Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
What? Are you f*cking kidding me? "I`m God and despite my own righteous moral convictions, I`m going to enable these people, my dearest children, to beat the ever loving sh*t out of each other and rape each other`s children because, me forbid, I don`t want robots. I would have made robots if I wanted robots, medamnit." My point is that any moral deity who held morals such as we (who would have to at least have a smidgeon of our morals if people want to claim morality comes from God) would not go out of his way to instill free will. If he cared as much as people say he does, he`d ensure our safety from ourselves. And if he truly wanted people to have free will, why the f*ck give them his own brand of morality? So I ask again: are you f*cking kidding me?
I can answer that one, Overmann: freedom of will for humans. If some omnipotent being simply prevented anyone from ever doing anything immoral, it would certainly violate human free will.
If I believed in the "God is Good" school of Christianity, I`d feel sorry for god. It would be seriously bad to be all good, to be all knowing, to be all powerful...and have to just watch all the crap in the world.
But I don`t, so it`s OK. Besides, there is plenty of "God is a fickle despot who demands utter obedience and kills on a whim" in the Christian bible too.
But I don`t believe in that version either.
Lionhart2, it is you who is missing the point. Unless you really do mean that anything written down and passed off as a translation of scripture is itself scripture, even when it`s a mistranslation mixed in with some changes that the people making it wanted to add.
If that`s the case, we can solve the problem by making up a version of the Christian bible that says homosex is just fine, no worries, and then that would be the Word of God, right?
On the subject of *morals*, however, I suggested God does not share our sense of morality because he instilled evil when we as a people see it as wrong. How could our morals possibly have come from a deity when we can`t but question why any good being would willfully allow such evil to take place?
On that note, I can see how these discussions would be frustrating for you when you constantly misunderstand what I write.
but, don`t you believe that if God had to limit himself to human logic, and that we absolutely understood everything about Him and His decisions, wouldn`t that make him....not God?
I don`t appreciate your sarcasm on this issue. Human respect is all any of us have to go by down here, here where your vacant claims of immortal divine love have no meaning. If there was no such thing as respect or reciprocal altruism, this world would be a much more grim, unpleasant place.
"What I always love seeing is humans attempting to explain away an immortal being through shoddy mortal logic."
What I love seeing is how quick some people are to belittle human thought. Not that logic is infallible, but relishing what faculties of thought we do have is a lot more enjoyable than assuming God intentionally dumbed us down.
If a god possessed the same morals as we, why is there evil? And if a god did not possess the same morals as we, why would he give us different morals? Not that I expect you have the right answer, it`s just a healthy question to ask.
And it seems to me that if a god wanted people to feel genuine love for him, the best way to demonstrate this would be to... wait for it... give them a reason to. I`m not convinced a god that desires my affection would create such a world as we live in. If he desired my affection, he would remove any potential risk of cancer and do his best to let me know this.
The Problem of Evil is not a problem so much as it is a stumbling block for those who make it one.
I know exactly what you mean. kudos to you for defending your beliefs.
it is incredibly frustrating to watch people bash christianity when they lack the tools to examine their own beliefs.
"You pick out some contradictory passages in that mess of a conflicted mistake ridden book of yours. There are other passages that refute your quotes outright."Then by all means, let`s see them!
"If your god is evil, he is not worth serving."Then I suppose it is perfectly worthwhile to serve Him then.
What I always love seeing is humans attempting to explain away an immortal being through shoddy mortal logic. Kinda gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. But not really.
If your god is evil, he is not worth serving. He would be no better than your satan. I repeat: IS SOMETHING HOLY B/C OF INHERENT GOODNESS, OR DOES THAT JUST MEAN GOD DOES WHATEVER HE PLEASES? IF GOD TOLD YOU TO MURDER YOUR WHOLE FAMILY B/C IT WAS "HOLY" WOULD YOU DO IT?
If your god does not operate from a position of goodness than there is no reason to pay heed to his BS. He is not Just.
Remember " a failure to love is evil..."
