There is Nothing Inherently Wrong with Being Gay

So this squarely rebuts her earlier claim in round 2, that "the only reason we have to believe most of these events occurred are because it says so in the Bible which was compiled HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS supposedly occurred. There is no conclusive evidence that the apostles even wrote the books of the Bible." We can trust the Gospels because they were written by contemporaries of the events who were in a position to know what had happened."- You have still not proved that there is conclusive evidence that they wrote them, just that they lived during the approximate time that the gospels were written. I did claim that the books of the Bible were COMPILED AND EDITED many years later which is true. This occurred at the Counsel of Nicea. Even so you have not address the fact that translations and editing may have greatly distorted the original messages of the Bible. Also, the Bible was clearly written by men and one can only have "faith" that those men who wrote, edited, and compiled the Bible were truly inspired by God and hardly ever sinned. I for one do not trust in faith so I see no reason to view the views expressed in the Bible as inherent truths. I would like to see some more sources stating from when exactly we have these manuscripts from. The essay you cited was clearly poorly written with bad grammar and spelling which alone makes me question its accuracy. I actually sourced what you asked me to source in the last round. One bad source is hardly enough to prove your point. "Pro maintains that we can't prove the apostles wrote the Gospels, yet, we have more unanimous testimony for the authorship of the Gospels than we have for other ancient historians such as Tacitus; so I guess her library must be pretty small."- Nononono. I read your citation and it only proves that we have MANUSCRIPTS of the New Testament. Even if everyone agreed that the apostles wrote them, that means nothing. How would those people know that some one else did not write the gospels and pretend to be the apostles? We have no witnesses, just written records of a document. "But Bible authors were exceptionally honest, even recording things somewhat embarrassing, such as Jesus not even knowing the time of his own return, and the apostles' sins. (Mark 13:32; Matt 26:31-35, 56, 69-75) When making up myths, people don't usually put in stuff that makes themselves or the hero of the story look bad. These writers did their best to report the facts. A church teaching that Jesus is God would not conjure up a story where he doesn't know the day and hour. Just because its Christian history the Gospels record doesn't mean its not recording history." This really proves nothing. Obviously what they wrote made you believe it and so if they used trickery it worked. People aren't going to stop believing that Jesus is the savior because he doesn't know the date and time. It works to their advantage by making him seem more human. Same goes for the apostles sinning. It makes them seem more human. Less people would believe that the apostles were completely sinless. That also makes for an uninspiring story whereas one about overcoming sin is a much better motivation. We have no good reason to think that apostles were honest even if they wrote the gospels. As for all historical writings being biased: THAT IS MY POINT. Yet we admit that Alexander the Great made some stuff up but of course the apostles didn't!(sarcasm) "The problem is that no story of a non-miraculous Jesus has ever been discovered. The earliest references we have for Jesus present him as a miracle-worker."- So what? The earliest recordings of King Arthur portray him as someone who is completely different from the people who lived at the time he was supposed to have lived. Most historians still agree that those were embellishments. "Now if Pro is going to say that a miracle could not have happened, she needs to give good reason for this. You can only say miracles can't happen if you know for sure that God does not exist. So unless she gives us some positive argument why we shouldn't think he exists, she can't rationally affirm that the miracles in the gospels could not have happened."- This is a fallacy. First of all I cannot prove that God doesn't exist because one cannot prove a negative. I can rationally assume the probability of something' s existence or of it happening. I will not go into a God's existence argument because that is a long argument and this one has already degraded into a biblical accuracy argument. But, I can rationally assume that the miracles did not happen seeing as modern science can find no possible way for those things to have happened the way they are recorded. The defy the known laws of the universe. "In fact, the gospels are not unique in this regard, for many historical works record miracles, such as when Josephus says the waters of the Pamphylian sea parted for Alexander the Great to cross. This is recorded by four other historians, one of whom was with Alexander at the time and an eyewitness to the events. http://www.godrules.net...;- And do not historians rule these to be embellishments? Also your source is clearly biased. "Couldn't be hallucination because they were too many witnesses and it lasted too long, over 40 days; and if they were making up lies, why invent such a difficult faith to follow? They were persecuted for this faith, yet not one ever revealed it was their lie. Many have died for what they believed to be true, but none have died for what they knew to be wrong. The list of evidences against the hallucination and conspiracy theory are found in "EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, A Challenge for Skeptics," by Peter Kreeft http://www.freerepublic.com...;- First of all, do we actually know how many witnesses there were or is it just recorded in the gospels that there were witnesses? It could have started as a rumor that one person saw him and others joined the bandwagon. Also all of the arguments against the myth and conspiracy theories hinge upon believing that the apostles were honest and true and good in character. The truth is that we have no idea what the men who wrote the gospels were really like. ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 19:22) This is what the Son of God trusted, but Pro says Leviticus 19:22 doesn't say this. Huh? Please tell us what it says, and how you know this?"- Because I can read the Bible. Look right here. See? http://bible.cc... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://lds.org... Isn't it funny when the atheist knows the Bible better than the christian? I don't need to prove that all the verses changed. The fact is that we really don't know how much changed or what changed. My sites only showed that we have good reason to think that they did. There are so many "genuine" contradictions in the sites I provided. I am not going to argue with you as to whether they are contradictions or not. Don't cop out and tell me that they aren't "genuine." I clearly said that those things are not INHERENTLY WRONG. There is a huge difference. Don't twist my words. "So if one's body tells him to go butcher her six-year-old son with an axe that won't be unnatural? A parent isn't supposed to have natural affection for her child? It goes to show, when you take God out the picture, it all falls apart - anything goes. Nothing is truly wrong without God's character as the standard."- First of all is not born with the urge to murder his son with an axe. Without God there nothing can be truly wrong. We can still think and act as if they are wrong for the sake of society(as I do) but that doesn't mean that they are. The slippery slope argument is very faulty. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... http://www.garlikov.com... You know anal sex is common within heterosexual couples right lol?