who are "one flesh"

How is there potential for emotional damage? And sex is only supposed to be for the husband and wife if you believe in the bible. You can't just say you should only have sex before marriage because the Bible says so. My point was that it doesn't make any sense as to why it is this way, just that it is.

Bum sex - uh... I can honestly say I've never searched the Bible to see is anal sex was wrong :x.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure here either. What's right and wrong in Christianity is a little tricky since there are many denominations and also because the religion likes to rewrite itself every now and then. I am sure it is said to be a sin to have sex that prevents reproduction, but I could be wrong.

Went on to find this:

6. That methods of Birth Prevention are not wrong because they are mechanical, but because they do not promote the ends of nature and obstruct and defeat them.
7. That Birth Prevention is sinful because, like other sensual practices commonly called unnatural, it is a deliberate enterprise taken in hand to separate enjoyment of the sexual act from its possible natural result. It is thus regarded as 'unfruitful works of darkness.'

which... confuses me. Anyway:

I would never have anal sex with my future wife simply because 1... I think it's gross (personal preference. butt = smelly Therefore != sexy lol)

If it's smelly you're doing it wrong.

and 2... if you get just a little too rough or forget to use lubricant or something you can seriously hurt the uh... recipient.

If you forget to use lubricant you're doing it wrong. You cannot forget because it is pretty much required. If you are short of lubricant, it's likely you won't even be trying anal.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

This only applies if you believe in the bible. Why is sex only for husband and wife? Why does God have a problem if two men or two women have sex? You can't just say "because he does." And it's not like we even know he DOES have a problem with it since it only appears as a sin in a book that's a big pile of poop. My point was that it doesn't make any sense as to why it is this way, just that it is.

Reproduction only - God never said "thou shalt have sex only the purpose of popping out babies". it was meant to feel good, for the couple.

Actually, you're right here. I was wrong. The bible does say it's okay to have sex without the intent of making babies. However, it's still a mystery why he has a problem with same-sex couples. If he allows a man and a woman to have sex for fun, why not two men? Oh right, marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman and God only likes it when married people have sex. Why? Why does God only allow a man and a woman to be married and why does he only like it when married people have sex?

The answer, in my opinion, is that he doesn't exist and idiots thousands of years ago wrote what they thought about whatever. There's no reason why, it's just the way it is.

Final destination - ... ? what? I'm not really sure what you're saying here lol.

Sorry, Super Smash Bros. Melee meme.

Well yes, condoms might apply in other religions, but I'm not very clear if the Bible itself is against contraceptives. There's one passage in the old testament where a guy "pulled out", but he was killed (I think) b/c he disobeyed a direct commandment from God in a time where God still spoke directly to the people. Sounds extreme, but we're talking about spitting in the face of GOD. God made us, He could simply destroy us if He wanted.

I'm not very clear myself. Perhaps you can make sense of what I pasted up above.

And God is an extreme dude. He was a huge arsehole back during the Old Testament, but fortunately the unchanging god changed by the time the New Testament rolled around.

Damn Aussies and your weird STD/STI mix up.

lol Zylos.

@Chewey: I agree about the husband/wife thing only applying only if you believe the Bible but, then again, I believe the Bible lol. For emotional damage, you can see it just about everywhere. I mean, it's possible that after a while people just because immune to the damage because they're used to it, but initially there is usually damage. You're completely exposing and surrendering yourself to someone who you may not spend the rest of your life with.

As for the contraceptive part... unless they can back what they say up with scripture I wouldn't trust the source. Just because somebody thinks God may not like something doesn't make it so (for example: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/kutless.htm )... the guy who owns the site basically says that every Contemporary Christian music group is from Satan. :/  His only arguments are that God hates rock music (Which is where in the Bible?) and that they hang out with worldly people. I've got news for him, Jesus hung out with worldly people too. -_- And since when does wearing all black constitute a sin? (sorry, got a lot of issues with this guy) I can tell he has a lot of zeal for God, but it's all misplaced to the point that I can't tell if he's really a Christian or not. Taking a look at his front page and it looks more like he's a prophet of hate. Uh, sorry, went off topic.

I'll agree that people have different viewpoints on the matter, but the Bible itself has never changed. Well, the original word of God hasn't changed. There are some churches and some translations that will say something differently or add something to support their views (cults... yay :/). One example is the Mormon church which translates John 1:1, which says "  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" to say "  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was  |a| God" . Their translation breaks a basic law of Greek grammar, but anyways....

