[quote=Ichthys]I see a lot of biblical referencing in this debate with people recounting stories/events in the Bible to prove if something is right or wrong. This leads to the following questions: If something is mentioned in the BIble, does that directly mean it is acceptable or unacceptable, considering some of these stories/events never actually comment on whether the act was good/bad? In other words, is it merely a historical event and just that or is it an example of what is/isn't allowable? Also something to consider is who committed the acts in each situation: was the person who did such things, like rape, supposed to be someone good or bad? To put it in biblical terms, does that fact that either a "saved" or "unsaved" person committed the act change anything?[/quote]

This point depends on the assumption that the bible is a historically accurate piece of literature. It is not. There may be certain parts of it which are historically accurate, but the vast majority of it is most certainly and indisputable [u]not[/u] from an archeological account. Examples are too numerous to count casually, but major points like the great flood failing to be recorded by the rest of the world, other empires continuing on unabated during said flood, the lack of evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah ever [i]existed[/i] to begin with, the lack of mention of Jewish slaves in Egypt or their subsequent escape, plagues, deaths of first born children, etc, in Egyptian history...

Basically the bible is, at best, fantasy fiction. At worst, a perfect example of how history is written by the victors. (Note a lot of black and white conflicts, one side is deliberately evil, the other righteous and good.)

Not to mention the bible does have god supporting some pretty heinous characters. Samson is given super strength, but his only quality was to murder people for the slightest provocations. So the bible is not a good book from which to derive morality, unless you cherry pick, [i]which is what everyone who isn't completely insane does[/i].

I mentioned to Gwazi that pulling quotes from the bible is pointless because you can use the book to support any argument from any perspective. When I was younger and more passionate an arguer I even used it to support the idea that the bible is a book that glorifies violence and rape, and I ended up having to limit myself to just ten quotations [i]because holy shit there is a lot of violence and rape perpetrated by the characters supported by god, sent by god, or even by god himself[/i]. It's a very violent book. If it was a movie it would be rated R for restricted and would probably be banned in most of the civilized world. :p

[quote=Ichthys]I see that the statement that If someone acts a certain way, then it must mean that they thought it first. Therefore, thinking and doing are the same thing. ~~~ That said, does thinking one thing really equate to enacting that behavior? If someone has the thought of killing someone but never acts on it, are they still a murderer? What is murder without an actual, well, murder?[/quote]

No. Drawing that conclusion is insane. Why did you even ask, this is merely an inflammatory remark gazed up to ask for trouble. What kind of debate school did you attend, ACME?

Thinking is the process by which human thought is formed.

Action is a perpetrated act in the world. 

There are two kinds of human actions: Voluntary and involuntary. A voluntary action is one committed by a person who has put the thought to it first. For instance: If I am hungry, I can perpetrate a series of actions to create sustenance. I can then perpetrate the series of actions necessary to consume that food. An involuntary action is subconscious and goes on independent of whether you are thinking about it or not, such as flinching away from a sudden movement, instinctively putting your arms up in front of a cougar who has you pinned to stop it from attacking more vital points on your body, breathing, your heart beat, etc.

I just thought I would explain this to you, as you obviously and plainly do not understand what an action or a thought is, and how they are separate, distinct things. A person can have a thought without acting upon it (often referred to as inner monologue, imagination, daydreaming, etc) and a person can act without having formed the thought to do so first. This is very basic human psychology that you must blatantly not understand to ask this question, even jokingly or from a point of Devil's Advocacy, and I hope you learn it soon, because it's a [i]basic life skill[/i].

[quote=Ichthys]Not to mention, some Psychologists have theorized that personality can actually be changed under the right circumstances (source: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-18/henry-kellerman-personality-how-it-forms; I suggest listening to the whole podcast), so if this theory is true, then is sexual orientation, if taken as a facet of personality, a valid argument against what a person is vs what they do? Does someone's mere actions dictate who they are as a whole, is it their thoughts only, is it both thought and behavior or is there more involved, especially if personality (which is defined as the pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving by the APA) can, in fact, be changed? To put it another way, if personality can change and sexual orientation is a part of personality, can the orientation be changed or not? Is it ultimately a choice? And if it is a choice, is that enough to say[/quote]

The point of offering a quotation or piece of evidence is to summarize the point it's making, not ask the audience to then listen to the entire thing you just linked to support the argument you're making in a more condensed form. You shouldn't have to ask them to do that, it's childish. :hehe

You're prefacing this question based on an assumption that blatantly isn't true: That sexual orientation is a personality trait is simply and irrevocable false. Sexual orientation is a biological function wired in at birth. Every piece of scientific, biological evidence we have on the subject supports this. It's the foundation for modern theory. A single podcast on the Internet (which wouldn't rate highly as a source in a university level essay by the way) wouldn't be able to even chip a tiny piece out of that mountain of data.

Simply: To tell a homosexual to stop being homosexual is in the same vein of futility and bigotry that telling a black person to stop being black or a woman to stop being a woman is. To support this kind of thinking is disgraceful.

Now please stop prefacing questions on untrue assumptions so I can actually try answering one without laughing at how preposterous it is.

