Hey Guys im back, sorry for the absence,
I think its time to get a new topic going, This weeks topic, homosexuality and should it be legal for them to get married. Give me your thoughts! help me out here.
p.s. please try to stay on topic this time, if you get bored with the convo tell me and ill post up a new topic.
Thanks with Love
Sammy Jayne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gay marriage should be legal. There is no need to discriminate against people that are simply in love and want to join in matrimony.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. God created men to love women and women to love men, not to have same sex relationships. And just because someone doesn't agree with gay relationships doesn't mean they're discriminating against them. They just don't agree, that's all.
ReplyDeleteGay marriage should not be legal because it's against God's Law and that is the Law I live by (and no, that doesn't mean I don't follow the country's law).
--Laura
How do you know "God created men to love women and women to love men,"? Are you referring to Mark chapter 10, verses 6 through 8? Those deal with divorce, and that no one should separate a faithfully married couple. (The next verse, verse 9.)
DeleteNo, you are discriminating. Giving unequal rights under the law to others is bigoted and discriminatory. If we take "God's law" so seriously, then why are only TWO of the ten commandments illegal? 8 of the ten things your so-called God says not to do are legal. Most of the things your god says to do are ILLEGAL. It says to put gays to death, and unruly children, and non believers... your ASS would be landed in jail if you actually believed in "God's law"... so don't pretend that you follow it. You only follow the ones that are convenient. If you can use the bible to say that gays cant be married then you must follow ALL of the bible, or else you are putting your own judgement in front of Gods... so go ahead and kill some gays or non believers to show us just how strongly you believe in the bible.. .if you wont then you are a coward and don't really believe in it anyways. Why only pick and choose certain ones?
ReplyDeleteThe whole world isn't Christian so of course not all the ten commandments will be against the law. That whole put gays to death is taken a little out of context. When there is war & rebellion, there have to be rules. The command is :) "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" MURDER & killing in war is different. When a community is under attack measures have to be taken. Today people go to prison & are kept out of society that way. Some countries hang & execute, others electrocute or euthanize. God was trying to protect & keep His people pure from defilement!
Delete"God's law" says not to work on Sundays, it says not to wear clothes made of two different types of fibers (i'm SURE you do) and that you can own slaves and says some slaves should be beaten harder than others. You are no real christian. And yes, this IS part of the topic because you are claiming to be against gay marriage because of "God's law"... yet Gods law doesn't seem to mean any more to you than it does to me.
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, using things out of context. This is all before Jesus, son, things have changed.
DeleteSo they have changed in the new testament correct? Well except of course Man shall not lie with man and the Commandments and creation. This is what atheists call "cherry picking" it shows you aren't a true christian because you don't follow all of them even though it said in the new testament that you should follow all rules given by god.
DeleteRN;
Delete“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19 NIV)
I don't fully understand or appreciate the meaning of this passage, but if it means what I think it does...
Cr Watch it please.
ReplyDelete-Sammy J
Watch what? I point out the clear contradictions, and passages in the bible that you IGNORE, while picking the ones that you like and only following those... and you're telling me to watch it? Can you not handle being shown how hypocritical you are? None of you have been able to answer any of the points I bring up. So why don't you read what I said again and try to answer them... the fact that you ignore most of "god's law"... means that you don't REALLY believe the bible is the word of God. So you watch it.
ReplyDeleteChristians are indeed human. Just like everybody else. We are hypocrites, at times we are judging, rude, heartless and aweful creatures. BUT, that doesn't mean our God is the same. He isn't like us at all, He is love. And us trueChristians strive to be like Him, but, again, we are human, we make mistakes, mess up & get angry. And the "Christians" who don't try at all are not following the God they claim to be.
Deletewatch what you call my administrators please.
ReplyDeletethats the first thing the second thing Cr is that you cant keep your cool. im asking you to please think about what you asked me when you first got on the site you asked me "will you guys be civil?" and i said yes. but now the tables have turned and your harrassing my staff telling them they are not real christians.I respect what you beleave. yes i have debated with you but i still respect your opinions. I would hope that you could be civil in return and respect us. PLEASE
-Samantha Jayne
This is evie.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what i have to say in response to the whole law thing:
"10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
Romans 3:10-31
"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering"
-Romans 8:3
"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
-Romans 10:4
" 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."
-Galatians 3:23-25
if i had more time, i would write more, but this is it for now.
evie again.
ReplyDeletejust a note on above, the whole book of romans is especially good for this topic, but to avoid writing so much, i let alot of the meatier stuff out.
i would appreciate if you would read it though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvie, all I read there was white noise. What does ANY of this nonsense have to do with anything that we've talked about? Seriously, quoting scripture from a bible that says the earth is flat isn't helping your argument. I'm now annoyed that I had to even read that, it was a waste of time and I don't know what point you were trying to make. All I saw were a bunch of blind assertions about christ and this and that, but nothing to back them up. So if you want to say that the bible is truth and quote some scripture as truth, then you have to also say the the earth is flat, because your precious bible says that too.
ReplyDeleteSo here's the question... DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE AND THAT IT IS THE WORD OF GOD? If so, why ignore certain passages while following others?
*In the future, don't quote me long passages from the silly book. Just make your own arguments using your own words.
-CR
Sammy: I don't see how we can debate these things if your only reason for being against it is because the bible says so, you have to first prove that the bible is truth before you can use it as a reason to deny rights to others.
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say in the Bible that the earth is flat? Not to be rude, but you claim to know a good bit of the Bible, enough to think you can use it as ammo against me, so i would like some proof, just like ive been able to quote things directly from it to prove what i have to say.
ReplyDeleteand as far as the law thing goes, i was trying to show you that the old laws from the old testament were cancelled out by Jesus dying on the cross, so all of your arguments that we Christians are so hypocritical b/c we dont do exactly what the old testament laws said to do is null for us, and therefore a moot point on your part. if youre going to try to use the Bible against us who believe in it, i suggest that you use it in correct context and whatnot, b/c otherwise there's no point in discussing it.
by the way, this message isnt supposed to be antagonistic; im just saying.
Matthew 4:8, "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...." The only plausible reason for the "very high mountain" was that the altitude would make it possible to see to the ends of the earth. Only on a flat earth would this be remotely possible.
ReplyDeleteJob 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it"
Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved"
Job "Grab the earth by it's four corners and shake the wicked out of it"
Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” Only with a flat earth could tall tree be visible from “the earth's farthest bounds,” -- this is impossible on a spherical earth.
All wrong. The earth isn't set on its foundations, it rotates, the earth doesn't have any CORNERS, it is round, and the sun rises rises in the east and sets in the west.
On the part about you saying that you somehow prove what you say, no, you haven't proven a single thing thing that you've said, quoting from the bible is by no means proof of anything.
So you are saying that the old testament is all bullshit? If so, then fine. The new testament with jesus says to always give someone whatever they ask for, to pay more for whatever something costs. The NEW TESTAMENT says to put nonbelievers and gays to death, so yes, you are hypocrites and seem to be somewhat clueless to the book that you believe in.
So i'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer... if the bible is the word of God, then what gives you the power to decide which parts to follow and which to ignore?
NObody has the power to pick and choose what they want to follow and if they do it's wrong and that's not what Christianity is all about. ANd if a 'Christian' is doing that then they are not following Jesus.
DeleteDon't judge someone beecause they sin differently than you.
DeleteOne more thing, don't try to say that I am not providing evidence of things. Charlie thought the big bang was simply rocks colliding... no rocks were involved in the big bang, he then tried to say that it was a "summary" of what happened, this shows that he has no idea what the Atheist point of view of the universe is.
ReplyDeleteSammy, you claim to not like science or scientists... science built your car, your computer and your tv, your stove, everything around you that isn't natural is made by science, even your doctor uses science. So why don't you get rid of all of those things? The only reason you deny science in THIS case is because they disprove your God by using logic and reason, and REALITY.
Evie- I haven't heard much from you so far, but quoting me scripture isn't impressing me, and isn't evidence of any of your claims. Quite the opposite
Laura- Don't get me started on you.
Alright, no rocks, but just a bunch of random matter? EVer heard of the law of conservation of matter? yeah matter cannot be created nor distroyed. So your saying that there was rando matter that just exploded and made everything? THAT is not scientifically correct.