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7)
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lamentations 3:38)
I suggest you read "Why did God create evil?"
That would be an insult to Potatoes.
According to traditiional theology, god could not have created evil b/c he is ALL GOOD. Evil required the creation of a being like satan, simply b/c god could not have created evil. In that scenario, satan`s disobediance is evil.
Pity you didn`t bother reading the post before rebutting it. Neither God nor Jesus has ever claimed to be all good. His laws are for Him to decide, His justice is by His own standard not ours. God DID create evil as well, because He created everything.
I refer you to Malachi 1:3, where God Himself says "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". Esau was cursed throughout in every regard, and Jacob had the life of Reilly. Why? For no other reason than God decided it was to be so.
I call him the only devout and holy man in the story. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present Creator of Everything. Absolute obedience is called for to such a Being. Anything less is second-guessing Someone who is so far above you that you are nothing to Him. How many of you would create an adventure game then refuse to "kill" the inhabitants because they had rights? It`s absurd to even contemplate it. God is the Creator, His commands are to be obeyed for that reason, no matter how human mentality interprets them.
I refer you to Plato`s discussion w/ Euthyphro on the subject of holiness. Is something holy b/c it is by it`s very nature holy, or is it holy b/c god says it`s so? If the latter does that mean the same as saying god does whatever he wants. In other words, if god told you to murder your whole family b/c it was "holy", would you do it. Troglodyte
Angilion, you are missing the point. All scripture. ALL. A-L-L. Therefore, regardless of how they seem to conflict, the modern English is still the ineffable and irrefutable Word of God. ALL means ALL.
And to all the people whose arguments go something along the lines of "Christianity is all about loving everyone"... taurus excreta! God ordered the Jews to commit genocide throughout the Old Testament, because THEY were His Chosen People. Christ said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". When he added an 11th Commandment, to "love one another as I have loved you" He was speaking to His disciples and Believers, not to the world at large. The oh-so-famous John 3:16 "For God so loved the world..." verse is spouted endlessly by modern social-club feelgood churches, but read the next few verses for once! Loves everyone? Everyone will go to Heaven? God can never hate?
Moral: I think this boils down to a question: Where`s the victim? I don`t see one, so I don`t see a moral problem. There are victims in some homosexual contexts, but that`s no different to the same heterosexual contexts. It isn`t homosexuality that`s the problem, obviously. It`s rape, domestic violence, etc, which is neither hetero, homo or bi.
Practical: Many people have been having homosex at least as far back as the beginning of recorded history and no doubt before then. Humanity still thrives, so obviously minority homosex isn`t a problem in an evolutionary sense.
So...where`s the problem, really?
Odd...I can find things saying the opposite. The Catholic church can`t really be said to coexist peacefully with homosexuals - it regards their sexuality as profoundly sinful and requires them to utterly repress it.
Church of England is probably the most compatible denomination, though it`s currently in conflict with itself and might split over the issue.
Actually, I`m arguing that maybe the Christian bible does NOT forbid it and that definitely it doesn`t forbid it as clearly as most people think.
You are now arguing that *two very different* scriptures are both from God. Scriptures that comflict with each other. One of which is a mistranslation of the other, either through ignorance or through deliberate changes.
You`re the one arguing that God is wrong, not me. I`m arguing that some humans are wrong.
There is no such thing as homosexual temptation. What you`re interpreting is that God has some kind of hate for homosexuals but the only way you can reconcile this is by believing Satan is responsible for homosexuality. Why else would a God hate his own creation? But here`s a little something closer to the truth: people don`t like thinking of themselves as animals. It`s true. How many animals do you see run around with clothing? (None yet, but as tool usage evolves in other apes, we`ll see it). People tend to distance themselves from homosexuality because it`s completely natural, not the other way around. My advice would be what feels right to you, not what others tell you should be right.
"and the greek for the word `slave` means something such as an indentured servant"
The Greek word for `virgin` can be interpreted as `maiden`. Imagine that, billions of people believing something because a statement was mistranslated.
