Tradesecret

any fundamentalist Christians have opinions that directly contradict what Jesus said:

• Guns for self defence, when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and told Peter not to raise his sword
  
• Deporting immigrants, maltreating the poor and homeless, and letting prisoners rot like animals --- when Jesus said to treat these specific groups better
  
• Dickriding capitalists like Elon Musk and supporting low taxes for the rich, when Jesus said the rich man getting to heaven is very unlikely, and that resources should go to the poor
  

So, what do you think a christian should do before an agression? Defend himself or turn the other cheek?

Do you really think there is any benefit from turning the other cheek? For the christians, please, don't try to make fancy interpretations about it because we all know what Jesus tried to say. In fact, the last time Jesus turned the other cheek, he ended up being nailed to the cross.

I would ask all the forum posters to discuss this topic using carefully your words because the intention of this thread is not to mock or have fun of Jesus but to draw conclusions from such a controversial subject.

Are you also an astronaut?

@ Tradesecret: I'm tearing up. 

So am I....... with laughter. 🤣 🤣🤣

The Reverend Tradsecret is a self confessed "sexual deviant" that has told us in the past that he has "experimented with sex in many ways even with "family members" when  in India. I am going to assume that Mrs Traedesecret knows all about his sexual deviant past considering he has confessed freely and willingly  on this open forum on the WWW about his sexual shenanigans of days gone by.    I have the receipts

Interesting he says this above:

I'm not gay. I'm not bisexual. I choose to love my wife and to honour my God.

While telling us often  "I didn't choose god but that god chose me".  

The man is a psychopathic compulsive lying clown that just cannot help telling us and the www all about himself but then plays victim when his lies, contradictions and past statements and confessions of the past raise their ugly head.

 And lets not forget the Reverend Tradsecret speaks of everything being predestined where he often tell us:

Tradesecret wrote:

Predestination I had no choice. 

#245

And there is all this other Bullshite that he has entertained us with over the years:

    "Being alecturer that teaches the scripture at universities. " No,I don't charge students,  I charge universities when theyrequest me to lecture to them".  #20. 

Alongwith  "being a Chaplain to his countries' defences;(Pick a country any country, s/he says s/he's Australian  then aNew Zealander and Indian)  "I am qualified by certifiedcolleges with proper accreditation". #20

Alongwith telling us; I am also a chaplain to ourCountries Defence forces, a position I could not have without properqualifications".  #20

Alongwith telling us; " I studied and wastutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from theOrthodox Church". #91

Alongwith telling us; " I study the originallanguages, translate them to English",  #25

Alongwith his criminal lawyering that can take 100's ofhours of a lawyers time reading briefs and just as many in the courtroom defending criminal criminals!

Alongwith his anti abortion work; "I devote asignificant amount of my resources in trying to prevent abortionsfrom happening".#64

Thelist is long and so so varied.   Where ever doess/he find the time? <<<< ALL THIS on top of a his familylife and running farm! Yes the farm with its "millions of years old rocks". 

I'm tearing up. 

I have informed my wife I choose to be attracted to her.

Thats great.

Yep, I would agree that sexual satisfaction is short lived.

Until the next time.

As designed by a creator.

Or an inevitability relative to evolved physiology.

For some reason or not.

And for sure, sequences of events occur because they are sequences of events.

If they didn't, neither you nor I, would be either up-to-date or out-dated.

You state the obvious dear Trade.

And so for that matter, we are in agreement.

And sort of up-to-date.

Yet, you don't articulate how someone can be attracted to someone they don't want to be attracted too.

Same way someone can like a taste they don't want to like, or dislike a smell they want to smell.

The chemicals in your brain don't necessarily make us fall in love with trees. Or with footballs. Or with the rock that is outside.

There is this thing called the subconscious. Perceptions and concepts beyond our conscious control can exhibit considerable complexity just like conscious versions.

Our chemicals don't have to rule us.

