Runner <"You are right that incest leads to a higher probability of deforminity. That is why God forbid it after a few generations. You are the one that can't be serious. "

Is that right?

Where in the Bible does it say that God started his human race by using Adam and Eve's children to have kids with each other, but then 'after a few generations' he forbade incest?
What happened? Did God see the malformations in the children of siblings, and then change his mind?

Lol!

Surely your God knew all this prior to his 'creation' of Adam and Eve?
Nope, this rubbish is still far more unbelievable than evolution.

And thus any religious objections to Gay marriage, taken from a Bible who calls homosexuality an 'abomination', are just as silly.

I want to remind posters runner is not Representative of Christianity.
And too I make no claim followers of any creed are other than normal.
I ask this, am I committing a sin/crime/or anything bad by holding my view?
Can it be wrong to claim, an honestly held view.
*Religions are fables, that to judge others on the teachings of the dark ages should not control our laws governments sex life or anything else*

Superstitions, we westerners with so much ease charge others with, in saying their God is untrue.
Infects us, try to stop us asking questions that must be asked.

Dear Belly,

We westerners? Scepticism is not restricted to westerners. India and China have a long tradition of scepticism which may be older than that of the west. From an Indian website:

http://www.indianskeptic.com/

Reason it out, say freethinking techies

Rationalists of the world, unite, was the call of the day as young techies gathered to encourage the spirit of free thinking and scientific temper through information technologyat the two-day workshop of Bangalore Freethinkers and Karnataka Rationalists Association held at Vignan Bhavan, Banashankari.

Technologists and freethinkers, Pankaj Kulkarni, Anil Gulecha, and Varun John came up with proposals for social activism for the cause of freethinking.

They said that at a time when religious fervour and indoctrination were leading to dangerous consequences, such as terrorism, rationalists and freethinkers should go beyond the dialectical mode of rational thinking and get directly involved in social activities and humanitarian works for the sake of rational thinking and scientific enquiry.

They wanted the movement to take advantage of mass media and secular non-governmental organisations to spread the message that freethinking liberated them from the shackles of religious fanaticism and dogmas. The argument that the movement should leave the concept of god, and attack the priesthood and religious institutions to remove superstition and intellectual slavery were also raised.

David f yes I am aware of that,as you know my education was not the formal way but self taught.
What I want to say often is not quite what I say.
I wanted to tell of my very real difficulty in understanding how followers of any God, can so easily say, only theirs is true.
As an ex believer, I have much company there,I constantly research history of Gods all of them.
A fence? yes they gave rules to live within.
But control is far more evident.
I can not, fully say what I think.
But superstition is behind every one.
In no way different than a primitive medicine man.
Promises of health wealth every thing.
And without compliance ? the reverse.
I am unsure we need those fences or compulsions.
Maybe some do.
But if one,any of those Gods, did make us all, why did he/she let the others exist.
Why has every race built in the conviction it and its God/Gods is Superior?
One day man will write again a book of rules to live by ,for all of us.
But yes fables are no way to live.
I think we may just invent one God, for every one who needs it

I would have considerably more respect for the religious convictions of people whose opinions I might disagree with if they were couched in terms of "my God" and "my Christianity" et cetera.

Given the pluralist nature of our society – especially the fact we are not a theocracy – it requires compromises from all of us in how we agree to get along. Strongly held views for oneself are precisely that: for the individual who holds and presumably abides by them.

Out here in the shared world opinions have to be convincing before other people will adopt them as their own.

This is doubly difficult because it includes established as well as new ideas – be they political, economic, social or religious.

Isn't the forum of OLO evidence enough that people have difficulty in agreeing about 'facts' let alone opinions?

I'm still optimistic enough to believe that good, sound, valid ideas for social cooperation (I nearly said social intercourse but given the nature of this thread that may have been misinterpreted) will eventually, if too slowly, win out.

Dear WmTrevor,

I think most decent people, are hoping that eventually
reason will prevail and that we shall learn to live
in a tolerant society that is inclusive for one and
all.