"God did not want those laws, but He knew the people had to have some sort of guidelines so they were put in the bible."
I strongly suspect you`re pulling this out of your ass. Stinks like it.
Then why would he deliberately spare all the little animals, who willfully have homosexual relationships in the wild, from the Flood? Seems like the perfect opportunity to abolish homosexuality entirely.
"(and if you aren`t a Christian, there is no moral reasoning against it, so no point in debating, unless you have Christian morals)"
Contrary to what you may believe (or were told to believe by your parents, who in read in from a friggin` book), morals do not come from God or from some book telling you how to behave. Do you honestly believe everyone thought it was perfectly fine to murder, rape, pillage in the intervening years prior to God`s issuing of the Ten Commandments? Really? Man has always been "moral". That`s why people feel compelled to pick through particular verses in the Bible, because some are more moral than others.
Seriously. If you`re going to mock a scientific theory, make sure you properly understand it beforehand.
No... no... no. Let me us a different example to show you how wrong you are in your understanding of evolution.
Take whole foods, for example. Humans evolved having only whole foods available to them, and so our bodies adapted to them. That is the reason for the correlation between whole foods and health. Our bodies are optimized for natural food. Now, superimpose Fruit Roll-ups and ice cream and Twinkies. How do they fit? They don`t. Diabetes is not at all conducive to our health, yet people still eat junk food. Why? Because maybe doing so satisfies some other desire besides mating, and maybe eating junk food doesn`t hinder procreation but is sort of neutral to it.
The Protestant Churches will often go straight from the text of the Bible to prove to you that Homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church goes to the source right out of Genesis which makes for a much stronger argument, that Man was made in God`s image and that woman was made for man. It is the natural flow of man and woman to be together not man and man or woman woman. The Catholic Church states Homosexuality is a sin but you won`t see them getting obsessed over it.
The Catholic Church does, the protestant churches do not.
"Gay Street, a short street that PENETRATES one block of Greenwich Village in the New York City borough of Manhattan..."
LOL A bit of a tongue-in-cheek entry there on wikipedia (and please, no jokes about `tongue in cheek entry` - the mental picture is already disturbing me once I realised the double-entendre)
V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.
An attempt to make an accurate English translation:
And with a male person you shall not lay lyings of a woman. It is ceremonially unclean.
Even that`s not a very accurate translation, as you can see by the fact that it`s necessary to split the sentence in two to make any sense of it.
The usual translations are made up to fit a desired point of view.
It might mean that men can have sex with each other as long as none of them pretend to be women.
It might mean that men can have sex with each other as long as they don`t do it in a woman`s bed/anywhere a woman has slept/anywhere a woman has had sex.
It might mean all sorts of things, but it certainly doesn`t mean what it`s claimed to mean in English translations in bibles, and it`s explicitly referring to male people only.
Find me a passage from the Christian bible clearly forbidding consensual homosex in a monogamous relationship.
Sounds easy, right?
It isn`t. There are passages forbidding homosexua l promiscuity...like heterosexual promiscuity. There are passages forbidding homosexual rape...like heterosexual rape. There are passages forbidding the ritual sex that was practiced by some other religions that Judaism was competing against, and those have been twisted into something against homosex by simply making stuff up and calling it a translation.
But find me a passage clearly forbidding homosex in any circumstances.
Before you try, bear in mind that every published English translation is wrong, usually very wrong. If you do not know the meaning of words such as qadesh and to`ebah and where they are in the Hebrew passages mistranslated into English, then you won`t have a clue what the passages you`re citing actually mean.
To be fair, they`re also preaching against sex outside of marriage and suchlike. It isn`t really their fault people ignore some parts of what they preach and embrace some other parts.
So your god screwed up and made some people wrong? You`re trying to pass religion off as being rational. Wrong. It`s faith, not reason. Two completely different things.