I myself use the NIV, because it's translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It's also a very accurate translation. The issue with translation is the inverse balance of meaning and legibility. But that's an issue with translating something into any language.

@Chewey: I agree about the husband/wife thing only applying only if you believe the Bible but, then again, I believe the Bible lol.

Why do you think God would care if a man loved a man and wanted to get married?
And before you say it, why do you think God intended for only a man and a woman to love one another?
Surely he is clever enough to realise homosexuality isn't going to spell the end of the human race. Surely he realises it is just an extension of this love concept he must have coined up (he MUST have coined it up for you to justify marriage) and is an enjoyable relationship for both involved, right?
Why do you think God would create the ceremony of marriage in the first place? (protip: he didn't)

Basically what I'm saying here is... if there were a God (which I don't believe there is), I really doubt he'd care all that much about what we did. If all these 'sins' truly are the word of God he's kind of a dick for imposing so many unnecessary trials. Love a man and you're going to hell?

Why?

For emotional damage, you can see it just about everywhere. I mean, it's possible that after a while people just because immune to the damage because they're used to it, but initially there is usually damage. You're completely exposing and surrendering yourself to someone who you may not spend the rest of your life with.

Er, you don't have to surrender yourself to somebody else just to have sex. You don't have to be in a relationship just to have sex. There is a thing called casual sex and both parties involved are aware it's casual in most cases. I'm not sure how you can honestly believe having sex with people will always end up in emotional hurt. Sure it's possible to become attached but I can't see how this would cause any more hurt than being turned down by a high school crush.

As for the contraceptive part... unless they can back what they say up with scripture I wouldn't trust the source. Just because somebody thinks God may not like something doesn't make it so

So you agree that your opinion (and the opinion of your religion and any other religion) of what God cares about isn't necessarily fact. How can it be fact, really?

His only arguments are that God hates rock music (Which is where in the Bible?) and that they hang out with worldly people.

Your only argument for the Bible being the word of God is that the Bible tells you it is the word of God. The bible was written by man - how can you be sure what God likes and does not like?

Have you spoken to him personally?

How can you be sure anybody else spoke to him personally?

And since when does wearing all black constitute a sin?

It's only a sin so long as your black outfit is made out of more than one material. No synthetics allowed.

I'll agree that people have different viewpoints on the matter, but the Bible itself has never changed.

The bible has changed a fair bit! Are you aware it was once written that multiple gods existed?

Well, the original word of God hasn't changed.

The original word of God hasn't changed? Assuming the bible is the word of God (it isn't but most religious folks believe it be) then... I'd say the word of God has changed a fair bit. I don't think the word of God is, "kill the infidels and stab the pregnant women in the belly to be sure to kill the babies" anymore, is it? Some unchanging god he is!

tl;dr: If there is a God, I don't see why he would care about what we did.
If there is a God, why did he create Man in the first place?
If there is a God, and he created man, why did he decide to put us through a very retarded trial with unnecessary 'sins' to tempt us (like a man loving another man)? The trial is human life on Earth, just for the record. Why not simply create beings in Heaven if he wanted company?
Why would he want company?
If he didn't want company, what reason did he have to create Man? Was he bored? Surely not. He's a supernatural being without the fickle feelings of humans.

Is he an egotistical god? Seems likely. Kind of a dick, then. If he were to exist, that is.

Religious debates are kind of stupid in general; neither side is willing or able to even try to understand the other, so it's a lot of wasted text - but the points you bring up chewey are pretty surface level theology; an important thing to remember is that a lot of religious people are incredibly smart. John Paul II, for instance, knew eight languages fluently and spoke thirteen languages adeptly. I think he has to have been a pretty smart person in other ways as well. To assume, then, that religious people haven't thought about issues like the ones you bring up or that they are unresolvable issues requires, I imagine, a pretty intense intellectual pride. And I don't mean to offend anyone here; it is as true of the stupid arguments religious people bring up to counter atheist arguments. Debates like this are pointless when each side thinks the person they are arguing against is retarded.

I've heard arguments where religious people completely misrepresent evolution because they have never even bothered to research it. I suspect from your arguments chewey, you also haven't read the bible or researched much Christian theology. You might have read some uncontextual stuff on the internet, likely on a page called something like "bible contradictions". You are making untrue assertions, and you will never be able to convince even a moderately religious person with those arguments because their own knowledge of and experience with their religion proves false the assumptions about their religion you are making to construct your arguments. It is as impossible to do so as a religious person who knows nothing about evolution to construct a counter-argument that makes any sense (and if they really knew anything about it, they probably wouldn't try).

