Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
}-) <---sneaky fatherless child he is!
[quote]It amuses me how many people are arguing that homosexuality is so appealing to everyone that if it wasn`t suppressed then the number of people having heterosex would be too small to stop humanity fading away through lack of children.[/quote]
Now...are you seriously arguing that everyone would be gay if they weren`t coerced into being straight?
Its not rubbish. if everyone in the world was gay then there would be nothing there to populate more penises for you to su-... uh nvmnd.
So you`re stating that being gay means you are a worse person? That evolution worked backwards?
It`s dozens of books and we know as an absolute certainty that people left many books out *because the people who did so wrote down that they did*. First Council of Nicea, 325. The OT is much older and there aren`t any records of its creation, so we can`t be sure about that.
Then there`s simple deduction. For example: There are 4 gospels in the NT. There were 13 apostles, so the other 9 gospels must have been left out.
(13, because I`m counting Mary).
My main one is the word `Darwinism`, which you wrongly use as (a) a faith and (b) synonymous with `evolution`.
You appear to be making the "homosexuality will cause humanity to die out!" argument, which is the same rubbish it always was.
It amuses me how many people are arguing that homosexuality is so appealing to everyone that if it wasn`t suppressed then the number of people having heterosex would be too small to stop humanity fading away through lack of children.
of course, part of that was because it was extremely convoluted and hard for the average person to understand--but it was also because the leaders of that time didn`t want an entire book dedicated to a strong, female figure.
i think being gay is something your born with, the only ones who really choose, in the sense, are bisexuals.
and i agree with you, trello. i believed that the bible had things missing/mistranslated way before the da vinci code came out. it is several books. people may very well have left some books out
it`s interesting, I`ve heard that about lesbian/gay male brains before, that they`re "hardwired" similar to the opposite sex...did you know that lesbians, when they`re ovulating, can pick out the faces of women in a crowd more easily than they can men? this is opposite of straight women, obviously, who are better able to pick out the faces of men when they`re ovulating.
I think we have made a point that homosexuality is definitely not a "choice" :)
Darwin NEVER stated that evolution has a direction. We do not become better or worse, we only adapt to our surroundings. To "evolve" does NOT mean to get better, it simply means to "change".
That said, it should be noted that Darwin also did NOT coin the term "survival of the fittest", that was Herbert Spencer.
Perhaps homosexuality is partially also a result of extreme overpopulation. There`s breeds of frogs that will not just be gay, but CHANGE SEX to accommodate underpopulation of one of the sexes. Homosexuality is not a very far stretch in that light.
There are MRI scans of brain activity that show a gay female`s brain is stimulated sexually by the same thing that a straight male`s brain is.
Really, what`s the big deal? These people don`t hurt anyone.
That`s the flimsiest scriptural reason for opposing homosexuality that I`ve ever heard.
*If* (and it`s a big if) the translation is correct:
It`s sex-specific. So, once again, it`s only men who are restricted.
It states that marriage makes two people "become one flesh". Which is obviously not true. So the verses cannot be taken literally.
It implies that no man can leave home until he gets married.
I think it`s also worth pointing out that the bible allows for people to be forced into marriage against their will - do you think that doing so should be legal?
_ HEY! me TOO!
Free life lesson for you,- big words don`t make you sound smarter.
*sigh* - read it again. It is Jesus confirming that God made man & woman - and then going ON to say that for this reason a MAN shall leave his father and mother and join with his WIFE (not "significant other").
That`s not necessarily true.
There might have been a one true god who has since died or moved on to somewhere else.
There might be a one true god who created humans and has since become bored with them, leaving them to do whatever.
There might be a one true god who is for some reason constrained from being involved in the lives of humans and so has to leave them to do whatever, including mass-scale violence, hatred and oppression in the name of that god.
There might be a one true god who enjoys mass-scale violence, hatred and oppression amongst their creations, like some rather unpleasant child playing a game.
Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn`t exist? Does that mean you have to believe that he does exist?
[quote]I suppose the burden of proof rests on believers, but still I`m curious of the logic behind it. Arguments for God are much stronger, or at least seem so.[/quote]
I`m at a loss here. You talk about logic and then you say that the arguments for a specific god are stronger. That doesn`t make any sense. Belief in any god(s) at all is purely a matter of faith and belief in one particular one only even more so. What does logic have to do with it?
The NT was a *selection* of *some* Christian stories made *by some men* in Nicea in 325. The selection was made at least in part for political reasons related to the Christian takeover of the Roman empire.
The existence of many copies of it therefore can`t be used as evidence of the idea that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god.
Also, there are nowhere near 24,000 copies of it *dating from that time*, which further undermines your argument.
Also, it was written in ancient Greek.
Unless you read ancient Greek fluently and you have access to ~1700 year old copies of it, you don`t even know for sure that what you read is an accurate account of the selection of some Christian stories by some men, let alone that it`s the word of god.
The NT is *at best* a politically motivated selection of some part of some Christian stories which might or might not be an accurate written version of the original (mostly spoken) stories from 300 years earlier.
You cannot prove a negative. The most you can do is say that no evidence has been found for the existence of a God. Which, there has been none. Life did not spontaneously poof into existence. The universe is old and complex and evolving. If one true God existed, his existence would have been revealed to all cultures, not appear suddenly in one and then have to "spread" through violence and evangelism.