You are incorrect to divide all mental observables into choices and "chemicals". A better word would be instincts, and no they don't have to rule us but nobody is saying they have to. You are pretending sexual orientation doesn't exist by apparently defining it as "that which need not rule us".

If chemicals (still bad word) do not rule us, they still exist.

Yep he did. He very clearly indicated that sexual orientation is fluid.

A change doesn't mean a choice.

Eczema is fluid, but that doesn't mean people choose to have more or less.

We choose whom we want to be attracted to.

"want to be"

and 

"are"

Are not the same.

We live in a world where we want to do our own thing and decide our own outcomes.

A useful premise, but not one that helps you conclude everything about ourselves or our world is a choice.

Dont be so hard on Tradesecret.

The only way he can defend Christianity is by saying that homosexuality/pedophilia attraction is a choice, because the option of God creating it makes God look very bad.

Maybe there is a third option, Satan creating it with God's permission, which then begs the question why would God permit that.

As silly as Tradesecret's view is, its actually the least bad option he has.

Yes, and make sure you let her know that being attracted to her rather than a man requires "mental discipline."

Then let us know if she chooses to be attracted to you after that romantic talk LOL.

If you had to choose your orientation, that means it could have gone either way, you are attracted to both sexes.

I think that means you are actually bisexual or gay, but just choosing to not act on it.

So your unrequited lust for men, what is that like, it's got to be a difficult way to be? 

When you are with a woman, do you ever fantasize you are with a man?  

I chose to be attracted to my wife.

😂😂😂😂

Tell her this please, her reaction will tell you how toxic what you said is.

Yep, sex is a lot to do with fluid transfer.

As Kinsey would probably say.

And also a lot to do with recreational satisfaction.

Also known as procreational satisfaction.

Why all the angst when a quick wan* will suffice.

What it is to be an up to date human hey Trade.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions.

However, they are not a choice.

Person cannot choose what to be attracted to.

Sexual orientation according to Kinsey is a fluid situation. The foremost authority on sexuality - at least his studies declares that every person is on this line and can be as fluid about their attraction as they like to be. 

I don't think Kinsey said what you think he said. Also the guy has baggage. I have heard (but not confirmed) that shared ideas with people who conducted what almost anyone would call very unethical experiments with minors under their care.

That doesn't mean his surveys are useless data, but you should always be suspicious of turning the opinions of so called experts into "facts", especially when they have skeletons in the closet.

I chose to be attracted to my wife. And I have intentionally chosen not to be attracted to anyone else.  But what is attraction?

Probably not what you're talking about. What you describe is merely mental discipline. You're allowing the part of your sexuality you find healthy to dominate.

If I see these people and all I do is think about how I can have sex with them? Is that attraction?

No, that is sexual compulsion; and that is what it looks like when someone has no mental discipline.

Does having sex with someone - or wanting to have sex with someone make it attraction?

Attraction, as defined by our lauded and ever so scientific Kinsey, is when you have an arousal response due to stimuli. This can be 'objectively' measured by sensors attached to the right places.

You can fool the sensors if you focus on something other than the stimuli, but if you have to focus you know you're cancelling something deeper than your conscious choice. That is sexual orientation.

We do choose who we are attracted too.

Yeah, thats a lie.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions.

However, they are not a choice.

Person cannot choose what to be attracted to.

Since they didnt choose it, something else had to create it.

Did God create sexual attractions? Sure he did, given that he designed our brain in the first place.

Then the obvious question: Why?

Why would God create homosexuality and pedophilia?

Like, what sparked up in God's mind to think "Yeah, this is a good idea."?

Since these attractions often motivate people to commit sin, and God created them, then God is literally motivating people to sin.

So one must really wonder if God is maybe evil.

On the other hand, it might also be recognising that abolishing it wasn't going to happen until the world started following Christ and that therefore it is better to put into place fair and just regulations than simply having a free for all. 