As just one example, I don't understand your "unchanging god changes" argument at all. For one, I don't think the God of the Old Testament you are representing as "a huge arsehole" is particularly accurate. Keep in mind that is still the God that Jewish people believe in, and I imagine any Jew would take offense to such a characterization. But even if He is as you describe, I don't see why there is a necessary contradiction in the God of the New Testament. As far as I know, the belief is that it is humanity's relationship with God that has changed. I treat my three year old neice differently than I did when she was six months old. I will treat her differently when she is eight, and I will continue to relate with her differently as she grows. It doesn't mean I'm changing. A more concrete example is that I won't allow her to use a sharp knife right now. When she is older, I will. It's not because I've changed my opinions on the dangers of sharp knives, or changed in any other relevant way, it's that she's changed and the way I relate with her as changed. A less extreme example is simply in everyday relationships. A person might be a friend today and a romantic other tomorrow and an enemy the next - I would treat him/her differently, but it's not as if either of us have changed necessarily. Thus, the assertion that God treats humanity differently in the New Testament does not necessarily suggest that God has changed. That doesn't strike me as a strong argument on your part.

So, I mean, feel free to continue to argue your points, but I don't think it's possible to persuade someone away from something without an actual understanding of their beliefs and not an "other atheists told me this is what they believe" understanding. And, who knows? That might be impossible and certainly unfeasible with respect to the various denominations of Christianity and that personal beliefs often vary from strict doctrine.

I don't know, I imagine I am making some incorrect assumptions about you as well, and if I have I apologize.

tl;dr - religious debates are stupid and I quit

Maybe we should split the serious debate from the joke and move everything to a place where no one will ever find it.

That's a good idea Once it's in Elitist Debate it ought to perish pretty quickly

EDIT:: Adn in that spirit, the ad:

It doesn't matter what you do to it. This exact same thread, with the exact same responses, jokes, and flames will eventually reappear somewhere else in the forum soon enough. Religion topics are like Jason Vorhees; you can stop them for a while, but they just keep coming back to try and stab you with a knife.

GUYS, STOP IT. STOP ARGUING ON THE INTERNET. PLEASE.

PLEASE STOP.

IT'S THE INTERNET. YOU CAN'T ARGUE ON THE INTERNET.

Modern Algebra you said Zombie in your post but you're referring to me I think. I'll work up a response now or when I wake up in the morning *_*

You learn a lot from debates like these though If someone is expecting anyone else to convert to another religion or whatever because of one then lol. I guess everyone has their own reasons for it however.

It's just boring, that's all.

...I'm switching to the light RMRK theme just to see that ad. =O

You're right chewey - I did mean you For some reason I always get you two confused and it makes no sense at all. Maybe it's just the "ee" sound at the end of your name. I changed it in the post.

And I suppose you're right Skanker - they do have value in that.

Religious debates are kind of stupid in general; neither side is willing or able to even try to understand the other, so it's a lot of wasted text

I'd like to be able to understand religious people, but it's rather difficult. "I feel God in my heart. I feel Him in my soul. I see Him in all the trees and the animals!" Well, obviously they don't. We can explain how the human body works now and we've developed a theory on the evolution of the eye. Honestly, there isn't much reason to have faith. It bewilders me why religion is an exception when it comes to this kind of thing. Normally when you're given no reason to believe in something, or if there's no evidence, you don't believe in it. I really don't understand religion! But, you're right, I don't really understand it in either sense of the word. I haven't studied theology extensively and so I don't actually know the ins and outs of religions. However, that seems kind of irrelevant to me when even the simple understanding I have of whichever religion is enough for me to conclude they're not really for me.

I think not understanding religion is on a whole different level to not understanding evolution, or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo it is you want to talk about.

I think I understand enough of theology to conclude that no religion really has any clue what they're talking about, though. It seems funny to me that all these religions think they're the only ones that have it right. Do they believe all the other religions are simply a load of turd crafted from scratch whereas their religion has everything spot on. This seems even more odd to me given that people often believe in the religion they grew up with or are surrounded by. Well, that's not entirely true. It's possible for people to convert to another religion (read: Christianity) because it's far easier, and it makes them feel better/more secure. There are rare cases where people will go on a spiritual journey to discover what they truly feel, and sometimes people come out of this as Atheists. These types seem to make up the minority, though.