I created an account just to reply to your erroneous post. It is illogical to quote a new testament quote that refers to an old testament passage and say "Here, look and see that it is written also in the new testament". I`m just pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
If not, why not? It says I should be in your bible, which you claim is divine and inerrant.
Also, would you like several dozen more examples of grossly disproportionate punishment, e.g. beating your son to death for being disobedient?
Then there`s the utter impossibility of some of the stories, the most famous being that the the Ark.
Then there`s a famous issue of timing, which you could work around by assuming that your god faked all the evidence to mess with people`s heads for a laugh.
I have sympathy for Christians who actually read their own bible. If they think it`s inerrant, they have to pretend to be an insane and savage psychopath. If they think it`s partly metaphorical, they have a pick `n` mix religion that anyone can interpret into anything.
Take the "Camel through the Eye of a needle". The hebrew for rope is `Caa-mel`, but nobody has bothered to correct it for centuries.
I appreciate the Bible as a holy book, but I don`t revere it any more than the Koran, Bagavad Gida etc, and I certainly don`t believe in picking & choosing bits of it, expecially as the entire Bible is so contradictory!
1) Hamer`s X-chromosome research2) LeVay`s study of the hypothalamus3) Bailey and Pillard`s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behaviour is determined by a person’s genes.
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Thats contradictory to what is in the Bible. Homer`s Iliad has over 643 copies of the manuscript out there, and I`m guessing you believe that this accurately represents what Homer wrote. The New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts that have been preserved over time. As a Christian, I don`t believe it is possible to pick and choose a verse to fit the context of your argument then ignore other verses, but I also believe that the Bible is divine, and that in order to believe the Bible you have to believe in it as a whole. People can believe what they want, but I don`t think as a Christian that it is plausible to believe the Bible is erred.
I think marriage should be taken out of the hands of religion *and* out of the hands of government, that it should go back to being a [quote]weddian[/quote], which is an entirely personal thing. That is where the word `wedding` comes from.
I regard these three things as being seperate:
A marriageState recognition of a marriageReligious blessing of a marriage.
But that`s exactly what you do, PsychGeek, when it`s convenient for your argument. For example:
[quote]all of your points come from the Old Testament, which was written thousands of years ago when the peoples of that time believed in a "cruel and unjust" God. try reading the New Testament (except for Revelation), and you`ll see he`s not nearly as cruel.[/quote]
I could post lines from the NT (but not including Revelations, as you choose to not pick that part) that you would disagree with - you would choose to not pick those lines.
But you later say that you skip the bible entirely and just make up your own religion anyway - you`re taking the "pick and choose" thing to the greatest possible extreme.
stop attacking me as a person for what I believe, you`re once again making yourself look like an idiot.[/quote]
So..you`ve got a religion that you make up as you please to suit yourself and a god that never tells you anything anyway.
You`re saying that makes other people look like idiots.
The specific argument being made, which certainly isn`t idiotic, is whether or not a person who *makes up their own religion*, as you do, and *who explicitly rejects established tenets of a religion*, as you do, can plausibly refer to themself as a follower of that religion.
That is not an idiotic argument.
The change is so dramatic that it has been (and continues to be) argued that Judaism and Christianity are actually worshipping two different gods.
Or maybe one god who had an utterly life-changing revelation about 2000 years ago, one that completely changed their personality.
But bear in mind that your own new testament has Jesus saying that all the old (Psycho God) rules must be obeyed utterly and until the end of the world.
Being a Christian requires some carefully selective thinking.
It was an excellent use of popular culture in an analogy to explain an argument. You failed to understand it. You also appeared to have ignored the last sentence, which summarised the argument without analogy.
"You`re more moral than someone who can`t do wrong? Holy damn."
Almost every person is more moral than the god of the Christian bible, who is a psychotic mass-murdering megalomaniac with a taste for torture and a raving demand for absolute obedience in everything from everyone.
There are many...but there`s a strong tendency to use a mutable definition of "homosexuality".
When applied to humans, "homosexuality" is interpreted as meaning "always choosing a partner of the same sex, regardles of circumstances" and usually strongly implies long-term pair-bonding.
When applied to animals, "homosexuality" is interpreted as meaning "having homosexual sex at all". That includes, for example, animals that will hump anything at all, like dogs. Those animals aren`t homosexual. It`s just changing the definition on the fly to fake evidence. Which actually undermines the argument, because the fakery can be exposed and the whole argument is tainted by it.
It`s irrelevant anyway - nature is not an indication of right or wrong. For example - murdering someone to steal their resources is perfectly natural.
Then there`s the problem of ancient Hebrew not being the same as modern Hebrew and there`s the problem of Hebrew being written without any vowels back then...so there`s a lot of scope for wondering what any of the OT actually meant to the people who wrote it, even if you believe it`s a true reflection of your god`s orders.
Then there`s the issue of what Christians should do about the OT, which is Jewish and predates Christianity. Obey it all to the letter? Ignore it all? Just pick out some bits you like and interpret them however you please? That`s what usually happens, but that doesn`t mean it`s theologically correct.
Then there`s the issue of unknown words being used in the NT. `arsenokoitai`, for example, is usually translated as `homosexual`. Why? Because many centuries later, the people who controlled the translation wanted it to be translated that way. No-one really knows what that word means.