You make yourself look foolish with the "natural" argument. Firstly, homosexual activity is common in nature, across numerous species. Secondly, much of the way humanity lives isn`t natural. Which tree did the computer you`re using to types your posts grow on? Thirdly, natural isn`t always best. It`s natural for humans to murder each other to obtain better resources, for example. Finally, the reproduction thing is obviously rubbish. Homosex has been part of human activity for at least all of recorded history and no doubt long before that. H
You are trying to be internally consistent with the "love gays, hate what they do" thing, which shows that you have more integrity than many, but you`re trying to pass your selective choice of parts of your religion as being rational, and that`s wrong and silly.
For example, you dismiss parts of your faith that you don`t like by saying "those laws were for the time, they were neccesary to maintain order in ancient israel. God did not want those laws, but He knew the people had to have some sort of guidelines so they were put in the bible."
So why doesn`t that apply to your interpretation of the Christian rules against homosexual sex?
Which, by the way, you`ll have a very hard time supporting from Christian scripture. For a start, they`re all male-specific. So what basis do you have for objecting to homosex between women? Then there`s the fact that all the clear passages are Jewish, not Christian, and I`m sure you ignore most of the rest of th
You`re fighting a strawman. You`ve made your own bubble to burst.
I was rebutting the idea that there is "the homosexual community". That would require *a single community* to which *all* homosexual people belong. There is no such thing. There are numerous communities each of which consists of some homosexual people. There are many homosexual people who don`t consider themselves a member of any of them.
Not all homosexuals consider their homosexuality to be the definition of who they are.
Have a nice day, IABers!
On the larger scale of religion in general, I find the ENTIRE concept to be unfair.
Christians: You died 2009 years ago. OOPS. You were a good person but because you didn`t have faith in the good lord Jesus Christ, you`re pretty much screwed for eternity.
Mormons: Oooh, I`m sorry. You died before Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon. (dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb). Well good gosh golly, you`re just going to have to spend your eternity in a void of darkness!
Sounds fair? Eeh... not really.
And that can be said about pretty much any major religion out there that holds beliefs in damnation and salvation.
Back to the topic of homosexuality: You have two guys that like to do it in the butt. You have two girls who uh... do whatever lesbians do.They`re not hurting me or you, so why not?
Josh: though I respect your religious views and your views that hatred against gays is wrong, the rest of your argument just seems flawed.
Lets pretend for a moment that you`re right and that homosexuality SHOULD be "treated" like alcoholism in that the "homoholics" should try and break free of this apparently disgusting habit. Now these "homoholics" have stopped taking their "homohol" for quite some time. What has improved in their lives?
I mean, when an alcoholic stops drinking alcohol there are obvious benefits. Their general health improves, their life becomes better, they can land a job without needing to drink every hour or so and live a generally better life.
What about our cured "homoholics"? They go back to their normal lives except now... they try their gosh darnist to like chicks over dicks. Benefits? None really. I mean-- be
Religions are overly aggressive. Overly, gently aggressive.
But you can`t blame them. They`re just trying to save you from the fire and brimstone. No offense intended, anyone that cares.
Because harmony cannot be achieved until one or the other (much more preferably the first one) is vanquished. This world isn`t big enough for that much mass confusion and misguidance.
So just think of the size and scale of it all..and some of you muppets really belive a word of what the bible says?
The mind boogles!
Exactly why a person`s sexuality is anyone else`s business I can`t fathom, especially the business of the church.
How does the homosexual activity of others blight the lives of heterosexuals? Why should the straights care what the gays do when the straights aren`t that bothered about what other straights do?
drat it, can`t be bothered to plumb these depths of Biblical horsepoo this time.
And its nice to see I have 2 more arguing on my side... maybe one day I can forget about ttsec... one day (he wasn`t even a christian he was a theist but still)
You need a score of 10 to get to heaven.Church +1saving someones life +2Stealing Gum -1Killing someone -3
(Yes, my God has a chart. And its on Excel too. Thats how I see it.)
following that, good luck josh on stopping lying to yourself
And that passage refers to Mortal and Venial sins if I remember.