Delete"Big bang, let's think about this logically. OK, tiny ball of matter, it explodes, and "POW" the universe. Where my friend did the tiny ball come from in the first place? You can't know because you or anyone couldn't possibly have observed it. There is no peer review or scientific method."
ReplyDeleteThe above is what Charlie said in his discussions with CharismaticRecluse concerning the big bang. Look it up in their discussion, it's not very far in.
"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe."
The above is a despription of the big bang from this website: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
Don't put words into my mouth CharismaticRecluse. Making up stuff doesn't make for good argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYeah, I broke my word to stop talking to you but it's not right for you to lie about what I said. If other people are still gonna talk to you, I owe it to them that they get the truth and that you don't get away with false information.
ReplyDeleteYou were, and are still very wrong: A tiny ball of matter it was not. It was a chemical singularity that was very dense and heated up over time to eventually fly apart. The term "big bang" is a mis-nomer because it was neither big, nor was there a bang because there is no sound in the vacuum that is space.
ReplyDeleteDon't lecture me about false information Charlie, you haven't put forth one single piece of true information. Just magical fairy-tale claims of God and not one shred of evidence. What has your theology said that is demonstrably true... what of your mythical claims of jesus and sin has been proven? If you simply have to have "faith", and can't prove something to be true then it doesn't exist. You evangelize your immoral christian doctrines of hell and anti-choice, anti-atheist, anti-gay advocacy and celestial dictatorships with not one shred of proof but saying "see, right here in this book" without any solid foundation, and you want to lecture me about honesty? Why don't you take a mirror and look at your own claims and beliefs first before you accuse someone else of skewing the facts.
Sorry but, we're putting stuff out there, you're the one talking nonsense. seriously? an explosion and, OH! there's the endless universe with colosal planets and boundless plant species, vast land to explore, and beautiful animals, sweeping plains and beautiful scenery. And the Very complex human being. better check your "facts"
DeleteThe question isn't where did the ball come from, the question is how did it explode if its just sitting there AND it explodes and wow, magically there's everything. Yeah atually this makes prefect sense because when scientists have chemical explosions and what not, universes almost always apear. And you say God's unrealistic...
DeleteAnd if the cause of the explosion was it being heated, where did the heat coe from? if there's nothing but that primordial soup then there's no heat source.
I'll just let the truth speak for itself this time, it's pretty clear my despription was just a very brief summary not meant to be a detailed scientific report and that it lines up with the description I provided from the website, although in less detail again. You can keep ranting to yourself all you want, but it's pretty clear that that's just it, you're just ranting.
ReplyDeleteWe've already strayed off topic now. The original thread asked for the public's opinion on homosexual marriage. It's interesting how disagreement splays off on different tangents, such as "The Big Bang". Let's leave that for another discussion in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe topic at hand truly is a controversial issue. The Church is aghast at the dissemination of the homosexual culture, and it has every right to be. Now since one of you, CharismaticRecluse, thinks that the Bible should not be considered in this argument (you've already rejected its validity), I suppose looking at it philosophically will suffice. First, I must address, I am a Christian, but I have my secular sympathies. I, personally, am not opposed to "civil union", or the "legal binding of same-sex individuals as it is defined by American Law". It is inevitable that homosexuals want to be together, and also understandable that they want to be recognized by their homeland. Limiting legality of civil union leads to unrest and only furthers "gay pride". The problem Christians rightfully have with gay marriage is the use of the traditional heterosexual union or ceremony with homosexuals. Even the sound of "the Power bestowed upon me, I now pronounce you man and man (etc.)" really is contentious in the minds of Christians. Gay relations is clearly defined as a "sin", but gay marriage while "evoking God's approval of it" is blasphemous and as distasteful as battery-acid.This, I would expect, should be the feelings and sentiment of the Christian community. Sin should be cancer to our spirituality. But let's look at several facts about America:
1. More than 70% of men in America visit a site containing pornography.
2. 10% of American men are addicted to porn.
3. 51% of pastors consider cyber-porn tempting. 37% say it is a current struggle.
What I'm trying to illustrate here is that sexual immorality (often acquainted with homosexuality) is very broad. Subjecting one group of sexually immoral people to ridicule and deprivation of rights can be hypocritical for some, because I'm certain that some Christians who are against gay marriage struggle with another tone of sexual immorality: pornography. I believe that if we, as Christians (excluding CharismaticRecluse, of course) are to deny the rights of homosexuals to sin, then we have to equally deny our rights to pornography. (Rights, in this context, is defined "as the ability to do something".) Sin is sin, and often Christians can lose sight of that. Civil Union between homosexual partners is inevitable, just as the access to pornography is inevitable. What I suggest Christians to do is (instead of letting the issue slide), become a mentoring component in the lives of homosexuals instead of chastising them. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus feasted with the sinners. Religious intoleration, as observed throughout history, leads to resentment of the Church (the Spanish Inquisition, and the Irish Catholic-vs.-Protestant battling, et cetera). I, personally, am saddened by gay marriage, but it is inevitable that it will be a larger entity in our culture. That's my two cents.
Just a lesson on debating. Without a moderator, it is frivolous to assume your opinion's victory. That is blatant subjectivity. Opinion can be biased, but is the more annoying when someone says "my view trumps your's". All that you can do, as a debator, is give your evidence and opinion on the topic being discussed. I've found throughout my own debating that assuming victory without a moderator is, philosophically, intolerant.
ReplyDeleteA little about me you should know. I was not a Christian all my life. I was Muslim and an atheist once. I adhere to no denomination, but believe what best suites me is the Paleo-Orthodox Movement (although not strictly considered a denomination or movement, but only a specific stream of consciousness). Biblical hermeneutics is key to understanding God and the Bible. Science and religion do not conflict in my opinon. In fact, many religious men throughout history are deemed great scientists. Before I became a Christian, I was very curious about the various worldviews that permeate our society and, around the age of 15, I was experimenting with different beliefs and faiths. I try to look at every opinion as a "true" journalist (although I can't claim I'm the exemplar of journalism and objectivity). Bias is my worse enemy. I absolutely hate bias; it in all of its terrible "petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, sado-masochistic" manifestations.
ReplyDeletethis is evie.
ReplyDeleteto CR about your Bible references:
matthew - couldnt it have been in a vison? thats way more plausible.
job - whoever said God isnt above figurative language?
psalm - again, figurative. it is probably saying that God made everything in the universe from the very beginning and that He is still in charge of it all.
job - figurative again. couldnt the directions on a map (north, south, east, and west) be considered the four corners of the earth.
ecclesiastes - youre right; the sun does rise in the east and set in the west. and this is probably an old testament explanation of how the sun rises on one side of the horizon and sets on the other side but (amazingly to someone without a grasp of modern science) is somehow back on the same side the next day.
daniel - this is from a vision (it says so earlier in the verse), so youre quoting it out of context. but even so, doesnt "the ends of the earth" sound alot like the phrase "as far as the eye can see". people use that when theyre talking about something going on for a long time, or something in large quantity, or something unending. the king probably saw in his vision as far as his eyes could, which is to the horizon, or "the (perceived) ends of the earth".
"you claim to know a good bit of the Bible, enough to think you can use it as ammo against me, so i would like some proof" - this is what i said to you earlier, to which you responded with your quotes from the Bible.
then you said "quoting from the bible is by no means proof of anything"
arent you going back on what you said?
i am by no means saying that the OT is a bunch of bunk. i was just explaining to you the reason why Christians are no longer bound by the laws of the OT due to Jesus' death.
no one has the authority to pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. either you accept all of it, or you dont accept it at all. and yes, the Bible (and specifically the NT with Jesus's teachings) does give us rules to live by, but God knows that we will not live them out perfectly. that doesnt mean that we shouldnt have to do what it says in the NT b/c we will be forgiven. on the contrary, we should live our lives in gratitude to what God has done for us, and in doing so, want to follow His commands. just b/c Christians dont live all of them out doesnt mean that we are picking and choosing what we want to follow. it just means all the more that we are sinners, and in need of God's grace.
what i wrote probably doesnt mean anything to you, with the whole "grace" thing, but maybe youll accept it as plausible.
oh, and just to avoid a slam from you on this, i said probably a lot b/c i dont want to come off as a high and mighty Bible scholar who knows exactly what every word of the Bible means. i really dont like people who presume to know the exact meaning of everything.
to rutledge: very interesting remarks. ive never really thought about it that way, but youve certainly made an incredible point. i totally agree with the whole "hate the sin; love the sinner" thing, but im still not quite ready to give gay marraige a thumbs up. youre right, it is inevitable, but so is murder, and thats illegal. i might have more to say on this, but im not quite sure as to how to word it intelligently, so ill hold off for now.
this is evie again.