[quote=Ichthys]On the topic of biblical theology and all that: First off, I notice most scriptural references are from the Old Testament, but wasn't some of the Old Testament, in terms of some of the rules in it, made null because of Jesus Christ? If this is true, what parts of it are still applicable and which ones are void?[/quote]

That's the entire field of theology in a nutshell, and depending on your denomination of Christianity it can mean anything. Seriously there are hundreds of denominations that all disagree on at least one point from each other, but that doesn't stop some hatemongering bigots from using certain scripture in the bible to dehumanize various groups of people around the world. Now this doesn't mean the bible is evil: It means the people who are scapegoating it for their hatred are evil. That's all.

[quote=Ichthys]As there are many Judeo-Christian denominations, doesn't the fact that there are so many different beliefs under the same religion make the religion unreliable? What makes one different from another? Is it the same God? The same religion? And related to this topic, what is the point of using different translations? If the BIble is supposed to be eternal and "God's word", then does believing in solely one translation prove that the previous claim is false? What makes on translation correct and not another? Are they all correct?[/quote]

This is actually multiple questions at once so I'll answer from the Atheistic perspective and leave any other answers to those of their own beliefs.

Q1: Yes. Duh.
Q2: Stupid disagreements on whether something is literal or metaphorical and how important or unimportant it is. Sometimes there are disagreements about things [i]that aren't even in the fucking book[/i]. It's like an even nerdier version of the Star Trek fan base debating whether Voyager really should be considered part of the overall canon or not.
Q3: Yes. Even a cursory glance should tell you that.
Q4: Yes. They're all Christian. If they weren't, they would be self-classified as a new religion, such as Islam, which came out of Christianity. This is also common sense.
Q5: Because different translations can say different things about certain passages, and because arguments of validity between various editions and so on and so forth. Basically nerds debating which version of Microsoft Flight Simulator is the best version.
Q6: This is illogical nonsense, it proves nothing more than that person A believes MS Flight Simulator VII is superior to VIII. That doesn't then somehow mean that the entire thing is absolutely true, to them it is, but they might take certain passages metaphorically or believe that God had certain passages written to fit the needs of the time period and that they don't count anymore, and etc. I'm serious you really need to work on how you draw conclusions, they're terrible.
Q7: Personal opinion.
Q8: Depends on the definition of correct. I'm sure the ones who think their version is the best version think it's the correct one to use.

[quote=Ichthys]Since, according to the fundamental principles of evolution, the primary goal of any living species is to pass on the best genes for survival and reproduce (survival of the fittest and all that), and since Homosexuality is, in essence, a "mutation" (if it even is a mutation) that works against survival of the fittest, is that enough ground to discriminate against them from a strictly scientific perspective? What about from a moral one? In other words, can the argument be made that if Homosexuality is not compliant to evolution, it a deterrent to the advancement of the human race?[/quote]

There is no goal. You don't get it, so I'll explain it to you.

[b]The only purpose of life is to be[/b]. Evolution does not have a goal. It's a process by which natural changes occur within a species, and gradually over time these changes stack up to cause the species to become a new species. The mutations are truly and damnable random: The ones that are beneficial tend to replicate themselves better and thus stay while the ones that are detrimental tend to replicate themselves less and die off.

Homosexuality is a mutation, yes. [b]Because reproduction itself was a mutation[/b]. Asexual reproduction of cells was how it started. We didn't do the whole male-female thing until several hundred/thousand versions later, I believe in the multicellular era is when it started being a thing... Hang on, let me do five minutes of reference material here... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction]Lets see[/url]...

[quote=Wikipedia]In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49][/quote] 

*Click, click*

[url=http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract]Oh look, a scientific source![/url] That wasn't hard.

Speaking from a strictly scientific perspective, sex is a horrible inefficient manner in which to propagate genes. Genetic manipulation and Eugenics would be the way to go if we were speaking from a strictly immoral standpoint, sexuality be damned, it would be entirely irrelevant to the equation of creating healthier, more efficient bodies to do tasks.

From a moral standpoint it's dependent on your set of morals. If we're speaking from the typical western standpoint on morality, which is individualist in nature and believes in the inherent value of a person, then it's incredible immoral to bar homosexuals from doing what it is they wish with each other and themselves, to direct the course of their own lives. For biblical times it made some sense. Nowadays it makes no sense. :p

No. It is not in any way, shape, or form, a deterrent to the human race for two very, brutally simple reasons.

[b]#1:[/b] There are hundreds of species on the planet that exhibit homosexual behaviour, that range from thriving and successful populations to rare and struggling populations. In other words, homosexuality is not only common, but has little to no bearing on the successful survival of a species. Reproduction cycles, how long children are vulnerable and infantile, how much energy is expended in the process, etc, are far more prevalent factors to consider, as are natural predators and food sources, vulnerability to diseases, life span, virulence of the species' climate adaption, etc.

[b]#2:[/b] Humanity has evolved past natural evolution. We use medicine and societal developments to do such things, we're literally right around the corner on a GATTACA-type future. For the first time in Earth's history a species has the potential capacity to chart its own biological, evolutionary course.

Period.

Seriously our technological progress is vastly superior in speed to that of evolution's progress. :p