Your argument looks solid, but it`s wrong for two reasons:
i) It`s possible to be a Christian and believe that the Christian bible is often wrong because it`s not divine, i.e. that people messed it up very badly.
ii) It`s possible to conclude that the Christian bible is right and does *not* say that homosexuality is wrong.
It does say so if you look at translations, but those translations are wrong. Often very wrong. Nearly all the references are actually male-specific, so lesbians are pretty much fine. Other references are about very specific contexts, usually related to Judaism and Christianity trying to overthrow earlier religions for political reasons - the verses are actually about demonising other religions. No-one really knows what the infamous Leviticus verses mean anyway.
Bah, post size limit.
That is denying the omniscience of your god, which is a pretty major heresy for a theist of the Abrahamic god.
As for the whole idea that some of the <insert holy book here> is literal and some is metaphorical, I`ve only ever seen that used to allow a theist to prop up their own ideas of what they`d like the book to say. I even know one Christian who is certain that adultery is actually not wrong at all, and that takes some seriously "metaphorical" interpretation.
You can question whether you`re chosen religion is the correct one.
Maybe *that* is the rub, maybe peeps are not so easily categorised, maybe "gay" and "straight" are the opposing (unreachable) ends of a spectrum, where each person registers is different and likely a product of nature and nurture. Maybe if we all lived long enough, the needle might even start to drift.
If it is a choice, which I can assure you that no sane person would choose to be gay, the general oppression and discrimination towards us isn`t worth it if it were a choice. I myself have had the "pleasure" of being forced to look down the barrel of a loaded gun just for being gay.
But even if it were a choice, people are grated full legal protection from discrimination due to their religion, which is definitely a choice.
As for bisexuality, I can`t give scientifically proven facts to support me, so i wont even go there.
As for this religion debate thing going on, keep on fighting, the rest of the world is watching and laughing at the absurdity of your pointless debates. Speaking of which, time t
If it`s a lifestyle choice, Then it`s not like skin color or ethnicity that you are "born with" and thus doesn`t qualify for legal protections like they do.
Either way, If you start talking about "curing" it, Homosexuals get pissed off. If you approach them from the genetic angle about it, they`ll argue that it`s a choice and visa versa.
Personally, I`ve seen environmental factors play a large role in the makeup of one`s sexual orientation. Thus leading me to believe it is, For the most part, A lifestyle choice. Otherwise how else could there be Bi-sexual people ?
WTF!!!! BURNING COALS!!! MY SKIN!!! AAAAARGH! AAAAAARGH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! HELP ME!!! HEL IT BURNSanjsrkqnwjfnskajdfks!!!!
Poop says: Faith is believing in something without a good reason. Faith is irrational.
Dictionary says:Faith is believing in something without proof. <Implied: Faith CAN BE, but ISN`T NECESSARILY irrational>.
In other words, you are using Blind Faith, (and as you "like to use numbers"), a specific subset of the set of "faith", and applying its qualities to the entire set of "faith".
This helps your point, but you win 1 grammar point, which doesn`t really bump your score much. I believe grammar and spelling only counts in a tie breaker.
FYI, I get 2 points for catching it.
Whilst it would be convenient for Poop, for his definition to be correct, it is, alas, not.
8 definitions of faith (out of order).
1) Belief in God. (Whether rational or not) 2) Confidence or trust. (As above)3) Belief in anything. (As above) 4) A system of belief. (N/A)5) Obligation of loyalty. (N/A)6) Fidelity to one`s promise. (N/A)7) Christian Theology. (N/A)
Finally, the one you were most likely thinking of, and the only one you accepted as possible because it fit your worldview:
8) Belief without proof.
The part however, that you`re ignoring, even when you use the correct definition, is that belief without proof, is not the same, as belief without evidence.
As such, it is perfectly viable, for someone to claim you have faith in a myriad of things that will upset you greatly. And they`ll be right. "No, it`s science! It isn`t faith!!!!!!11 RAWR!"
pfft yeah who would do that... anyway im off to play my xbox 360 which is way better than any PS3 console >_>
Religion came up after someone mentioned, (7 pages or so back) how Christians tended to discriminate.
trp712 mods yes are people 2 and have opinions. My mistake but below I would say you got trolled.
Anyway why does religion come up with gay rights and such? I believe that for marriage to truly be proper it should be taken out of the hands of religion and given to government. free of discrimination.
[quote]Moderators are here to stop these arguments not participate.[/quote]
So, Reor, what would you rather have? A group of mods who say nothing, then come out, banhammers swinging? Or what we have at IAB, a group of people who just want to make life better and more interesting for everyone else?
Your choice, dude.
Heh, I can see how you could have that viewpoint, reor.
But it`s just my opinion. I`m not getting worked up or anything, just debating with a fellow user.
Everyone here is entitled to express their opinions, just as you are right there.
And thanks Vorp. :-)
Moderators are here to stop these arguments not participate.
This will go on until one of us wins, which is pretty much the way of the world.
Therefore, this one is Even Stevens, IMO.
Good game, mate.[/quote]
Okey doke lol
This will go on until one of us wins, which is pretty much the way of the world.
Good game, mate.
I`m not a troll and you ARE a p*ssy. Just because you can`t comprehend that free will is incompatible with an omniscient/omnipotent god doesn`t mean I failed an argument.
I`m sorry, I should have said I don`t take MOST of the bible literally. Read down about 3 pages or so.