ReplyDeleteto rutledge again: i totally agree with your second comment on here - the "lesson on debating" one. i wish you wouldve said that earlier b/c i think a lot of unnecessary fighting could have been avoided. oh well. you said it now, so thats good enough.
CR, there are some verses in the Old Testament that do not condone same sex relationships, but it NEVER says "go and kill every gay person you come in contact with."
ReplyDeleteInstead, it says:
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served things rather than the Creator -- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the DUE PENALTY for their perversion." God is the one dishing out the penalites here; He doesn't command us to kill others. Gays are people, just like everybody else. They deserve to be treated with respect. Just because we don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean that they aren't valued as people.
I wanted to show you something from the Old Testament, as well. In Leviticus 20:13 it says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I can see where you would think that God is commanding us to kill gays. The Lord does detest these things, but He is the one dishing out the penalties. It's not our duty to place the judgment -- that's up to God. And besides, that was the Law of Moses from the OT, and it doesn't apply anymore because in the NT Jesus died to take the load of our sins. Like what Evie quoted in an earlier post, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice as atonment, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbeareance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished -- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26
That was Laura, by the way.
ReplyDeleteD.L. Rutelege ...
ReplyDeleteSexual immorality? Masturbation and pornography are both legal, and if someone wants to watch or do either one of them, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. You start off acknowledging that I reject the validity of the bible, but then you go RIGHT back to it when talking about sexual immorality. What is it about your own sexuality that scares you religious people so much? You Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus... all of you are scared to death of sex... it's almost sick. Perhaps thats why the famous Evangelical Minister Ted Haggard was secretly having sex with a gay prostitute all that time, and then blamed it on the devil... what a cop out. You guys are hypocrites, you claim no masturbation and no sex yet Christians have higher rates of abortion than any other religious group, you have had countless sexual offenses sanctioned by the church to rape little boys and all sorts of things. Don't lecture anyone about morality, the bible has none. And neither do you. What makes you say that homosexuality is synonimous with sexual immorality, besides your own bigotry? Philosophically, "all men are created equal" is what the founding fathers said, so that includes GAY men, and to be equal under the law means that they should be allowed to marry. Separate is not equal, the U.S. Supreme court ruled on the "seperate but equal" argument in the 1960's and called it B.S. So what is it besides one book that says the earth is flat, and has all sorts of unprovable claims, what besides that book do you have to be against gay marriage for? God created man in your view, so he MADE some of them gay, and then will punish them for it? How ridiculous. If you think that religion and science are compatible, then you are more delusional than anyone on this forum perhaps. Evolution does NOT go along with Adam and Eve, and the big bang (solid science) has NO room for God in it.
Morals, and character, Thats what tells you what right and wrong, not laws. Don't get mad cause they're talking about sexual immorality, that's what this thing is supposed to be about. We aren't scared of sex, we just don't take it as lightly as others do and we acknowledge facts about it that others ignore. Christians are human. And most Christians don't even understand exactly what it is they are following. Most are just scared of God because they don't truly know. Which would explain the abortion statistics. We can discuss sexual immorality if we want to, just because others like us have sinned doesn't mean we are guilty of the same crimes. We have the right to express our own oppinions of the subject at hand. Hoosexuality is a sin. God does not Make people to be born gay, but, we are born with sin. everybody has their weaknesses, and for gays, their temptation is obviously homosexuality. HAA! solid science????? I'm sorry, WHAT? that's ridiculous hun, it was an explosion that supposidely brought up everything. There ar roughfly 265 EXABYTES of information in the entire world.
Deletegigabyte 1,000 megabytes
terabyte 1,000 gigabytes
petabyte 1,000 terabytes
exabyte 1,000 petabytes
On one single strand of DNA all that information would make up less than 1%. That came from soup.
Also sir, We are using the bible to back up what we say. you're using a book some guy wrote about birds. who later wrote another book dislaming the acusations made in the first one.
DeleteEvie, that was the most pathetic attempt i've ever seen at refuting a point. "God isn't above our language?"... so then we can't even talk about anything. If ANYTHING that your God says that is wrong, you will simply say "Oh he's speaking ABOVE US" but then you turn around in the next message and claim to tell me what the word of God says. If every time I bring up a verse in the bible that is CLEARLY false, you are going to dismiss it because you can't face reality, then you, and none of the rest of you are allowed to quote any bible verses to me. North South East and West, give me a break Evie you are scrambling to find coherence in a book that contradicts itself countless times over and over. You claim that I went back on my "word" about the bible not holding any weight, yet YOU are the one who asked me to tell you where the bible says it is flat, please, pay more attention next time so I don't have to reply to your non-sequiturs. You pick and choose which parts of the bible you like, and choose only those to live by. You then say "oh well he KNOWS we wont follow all of them" so that means that NO ONE is a sinner. If everyone can just pick whatever they like in the bible and ignore the rest, then the non believer is just as "biblically moral" as you are.
ReplyDeleteLaura...
ReplyDeleteOne of you write to me at a time, I don't feel like reading a billion messages that make no sense at all. It's quite annoying.
No, you are picking and choosing again. It has instructions that THEY SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. It doesn't say 'in the afterlife' or "I will put them to death"... the bible is, in your view, written FOR MAN. You are simply making more excuses as to why you don't follow the bible. Why don't you pay more for everything than it costs? Why don't you give someone anything they ask for like jesus says? This is why I say that you are all hypocrites.
Look D.L.
I don't need any "lessons on debating" from people who debate from the ONLY standpoint of the BIBLE BEING TRUE. You quote the bible, praise it, talk about it... but you NEVER GIVE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Here's a lesson for all of you... before quoting me from a silly old book, why don't you prove that it isn't just fiction first? How about that?! Or prove that this God you love so much ACTUALLY EXISTS. That's how you debate, you can't debate the existence of God while saying "ok, so this book right here says he exists, see? Right here"... So what? Give me some proof, or shut up about your invisible fairy tale.
Ah hello Mr. or Mrs. or Miss Rutledge! My name is Charlee and I am one of the administrators on this web site, but basically all I do is talk so I'm not much of an admin. I hope you will continue to look into the website and provide your view point as much as you feel the need to; otherwise I'll look pretty foolish if you never come back and I did this introduction for nothing! Nah just kiddin, welcome aboard!
ReplyDeleteYou have no philosophical grounds to be against gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing any of you ever reference is the bible, you claim that homosexuality promotes sexual immorality, but morality is subjective. Do you think that Christianity is the only religion? Do you think you are the only one who thinks that YOUR morals are right and everyone elses are wrong? You fools. You want to have debates, yet all that happens is little old Evie quotes me some bible verses, Laura makes excuses for the bible's nonsensical claims, and D.L... you try to claim you were once a muslim AND an Atheist, ... so you think you were talking nonsense before? You STILL ARE. So how about this... if you are only going to use your stupid fairytale religion and nonsensical belief in God (because you are afraid of hell)... then the FIRST THING that all of you have to do is give me some EVIDENCE and PROOF that your God exists at all. If you don't, then that means that the REAL reason you are against gay marriage is because you are a sick, delusional bigot, which you still are even if you are hiding it behind your idea that "God says so". So come on... prove to me that your invisible loverboy named God exists... any one of you, until then just put your heads down and keep talking to your imaginary friend in private... because you are INSANE. So, give me some proof, or shut up with your bigoted immoral bullshit...
You can't, and you wont. You are all afraid of hell and are so brainwashed that you poor little slaves can't possibly imagine a world without your precious invisible dictator in the sky.