Jesus was pro slavery and it's how the confederacy justified slavery.

The enemies of Israel wanted to wipe Israel of the map. 

Muslims: Want the South Levant.

Israeli Jews: Want a place where they can have religious freedom.

Me: Why can't the Israeli Jews move to the US where they aren't getting bombed by Gaza?  You both benefit under this.  Israeli Jews are more likely to know English than Canadians.

Under the Jewish law, kids were not retained as slaves.  Kids did not have to take on their parent's debt. 

Really?  That was something that happened?  Seems surprising.  If one is owned by someone else, then that would apply to their kids as well.

Sin always hurts someone else. There are no exceptions. 

How would a Hindu worshipping a Cow hurt someone else significantly?  That violates the 1st commandment I think.

There are many OT passages that regulate slavery.

Regulating slavery is a subset of keeping slavery legal.

Well, in two ways.  The first way was by way of war.  When Israel defended itself or attacked another people group, sometimes, the enemy was captured and not killed. These then became slaves.  Better to have them under your control than let them go to attack you again.  

Capturing an enemy is mass kidnapping.  War is mass murder.

The second way was by way of selling yourself as a bondservant or as an indentured slave. This was the cultural equivalence of taking out a loan. Israelites could sell themselves off in order to take out a loan. 

For me, the issue is not a consenting adult choosing to sell themselves; the issue is if they have kids, then those kids become slaves through no fault of their own.  If you have $3 billion more of debt and you die and you have a kid, your kid should not be forced to take on your debt.  This is the argument BLM uses with reparations and I don't agree with it.  I hold Christianity to the same standard.

Of course, in the NT, it was primarily the Romans and the Greeks who had slaves.  There are very few races of people in the history of the world who never had slaves.  

Did God put an end to any of it?  No; so he endorsed it if he had the power to stop it and refused.

He didn't put an end to whites in the South owning slaves; he didn't put an end to Africans in Africa owning slaves.

God supports slavery and it was America and the Northern Republican party that ended it in the US.  The South's justification for slavery was the bible said it was ok.

Also when it comes to the Bible, Christians teach, that EVERYONE is a slave.  There are no exceptions. We are either a slave to sin. Or we are a slave to righteousness. 

There is no other option.  

So doing what you want if you aren't harming anyone else significantly or doing what a pro slavery God wants even if it does harm someone else significantly?  Decision made.

The bible actually teaches we all are enslaved one way or the other.

To be clear, I do believe in the Bible and believe in God, so my answers are not coming from a hatred of God, but rather a desire to seek him.

There is one God, like the Bible states, and there was a savior named Jesus who was the waited for Messiah (the Christ or anointed).  The confusion comes from evil doctrines, made up to gain more church membership.  God is a spirit.  God is not flesh nor a man.  Jesus was begotten.  God made creation by himself, nobody was with him. After death is conquered, Jesus will hand all power back to the Father.  The doctrine of the Trinity sprang in the minds of evil men and not of Godly men.  Want to know who and what God is?  Read the Bible, not various commentary of Catholic tainted people.

The church which counts.  Yes, I have read the church fathers. And the question of the victor. Really. what a convenient excuse not to believe the truth? The Roman Catholic Church is not the only church. The Orthodox Church also agrees with it - and so does the Protestant church -which opposed the Catholic Church. I don't have to agree with the Roman Catholic Church to see that the Trinity is true. It's evident in the Scriptures. 

All those churches "agree" with the Trinity, not because it is in the scriptures, but because they are the "daughters" of the Catholic church.  They left the catholic church in one way or another but took with them the man made doctrine:  The Trinity and Trinitarian Baptism.

Of course you do, what a surprise?  But you miss the points of personality. how do you grieve a power? It's not possible. 

I will look into your question, but in the meantime, you answer how the Holy Ghost is the Father and not "the Father".

don't forget that when Abraham was around - three so called angels appeared - looking like men. Each of them - took on the role of the LORD in their words and their attitude.  