Anyway, my point wasn't really to just bash religion and say it's nonsensical (even though I think it is). The hurt organised religions cause in the world is a bother for me, and I want it to stop (mutilation, sacrifice, disallowing two men to marry, etc.). The reason it bothers me even more is because there's absolutely no reason to believe in any of these religions. There's absolutely no reason to believe there's a God and there's no reason to believe he cares about whether or not boys have foreskin.

However, I'm fine with personal beliefs (I don't mean the personal beliefs of a Christian - they're still Christian) and spirituality. Finding an answer or comfort in those is fine, since it carries none of the ridiculous rules of organised religions formed thousands of years ago.

but the points you bring up chewey are pretty surface level theology; an important thing to remember is that a lot of religious people are incredibly smart. John Paul II, for instance, knew eight languages fluently and spoke thirteen languages adeptly. I think he has to have been a pretty smart person in other ways as well. To assume, then, that religious people haven't thought about issues like the ones you bring up or that they are unresolvable issues requires, I imagine, a pretty intense intellectual pride.

You could be right. It's likely there are people who have answered these questions for themselves. It's hardly a religion-wide thing though, and the answers aren't going to be constant. Them being varied and personal sort of just adds to it all being nonsense for me, really. Bending things to justify yourself and make yourself feel comfortable is pretty common among religious people. And that's only going to be the case if they have searched for an answer to these questions. There are many religious people who are obviously quite happy to sit around and let a book write their moral code for them (do what God says or you're going to Hell!).

I really would like to hear their explanations, though. And that isn't a catty statement, just for the record. I don't want to hear it just so I can scoff at them and call out, "Haw! Idiots." With that, I'd like to hear Tsuno's answers to any of my questions, if possible. I'm aware it's possible that they're unanswerable (not because they're SO HARD HITTING but because I've made poor assumptions about faith) though, and I'm fine with no answer.

I've heard arguments where religious people completely misrepresent evolution because they have never even bothered to research it. I suspect from your arguments chewey, you also haven't read the bible or researched much Christian theology. You might have read some uncontextual stuff on the internet, likely on a page called something like "bible contradictions".

I haven't read the bible, but I'm not off-base as far as I know. I do have a basic understanding and I usually only make points that reflect what I know (which I admit has sometimes been a bit shady, woops). Regarding those "bible contradictions" websites, I actually only came across my first one yesterday by chance. Reading it reminded me that I posted in this thread and that I probably had to make a reply. What I do know mostly stems from arguments like these, or from digging around on the internet. I'd say I've learned a fair bit from the TV show The Atheist Experience too (mostly I just watch it for giggles, though). I've also learned quite a bit from Rasse since he's pretty knowledgeable about all this stuff.

You are making untrue assertions, and you will never be able to convince even a moderately religious person with those arguments because their own knowledge of and experience with their religion proves false the assumptions about their religion you are making to construct your arguments. It is as impossible to do so as a religious person who knows nothing about evolution to construct a counter-argument that makes any sense (and if they really knew anything about it, they probably wouldn't try).

I think I know what you're saying here. You mean I could never really make an argument against religion (well at least not the arguments I made) because I've never felt what religious people have felt? You could be right, I guess :x.

Or do you just mean I lack an understanding of the bible?

As just one example, I don't understand your "unchanging god changes" argument at all. For one, I don't think the God of the Old Testament you are representing as "a huge arsehole" is particularly accurate.

Well, I didn't really say anything false so much as I just put what he did in a different light. He was a huge arsehole (at least by the description in the bible - never met him personally), and I still believe he is. Well, he is at the very least an egotistical God. In fact, I think even the Bible states he's egotistical (or perhaps just that he's a jealous God). He is by no means infallible (the Bible never states him to be so), so he seems very capable of changing (the Bible states he is unchanging). Over the course of the Bible he learns many lessons and even swears to himself that he'll never make the same mistakes again. I'd say learning from your mistakes is synonymous with changing. However, even though he may not be as tyrannical as he once was, his ridiculous rules and what constitutes as a sin still stands.

In the end, it either boils down to God being kind of a dick or the "sins" (and religion) being entirely fabricated by men who weren't very bright. The latter seems like the likely answer to me and, if that's the case, that explains why their portrayal of God is the way it is - because they were dicks.

Keep in mind that is still the God that Jewish people believe in, and I imagine any Jew would take offense to such a characterization.

