You couldn’t be more off the mark.
The Christian sects that have embraced the Sexual Revoution are dying. The more conservative churches are also declining, but not nearly as rapidly.
Heh, depends on who you ask, for sure. 
Orthodox Jews view the prohibition on “sexual immorality” pretty much in line with their views on sexuality generally. So no male homosexuality, according to Maimonedes (lesbianism is okay).
However, some more modern interpretations look at this rule as forbidding, essentially, non-consentual sex or sex in inherent power-imbalances only.
To my mind, the interesting point is that they are all negative injunctions except for the requirement to establish a system of justice. That’s the only positive requirement.
That’s just word games. And inaccurate. One of the more common defenses I hear for religion is that there’s plenty of evidence for it, and I’d recognize it if I was as enlightened and perceptive as the believer making that claim; how is that not “massive conceit about their own intellectual resources”?
Really, njtt was just throwing out one of the standard insults directed at atheists, that we are “arrogant”. It has as much basis as the other common claim that we are all immoral.
Heck, Christians almost have to pick and choose. Peter says to keep the kosher laws, and Paul says you don’t have to. Christianity very, very widely ignores Peter here, even though his declarations are in the Bible.
Especially since the language in Leviticus describes the mixing of fabrics as “an abomination.” It isn’t just something God asks Jews to do in celebration of the covenant, like circumcision. No, it is an abomination to God if fibers are mixed in weaving. How is that changed by the adoption of a new covenant?
Actually, the language used in Leviticus is Hebrew—specifically, one of the Hebrew words translated “abomination.” So I would hesitate to base any argument on the modern English connotations of the word.
Like everyone else in this thread, my observations do not agree with yours. To give just one example, a great many of my ancestors and relatives were among the tens of millions of innocent people murdered by Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin were, of course, atheists. I have some difficulty wrapping my head around the notion that Lenin and Stalin were “selfless, giving, noble, honest, honorable”, or that the victims, many of whom were murdered precisely because they were religious, were “selfish, judgmental, vindictive, apathetic”.
But I guess we all have our own opinions.
ITR, you really should read the OP again. Not a single item in your response addresses anything I actually said.
Here’s what you wrote in your OP:
it’s always been my experience that the most moral–selfless, giving, noble, honest, honorable, insert your synonym of choice here–people I’ve known have been atheist or agnostic. While the most amoral–selfish, judgmental, vindictive, apathetic–are the ones who would identify religion as an important factor in their life.
Now I assume you know of Lenin and Stalin, as well as other charming atheist fellows such as Mao and Castro. It would take remarkable ignorance to not be aware of them. One might also mention religious believers such as Mahatma Gandhi, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and others. Were they selfish, judgmental, vindictive, and apathetic?
Even if we were to restrict the debate only to people we’ve actually met, my observations would completely fail to match yours. I’ve met many atheists who were not selfless, giving, noble honest, or honorable. I’ve also met many religious believers who were not selfish, judgmental, vindictive, and apathetic. Consequently I believe that every word of your OP is completely untrue.
Of course, since your OP was really just a pit thread about how much you hate religious people, that’s not too surprising.
ITR, if you can’t respond to what I actually said, and must instead extrapolate straw-absolutes, then I’m not sure I can respond. You’d have me defending an argument I never made. If you can read into my OP an absolute denial of exceptions or of experience outside of my own, then we’re have two perpendicular discussions. Nothing you’ve insisted upon is contradicted by my OP, though you continue to insist that it is. I’m not opposed to a good-faith debate, but nothing you’ve said is a legitimate response to anything I wrote. As far as I can tell, you seem to be responding to an agenda you feel I’ve hidden behind my actual words. What I actually said doesn’t matter, in other words, because you know what I was really thinking. Sorry, not gonna engage on that level.
Well, that is going to be a problem, because I have opinions on Biblical theology, and won’t take the time to learn Hebrew.
If the translation is incorrect, that’s a separate matter, and I would admire hearing more about it.
Otherwise, for a few billion of us, our translations are all we have to work with.
Really? Did you or did you not post the following:
I think you did, and that’s what I’m responding to. Though it’s fully understandable that you’d want to backtrack away from that statement.
And of course, here we have the standard attempt to equate atheism with mass murder and tyranny.
I don’t see where lissener made claims about all atheists or all theists. He was making a generalization. Bringing up genocidal maniacs, when genocidal maniacs hail from a wide variety of belief systems other than liberalism, doesn’t seem apropos.
ITR: do you understand that if I said, “Some oranges have seeds,” and you replied “Oh really? I had a seedless orange just the other day,” that would not be a valid response?
Following the links lead me to believe that sex with a menstruating woman or one who has not been ritualistically cleansed afterwards would count as sexual immorallity. If the cleansing involves more than soap and water and my reading that this activity counts as sexual immorallity then I’d say it is a test that most/all gentiles fail.
It would be nice to be sexually immoral but if I’m wrong about that I can always hold on to blasphemy
For some reason I initially read the thread title as “Morality vs. Belgium”.
It’s always sad when Morality loses in extra time. 
What you said was that, in your experience, oranges have seeds. Pointing out that other people’s experience is quite different is a perfectly valid response.
In the experience of the hundreds of millions of people murdered by atheists, atheism is associated with horrifyingly immoral behavior. In the experience of the hundreds of millions of people whose lives have been saved or enhanced by religous people, religion is associated with highly praiseworthy behavior. Why is your experience less to be challenged than theirs?
Regards,
Shodan
Hundreds of millions?
How many have been murdered by people that are right-handed?