Just changed about a few months ago. I do agree somethings need to be changed (I blame bad interpretation) but its getting there.
In a nutshell, yes.
Classic tactics of hate mongers + facists.
And Josh, alcoholism might be cure able. I have an uncle that asked to give health to my cousin and in return he would give up drinking. Its worked for about 2 weeks now lets see if it continues.
And before the it was the doctors thing... Which doctor was it? The ones in Miami, Maryland, Nicaragua, Ft. Lauderdale, Europe, your pick? While doctors did help be EVENTUALLY finding the problem, I have to say that little prayer helped
And it`s best to stay away from alcohol because it can give you cirrhosis and liver disease. Being gay doesn`t do you any harm.
I am being very honest and serious here, it`s people like you, Josh, that made me turn away from the church.
Josh, let me translate for you what you sound like, to someone not mouth-breathing though the mask of the scripture. Let`s play a game. Let`s replay your last post, transposing the word "gay" with the words "born with HIV". To me, they are about equivalent.
"Being born with HIV is not who someone is, it is a condition that people struggle with. It is not natural and not how we were made. If we were meant to suffer from HIV, it would be able to continue the human race."
See it sounds just as asinine. Are you really THAT disconnected from your own sexuality that you have to hide behind the "choice" defense. (it has the tensile strength of wet toliet paper BTW)
Were on IAB, its not like we are re-writting the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
Christian vs. Non-Christian arguments over the internet are dumb and a waste of time. They never get anywhere. They just end up with ignorance on both sides accompanied by stupid name calling.
Its all in that one line.
Everything is USEFUL for Teaching and refutal.... thats why they dont take it out. Then it goes on to say he will not destroy but fulfill and it is yada yada yada til heaven and earth pass away. Heaven and earth passed away with the death of Jesus thats where "God gave his only..." yeah
There are too many things I want to say and I don`t want to spend time trying to convince someone that a trait about myself which I cannot and do not want to change isn`t evil.
Hmm...can`t see that happening much. So I also think it`s not going to go away.
DXmake it stop!
It does not say that at all. You are quoting a dubious English translation of the Hebrew. They`re all dubious, because the Hebrew is unclear. It is, for example, possible to legitimately translate that passage as forbidding men from having sex with each other in a woman`s bed. Fine anywhere else, just not in a woman`s bed. Seriously. That is a legitimate translation.
The context of the verse you refer to is such that it could refer specifically to practices of a religion that Judaism was competing against. If so, the passage only forbids men having sex with each other as part of that religion.
The verse you refer to is in Leviticus and is therefore Jewish, not Christian. It`s part of a big list of rules, virtually all of which are ignored by Christians. There`s no self-consistent reason to ignore the others but follow that one.
I believe that honor goes to BikerTeen
1) Did you see Womens Gym? The judges sucked and Shawn Johnson (girls name I swear) was impressive. I liked the little Kentucky Blugrass music she put.2) Mens 4x100 medley> EuroCup (and I liked the EuroCup... with the exception of Spain winning of course)
Just suck it up, that street was named Gay for a good reason, and entirely unrelated to homosexuality.
Well, you know, the church is all about the Bible, man. And well, in that pesky old Bible it decrees that gays should be put to death.
I don`t know what to read into that, but I feel that somewhere within lies the root of the problem, if only someone could pick apart the rhetoric.
You know, the rhetoric that says "kill gays".
It`s my opinion that the Judeo-Christian scriptural stance on homosexuality is actually far less severe than it`s generally thought to be, but that`s my opinion and I`m hampered by my inability to read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek (and the fact that no-one has the originals any more anyway).
* It`s doubtful whether there is such a thing as "the church" when it comes to Christianity, due to the number of different varieties of Christianity.
** There isn`t really any such thing as "the homosexual community", either, or if there is it comprises only a small minority of homosexuals who aren`t really a community anyway,
Oh man, that`s gotta feel awkward.
It`s like when the KKK adopted a highway, and they were assigned the Rosa Parks highway.
[red dot wouldnt stop staring at me...]