They might, but that doesn't really bother me. I take offense to routine circumcision so I guess we're even.

But even if He is as you describe, I don't see why there is a necessary contradiction in the God of the New Testament. As far as I know, the belief is that it is humanity's relationship with God that has changed. I treat my three year old neice differently than I did when she was six months old. I will treat her differently when she is eight, and I will continue to relate with her differently as she grows. It doesn't mean I'm changing. A more concrete example is that I won't allow her to use a sharp knife right now. When she is older, I will. It's not because I've changed my opinions on the dangers of sharp knives, or changed in any other relevant way, it's that she's changed and the way I relate with her as changed. A less extreme example is simply in everyday relationships. A person might be a friend today and a romantic other tomorrow and an enemy the next - I would treat him/her differently, but it's not as if either of us have changed necessarily. Thus, the assertion that God treats humanity differently in the New Testament does not necessarily suggest that God has changed. That doesn't strike me as a strong argument on your part.

You're saying the human race, as a single entity, has evolved and matured? Maybe. We're certainly a lot brighter on average, at least. Perhaps the reason our 'relationship with God' (as it is written) has changed is because an increase in understanding of the world has left us far less... scared. So yeah, you could be right. It could be our relationship with God that has changed, and not God himself. To me, it doesn't seem important which it is. Either change stems entirely from a change (for the better) in perspective, in my opinion. Perhaps, then, there'll be a day when Christianity reduces to simply believing in God - with the sins being replaced by "be good and don't hurt others." I'd like that.

So, I mean, feel free to continue to argue your points, but I don't think it's possible to persuade someone away from something without an actual understanding of their beliefs and not an "other atheists told me this is what they believe" understanding.

Man, regarding the "other atheists telling me what to believe thing" ... well, I dunno. With Atheism, it's not like you believe in anything more than that there's no God. What I learn from other Atheists is mostly just interesting facts that make organised religion seem more and more ridiculous, or messy. I don't think I'm really told what to believe, but there's probably some things I say that are regurgitated from other Atheists. Far better than those who spout, "I believe in God and there's nothing you can do about it so suck it, Atheists! Nyah nyah nyah!" in my opinion.

I don't know, I imagine I am making some incorrect assumptions about you as well, and if I have I apologize.

You made some interesting points  .

Sorry for all the bits and pieces in brackets but it is a bad habit I've worked myself into while arguing ._.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

Firerain, did you even read the conversation? or understand what I said? I used what's called a syllogism... look it up. Unless you want to argue that a system of logical that's been used for 100's of years is illogical, then go ahead.
If you want to make yourself look smarter then maybe you should have actually said something instead of just simply quoting something you obviously didn't understand the context behind.

(Sorry, I'm exhausted still and that irritated me :/ )


@MA - you raise good points... (as chewey said) That's exactly why if I don't understand something I won't try to debate it lol. If I don't know, I'll say that (like with the anal sex bit. I really just don't know.. haven't done the research)

@chewey - I'm going to address only two things right now if you'll forgive me for being lazy lol.

So you agree that your opinion (and the opinion of your religion and any other religion) of what God cares about isn't necessarily fact. How can it be fact, really?

No. I understand that what I said was probably unclear, so let me rephrase. Just because somebody claims something about God or about some core Biblical truth regarding sin (in this particular case) and cannot back it up with scripture, then it is a false teaching. Keep in mind that this is from the perspective of a Christian (myself) and assumes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the original inspired work of God.

This brings me to my second point.

I can't for the life of me find what I wanted to quote, but hopefully you'll know what I'm talking about lol.

You said that the fact that many Christians can't agree on what Christianity teaches means that Christianity is ridiculous. Well, the problem with that assertion, is that it assumes that theology is simple. No, that's not what I want to say... uh, metaphor time! lol  Theology is a swimming pool. Just like there are shallow sections of a pool and deep sections of the pool, there are easier pieces of theology and difficult pieces of theology. To understand some of the deeper bits of theology one needs to know how to swim (you follow?). Some things that appear to be easy may actually require a deeper knowledge of theology than many people assume. The reason many people can't agree on what the Bible says, is because the deepest they ever go into their Bible is what's preached from the pulpit (usually salvation, and don't sin type messages). Many Christians just don't actually know what the Bible says... and it's sad. It breaks my heart when someone goes out unprepared and tries to argue theology.

