KFC

Exactly. When it comes to human sexuality, homosexuality is unnatural and against the natural law.

Human nature is both rational and social. We cannot live except by mutual protection and support of other human beings. When God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, He provided him with a woman, (note: not another man which is the first indication of the definition of natural when it comes to human sexuality).

The first and most natural of all human associations begins with a man and a woman, the family. All friendship, all society, all of human existence arises from the physical difference of male and female human beings. From this physical difference arises the ground and purpose of human life, becasue it is the ground and purpose of nature.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the root of all human relationships, and the root of all morality, is nature, which is itself grounded in the generative distinction of male and female, different but complimentary. The distinction between a man and a woman is fundamental in nature. It's the ability of the differences yet complimentary natures of the man and the woman to generate a third.

Is rape natural? Is incest natural? Is sodomy natural? No to all.....but why? Becasue they are against the natural and good order  of the family as described above. 

Yes, of course, because there was no crime, incest of anything else before darwin etc.  It also doesn't matter what affect you think it has on society, all living things are classified as one of five things.  We are in the animal section.

The affect it has on society has no impact on the truth of it.  Even if darwins ideas led to hitler et al it would not alter the (likely) truth of darwins ideas. 

Also lots of non-human animals have rule of society, google vampire bats for a classic example.  It is far from the strongest wins, in the community a bat will give up its food if another one is starving unless that bat has a track record of not doing the same.  What is that if it is not a good way of running a community?  Not all wild animals have no sence of helping others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification for a brief overview of classification, the current way pretty much started in the 1700's. 

Oh, and KFC, I understand your opposition to Lucas - calling him "contrary," "subjective," and other things, but I just read 7 pages of yours, his, and others' responses in a row.  I didn't find him to be any of those things.  What I saw was a guy asking questions, and whenever he asked one you couldn't answer, you got miffed.  That occurred several times.

In fact, I found many things, too many to cover in one response, very interesting.  Here's the one I bothered to copy for later pasting:

To answer the question, practical atheists know better than anyone on the planet that trying shut up those who believe in God is impossible.  We understand implicitly that if you have taken the shortcut to knowledge which you call "faith" that you are at once irrational.  It would therefore be unreasonable to expect you to behave rationally - from a logical standpoint. Therefore, I consider it proven that atheists are not trying or expecting those with irrational unproveable beliefs to shut up.  We really just want you to leave us alone.  Unfortunately, your beliefs make it impossible for you to do that.

Most religious folk (and even most on the fence folk) don't understand what an atheist is.  I've tried to explain before that "God haters" don't represent the average atheist anymore than Ernest Angley represents the average Christian.  "Practical" atheists are just people that say "I don't believe what I can't bear my own personal witness to."  Ironic that we more closely adhere to the badness of "bearing false witness" than anyone, don't ya think?

Wow.  For someone who wishes the Christians to leave him alone, you're pretty demanding.  Hint:  you're not proving your case very well. 

Answer:  The universe was created in six days and God rested.  To rest does not mean he took a nap because there is no indication that he did.  In fact it says the opposite in scripture that God never sleeps.  The fact that it said he rested only means that he was finished.  He finished his creation. 

How's that for short and sweet?  Does it meet your demand? 

What else would you expect writers of the Bible to say?

So God emits photons?  And I suppose souls have eyes to perceive them with?

Not sure what you mean by the RCC and Galileo story - I'm not an atheist template.

Regarding atheists shoving their values down YOUR throat via political means (which is what I think you are implying by double sided argument)  I'm pretty sure it's just a reaction.  But a reaction to what?  If you guessed centuries of religious control at the hands of people like you, you are correct!

Nice evasion on the day/night thing.  Fortunately, I take the bible literally.  It says "day" and it says "night."  It mentions the creation of the two spherical bodies (one which affects the day/night cycle, and one which has absolutely nothing to do with it) on the 4th day/night cycle.  So for those first three days/nights, did God just emit photons for 12 hours and then take a break for 12?  Funny it isn't mentioned.  Oh yeah...it's mentioned that God is the light, and gives the light, and no sun is required for there to be light because God is it instead - but it never mentions him blinking on and off like a firefly.  So fine - God was the light before the sun was invented.  What was the dark?