Just an honest question CharismaticRecluse, it seems to me your main method of attack is asking those in this blog to provide valid evidence that God exists, while YOU act as the arbitor in determining if that evidence is cogent and at all liable. Very, very subjective my friend. You've even made a blog of your own calling out anyone to give you solid evidence of a god's existence. Since it appears that the feelings and opinions of those arguing for the existence of God aren't satiating your stringent attempt to bash religion, I'm going to ask you this (expecting an all too common response): "What evidence do you have that God or a god does not exist? What can you place on the platter for all of us to see?" I'm certain that this question will elicit an answer on the lines of how science is your indomitable ally in your quest to banning God from ethics, philosophy, sociology, and reason. You've even accused me of quoting from the Bible--well, I didn't. If any thing relatable to quoting, it'd be the aphorism of "Jesus feasting with sinners". What I believe the issue here is that you are debasing the beliefs of those here whose pedestal of authority (in determining morality and ethics) is the Bible. You've already laid the rules of conduct--opponents cannot use the Bible as a basis to determining THEIR view on moral authority. But you beg for evidence, negligent of the Bible, to give us reason in our thinking that homosexuality is immoral. I am going to remove the Bible as my authority, and look at homosexuality as "pernicious" to the species based on science and your own reasoning. First, since the Bible has been omitted from consideration as a basis of the Christian rationale against homosexuality, I can say already that without it the term sexual immorality does not exist. I am fine with that. We will look at it as an amoral issue but strictly confined to the vast and various forms of reason and ethics determined by science. (Remember now, God does not exist in this argument.) Homosexuality is incompatible within a functioning society based on several issues that arise:
ReplyDelete1. how does homosexuality benefit (further) society, and make for a better species?
2. is homosexuality degenerative or fecund?
3. does it imply morality (and where from science is it implied?)
The first point is simple observation of our own society. The only thing homosexuality has contributed to America is a counter-culture. You almost never hear of a homosexual ever claim that their openness about being gay has earned them millions, or give them reason to be a magnate. Homosexuality does not further the species, but only satiate the minds of those for it. Looking at it based on progeny, homosexuality is very impractical and sometimes pernicious. A man having intercourse with another man cannot beget another man. How does that preserve the species? And I assume you think homosexuality or homo-erotica is genetic--(which can instigate a whole new debate, nature vs. nurture, but for times sake we won't go there). Are homosexuals completely gay? If they were, I can't see how the thousands or millions years of our evolution has managed to produce complete homosexuals. Their gender preference works against the feasable dissemination of their offspring. Genetically, no one can be completely homosexual. If at some time there was a complete gay, his or her chain of lineage would have been eradicated simply due to the fact that they have no method of reproduction unless they had intercourse with the opposite sex.
So on this basis, homosexuality is impractical and unfeasible within science (despite science's indication that homosexuality exists--much like we can point to tornadoes or orangutang tribal rivalry that resulted in the deaths of several babies). Homosexuality is impractical, why not refine our species and be done with it? It is proven that the virulent and deadly HIV/AIDS pandemic is linked with the acts of homosexuality or multiple intercourse with various parties. So, since Biblical morality is non sequitur, and our only moral code can be harness via nature, is homosexuality and multiple partner intercourse immoral (or dangerous)? Well, the answer is obviously less. Only a simpleton would think otherwise. Then why are you so for homosexuality and multiple partner intercourse if it yields our species such drastic and deleterious effects? Your advocating it implies that you yourself have committed the grandest boo-boo within morality, which is humorous when you blame those here of themselves being bigoted and hypocritical. Your staunch admiration of science is made invalid when you've decided to agree with homosexuality and multiple partner relations, and all the deadly baggage with it, enough to make British polymath and philosopher Herbert Spence turn in his grave. Why are you in support of this sexual immorality (remember, we are constrained to scientific reason) when it has killed millions? Is this form of morality at all appealing? Why are you going against practicality? Why does the judeo-Christian model of morality seem the more repugnant? IS THERE MORALITY and is it only a figment of sympathy conjured up in the minds of our earliest ancestors?
ReplyDeleteCharismaticRecluse, you are not new. Your arguments you present are the same hackneyed and regurgitated polemic against religion that has existed (even further back than the Enlightenment). You yourself are guilty of being bigoted and elitist. As if your worldview conduces the privilege of being elitist. You bash the people here for being "dumb" and "brainwashed", implying a sense of inferiority. Remember now, the "sin" you accuse everyone here of committing does not negate the fact you yourself are exonerated from it. Quit being subjective and lumping everyone (including me) in one boiling pot--YOUR impression of religiosiots.
ReplyDeleteLet me reference your own words:
"Look D.L.
I don't need any "lessons on debating" from people who debate from the ONLY standpoint of the BIBLE BEING TRUE. You quote the bible, praise it, talk about it... but you NEVER GIVE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR IT."
I've looked in other catfish ponds to know sexual immorality in scientific terms is deadly. I don't need the Bible to orchestrate my opinion of it. And your brash, even silly, subjective accusation that my "ONLY standpoint is the BIBLE" connotes your own failure to avoid categorizing by stereotypes. Let's all agree, humanity is a terrible thing. We are all bigots. Ask yourself this, if you had the ability to remove religion from the world, would you hesitate to do so? Reminisce that personally. If humanity is to survive and religion is deemed the worst enemy of it, how far will you go to "preserve the species"? Another annoying thing is how most atheists I've brushed up against always define God by the actions of his acolytes. Just because a pastor, such as Ted Haggard, defied his own logic by engaging himself in that activity does not give you the right to assume religion is incompatible. Mahatma Ghandi was asked whether he liked Jesus, at which he replied, "I like Jesus, it's Christians I have a problem with". That is the dominant worldly impression of religion. Let's blame it for producing abortion clinic bombings! If "Christians" would be Christians, I wouldn't think our world would be in the shambles that it is in. Living by the statutes outlined in the OT and the NT does not yield to vindictive, bigoted individuals. Maybe if Christians would act and obey the laws of the Bible, we wouldn't have terrorist attacks and Spanish Inquisitions. Your blatant (and unfair) thesis on religion is appalling, in my opinion, and not comprehensive at all. Stop defining God by the actions of disciples. I am not at all saying I am not guilty of immorality (spiritually and scientifically), I'm saying all of humanity is. Please, end your egocentrism and understand that your impregnable worldview is not the perfect alternative to religion. If that was so, I guess Joseph Stalin's iron curtain in Russia seems mildly appealing to you and worthy of condoning.
There is NOTHING subjective about evidence. If I were to tell you that there is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, you would agree. That isn't subjective.
ReplyDeleteStalin didn't do anything in the name of atheism, atheism isn't a belief, it is simply the LACK of a belief in a god or gods. That's like saying because Stalin didn't believe in astrology that IT was the reason he was killing people. Hitler was a roman catholic by the way. It is demonstrably true that religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else.
You asked a remarkably stupid question, it is not on ME to disprove your God. If you make the claim that something DOES exist, then it is on you to prove it. "that which can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof"... I can't just sit back and say "the flying spaghetti monster exists" so what evidence do you have that it DOESNT EXIST? Hmm, the evidence against God is the ABSENCE of evidence you fool. There is no evidence for fairies either, so does that mean that it is true unless you DISPOVE IT? No, you are making a stupid argument. It is on you to prove that your God exists, and if you can't then shut up.
For someone who talks about "subjectivism" so much, you sure like to employ "the counter-culture" ... all that is, is the deviation from the norm, and there is nothing wrong with what you call the "counter-culture". We atheists aren't slaves like you are, we can behave as we want and don't have to worry about whether we will offend the "culture" of a society or any deity either. Homosexuality exists in other animals too, it is simply a mis-firing of sexual desires to reproduce. Should we call retardation a sin too? Because retardation is a mis-firing of how the brain should work. Do you REALLY want to try to say homosexuality doesn't exist? You are NO LONGER allowed to talk about science with me, because you obviously know nothing about it. Homosexuality is extremely real, the religious people just deny it because they think the stupid book is against it. Homosexuality is just as real as heterosexuality. You have no argument against it. You keep saying "science science science" yet your beliefs about religion contradict science at EVERY turn.
Hmm, I'm not new? The old religious delusions are the oldest of anything. People have been inventing Gods forever, and one day this God and religion will die out just as the greek Gods did, and the roman gods. Your religion is no more than the delusion of the day, the thing that unintelligent believe who don't and can't understand how the universe REALLY works. You are the one who has a belief that we are born sick and in sin, so God creates us and then blames us for his own mistakes? Because if he KNEW it was going to happen, then he is the cause of it because HE created us TO do it. What don't you understand about that? If you enjoy being a slave to this invisible dictator in the sky then fine, but don't claim that it is the truth. This God would be an ass if it existed, it says oh I love you so much that I will give you free will, but if you don't USE IT AS I SAY.. then you'll burn forever. Any thinking person would not be persuaded to confuse this God with a loving entity.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, you are rambling on and on about NOTHING, offering no evidence. NONE. My arguments are the same old thing? Come on, you havent been able to refute one of my arguments, your religion is one of many claiming to be the truth, and all are equally crazy. All are baseless and have no evidence for them. All of them pander to the dumber people, specifically in America in the south.