It's a simple picture but it actually provides an interesting picture. why were there three so called people looking like men? And how does it relate to TRINITY?

Ask any Jewish rabbi this same question, as they do not believe in a triune god either.  They were specifically angels and not Gods.  Abraham was talking to God and he turned away to entreat these men.  The term LORD and lord have two different meanings here.  The capital LORD is God, the lowercase lord is in reference to "master" as a lord of a land.  You will see that Abraham was talking to God, the angels come up and eat and talk with Abraham, then when they leave, Abraham is still talking to God.  

For instance, look at the Vedic god system.  There are thousands of gods in their system.  But the main three are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva a triune God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma

How about the Greek mythology?  Dionysus was a God of wine (Jesus turned water into wine), he was born of an earthly mother and a divine father (Zeus).  He was also followed by bands of people and later lamented at his death.

How about the Egyptian concept of Gods?  Did you know their idea of a spirit of a man (ba) is depicted as a bird?  Don't we see many depictions of God the Holy Ghost as a bird due to the vision of John the Baptist?

Point is, there are a lot of correlations you can make with the biblical Jesus with other Pagan deities of the time and area and to tell a pagan that the biblical God is just like their own would not be a stretch when you can drum up an idea like the trinity.

Yet the concept of the Trinity is inherent from the Creation through to the last page of the NT.    The early Christians did argue over the concept. They needed to grapple with the truth that there is ONE GOD as the Deuteronomy passage articulates and then they needed to grapple with the person Jesus.  It also became clear during these discussions that the Holy Spirit was not the Father nor was he the Son.  Some people suggest he was just a power. Not a personality. Although Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit was a person and had a personality. You can't grieve a power. You can't lie to a power. Yes, both of these terms could just be anthropomorphisms.  And yet the Church determined otherwise. 

For one, which "church" decided this?  Have you read the early church fathers?  Keep in mind also that the victor of war gets to write the history.  The catholic has always tried to say that their church was the first and Peter the first pope.  They tried (in vain) to wipe out the history of a true church throughout history.  There a snippets here and there where "Oneness" people thrived before the Catholics tried to do away with them.  In fact, the church at Rome was Oneness until about 200 A.D.  You will find a little paper trail from one popular catholic father to another before Constantine that is quite a tangled web.  Pretty interesting actually.

I do believe the reference of the Holy Ghost is God's use of power.  See it with every scripture that it is used, such as the overshadowing of Mary.  She was found to be child of the Holy Ghost.  This would mean that God the Father would NOT be the father in the simplest sense.  But if we see the spirit of God working in situations, then it's easy to understand John chapter 14 and how Mary would be found child by the power of God.

The Trinity was around before the Roman Catholic Churches. It was not their invention. 

True again.  The concept of a Trinity was around before the church ever began, but later integrated into the dogma, per my post above with Mall and you.

Also, for reference, when I mention the Catholic church, I am not referring to the official Catholic church as I understand it was not truly formed for hundreds of years after Christ, but the Catholic church did come this ground work, so I use it as a way to delineate the true church and the false church.

Atheists worldviews  like Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba inter alia, have killed more people than all the religions in history. 

Germany was a Christian country.

A Christian country elected both Hitler and Stalin.

Christians placed them in power.

Christian countries started both world wars and killed hundreds of millions during the existence of Christianity.

And before you commit the cherry pick fallacy, 

"Just because they say they are Christians, doesnt mean they are"

Would also mean

"Just because they say they are atheists, doesnt mean they are".

So you have only two options.

1. Concede that those who say that they are Christians are likely Christians, therefore relating Christianity to crime rate.

2. Concede that you dont know who is a Christian and who is an atheist, thus making it impossible to blame atheism for anything.

Of course, it already stands as fact that those who claim to be Christians are committing the most crimes, so I am guessing you will go for option 2 to save yourself from trouble.