The circle of the earth....go outside.  Turn 360 degrees.  That's the "circle of the earth."  A two dimensional figure.

Furthermore, the Earth doesn't hang on nothing.  It hangs, if such an ignorant word should be reused, on the gravitational field generated by the mass of the sun.  From the perspective of an idiot on the surface, however, it certainly would appear to hang on nothing in exactly the same way that it appears to be flat.  The FACT is, it isn't flat, and it doesn't hang on nothing.  The sky isn't a curtain, either, and Hubble has shown that there isn't an "empty place" unless you're talking about the description given by a scientifically ignorant man (which is the simplest solution - Ockham's Razor applies).  But whatever.  I'm sure you've gone into your rationalization WAY before this sentence, so I'll just wait for more of it to spew forth.

Because the astromers of antiquity knew? 

The greeks thought the earth was round, the indians thought the world was round etc.

And don't forget that this is just the examples that we know for certain.  Given that it is possible to work out the shape and size of the world with just two sticks and a sunny day and the knowedge that the world is round has been discovered indipendatly several times it could easily have been far earlier.

Isaiah and Job wrote before the Greeks.  That was my whole point. 

Let me ask you this Basmas, for your consideration.......

Where did our pattern for a seven day week come from?  Every effect has an adequate cause, right? 

The week has no astronomical basis whatever.  Yet we order our lives in a seven day cycle. The common pattern is six normal working days with one off or change.  How did this system originate?  I mean we know the day is the duration of one rotation of the earth on its axis; the year is the duration of one orbital revolution of the earth about the sun, the month is the approximate interval between new moons as the moon orbits the earth; the seasons are marked by the equinoxes and solstices.  But where does our pattern for the week come from? 

From a Christian POV we have the pattern set for us right from creation but how does a non believer answer this? 

well I wouldn't go so far as say the bible even being a Christian. I mean it's there but the pattern was there first and then recorded.  It was a pattern that was set and has continued.  Why don't we have every 15th day or 19th day or something else off instead of the 7th?  The number 7 is not natural in any way or in any physical way.  It would be more natural to use the number 10 like in the number of man's toes and fingers.  Or maybe the number 12 as in the number of months in the year.  But no, there is almost a universal significance attached to the number 7 as a number speaking of completeness usually with religious overtones.  Why is 7 considered the number of completeness when it seems very unnatural to be so?

not according to astronomy that I know about so can you elaborate? 

where are you getting this information?

The 7 day week is simply the best estimate of time between the major moon phases. (New->Half->Full->Half->New) It is a quarter of a lunar month; some might consider it a lunar "season".

To say 10 would be more "natural" would be to suggest it would've been more "natural" for humanity to start with metric. To say 12 would be more "natural" ignores the fact that twelve is appropriate for dividing a year because it is almost the 13 lunar months, but lets each season be an equal length; it also ignores that the number of months has not always been 12 (often changing for political reasons). In what way would 12 or 10 be appropriate for dividing ann approximately 28 day lunar month? If the seven were biblically inspired, why then are the days of the week taken from the "heathen" norse mythology?

To that I'll add that God is outside of time, in a state of "timelessness", and that He created time and matter when He created the Universe as laid out in Genesis 1. In this regard, it must be remembered that the concept of a 7 days week comes only from Genesis. Days, months and years, can all be derived from considerations of astronomy, but not weeks.

The 7-day week has no basis outside of Old Testament Scripture! And the reason why is because God wanted to set the example for man. Read Exodus 20:11. In it, God commands His people Israel, to work for 6 consecutive, literal days and rest for one. That's why He took 6 days to create everything and "rested" on the 7th. Our week is patterned after this principle.