No. I understand that what I said was probably unclear, so let me rephrase. Just because somebody claims something about God or about some core Biblical truth regarding sin (in this particular case) and cannot back it up with scripture, then it is a false teaching. Keep in mind that this is from the perspective of a Christian (myself) and assumes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the original inspired work of God.

I understand that. I was mostly just making a point of how it's impossible to know if the Bible is the word of God. It is possible to see it change from generation to generation and from translation to translation though. There are contradictions and logical fallacies in this group of stories (which you can find on one of those 'bible contradictions' websites). However, I am aware there are those who simply take what is written in the Bible as stories with a message about life, rather than take it all literally.

I was reading earlier that pretty much any time a woman is pregnant in the Bible, she is pregnant with a boy. Every time God gets involved and makes the ladies pregnant himself, they are boys. The Bible is very sexist, having a strong preference for men (like Rasse). It's also fairly racist, but perhaps not as much as it once was. Obviously, sexism and racism were fairly prevalent in people for a long time. This, to me, highlights the fact the Bible came from man - not God. I don't really think it was God's intention to create a master sex/race, with the rest being servants and slaves.

I also really doubt a god would impose a ceremony as silly as religion on people. What would an "eternal bond" between people mean to a god? I'm just whinging now, though.

You said that the fact that many Christians can't agree on what Christianity teaches means that Christianity is ridiculous.

Did I say that? If I did, I really didn't mean to. What I meant was that it's really not crystal clear what's accepted by Christians since there are so many denominations.

Well, I'll only respond to a few of those points, so if I miss any you were particularly keen on me addressing, then I will return to them; if it's not here it might be that I agree with them though, or otherwise it was just a point I didn't want to explore for this. First, I should mention that:

I really would like to hear their explanations, though. And that isn't a catty statement, just for the record. I don't want to hear it just so I can scoff at them and call out, "Haw! Idiots." With that, I'd like to hear Tsuno's answers to any of my questions, if possible. I'm aware it's possible that they're unanswerable (not because they're SO HARD HITTING but because I've made poor assumptions about faith) though, and I'm fine with no answer.

is quite a bit better than most people involved in these debates, so I commend you. And @Tsuno - I also don't think that what I've said about "religious people" applies strictly to you. I think both of you are very smart people and I don't mean to demean you with my frustration with religious debate in general. And Skanker is right, these debates are a good place to learn things, if nothing else.

But, in any case, I feel like I should explain this a little more:

I think I know what you're saying here. You mean I could never really make an argument against religion (well at least not the arguments I made) because I've never felt what religious people have felt? You could be right, I guess :x.

Or do you just mean I lack an understanding of the bible?

Partly, it's the "felt" thing, but it's partly that people make arguments based on what they see as a social norm, and part of what religion does is it exists as an alternative to the social norm and the state; to believe in a religion is subversive as it essentially strips the state of its ultimate power over you. I mean, that may not be as much the case in America, where the norms at least are partially based on Christian values, but it still is the case. I mean, for instance, the highest priority in our society may be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but Christianity more or less explicitly rejects that in its very foundation. They believe in a God that is all-powerful, and yet presented himself to the world as a baby - completely powerless and dependent on human love. He came at a time when the Jewish people were completely oppressed by the Romans - their life, their autonomy being utterly suppressed, and yet the God who could easily smite all their enemies instead allowed himself to be sacrificed and killed by the hatred of others. Christianity is based on an inverted notion of power - God's power is in love, mercy, submission, rather than domination over others. It's essentially a belief that you change the world through transforming your enemies, not through eliminating them; rather, that the world can only change through love. So, when people use arguments such as the wars Christianity has caused, then any Christian will be sure to ignore you because they recognize that those actions were contrary to the central tenants of their faith, and therefore were a case of Christianity being invoked while being ignored - that the interests in those wars were primarily secular in any case, and where they weren't, it was an abuse of their religion, not an extension of it. Ultimately, to use historical atrocities in an argument will always be ineffective because you're countering values that they don't actually hold and that they know they don't hold and that they know their religion doesn't teach.