I am not born in sin, I am an intelligent rational unafraid human being. Can you say that? No, you can't because you are afraid of an invisible dictator in the sky and you are SCARED that he will send you to hell. You have no argument for your religion yet you bash atheists. Name one TANGIBLE negative effect that homosexuality has had? You can't name one, the truth is you know you can't name one because you hide behind "oh well uhh, it's the counter-culture" while trying to hide that the REAL reason you are against it is because 1. you are a mindless puppet/bigot and 2. because the flat earth book says so.
So why don't you give me some evidence instead of dodging the question like a foolish coward. What is the evidence of your God? If you are going to sit here and argue religion, give some god damned evidence ... don't ask me "prove it doesn't exist!" because that is called unfalsifiability, which shows the WEAKNESS OF AN ARGUMENT. You know you have no argument for God's existence, so you try to switch it up. If you make a claim, YOU have to prove it, are you not smart enough to realize that? You accuse me of arrogance, but I am seriously arguing with people who pretend to understand logic and science while holding views that outrage and contradict both. Don't write me another long-winded message about morality and your pseudo-phillosophical nonsense... give me some proof, or shut up.
WE HAVE THE BIBLE! nobody just thought up this God. theres a giant book of written proof. Nobody's afraid of God here, we know the truth so of course we on't say we aren't sinful. And you're foolish to think you're not either because everyone is. AIDS comes from homosexual men.= tangibleXD. Its' just so obvious that man and women were meant to be together. we're like puzzle peices that fit together perfectly to make a whole new human being. you can't do that if you're gay. How about you read the book George Muller, there is PLENTY of evidence of a God in that book or the book corrie ten boom. Not everything has to be logical sir. http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html <-- there's some scientific proof.
DeleteI can tell you are someone who thinks you are a lot smarter than you are. The bible offers no evidence, only assertions. The whole basis of the bible is the assumption that THIS God exists at all. You have to prove that ANY God exists first, then you have to prove that YOURS does, and then you've got even more work ahead of you proving that he had a son with a virgin birth and a resurrection and the miracles. This is magical superstition no different than greek mythology.
ReplyDelete"Sexual immorality" has nothing to do with science, it is a philosophical question, and you keep trying to make it about science. Sexual immorality is SUBJECTIVE. If you were born gay you wouldn't think it was so immoral. You are a hypocrite kid, you masturbate and you know it. If you claim that you don't, you are a bold faced liar, the only difference is that you feel "dirty" after you do it. People like you are the worst kind of people, you pretend that you were once an atheist or a muslim, clearly bullshit. The truth is, you have no evidence or reason to believe. The only refutation you have is to say "oh, well you saying I have no proof is subjective!" no, you fool. Listen up, EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE. You just have none and its clear that you know you have none. If you did you wouldn't have dodged it for so long, and you would have given some. All of you are brainwashed fools and I can say that all I want until you PROVE that your wacky supernatural claims that DEFY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE... until you can prove that those claims are true then it is completely valid to pass judgement on your sanity, or how out of touch with reality each and every one of you are. After all this time, all you've got is fear. I can and will define God by his followers because it is his followers that DEFINE HIM. Everyone has a different view of what God is. Even within christianity there are all sorts of denominations. How else are we to define this invisible unprovable entity if not by the way humans describe it? It is man-made, so how else am I supposed to judge it? With my super powers? If there was a loving God we wouldn't have all of the murder and disease and famine that we do today. God created the devil KNOWING what it would do, so God is responsible. Why don't you see that? Why don't you see that it is all a big scam that they have to use the fear of hell to get you to believe in? You are afraid to really think objectively about this because if you weren't then you wouldn't believe such nonsense. Grow up, all of you.
We're not scared of God he loves us so much and we love him back. just like a dad
DeleteSince this thread has already been butchered outside the confines of the topic of "homosexual marriage", I do not mind going off in tangents. In response to CharismaticRecluse, I will strive to rebut some of your claims and answer some of the questions you pose, as well as polish some of the misunderstandings you have about some of my arguments.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you say "there is nothing subjective about EVIDENCE". The evidence you bring to the table, I suppose, is solid, palpable evidence, such as the murder weapon in a homicide case. You have a difficult time understanding that there can be two forms of evidence: tangible evidence (like the murder weapon), and philosophical evidence (e.g. evidence of rational "freedom"). You and I can both agree that these two forms of evidence do exist. When science fails to explain certain components such as "what are morals" or "what is the best way for the species to improve in terms of ethics and managerial policies", then it is RATIONAL and within REASON to extrapolate on which variety of ways can produce the ultimum results (e.g. Keynesian theory of economics and communism). This is when the human mind delves into the arena of PHILOSOPHY. You cannot say philosophy is without evidence. Philosophy has garnered humanity its codes of conduct and habitability, without evidence. Seriously, can you mention palpable evidence of "ethics"? No, but we know ethics exists because it permeates every society of the world, and anthropologically it has been paramount for some civilizations throughout history. When science fails to answer some questions, usually philosophy is employed to rationalize and expound on things we cannot explain via physical science. Are you going to deny Kant, Spencer, Descartes, and Socrates their scientific merit based on their varying views of ethics? I would hope not.
So where does the "existence of God" come into the picture? Well, there are four main arguments to the existence of God. This God we will discuss would be best defined as a deistic god, not one anchored in religious dogma such as the Judeo-Christian God, and Zeus. The first "proof" that purports God's existence is the ontological argument. We can both agree that there are laws of logic, well this argument goes hand-in-hand with the laws of logic. St. Anselm invented this argument, which claims that God's existence can be proven simply by "thinking about it". Now, before you snicker at that "unscientific" claim, remember, it took many great philosophers to rationalize a Republic (or a Democracy), something that physically does not exist yet is deemed evident via the nature of Man. Philosophers call ontological reasoning "a priori arguments" that seek to put certain, intangible proofs into evidence simply by logic alone. This is where "premises" are established. First, in order for something of God's nature to exist, it must be absolutely all-power and perfect. Laughably, your analogy of the "flying spagetti monster" illustrates how you, as an atheist, fail to fathom what a PERFECT entity is. Of course, the flying spagetti monster (I believe fabricated in either Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennets mind) is a misnomer.
You can only rationalize the existence of God by equally comparing him to something that is obviously thought up by men whose fetish is carbohydrate intake. Think clearly now, a flying spaghetti monster? First off, we all can observe "flying" or at least have a general comprehension of what flying is. We can say "flying" is physical. We can also understand what spaghetti is: it in its various forms and ways of preparation from spaghetti drenched in tomato sauce, spaghetti carbonara, or spaghetti adulterated in Parmesian, Pecorino Romano and Asiago cheese. All these we have an idea of based on perception of physicality. And, lastly, monster. We all know what a "monster" is or could be. It all depends on what we perceive as equitably "monsterous", such as a giant squid. Obviously, you try to put God as a corporeal character, which shows how you are unable to fathom something that is not subjected to nature. When someone says God is "outside of time", you laugh, but truly, if God were to exist his attributes would transcend even that. Time is becoming to be understood by many physicists as something that can be harnessed or explained via theories, and it is also deemed physical. Great physicists who apply meta-physics would be Einstein and Stephen Hawkings. Einstein once extrapolated that if one sibling of equal age to his or her sibling were traveling at the speed of light over a certain amount of (perhaps 50 years) and returned back to observe his or her twin, the twin would appear 50 years older while the twin who traveled at the speed of light would only appear a few years older or less. So even these forms of physics are employed by extraordinary scientists. Your trite comparison of god to the flying spaghetti monster only yields your misunderstanding of the nature of God. Please, sack that analogy and think of something else, only something that is COMPLETELY original and has never been thought up before ever. Create something in your mind's eye that is totally unborrowed by what you have seen in nature. You cannot use limbs, eyes, eyebrows, libia features, certain culinary forms, or anything that has already been conceived or fathomed. Now, use that entity you have not plagiarized and is completely original as a better analogy for the flying spaghetti monster in place of God. We already know that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist because, for one, it is nonsensical and has never been rationalized with a straight face. You cannot ontologically prove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster because it was fathomed by someone who employed some of their experiences and later sewed these unrelated entities into an abomination. When thinking about the possible existence of God, do not extrapolate based on nonsense.
