his post simply denied Christ and exchanged Christianity for a lie, just like the scripture predicted:
2Pet 2:1 "They will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them"
Rom 1:25 "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done...32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them"
---
For those who are theists the burden of proof must be on them. Particularly for Christians.
As it has already been explained to you in the past: Romans ch 1 is directed at the church and is regarding mutually consenting same-sex sex among those who have been made aware of the word of God. It has nothing to do with pagans who have never heard the gospel.
The proof for you is in your own words, which have fulfilled scripture. In fact, you even took the trouble to expound upon the creature’s right to remain independent from it’s Creator.
This is an example of what I find least attractive about jmfcst when he speaks about religion: his apparent monomania that anyone who rejects the divinity of Christ, chooses to do so because of a desire to engage in immoral behavior. Leaving aside the question of whether the behavior he chose to bring up is immoral (something I don't expect aflietch or jmfcst to ever convince the other of their position on this particular subject), neither it nor any other immoral behavior (taking morality as covering only interpersonal interactions and not relations with the divine) was being mentioned in this thread until jmfcst chose to bring it up. The original post in this thread would not need to have a single jot or tittle changed in it if afleitch and jmfcst were in complete agreement over the code of conduct that humans should follow.
That said, I don't agree with afleitch's conclusion that a rejection of deistic supremacy is logically sufficient to support an embrace of atheism. I think both he and that street preacher he mentioned missed the point by focusing too much on God the King, and not enough on God the Father.
Without having to rely upon any scripture, one can make some basic inferences about the nature of a benevolent deity. Such a being would have considerably more experience than any human could possibly hope to have, experience he could use to fashion a code of conduct that it would be to our benefit to follow, and which if he is benevolent would desire to make known to humanity in a fashion that humanity can comprehend. Yet, just as sometimes a parent needs to tell his child "No" because the child is not capable of comprehending the reason why doing something is a really bad idea, it is not unreasonable that a benevolent deity might have to at times resort to such a method.