So, the primary values of society are not necessarily important to Christians. And some things that principles that don't apply to our culture at all (or very little) are important to Christians. So, when you say you don't see the harm of casual sex, for instance, it is based on the value of personal autonomy. We can ask, "where's the harm?" and answer that, where there is consent, there is no harm. However, Christians would approach the same question with human dignity (of the soul) prioritized over autonomy. For the Christian, the harm is in people being treated like objects, not as a person but as a body with conveniently sized holes or other relevant genitalia. In casual sex, or in prostitution for instance; even where there is mutual consent, there is an affront to human dignity in being treated as an object, even where both parties treat the other as an object and do so consensually. [EDIT for clarification: You can make an excellent argument for why casual sex isn't harmful based on an autonomy perspective, but it will never persuade a Christian because it doesn't address the reason(s) he/she believes it is harmful. To convince a Christian that casual sex is OK, you would have to argue that it doesn't offend human dignity, because it is on those grounds that he/she opposes it. You would probably have to make an argument on grounds of purity too, but I won't go into that here.]

So, that's partially what I mean - people approach debates like these with a completely different set of priorities, because the values of society are sometimes contrary with the values of a religious person. To bring up arguments premised on values that are not shared by Christians is in some ways a waste of breath, because even if it's a correct argument, they may have a higher value that contradicts it - in order to be successful with an argument, you have to argue against it on the value that they hold highest, and there isn't usually an accord between what an atheist prioritizes and what a Christian prioritizes.

And so, it is the values, less so than the feelings, that you would need to address. And those values often run contrary to what we expect or are used to, so, in arguing against a religious person it is important to study their theologies if only so that we can know what they prioritize, and what they actually believe, rather than what we perceive them to believe.

However, I'm fine with personal beliefs (I don't mean the personal beliefs of a Christian - they're still Christian) and spirituality. Finding an answer or comfort in those is fine, since it carries none of the ridiculous rules of organised religions formed thousands of years ago.

As for this, well, I think it's a moot point. Part of what comforts people about religion is being in unity with others (part of the body of Christ, for instance) - most people generally don't find much comfort in isolation, so personal beliefs would not be an adequate replacement for religion for most people. Unity is a primary tenant in a lot of religions - one of the seven sacraments is, for instance, communion. As for rules, even in Christianity I don't think they're as strict as you think. While they do condemn sinful behaviour, there is a constant possibility of redemption. Part of what the coming of Jesus did, at least by the Catholic Church's theology (and not speaking for any other Christian denominations), was shift the burden of sin from the action and onto the intention. So, even though a general tenant is "thou shalt not kill", an accidental killing would not be a sin. And even what sins there are are forgivable at any time really. And there are a lot of misconceptions about what Christian churches teach in general. For instance, you mention circumcision, but while that is common in America I don't think the impetus is primarily religious. While I could be wrong about this history, it was primarily promoted by medical professionals in America and what's left is mostly a holdover from that. Even the apostles, in one of the first councils of the church, declared that it as not necessary for Gentiles converting to the Christianity to be circumcised. And some delightfully fire and brimstone words from Pope Eugene IV reinforced that in 1442:

   [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Source for that quotation: http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html

Partly, it's the "felt" thing, but it's partly that people make arguments based on what they see as a social norm, and part of what religion does is it exists as an alternative to the social norm and the state; to believe in a religion is subversive as it essentially strips the state of its ultimate power over you. I mean, that may not be as much the case in America, where the norms at least are partially based on Christian values, but it still is the case. I mean, for instance, the highest priority in our society may be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but Christianity more or less explicitly rejects that in its very foundation. They believe in a God that is all-powerful, and yet presented himself to the world as a baby - completely powerless and dependent on human love. He came at a time when the Jewish people were completely oppressed by the Romans - their life, their autonomy being utterly suppressed, and yet the God who could easily smite all their enemies instead allowed himself to be sacrificed and killed by the hatred of others. Christianity is based on an inverted notion of power - God's power is in love, mercy, submission, rather than domination over others. It's essentially a belief that you change the world through transforming your enemies, not through eliminating them; rather, that the world can only change through love. So, when people use arguments such as the wars Christianity has caused, then any Christian will be sure to ignore you because they recognize that those actions were contrary to the central tenants of their faith, and therefore were a case of Christianity being invoked while being ignored - that the interests in those wars were primarily secular in any case, and where they weren't, it was an abuse of their religion, not an extension of it. Ultimately, to use historical atrocities in an argument will always be ineffective because you're countering values that they don't actually hold and that they know they don't hold and that they know their religion doesn't teach.