ReplyDeleteNow, the possible existence of God is made valid when we consider our deistic god's traits. He (or she) is outside of time, is no-nonsense (you cannot say God can make a triangle with four sides--that is clear stupidity and illogical), can transcend nature, is all powerful, omniscient, and has traits seemingly unfathomable. If something is perfect, then it could not possibly be better than it is. I wonder, why within Man's evolution did he create such an original, seemingly unfathomable entity? What was the purpose of it? We gain a general idea of the possible motives of why early Man created God, but cannot pinpoint specifically how God was deemed necessary in the lives of Man.
ReplyDeleteThe second "proof" of God's existence (one I'm sure you are well acquainted with) is the "first-cause" argument. We know that nature is bound by certain laws, such as the Law of Gravity, and also understand the Laws of Matter and Mass, or the conservation of mass and energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics deals with the idea that energy can be tranformed between different forms, but neither can be created or destroyed). This, logically, is the basis of the "first-cause" argument of God's existence. Since we can trace the beginning of the cosmos to a single event in time, we can extrapolate some possible causes that prompted such a massive "creation". Some claim there is an underlying, scientific cause that cannot be explored (atleast not now). And yet, some say, equally, that it was caused by an already existing entity that is not subject to the Laws of Nature, so therefore must be absolutely PERFECT. This creates the argument for a deistic God. By applying scientific laws of nature, such as the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy, we can assume that it is fair to extrapolate that there possibly can be a God or something resembling the attributes of God. This is philosophy my friend. "Proof" of God's existence next post.
The third major argument for God's existence is the "Moral Argument". Secular humanists point to such phenomena such as animal altruism (e.g. a meerkat protecting its den from a hungry snake, without any regard for its own life but its litter). But is altruism moral? That is only an observed phenomena in nature, and every creature employs some form of altruism. But morality alone cannot be garnered by this one phenomena. There are certain multiple impulses involved with every make or break decision. Moral Law is not, as some would suggest, a social convention. Morality comes in many hues. An example of this is Nazi morality compared to Christian morality. Both are social conventions that were deemed logical and motive-worthy. Hitler spurned the "impurities in Humanity" which laid way to his T4 Program and concentration. Which makes me comment on something you mentioned, "Hitler was a roman catholic". Read Hitler's Table Talks, it will show you what he really felt about religion. And many historians speculate Hitler's entering church to observe mass was a political ploy. Think about it rationally, the vast majority of Nazi Germany was Roman Catholic, and a politician, such as Hitler, wants to act what he truly feels about the Church? No, he would have been ousted. If anything, he showed his support of the Church to garner followers, and even enabled the Church to be active in his party. But, you claim his "religious" constitution is the reason for the mass murder and destruction of WWII. Please, quote me anywhere in the Bible that condones such maladies? More later on, this computer is malfunctioning.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that Morality has really no definitive explanation. C. S. Lewis once said, "If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. we do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers--people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right..." What is interesting here is that he gives us evidence that there really is no true Moral Code. We believe that in Human Nature (something we do not quite understand even now) that their is a Perfect Morality. But what, again is morality? Give me evidence of the Right Morality. Here is a moral situation: "a man happens to be walking along a frozen pond when he faintly glimpses an ice-skater fall through the ice. Immediately, two impulses arise. One, is to try and help rescue the individual while compromising safety, and the other is to let the man drown or hope for the best. Both impulses, within a natural aspect, are both equally liable. We can relate to the man not wanting to compromise his own safety because he is only trying to preserve his generation. But then again, we can sympathize with a decision to help rescue the drowning ice-skater, but acts of heroism is a lauded phenomena. But what we do not think about is that there are more than two impulses happening. A third impulse is discretion. Innately, discretion determines survival. A hungry Neanderthal discovering a wooly mammoth caught in the sticky clutches of a tar-pit may have several options to try and acquire some food from the mammoth or leave it be and search for more food. But what if the mammoth was the only source of food within a square mile? By the Neanderthals discretion, he decides to... You get the drift. Everyone, not as a society, has their own discretion. That means there is no True Right. If someone finds their cheating lover grounds for punishment via murder, is his discretion fair? Maybe he does not want the genes of someone else running in his offspring, something observed in animals all the time. These are only examples. When society defines morality, chances are that the True Morality has not been reached. Can it ever be reached? With Moral Law, we can assume the possibility of God based on the principles of morality.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing you constantly complain about is evidence of the Bible. I do not quite understand what evidence you want specifically of the Bible, as I will quote you, "The whole basis of the bible is the assumption that THIS God exists at all." Are you questioning the legitimacy of the Bible? Does the history it entails not satisfy you? The mistake you are making is assuming that the Bible only says God exists. If that was the intent of the Bible, I would not think your argument relevant. It was written by men who were all ready convinced that God existed. They did not think to give reasons to why or how God existed because it was considered obvious. They did not have a wide skeptical audience during there time, so why satiate the minds of skeptics who were mostly of other religions (who accepted the existence of some deity), such as paganism or Zoroastrianism. Based on the arguments above for God's existence (foundation purposes), I can try to explain to you why the Bible is more appealing to me than any other belief. First of all, its historical merit. Many of the stories and chronologues within the Bible have been affirmed by archaeology. And existing copies of the Bible, OT and NT, show that the writing has experienced minuscule tampering in content. Here is some comparisons for you to the reliability of the Bible's content:
ReplyDeleteCaesar's "Gaellic Wars" (ca. 100 BC) has 100 existing ancient manuscripts, the earliest copy 900 AD.
Livy's "History of Rome" (ca. 59 BC-17 AD) has 20 existing ancient manuscripts.
Plato's "Tetralogies" (ca. 400 BC) has 7 existing ancient manuscripts, the earliest copy is 850 AD.
Homer's "Iliad" (ca. 900 BC) has 643 existing ancient manuscripts, the earliest being ca. 400 AD.
The New Testament (ca. 50-90 AD) has >25,000 existing ancient manuscripts, the earliest dating to 125 AD.
This illustrates that rejecting the historical evidence of the NT would be illogical when it has more ancient copies existing than the comparatives. And the OT is deemed reliable contextually due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There information and history within the Bible is reliable because it has aided archaeologists in discovering ancient civilizations and the cultures in the Middle East. And you may object to the miracles or supernatural acts within the Bible, but evidence exists and accounts etched on stone point to their validity. As more and more evidence is being found by archaeologists that show that the Bible can be relied upon as an accurate accounts of history during Biblical times, you should stop (or alleviate) your doubting to its liability. There is an emotional component to the belief in the Christian God, that is why some people contribute faith in Jesus to their 180 degree turn in their lifestyles. Your biggest mistake is asking for physical evidence of God performing miracles, but I've all ready established that God, being PERFECT, can transcend nature, just as you can assume that the Big Bang transcended itself in scope. I would give you a statistic on "ghost" sitings, but you'd probably shrug it off. But for the sake of it, here is an interesting fact:
ReplyDeleteIn the USA, approximately 37% of people believe in ghosts or haunted places. 32% say they have actually seen or experienced a ghost or some form of paranormal activity. Now, given you the benefit of the doubt, there is a phenomena called "collective experience", where, when someplace or someone gives an individual a strange jive, they may claim they've experiences a certain paranormal activity. But many people, some I know, when I asked them about what there experiences with ghost were like, mentioned they did not at all have a strong jive that the place they were in was strange and haunted, but were innocent passerbyers and had no idea that their was paranormal activity abroad. One person said he did not believe in ghosts until he experienced one. This is some evidence, or possible evidence that there is a realm we can perhaps call supernatural. Are you going to question 32% of people's claims that they had a brush with a ghost?
Back to homosexuality, you claim I do not have an argument against it with using the Bible, I JUST GAVE YOU EVIDENCE! Did you seriously not read that homosexual activity is credited for causing the AIDS/HIV pandemic? There is the evidence why I think it is wrong. Did you only read a tidbit of my post and then stop, only to write what you want to say? You cannot deny that homosexual intercourse and multiple person sex leads to STDs. You are being very ignorant in not perceiving that.