To address your OP on the Trinity:

It was a made up doctrine from ancient religions made to be accepted by the Catholic church to all its members around the time of Constantine being full emperor of the Roman empire.  The reason the Trinity doctrine was so prevalent was because Constantine made paganism illegal and "Christianity" the only religion of Rome.  Pagans flooded in the Roman Church along with all their doctrine.  There was so much turmoil that a council was setup by the church fathers.  It was called the council of Nicaea and there they officially canonized the "two in one" doctrine and later made the Holy Ghost part of that doctrine also, creating the "Holy Trinity".

This Trinity has been a part of almost all ancient religions and can be traced to all local middle eastern and near east religions alike.

The Trinity is not in the Bible, nor the word Trinity. It was all a Catholic invention.

That would be to misconstrue what I just agreed. God has authored. Yet no one is forced to rape anyone.

Okay. So the rapist could have chosen to defy God and act differently than what was written?

I hold to the view that most people in the history of the world will go to heaven. This is the biblical idea. 

Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."  JESUS HIMSELF DISAGREES WITH YOU. Secondly, we know for sure that the majority of current and historical people are neither christian nor jews. So according to your idea of heaven being more populated than hell, salvation is not restricted to those that worship the true God. 

God does not murder anyone. Total nonsense. 

An entire wikipage dedicated entirely to cataloguing the individuals and nations that God personally killed -- with biblical references.

You still need to get your head around the idea that God although the author of history is not the second cause.

Let us grant this claim, since you are unwilling to even adress my point about world history being REAL EVENTS WITH REAL PEOPLE, not just a fictional story God wrote. Even in your world, God is still a character in his own story. Humans interact with him, and he holds power in that story. God has written himself to be the biggest asshole in history. He is cannonically present at every rape scene, with every opportunity to prevent the rapes, but he choses to permit the crime. Even his own people, the jews and the christians, get raped -- despite God's claim that he is going to protect them. 

The first cause has I suppose for want of a better word, immunity.  

Let me get this straight: 

• You do not believe in free will, you believe that God is the author of history that includes our every action.
  
• So it was God, not the rapist, that decided the rape should happen.
  
• A person is forced to commit rape by God himself. 
  
• The rapist is just a pawn in God's book.
  
• ???
  
• God is not responsible for the rape.
  

Let me get this straight: 

• You do not believe in libertarian free will, you believe that God is the author of history.
  

• God decided that the rape should happen. He then wrote that into history. 
  

• Then the rapist was forced to do what God had written.
  

• ???
  
• God is not responsible for the rape.
  

You say that God caused every rape, but isn't responsible for them, since he is the first cause, not the second one. This makes no sense.

By definition, responsibility for an event falls upon the first and primary cause. Not on the second cause. 

Responsibility: being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it. (Oxford languages). 

So let me ask you this, do you blame God for choosing to first cause all of the rapes and the genocides and the child murders, or do you credit him for it?

I am well aware of that option. I was just waiting for someone to raise that point so that I could adress their excact articulation of it. 

Infants of believers go to Heaven as well. 

This naturally implies that infants of nonbelievers go to hell. This means that the vast majority of infants are going to hell. In the Bible God enacts multiple genocides and kills thousands of infants. So God chose to create them. He then elects to murder them and torture them for all eternity. So God doesn't love these people he created.

the Reformed church for instance doesn't believe in the libertarian free will or choice of people to become believers in the first place. 

Then they believe in a God that wants to have more people in hell. Without libertarian free will it is God that chose whether or not we believe in him. God in that view is specifically chosing to create people that will end up in hell, instead of people that will believe in him and get saved. So that kind of God does not want everyone saved.

I think that the diffrent moral systems all have their merit. You act as if me being a utilitarianist would be a gotcha moment. What of it? Does your prefered moral framework say that rape is moral? Does it say that preventing rape is immoral? For what reason? You say that God permits all the rape because it is part of history. But it is only part of history because God permited and authored it. So God allows rape because he allows rape. You are using circular reasoning.