Not a p*ssy, just not in the mood to get mocked by some troll for something I believe in, once he`s already been through one arguement, unsuccessfully.
I. Have. Faith.[/quote]
Faith is believing in something without a good reason. Faith is irrational.
Christians: those who believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God (the Messiah).
If you`re not taking Christ`s divinity literally, you are not a Christian.
[quote]And i`m not about to explain random beliefs so you can pick them apart.[/quote]
I. Have. Faith.
Poop, as Catholics, we don`t take the bible literally. Catholics are a kind of Christian.
And i`m not about to explain random beliefs so you can pick them apart.
I for one am going to bed, because this argument is going circles.
g`night all, and thanks trp, for helping to make this an awesome discussion :)
How do you know that Christ wasn`t just made up? Written by Man?
You can`t tell me I`m wrong, because frankly to even try would make you look like a nitwit. You have no right to tell us how to act in our faith.
Get over yourself.
I consider myself a catholic. You`ve learnt something, dude.
let us have our faith the way we want it. you`ll never win this because you`re fighting a fight that has no right answer (FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME).
You`re wrong. Catholics, a branch of Christianity, do NOT take the bible literally.
that has a name, sir, and it`s called bullying.
my ideas about my God spring from MY IDEAS, i don`t use the Bible, I frankly haven`t read it in ages because I choose a more personal relationship with him---I don`t need a book to tell me who God is. but for those who choose it, whatever floats your boat, i completely respect it :)
YOUR VERSES WERE WRITTEN BY MAN, that`s not an opinion that is a fact. when you say "your god is a pr*ck", THAT IS AN OPINION, not fact.
i`m not the one who needs to grow up, love.
Bible. Not. Literal.
Inspired by God, written by man.
I`m starting to think you`re being stupid on purpose. Just my opinion, of course.
Thanks Psych, btw. :-)
The bible? Not literal.
Plus, yes, he IS the source of evil, as he made everything and all. Sin comes from choosing away from God. Sin comes choice, that means.
So, wait, what does this tell us? Oh yeah, God created free will.[/quote]
First off, "sin" is a bullsh*t idea from your theology. As I stated before, God`s will is God`s will. Eve didn`t CHOSE to take the apple, it was God`s will for her to do it.
So, wait, what does this tell us? Oh yeah, God created free will.
How do you know that the Bible wasn`t written by Man and for Man, Psych? They could`ve all been high and made it all up.
Jeremiah 11:11, 16:10-11, 19:3, 23:12, 26:3,13,19, 32:42, 35:17, 36:3, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand once again, you can`t pick and choose lines from the Bible to fit your argument. How do you know God said those things, Poop? you don`t. what you`re pointing to was written by MAN.
Jeremiah 11:11, 16:10-11, 19:3, 23:12, 26:3,13,19, 32:42, 35:17, 36:3, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64
and how do you know God himself said that? maybe it was put in there by Man.
don`t take it literally, love, for the MILLIONTH time now. jeez will you ever read what we say?
btw, you can`t pick and choose quotes from the Bible to fit your argument, because for every one you choose, there are others to contradict it. The Bible is NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, LINE BY LINE.
Okay, thanks for clearing that one up, Psych.
I never said that it doesn`t. I know stuff happens, and I know God does not pinpoint certain houses to destroy. I frankly don`t think he controls the weather.....
like I said, I have a personal relationship with my God, and even though he never directly tells me the answers to my questions, I eventually figure them out.[/quote]
Psych, when a hurricane destroys your house, it`s not because God is trying to send you a message. Its just means a hurricane destroyed your house. Face it, sh*t just happens.
Yes, I suppose the Price of Asparagus does therefore have something to do with it, but no more so than the itch at the back of my knee is "somehow related" to a New Zealand wasp named Bernie.
Bible is inspied by God, written by man. THEREFORE, there are inaccuracies.
really? where does it say that? back it up with proof, love.
don`t forget that the Bible was written by man, and has been re-written numerous times, with books changed, left out, and added.
once AGAIN, the Bible is (IMHO), not meant to be taken literally.
jeez i feel like we`ve had this discussion..hmm, oh yeah, BECAUSE WE HAVE.
who are you to tell me how to be a Christian? I believe what I want, and read what I want. I choose not to read/believe Revelation because I don`t want to.
stop attacking me as a person for what I believe, you`re once again making yourself look like an idiot.
As for the New Testament, it changes nothing. It is still the same God. And is horribly inconsistent. Jesus says to love everyone, other books say to hate this and that, and everyone tends to forget what Jesus said to support their bigoted beliefs that come from elsewhere in the book. If a God exists, it certainly doesn`t take after the one described in the Bible, otherwise it would be ripped to shreds by all the contradictions in its existence.
I`m Catholic, I don`t take it literally. I assume Psych is the same.
and THANK YOU, trp, for saying what i have been all along :) maybe now he`ll actually understand it now that two of us are saying it :)
all of your points come from the Old Testament, which was written thousands of years ago when the peoples of that time believed in a "cruel and unjust" God. try reading the New Testament (except for Revelation), and you`ll see he`s not nearly as cruel.
don`t take the stories so literally, for the THOUSANDTH TIME. jeez will you read all the comments before you make a point that has already been discussed?[/quote]
PsychGeek, why leave out Revelation? If you`re not to take even the slightest story in the Bible literally, then how are you a Christian at all?