To your first point... ethics and morality are not givens or tangible yes, but they are flawed human constructs. Morality and ethics are simple, do what causes the least amount of harm. That's it. We humans are born with an innate sense of morality.
ReplyDeleteYou are a christian, so why are you arguing for a God that clearly is different than the one you believe in? You surely are not a deist, and by putting "proof" of a deist up, you are doing nothing to help your argument.
I am snickering at your ridiculous argument that you can prove something by "thinking about it". Nice try. Republics and democracies are not THINGS, they are ideas. They don't exist in the real world, they aren't tangible, they are ideas and constructs... they are more like verbs than anything... it isn't a stagnant "thing" at all. You have failed to realize what the point of the flying spaghetti monster is. The point is that you can use those same "proofs" that you used to try to rationalize God's existence, for the flying spaghetti monster and it works. It's pretty pathetic that you are trying to dismantle the flying spaghetti monster argument by breaking it down, the God argument has no bases to stand on. Thomas Aquinnas's a priori argument that you mentioned was at first introduced in the form of a prayer. This is an infantile argument, and you think that by thinking something "perfect", you can eventually prove it? If human beings aren't perfect, then something that is perfect CANNOT be thought up of by the human mind. You fail again. You are saying that this God has no physical characteristics or any characteristics PERIOD that we can understand, therefore it must exist? You are making a HUGE leap to assume something so massively complex without any evidence. It is impossible to think of something that has NEVER been harnessed in the real world, or that was sparked by your nature vs. nurture which determines your identity. So stop with this ornate nonsense about it being so "beyond" us... you cannot argue for the existence for something that is INEFFABLE. You tell me to not extrapolate based on nonsense, yet the idea of a GOD IS NONSENSE. Stop pretending to be a deist, you believe in a PERSONAL interveining and loving God, you aren't coming close to arguing for that, and you've done a horrible job so far at "proving" your deity.
You try to claim that the fact that human beings invented God is evidence for it's existence. This is ridiculous, i'll shut it down right now... there are people who believe in aliens and goblins and all sorts of unfathomable creatures... that DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE PLAUSABLE. The purpose of people doing it is so that they can find some type of meaning in their lives, it's pathetic but true. People aren't yet smart enough to comprehend the universe as it really is without a creator, without something "higher" than them, it is a sickness of the mind. Read Daniel Dennet's "Breaking the spell"... it details how the human mind looks for these things and tries desperately to find it. Especially those who are insecure or weak minded. ... more to come, don't respond yet...
Aren't you trying to prove something by thinking baout it? I mean, did you SEE the big bang? Check this site out:
Deletehttp://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
Hmmm, so just because they used "real" places as settings in the bible... that makes it's mystical claims true? Just because there was a battle of troy... that means Achilles was REALLY the son of a God? How foolish can you be. The claim that a 900 year old man who lived got two of EVERY animal to have sex on a boat at the end of the world is NOT historically sound. Neither is the virgin birth or the resurrection, because what is REALLY in question here is whether the MYSTICAL claims of the bible are true, as that is the only thing in the minds of the believers that gives it any merit, without those you lose ALL authority that the bible holds, and you still haven't provided any evidence that such things are even POSSIBLE and illogical. To be outside of time is ILLOGICAL. One cannot be outside of time AND exist. You can't even describe, and don't have the capability to describe this deity, yet you claim that it is somehow logical for it to exist.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that this God is more plausible because our early and primitive ancesters made it is counter-productive. Early man was stupid, and didn't know many of the things we now know about the world. They didn't know what lightning was, so they said "zeus must have done it!" They didn't know how the tide came in and went out so they say "it was poseidon!" ... the azteks wrenched a human heart from a chest cavity every morning to make the sun rise... need I go on? Just because people "believe" something, no matter how many does NOT make it true. Just visit the psychiatric ward of a hospital, you'll see people who have wacky beliefs like you who REALLY believe what they say, do you think that those are any more valid just because they believe it?
100,000 years of humans being on this earth. Roughly 5,000 years ago heaven finally decides to intervene? Then decides to animate over 40 people to write his word in an illiterate area of bronze age palestine. Hmm, quite pathetic for an "omnipotent" entity. It then sends its "son" which is really him, oh, who JUST HAPPENS to be a HUMAN, (fancy that, it's man made)... to be tortured brutally and beaten and murdered, only to resurrect him over the weekend. This is a story only impressive to those who are both morally and intellectually bankrupt. Everything about the universe says that simplistic things evolve to more complex things, not the other way around. You lose logically. Creating a "first mover" or creator does not solve the problem of a "first cause"... as it must be so complex as to merit a first cause ITSELF. What created the creator? We have a dense singularity, and you have an all-knowing PERFECT being... hmm, you have a lot of problems saying that this God is perfect. Our species is "made in it's image" in your view, yet we can only survive on PART of the earth for PART of the time, we die of diseases and natural disasters... this earth exists just as it would if there were NO God. The fact is, the universe works just fine without the assumption of a God, all the God argument does is complicate things more and fails logically everytime. It is not even valid enough to be called a scientific theory. 93% of all members of the American academy of science are Atheists, gee I wonder why?
the only reason you cannot understand God is because he is so much above you. and ALL of us actually. we can't understand. we are human and we all know the human race isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. But come on I mean look around you man. Look at nature, the universe, our bodies, the animals, planets, everything is so intricate and beautiful. Everything in our bodies work together to function as a working organism, if the sun was an inch closer to the world we would burn up but if it was an inch farther, we would freeze to death. The sun is perfectly positioned in space to sustain huan life. Photosynthesis: how do plants know how to convert sunlight into energy? God had people write his word so people nowadays have a way to learn and connect with Him. He's not pathetic at all but he likes to crry out his will through others, it helps them grow in their faith. I assure you, If God could make the entire universe, He could write a book. We are sinners, Humans are eveil, we do terrible things daily, JEsus died for our sins. there was a price that needed to be paid. Jus like they used to sacrifice the best lamb with no spots for their sins, We needed a perfect sacrifice. SImple things evolve to greater thing? HA! Look at us! have you seen Jersey Shore, Keeping up with the Kardashians, or jackass? Just think about it a little bit. We are obvioulsy NOT evolving into anything special. Of course science will evolve and discoveries will be made. God gave us an entire world to figure out. But we are NOT evolving. Yes, we are made in His iage and if you do know the bible we were perfect like God until Eve ate of the tree and with one act of dissobedience, she brought sin into the world. May I also remind you that the earth was also perfect there weren't even thorn bushes. But again, Eve... Everybody suffers the consequences of what they do. & somethings other people have to suffer the consequences of a bad choice somebody else made. It happens every day. God explains everything. God makes sense. Just think about it. everything. it all makes sense. Christianity is not a theory, but a fact, we have a bible to prove it. The reason 93% of all members of the American academy of science are Atheists is because people can't figure out God. He's much to vast and pwerful for any of us to comprehend. If the bible isn't true then how do we know any of our history is true? It could all be fake. But it's not, and neither is the Bible, If the Bible was indeed fake, scientists would have found out, and nobody would read it. It's legit. and there are all kinds of artifacts all over the world that prove the bible is true. God is greater than us and has the power to do whatever he pleases, He could have easily gotten all animals on an ark no problem. Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God." Luke 18:27. You want evidence? The bible is evidence. you just don't want to beleive it's true because you're afraid. Once again, the reason we are all sinfull is because we had one rule, and in disobedience, we broke it and now we are reaping the consequences. You're right that just becasue people beleive something doesn't make it true, but we do have facts. I could say the exact same thing about what you beleive...
DeleteYou asked for some things that give validity to what the nazis did? How about the example your God set...
ReplyDeleteGod drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7
Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14
Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
Some morality huh?
You're missing one little detail bud. EVERYONE in Sodom and Gamora were evil. The bible says in Genises 13:13, "Now the people of Sodom were extremely wicked rebels against the LORD." Abraham Negotiated with God and God was more than willing to save the people there. Their conversation in Genesis 18:24-33, "What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Delete26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
But Like I said Sodom was evil and there were not een ten righteious people.