Governments don't need to be omniscient or omnipotent to prevent rape.  They could write a law or build an army to prevent most rapes.

That law does exists and it is called the anti-rape-law. That army exists and it is called the police. Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere, they can't know of every rape and they can't instantly teleport to the crime scene even if they knew that rape was about to occur. Thus, the government literally cannot be present at every rape, and can by definition not be an accomplice. 

I don't see any reason why God judging evil NEEDS to be defended.

So according to your logic it is fair to kill all humans because they commit evil. Then it would also be fair to kill all rapists. 

I never said that any rape didn't occur without God's permission. 

So you do admit that every rape occurs only because because God permits it. Regardless of his motive, that fact makes him an accomplice.

People in that situation don't generally celebrate that they are going to heaven. And yet some might.

It is incredibly unlikely that a random person, no matter how religious they think they are, would celebrate if they knew their plane was going to crash and they were going to die.

But suicide is not the unforgiveable sin.

So it's forgivable then, meaning I can kill myself and if Jesus paid for my sin, I get to go to heaven?

I don't think God wants people to commit suicide. I am pretty sure the Bible is opposed to unlawful killing.

The bible is against murder.  But murdering someone is worse than suicide.  If God would forgive a repentant murderer, then he easily should forgive someone that committed suicide.

 It may well end up being that you commit suicide. If so, then that was God's plan for your life. But it certainly is not his will.

How can something be in God's plan and not his will?

 It would be a gamble not to try and make sure you are part of his family. It would be a gamble to trust in yourself. It would be a gamble to think it doesn't matter. Yet it would be reasonable to trust in Jesus for he is the king of kings and he is God.  It would be a gamble not to trust in God. 

It would also be a gamble to not put my trust in Hades that he will spare me from the underworld and so I can join Zeus at Olympia, or take a gamble and sacrifice myself (or commit suicide) so I don't end up in Xibalba.

 I don't understand how someone who repents is just forgiven everything.

And how it only works before death, but not after death?

Like, whats the difference in repenting 5 minutes before death and 5 minutes after death?

Well, its a crazy idea that some sadistic murderer can just repent before death and go to heaven, while atheist who did nothing wrong except being an atheist goes to hell to burn

If you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and have true faith in him, then yes. 

I don't believe I will ever have true faith in anything in the afterlife.  What if you are wrong?  What if there is nothing?  It's a gamble.  The next time you think you have faith in God, if there is a plane on fire that you are on and it's very high up in the sky, celebrate, because according to you, you are about to go to heaven.

Nobody on a burning plane 4 kilometers up in the air is celebrating that they will soon go to heaven.  They may pray as insurance, but doing that isn't having faith.

Now, if we use your mindset, and commit suicide because we know we will get a better life, that is self-serving, and it proves that you aren't really a Christian, because you just took your faith off of God and put it into yourself and your own plan to have a better life. 

But I would be having faith that I get to go to heaven.  God's looking out for me, isn't he?

Suicide is not part of Gods plan.

You don't know what God's plan is.  His plan could have had me commit suicide, maybe caused some people to be sad, have them get tougher skins, and be better people because of it.

The Holocaust was part of God's plan if God is all knowing and all powerful and he exists.  If it wasn't, then the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

Christians: He only pays for repented sins.

This is false. 

Then what sins does God pay for?

You can't go down to the shop and buy a bottle of evil. You can't build an evil.

Evil is not a substance or an omission, it is a label. You can buy a bottle of new deadly disease. You can build concentration camp.

 The author just has a creative imagination but is not guilty of murder or of creating evil.

That is only because the characters in the book aren't actually real. When God has authored countless genocides as well as thousand of diseases, that is evil. Even if you were only witness to a crime but had the power to stop it - you would still be an accomplice. Especially when talking about a God that doesn't even need to take any risk to prevent all the crimes. God is an accomplice to all the rapes in history, because he had all the power to stop it, but he chose not to. 