That doesn`t make:How God sees our actions. related toHow we chose our actions.
Anymore than God`s favourite word is related to the price of Asparagus.
Yelling "God has everything to do with everything" does not mean that Everything related to God has everything to do with everything.
Perhaps a few more swear words will convince someone?
like I said, I have a personal relationship with my God, and even though he never directly tells me the answers to my questions, I eventually figure them out.
you haven`t talked to him?? really?? well then, i guess what you`re saying is really just a matter of opinion and assumptions then, isn`t it?"[/quote]
PsychGeek, you`re the one who claims to have a personal relationship with your God. How about sitting HIS @ss down for an interview, hmmm?
all of your points come from the Old Testament, which was written thousands of years ago when the peoples of that time believed in a "cruel and unjust" God. try reading the New Testament (except for Revelation), and you`ll see he`s not nearly as cruel.
don`t take the stories so literally, for the THOUSANDTH TIME. jeez will you read all the comments before you make a point that has already been discussed?
P1) Problem: Worded as "has done" negates your argument, and is a more accurate description. P2) True. P3) I disagree with this priori, as it makes an assumption I don`t feel is relevant. ( I.e. P7)God obeys time like people do). P4) True. P5) Assumes P7. P6) True.
Conclusion: Omniscience and free will are compatible when being viewed from effectively an indeterminate future point.
you haven`t talked to him?? really?? well then, i guess what you`re saying is really just a matter of opinion and assumptions then, isn`t it?
No, I think from any unbiased POV, he`s cruel and unjust. He slaughters innocent children for the sins of their fathers (The great flood) and sometimes for the sins of a man not related at all (Killing of the firstborn in Egypt). He orders his followers to destroy villages and rape virgin girls into submission. He punishes everyone who doesn`t believe in him, including those who do so due to lack of exposure, so that genuinely good people who don`t believe are punished, and evil people who do are blessed.
All of these are atrocious to anyone with a functioning conscious.
"To put it simply, God can see the end result of our actions. That has nothing to do with how we chose them."
God has EVERYTHING to do with EVERYTHING. That`s sort of what makes God GOD.
do you actually read anything we say before you start making a response, or do you just say the first thing that comes to mind, no matter how redundant and boring it is?
Thank God, someone who can eloquently say what i`ve been blundering around. Thank you Baal.
PsychGeek: I`ll say it again. Might does not make right. My ego has not gotten bigger, only my ability to stand up when confronted with bullsh*t no matter the level of power.
In your own words Poopy:"I was breaking it down simple as f*ck for you"
Your argument is sh*t.
you`re an idiot if you can`t see that.[/quote]
Easy does it, poop. We`re not swearing, nor do you need to.
To put it simply, God can see the end result of our actions. That has nothing to do with how we chose them.
I thought this debate was about God and free will....
[quote]Might does not make right in any case.[/quote]
I never said it did.
so you`re now the knight in shining armor, here to save all us ignorant Christians from the wrath of this awful God?
good lord sir, I do believe your ego has gotten even bigger.
Um...free will=/=choice, is what you`re saying. If you can do what you want, with free will, then that`s choice.
Btw, to do the italics, it`s [ quote ]text[ /quote ], without the spaces.
trp, you idiot, I`m using God for the sake of argument.
Oh, and excuse me for standing up against the injustice and cruelty of your god. Might does not make right in any case.
Not understanding the overlap of predetermination and free choice is not other people`s fault.
If God existed in time instead of separate to it, you might have a point.
To simplify. Assume free will. Doc Brown goes into the future and sees himself talking to Marty McFly, and gives him the option of taking a Banana, or Apple. He makes a choice.
Doc Brown knows what choice Marty makes because he has seen it.
He then returns to his own time, and at that point, lives it back to the point where he is having the conversation.
Marty has a free choice, but Doc already knows the answer, only because he has seen it.
In the case of God, he does not travel through time, he can watch the whole thing from the outside.
:) you`re making me laugh, pooptart, because of your ignorance.
we must bow down, for he is holier-than-thou!!
It`s called a philosophical argument. I was breaking it down simple as f*ck for you, hence the numbers.
" `Omniscient - "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.`
In my dictionary, there`s no limits on `all.` Therefore, God knows everything that could happen, as well as what does.
Therefore, there can be free will, because there are many paths for us to take, all of which He knows. It`s up to us, through free will, to pick the right one."
NO. No no no no no. Get his into your head, trp. To have free will is not have choice. Not the perception of choice, but choice. God, being omniscient and omnipotent, makes choice impossible for you.
[quote]do I think myself to be a more moral being than the God of the Bible? Then yeah[/quote]
You`re more moral than someone who can`t do wrong? Holy damn. Plus, again, written by man, not literal.
I mean, since you obviously don`t accept him, but are talking about him as existing, then do you consider yourself made by God?
who the heck are you to say who`s right and wrong? seriously dude, deflate that massive ego of yours, i can see it from my apartment.
i`m not an idiot, and neither are you. i, for one, am mature enough to see that there are opinions OUTSIDE OF MY OWN.
you`re still working on that skill, i see.
....i honestly don`t know how to respond to this, except to say that it proves my theory: you are extremely arrogant and egocentric.
Omniscient - "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."