You haven't provided anything but an illogical assumption. This is called "God of the gaps"... mystery does not equal God. The stupidity of that argument is proven throughout history. Issac Newton couldn't describe why planets aligned and rotated around each other, so he said that was God who did it. You are doing the same thing, you have only retreated more to say that "God" was the first cause. The question is do you think that "God" set the big bang in motion, or are you stupid enough to believe that he "created the earth in 6/7 days" and said "let there be light". You are muddling your arguments into something they are not. This is intellectually dishonest and only shows the weakness of your beliefs. YOU ARE NOT A DEIST. So argue for your PERSONAL GOD and your INTERVEINING GOD, don't try to argue as if you don't believe in that stuff.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you haven'e provided anything but what you beleive, we provided the bible, you're just not accepting it. Doen't it make more sense that we came from intelegence, you yourelf said we are smart, there's no way we came from a single cell, or some primordial soup. Everything is so comlex, there simply HAS to be a creator.
DeleteStop pretending that christianity is anything BUT a morally bankrupt ideology. All gays shall be put to death, nonbelievers shall be as well, save yourself for marriage, don't plant certain crops side by side, don't wear clothes made by two different materials... THIS is the morality in the bible, and it's petty, childish and ridiculous. If THIS is what you seriously want to base your so called morality on, then you are a liar. You don't base your morality on this, you lie to yourself and go with what is convenient while ignoring the rest. You are a fool, and you are playing me for one. You want to say that somehow because some idiot that you know says he "saw" a ghost that they exist? There has NEVER been anything supernatural or paranormal that has been provable scientifically. People see crazy things all of the time, if this collective crap you talk about held any weight then there would be no such thing as crazy people, or schitzophrenia. So stop it, making these childish arguments are making you look more and more silly.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, you have given NO tangible evidence. Nothing that is useful and nothing that cannot be made about the flying spaghetti monster. You assume a "perfect" entity that made the heavens empty but only OUR planet with life on it, you may not be smart enough to comprehend or understand Mr. Dawkins when he describes how life can arise on its own. You have STILL not given on shred of evidence. "Thinking about it" and the assertion of "first cause" does NOTHING to prove or show evidence for a perfect entity. You repeatedly retreat behind this idea that we can't know it, yet "thinking about it" is somehow proof? Inventing soething "perfect" ... what does perfect mean? Perfect is subjective no matter what we are talking about. Morality is proof of morality, it is NOT proof of a "perfect" SUPERNATURAL being. You are again trying to say that since something else exists, therefore a PERFECT ineffable creator must exist. I say again, mystery does not equal God, a gap in what scientists have figured out yet does not equal God... morality does not equal God because it does not SOLVE that problem. The "morality" of this God isn't innate in everyone because morality isn't the same for everyone. If your God DID have morality or supply us with it, then it is STILL subjective to what this God wants. Don't pretend that you can know or say that you even have the slightest idea of what "perfect" means... you can't, but then you want to turn around and say Oh this perfect thing MUST have made morality. Animals have morality as you said, and so do we because we ARE animals. Animals at times are more moral than us... so what is your POINT? You are offering things that assume God exists first... morality is as much proof for this "perfect god" as it is for the flying spaghetti monster. It does not change just because the FSM is a tangible thing that we can imagine, you don't get away with it just because you hide, like a coward behind the "perfection" of this God. You are out of arguments, and what you just tried to do has made you look very stupid, very irrational and scientifically illiterate. None of the "proofs" you presented are valid, and they even go so far as to blaspheme the word. Those proofs were merely the scribblings of the maggot minded people who desperately want to believe that a God exists so it can give them an easy explanation for everything instead of taking the time to see how things really work. Your religion is no different than a caveman worshipping a rock, and has NO more proof than it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as Carl Sagan said... and my friend, you have all of your work ahead of you more and more.
There will be a day, the world will end. Where will you go? If you follow Jesus, what do you have to loose? If you don't you will loose everything including your eternity.
DeleteChristians are supposed to be little Christs. The people who do not act like Him aren't true Christians. I really don't think somebody made up God becasue it would be easier to understand. Evolution would be WAY easier. simple. But it's not true. We beleive in God because we experience him. He works miracles. We have an entire bible. Sure the stories of Him in there are from a long time ago, but, he still works today and I don't know how you don't see it. you can't blame everything on couincidence. One time my brother was really sick on his birthday. He had a fever and was throwing up all day. We prayed he would get better and instantly the fever was gone and he wasn't sick anymore. You cannot tell me this is couincidence. You're taking things out of context and not looking any farther than the one verse. That's like if I said "it's wrong to think I hate you" and you just took out 'I hate you' and told people I said I hate you. Of course we don't base our morality on the clothes we wear or crops we plant. but on Christ. He was the perfect Human being, Kind and just. Christians are supposed to be little Christs. He is were we base our morality. I don't think there's an idea more silly than evolution. none of it makes sense. the peices DO NOT fit together. It's not legit in any way.
DeleteThis is Charlee.
ReplyDelete"You cannot deny that homosexual intercourse and multiple person sex leads to STDs. You are being very ignorant in not perceiving that."
-Rutledge
"what you just tried to do has made you look very stupid, very irrational and scientifically illiterate."
-CR
Alright you two, I don't wanna see the words foolish, idiot, ignorant, liar or any other insults from either of you directed at the other. There really wasn't very much from you Rutledge, but CR, your response would have only been half as long had you left out the unnecessary "You're an idiot, you're wrong!" thrown in so much.
Present your evidense and what you claim it says or even refute the other's point with evidense but let the truth speak for itself, if the other person is so obviously wrong you shouldn't have to point it out. Oh, same goes for all caps, if what you are saying has any meaning you shouldn't need caps to make emphasis, let the truth of what you are saying have emphasis.
Now I obviously can't force anyone to change their writing style, but please keep the unnecessary assertions of your opponents foolish out of all future discussion. It will only take away from your discussion, scare off people looking at the blog, and make people mad.
Sorry Charlee, when I write I can get out of line when I'm debating. My apologies to you CharismaticRecluse as well. Let's debate more civilly in the coming threads.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much time because I have to go to Virginia until Saturday, but I just want to clarify something for CR. I am not at all a deist. The above posts of mine were only to establish God's existence, and then in the future I was going to wean in my arguments for a Judeo-Christian God. Expect another round of rebuttles CR :-). Take care everyone.
Then why make a deist argument at all? A deity by NATURE is much different than a personal God... so you did nothing but waste a ton of time.
ReplyDeleteI'm just disgusted that some of you actually think you should be able to prevent someone from marrying whoever they love just bc your "god" thinks its bad. We live in a country that where the government isn't even supposed to be involved in these kinds of affairs. What do you think is going to happen? The gays will become so overpowering and take you away to gay camp?
ReplyDeleteMost marriages end in divorce anyways. Isn't that against gods word as well? Why don't you cry out to outlaw divorce? Because like all chirstians you pick and choose whats convenient for you.
This is just another example of christians trying to force their "faith" onto the rest of us. If you don't agree with gar marriage then fine. Your church doesn't have to support it. But don't tell the rest of the country what to do bc you think gays are icky.
Don't jusdge someone because their sin is different than yours. She's not picking on anyone. this is a really hot tpoic right now and this is a blog. get over it. Nobody's tying to force anything on you. If anything they're trying to help you. We have a right to our opinion just as much as you have a right to yours, doen't matter if you are for gay or against it, either side can get offended. The bible does say it's wrong, i kind of believe that most gays nowadays have something neurologically wrong with them. they can't help it, it's how they feel, and I can't judge anyone because I really don't know how they feel. I do believe homosexuality is wrong, but I'm not sure where I should stand because so much has changed. And it's not JUST CHRISTIANS who choose what's convenient. everybody does, Guess what, Christians are humans too :0. And there's nothing wrong with choosing a topic thats popular & most people don't know all that much about.
DeleteI grew up in a home with a christian mother who was backslid and finally found her faith again when I was 12. My father on the other hand is not christian but respects and supports the decisions of any of the family to be in church.I went faithfully with my mother, I was closer to god than I ever knew possible.
ReplyDeleteI have backslid for various reasons, but this topic is related to homosexual marraige. So here is my thought process on this.
1) If god loves everyone, why do Christians say "god hates gays!". God created all his children, right? So just because someone is gay does that make them no a child of god?
2) The bible also says to not judge anyone, for no one can give final judgement but god. But if you discriminate against certain type of people for what they are, isn't that judging? No matter how small the sin I believe all sins are equal. Even if gays do go to hell, wont the ones who judged them as well?
I feel like I am ranting a bit, but i suppose that's what this is about. Feel free to answer my questions as I have found no Christian who can