God also chose to create people with DNA that led them to have mental health problems that lead to them commiting evil. God must be held accountable for this no?

Apologists claim that God is not evil even though he allows all of the evil. That he just appears evil because he respects our free will. This is patently false, for multiple reasons:

1. God overides free will on multiple occations. He hardens the heart of pharao so he can continue torturing the Egyptians. He is also many times using world leaders to enact his will - without them even knowing or consenting. He is even going to force every knee to bow for him when he returns. 
   
2. The children and infants never chose to be sick with malaria, so there is no free will to overide in order to heal them. God chose to create malaria, not a human, and then he continually choses to ignore the cries of all its victims. Whose free will is he respecting in this case?
   
3. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist, but not the free will of the victim? Doing nothing is the equivalent of siding with the rapist. 
   
4. God is sending to hell many people that were never even introduced to the concept of an almighty God. People that were only exposed to primitive religions and were never faced with the question of accepting or rejecting Jesus. These people never chose hell, but yet were born destined to go there. 
   
5. How can someone have free will if they are possesed by demons? The Biblical stories about demon possesions are proof that God doesn't guarantee our free will. 
   

So in conclusion, the Biblical God cares jack shit about free will, and apologist need to find a better answer to the problem of evil.

Free will isnt mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

For me, love is obeying God and keeping his commandments. Hence:

1. I don't kill people. 
   
2. I don't commit adultery. 
   
3. I don't steal. 
   
4. I don't desire their goods. 
   
5. I don't lie about them.
   

Bullet points 1 to 3 and 5 (excluding 4).  If you need God to tell you these things are immoral to prevent you from doing them (meaning if you didn't believe God existed, then you would do them), I question your morality.  I would hope you don't do these things whether or not you believe in God.

#4; I desire people's goods and that's good.  I see Andrew Tate with millions of dollars and I want to copy what he did.  I desire to have millions of dollars.

I hope God changes his laws.

I don't want God to change his laws. 

It sounds to me like you are justifying a bunch of horrible stuff:

"But it's the Old testament".  

It doesn't matter:

Do Not Ignore The Old Testament – Evil Bible .com

But it was taken out of context

Also irrelevant.  If the bible says a good quote, the Christain accepts it at face value.  If the bible says a bad quote, the Christain argues it's out of context.  Don't work backwards from your conclusion.

 After all, why would you want to spend eternity with God if you hate him?

Because the alternative is being lit on fire for eternity.

Lets just say I would rather be in prison with rapists and murderers than being burnt alive.

The question is who the god who rules?  Democracy means rule by the majority. But in that case, the majority is god. In a dictatorship, it is ruled by the dictator. In socialism it is rule by the elite.   

The majority has power.

But majority rule or God rule.  Which is better?  Every rule supported by the majority there is at least a good argument for.  The majority is more persuadable than the bible.  The majority abolished slavery, marital rape, gave women the right to vote, provided public education, and improved life expectancy as well as reduced more suffering than what the bible gave us.

The majority deserves to rule more than God.

I'm not American - I don't know what the 8th amendment is. 

The 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment.  If an eternity in hell isn't cruel and unusual punishment, then nothing is.

Although the OT command in Israel to Israelites was that such persons broke the covenant and thereby deserved capital punishment, this doesn't apply to Christians in the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, homosexuality is still considered sinful, yet it is not an unforgivable sin. 

So God changed his mind?

These two situations are cultural, not universal. Take my country as an example. I am from Bangladesh. There are about 180 million people in my country, where about 89-91% of the people are Muslim and 7.95-10% are Hindu and small numbers of Buddhist & Christian as well. There are Mosques and Temples beside one another. Women are given the right as men. In fact, the prime minister of our country is a woman who is in power for about 15 consecutive years.