Therefore, there can be free will, because there are many paths for us to take, all of which He knows. It`s up to us, through free will, to pick the right one.
you really are arrogant, aren`t you? i`m starting to not take you seriously again, because you`re just spouting off for the sake of spouting off.
trp, if you mean do I think myself to be a more moral being than the God of the Bible? Then yeah, I absolutely do on every level.
again, you`re acting as though everyone else is wrong, and you`re the only right one.
if you could please stop strutting around thinking your answer is the end-all and the answer to the age-old questions, i`d really appreciate it.
you`re not right/wrong, neither are trp and i.
give it a rest already. or do you not understand that IT`S JUST AN OPINION??
if philosophers like Plato and Socrates couldn`t come up with a definite, universal answer, then neither will you. and on your best day, you`re not as smart as they were on their worst.
It`s not an OPINION that a square is not a circle. It`s a fact.
The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge:
P1) If God is omniscient, then God knows EXACTLY what every person will do at every moment (t).
P2) To say that a person x has free will means that there is a moment where x performs an action (A) but COULD have done other (B,C...).
P3) But if x could have done other than "A" at "t", then x could have caused God to have a false belief.
P4) Since God is omniscient, it is impossible that God could have a false belief.
P5) If P4, then it is impossible that x could have done otherwise at "t"
P6) If P5, then x does not have free will.
Conclusion: If God is omniscient, humans cannot have free will.
Also, the point that you are making, we`ll have to agree to disagree.
I respectfully disagree.
The text IS within our understanding, some of us anyway.
And being allowed to understand? Well, sir, that is called religion.
who in the HELL died and made you King of all the Christians??? who in the HELL made such a stupid rule??
I sir, am a Christian. and I am very pro-gay rights.
You are nothing but ignorant and have no clue what it really means to be Christian. Accept others for who they are, and don`t judge them for what they can`t control.
homesexuality is NOT a sin, and it`s NOT a choice. bottom line.
God gives us guidance, then lets us run along and do our own thing."
trp, Let me break this down to you, okay?
If God is God, then God knew beforehand what creating Adam & Eve would lead to, yes? Where is the choice in the matter? If God doesn`t WANT something to happen, then it DOESN`T. God`s will is whatever it is that happens. God can`t create something that can "betray" him (Lucifer) and can`t create something that "goes wrong" (Adam & Eve).
the only difference is that trp doesn`t put others down for what they say, unlike you.
the answer, *in my mind,* is yes. God ULTIMATElY knows what will become of each and every one of us; he knows where we`ll end up. However, he does not know what will happen to us day to day. This is free will. He allows us to make our own choices in life and go where we will, because ultimately we`ll all end up where He wants us to be.
You talk as though your answer is the *only* right one. this is not an argument about right and wrong, it`s a matter of opinion and faith. stop acting as though no one else but you can be right. you have your thoughts on the matter, and i have mine.
"What God says goes, yes, BUT the bible isn`t solely what he said. Human limitations come into it, meaning the book is biased in many places. And once again, like a cracked record, I am saying that one shouldn`t take it word-for-word."
Human limitations? If we are limited in our understanding, then why not create a text that IS within our understanding? Or simply allow us to understand? You are talking out of your @ss, sir.
Woah there Poopy, bold words. If there was no free will, then there would be no sin. And if free will didn`t exist, then people like yourself wouldn`t exist; if god was that controlling, surely he`d want everyone to follow and believe him?
God gives us guidance, then lets us run along and do our own thing.
Sh*t, you know, gosh. I mean, why WOULD you think about it? It`s not like it`s GOD or anything. Darn me for questioning.
"...in my mind, He is perfect and does everything for a reason. I *personally* don`t think he plans every minute of our lives for us, that`s why he gave us brains. however, I do think he knows the ultimate outcome of our lives."
Hold on there, skippy. How can God be God and yet NOT plan out everything? If you are God, you know everything. You know of everything that was, is, and will be. There is no point in time where you don`t know what will transpire. The idea of God being omniscient and/or omnipotent is inconsistent with free will. If God exists, free will does not.
Yes`m, it sure does. But knowledge is power, and i`m only too happy to impart my views on the matter.
doesn`t repeating yourself get old after a while? :p
I agree. It`s called free will, and that`s why sin exists.
[quote]but leave me to my faith without putting it down. [/quote]
That`s not a literal story, but you took it literally. Therefore, since it`s the only example you used, I assumed you took the whole thing literally.
What God says goes, yes, BUT the bible isn`t solely what he said. Human limitations come into it, meaning the book is biased in many places. And once again, like a cracked record, I am saying that one shouldn`t take it word-for-word.
when it comes down to it, it`s all about personal faith and opinion. my God and i have a very close and personal relationship, and frankly nothing you say can change it. believe what you want, but leave me to my faith without putting it down.
trp, I`ll clarify. *I* don`t take it literally, but others surely do. And if not literally, they at least think it`s inspired by God. If you think a text is "of God," then there is no "context." God is God and what God says GOES. END OF STORY.
"and, for the record, God told Abraham to kill his son because He wanted to test Abraham`s loyalty."
PsychGeek, God wanted to TEST Abraham? Now just WHY in the drat would God need to TEST ANYTHING if he`s GOD?! A test implies that you don`t already know the outcome. Did God not already plan Abraham`s whole existence? For a person claiming someone else to uneducated, it seems that you haven`t done enough hard thinking about the incoherencies of your god.
I don`t know why tart is getting sooo upset over this, especially since he can`t seem to talk about it like a mature adult.