So, the primary values of society are not necessarily important to Christians. And some things that principles that don't apply to our culture at all (or very little) are important to Christians. So, when you say you don't see the harm of casual sex, for instance, it is based on the value of personal autonomy. We can ask, "where's the harm?" and answer that, where there is consent, there is no harm. However, Christians would approach the same question with human dignity (of the soul) prioritized over autonomy. For the Christian, the harm is in people being treated like objects, not as a person but as a body with conveniently sized holes or other relevant genitalia. In casual sex, or in prostitution for instance; even where there is mutual consent, there is an affront to human dignity in being treated as an object, even where both parties treat the other as an object and do so consensually. [EDIT for clarification: You can make an excellent argument for why casual sex isn't harmful based on an autonomy perspective, but it will never persuade a Christian because it doesn't address the reason(s) he/she believes it is harmful. To convince a Christian that casual sex is OK, you would have to argue that it doesn't offend human dignity, because it is on those grounds that he/she opposes it. You would probably have to make an argument on grounds of purity too, but I won't go into that here.]

So, that's partially what I mean - people approach debates like these with a completely different set of priorities, because the values of society are sometimes contrary with the values of a religious person. To bring up arguments premised on values that are not shared by Christians is in some ways a waste of breath, because even if it's a correct argument, they may have a higher value that contradicts it - in order to be successful with an argument, you have to argue against it on the value that they hold highest, and there isn't usually an accord between what an atheist prioritizes and what a Christian prioritizes.

And so, it is the values, less so than the feelings, that you would need to address. And those values often run contrary to what we expect or are used to, so, in arguing against a religious person it is important to study their theologies if only so that we can know what they prioritize, and what they actually believe, rather than what we perceive them to believe.

Oh, that makes sense. I think that might be why I tend to make arguments like these, though. It just seems weird to me that people would allow what they think is right and wrong to be dictated by the Bible. Of course, this wouldn't seem weird to a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, so now we're trapped in a circle.

As for this, well, I think it's a moot point. Part of what comforts people about religion is being in unity with others (part of the body of Christ, for instance) - most people generally don't find much comfort in isolation, so personal beliefs would not be an adequate replacement for religion for most people. Unity is a primary tenant in a lot of religions - one of the seven sacraments is, for instance, communion. As for rules, even in Christianity I don't think they're as strict as you think. While they do condemn sinful behaviour, there is a constant possibility of redemption. Part of what the coming of Jesus did, at least by the Catholic Church's theology (and not speaking for any other Christian denominations), was shift the burden of sin from the action and onto the intention. So, even though a general tenant is "thou shalt not kill", an accidental killing would not be a sin. And even what sins there are are forgivable at any time really.

For me, the problem is having to ask for forgiveness in the first place really. I'm only talking about the sins that don't hurt people, by the way. It makes sense to me for a person to feel remorse for killing somebody (accidentally or intentionally) and looking to God for forgiveness - to cope with what they did. But obviously, I'm not going to think homosexuality is (or should be) a sin, whereas a Christian who believes in the Bible is going to. And here we are again at the values thing. I guess I'm stubborn enough to think what I value is right. 

And there are a lot of misconceptions about what Christian churches teach in general. For instance, you mention circumcision, but while that is common in America I don't think the impetus is primarily religious. While I could be wrong about this history, it was primarily promoted by medical professionals in America and what's left is mostly a holdover from that. Even the apostles, in one of the first councils of the church, declared that it as not necessary for Gentiles converting to the Christianity to be circumcised. And some delightfully fire and brimstone words from Pope Eugene IV reinforced that in 1442:

Well, circumcision became common practice in the US when some folks wanted to put a stop to young boys masturbating. I know people say this was completely non-religious, but to me it seems the people who brought it into practice had the values of/was influenced by some religion. They must have, if they figured masturbation was self-abuse and wrong. It is completely non-religious now (well, not if you're Jewish). Instead, routine circumcision exists because it has become the norm - which is awful, in my opinion.

Anyway, my point with the circumcision thing wasn't to say modern day Christians commonly practice it. My point was, there was a time when the God they believed in enforced this sort of thing. He even threatened to kill people who weren't circumcised (although I think they just weren't allowed inside a church if they weren't circumcised... not sure) I'm not going to say God has changed since I'm not really sure he has anymore. Would a change in relationship suddenly have God thinking foreskins were perfectly fine? I don't know! It just seems rather... made up, to me. To even have that rule in the beginning seems silly to me. And that's how I feel about same-sex relationships and any other 'sin' which does not actually harm anybody. I'm fine with calling murder a sin, since I mostly associate sin with something that's pretty bad.

   [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

That's pretty interesting. Christian circumcision spells a loss of eternal salvation? lol ._.

This is the first time I've actually seen it said that the Old Testament should be pretty much ignored, actually.