Firstly, you contradicted yourself. You say that the bible is inspired by God to back up one point, and written by man to back up another. Pick a side dude, or else it`s like talking to a Hydra.
The whole killing the son bit? IMHO, that`s not literal, as is almost none of the bible, barring Jesus Rising.
My views on the matter, just to clarify, the book is Divine Inspiration; inspired by God, written by man. Therefore, the teachings are correct, whereas the examples may not be.
Again, it`s not literal.
in OUR society, that may be considered "sick". however, in the time in which the Bible was written, that wasn`t unheard of.
keep the Bible in its context, don`t apply all the stories to the 21st century.
We disagree on many issues, but there are things that transcend I-A-B forum posts. I think Baal and I (don`t have a hernia!) are more alike than might first appear, despite our diametrically-opposing world-views on religion.
And frankly, I think that`s kinda cool. Gives me hope.
So I need to finish everything I need to do for the rest of the year in the next... 3 days.
if you`d please take the immature cursewords out of your comment, then i`ll read it. i honestly took a look at the first line and stopped.
once again, grow up. no one takes you seriously with all the cursing, because you look like an uneducated moron.
and i laughed :)
"to say the bible is full of sh*t is also closed-minded."
Well f*ck me for saying that a collection of bullsh*t stories from primative @sshats is full of sh*t. Oops, did I hurt your feelings?
"keep the bible in its context, and don`t throw the whole book away as being useless.
Keep the Bible in its context? Pretty hard to keep a text in its context when it is supposedly inspired by, I dunno, GOD! You honestly think your God was just d*cking around when he told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac? What kind of sick [email protected] god does that?!
"while it`s not right to twist some parts of it around to fit your argument and ignore others, it`s also wrong to completely disregard a sacred text as worthless--many would also consider that offensive."
& Scientologists find it offensive to make fun of Xenu, but what else can I do but laugh at pure bullsh*t?
If there are any people between my double post, I delete the new one, even though it is error free. Then replace it with a "Sorry, meant to say X"
If both my posts are back to back, I delete the one with the typo.
That way you don`t mess with the post order. You satisfy the OCD sufferer in you, and all is well with the world.
and thank you for backing me up about vulgar responses :)
I feel your pain mate. And yet I remain beset on all sides by retards. How to escape this quandry?
Poop, i`m Catholic. Barred the whole `Jesus rising from the dead` thing, I take NONE of it literally. Dude, if you take that thing literally, it IS ridiculous. PsychGeek backs me up here.
Well Davy, I can see where you`re coming from, but take me for example. My religion is probably the biggest group of persecuators ever, due to religious, racial or sexual reasons, but I don`t buy into all that sh*t. Personality transcends beliefs, is what i`m trying to get across.
Oh yeah, Poop, dude, you can disagree with someone without swearing at them.
i can`t even take you seriously :) keep saying stupid stuff, and i`ll keep laughing :)
Imo, there is nothing wrong with gays, it cannot be a choice, as no one (except emos) would want to put themself in the position where they are hated. (oh and trolls, dont forget trolls).
Oh and Dub, stop hiding in the closet.
Oh also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iZgDkHqk... LOLOLOL
grow up dude, you`re just wasting your time by trying to put me down. i`m sure you have better things to do with your time than look like a bumbling idiot?
I respectfully, and inflammatorially, disagree.
to say the bible is full of sh*t is also closed-minded. keep the bible in its context, and don`t throw the whole book away as being useless. while it`s not right to twist some parts of it around to fit your argument and ignore others, it`s also wrong to completely disregard a sacred text as worthless--many would also consider that offensive.
Not literal? What in the holy balls? Just which parts of the Bible are you taking literally, trp712? Lemme guess, is it the friendly parts?
And now if you`ll turn to Leviticus:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."- Leviticus 20:13
Why would the Old Testament say this and then have Jesus spread a message of supposed peace? Hmmmmm, could it be that the Bible is simply full of sh*t? Just sayin`.
Fraternal twins come from two different eggs, fertilized by two different sperm. Identical twins occur when one egg splits into two, and both had been fertilized by the same sperm.
Hetero is like, different, so fraternal.
I`m assuming Fraternal and Identical are different, yes?
Does heterozygous mean fraternal? I can`t remember my biology...
[quote]I, on the other hand, liked the video more precisely BECAUSE they singled out "christian". [/quote]
Hey hey, easy there. People everywhere are intolerant, it`s not just due to their religious beliefs. Sure, the bible does mention something about homosexuals being unnatural or some trash, but of course it`s not literal.
Why would God preach `Do unto others` one minute, and then say, `Oh wait, except for these guys` the next? No way does that make sense, at least not to me.
What i`m trying to say, don`t paint all the houses with the same colour.
Electricmonk, you must be one of the only people here who can see a full blown discussion in progress, and come in with that^^. Mad respect.
(but not really)
My views on this matter, you can`t change who you are. If you`re attracted to men, to women, to toasters, that`s how you`re born, and that`s the way you`ll die.No amount of "ZOMG BUT ITS ICKY ND RONG" is ever gonna change it.
People need to get over themselves and accept it. Who are you to deny a person of being who they truly are?
Not all Christians are anti-gay, but all anti-gays I`ve ever met are Christian. In the immortal words of Stephen Fry, "Religion: sh*t it."
*Starts working on debunking the climate change theory*
Right, like the planet needs more people just now.
(got cut off, as I was saying...)
Makes perfect sense to me. Moron.
(Didn`t want my point to get lost there due to character limit.)
open your eyes, and stop being such a closed-minded nitwit.
btw, for anyone who thinks homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", you`re freakin` wrong and need to do your research.
I, on the other hand, liked the video more precisely BECAUSE they singled out "christian".
Now, getting back to the issue, or rather the movie. I think it was very well done. Informative, funny, aimed at a very VERY wide audience...
My fav part was the "psssst.... *whisper* we`re still gay". 4/4.
I`m an advocate for gay rights, and I abhor the idea of mistreating them or thinking of them as lesser than anyone else. We`re all equal, we are meant to love one another regardless of their orientation. Who cares if they decide to live their life differently? Do you think that telling them they`re "wrong" or insulting them will make them stop? No. As long as heir lifestyle isn`t harmful to others or anything, let them live the way they want to live.
You both Phayl.
P.S. I`m bi.
I hadn`t even heard of it. Having looked it up, I can confidently say that I`d leave the area if it was being cooked. The smell would sicken me and maybe make me vomit. I`ll leave the area if someone has cheese on toast, or a sandwich with melted cheese. I find cooked cheese highly repulsive, to the extent that if I had a choice between eating it and eating dung, I`m not sure which I`d choose. It really is that disgusting to me.
There`s nothing wrong with me, in the same way that there`s nothing wrong with people who really *don`t* want to drink someone else`s urine as part of sex (which is harmless, like eating cheese).
Do you think there`s something wrong with everyone who doesn`t share your tastes in something? You know, like someone who is heterosexual and thinks that there`s something wrong with homosexuals? <--- Just in case you didn`t get the point.
The concept of "equal" has been so thoroughly corrupted by bigots who have abused it to create a false image to hide behind that I usually think it`s impossible to reclaim it.
As a rule of thumb, I assume that any organisation that claims to be advocating equality for any one group of people only is in fact advocating prejudice and discrimination against everyone else. I also assume that any person making that claim is either a bigot themself or a useful idiot for bigots.
There may be some exceptions, which of course is why I said it was a rule of thumb. What`s an absolute certainty, though, is that they have no idea what equality is.
Does that mean you don`t like Saganaki? What`s wrong with you!?
The tolerance argument is a imvalid as well! It wont happen and never will! Dont get me wrong, it would be a wonderfull world if everybody just minded their own business and left everyone else alone but thats not how it works!
Everyone has an agenda and untill everyone is recognised as equal then there will allways be fighting and victimisation! However, the problem with everyone being equal means everyone wants the same thing! Thats clearly not the case, be it religion, sexuality, law etc etc.
I think you`re thinking about you having sex with another man and using that as the basis for your opinion of men having sex with each other.
I find cooked cheese gross. The thought of eating cooked cheese makes me feel a bit sick.
So I don`t eat cooked cheese. But I don`t care if people who like cooked cheese eat it.
My thoughts about *me* eating cooked cheese don`t really apply to other people eating cooked cheese.
Don`t give me any reproduction burble, because you know as well as I do that reproduction isn`t the only reason why people have sex and you also know as well as I do that humanity will not die out if a fairly small minority of people don`t have children. It`s a stunningly stupid argument.
Don`t bother with "it`s wrong because it`s wrong", either. That`s not a reason.
"It`s wrong because people have told me that my god says it is" isn`t much of a reason, but at least it`s internally consistent.
Are all gay people nice by default?
By calling people dicks who disagree with you, you invalidate your argument. Your beef is not with those that disagree, but those who act inappropriately (rudeness or violence) to others they disagree with.
Let`s assume I was a racist homophobe. If I went around calling someone a jew faggot or punched out men who wore nice clothes, yes I would indeed be a dick. However, if I quietly think that gays are making a choice but treat them with civility and compassion, that`s my right.
What we should strive for in this culture is to make people dratING BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Not change their opinion. You can hate someone all you want, but you need to be nice to them regardless. That`s what tolerance is.
I`m for gay rights, but who wants to get married anyways?
I take it you`re against all forms of contraception then? I don`t see a solid argument for why homosexual sex should be "wrong" in any objective or even subjective way.
I find it astounding that people can be dumber than pig crap but there you go!
Now...how about contacting your local politicians and asking for them to have the right to be married? Taking away this basic, human right, is just despicable.
Well that`s a completely legitimate reason to lay a blanket of intolerance across an entire categorization of people!
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Hidden agenda? Oh you found us out, we`re all liberal gay commies that like to worship Satan yet at the same time are militant atheists.
...Or, you know, we just like it when you guys discuss things.
Firstly, identical twin studies are most often done on identical twins being raised in different families, so to eliminate the risk of environmental factors weighing in.
Secondly, most homo sexuals are not like that. In fact, most people don`t shout out their sexual preference for all to see. The point is, you see those who do, and therefore you assume that it`s the rule rather than the exception. It happens a lot, but it`s not true.
I think the twins thing is dumb. Everyone knows that twins share special connections to each other, so if one went gay, it wouldn`t be such a leap for the other to join him.
Most every gay person I`ve met has had one of those pasts, like `mommy/daddy didn`t love me!` or abandonment issues or abuse, etc. And of course, in a twins` case, they would`ve shared the same background.
Made me lol.