Question about the Christian God

[Esau of Isaac]

Are you fucking joking? The main passage that supports the death of homosexuals is one of the most well-known passages in the entire Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 "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 have to go to bed soon, so I don't have time to respond to all of your arguments, but I just HAD to deconstruct this particular one. I bolded this specific part of the sentence, because I don't know if you realize it or not, but you just proved that I was completely in the right! Because you know what? God isn't even SAYING that being gay is a sin at all! He's saying that a man sleeping with another man is a sin regardless of whether or not someone is gay according to this passage!

So....thanks! Now I know for a fact that God only hates gay men having sex, and not gay men themselves.

What proclivities do homosexual individuals commonly hold, FionordeQuester?

Extra points if you don't try to equivocate to make your batshit insane beliefs seem plausible and fair, and actually see the fucking point.

So, HURR, you're welcome! Semantics or not, your god's still a deranged psychopath, and you still worship it! Fan-fucking-tastic job there making me look stupid.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Agro]

How is having sex with men and being gay any different? They pretty much result in the same thing.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Wander

[FionordeQuester]

What proclivities do homosexual individuals commonly hold, FionordeQuester?

Sexual proclivities involving doing sexual things with gay men of course. But there's a huge difference between having those sexual desires and actually entertaining them.

Extra points if you don't try to equivocate to make your batshit insane beliefs seem plausible and fair, and actually see the fucking point.

What belief? That gay men having sex should be destroyed, or that God exists? Look, I thought about it, and I'll bet your frustration with me is that I seem to be expecting gay men to actually know that having sex with other men is not a good thing to do, even the ones who have never heard of the Bible and wouldn't know that it is bad. Well, if you read Deuteronomy or Exodus, or whatever chapter God was layin down all his rules, he clearly says that he isn't anywhere near as hard on people who don't even know that they're sinning by doing whatever it is they were doing. He still punishes them to some extent though, which brings me to my next point....

Physically however? It is CLEARLY bad! My father actually told me two of the things that gay men having sex do...one of them is basically a blowjob, except with a man doing it to a man instead of a woman doing it to a man (though either way it is unhealthy and unsanitary to the extreme), and the other? Well, do you really want to know? Either way though, those two things that gay men having sex usually do are both unsanitary and make it so that both are very vulnerable to contracting life threatening diseases.

Even if God doesn't exist, the evidence behind the things that some gay men suffer because of sexual intercourse does. I don't think a gay man knowing not to do sexual acts is as hard as you think Esau.

How is having sex with men and being gay any different? They pretty much result in the same thing.

No they don't. One is having the desire to do something, and the other is actually doing it.

So, HURR, you're welcome! Semantics or not, your god's still a deranged psychopath, and you still worship it! Fan-fucking-tastic job there making me look stupid.

Um...thanks? I think those "semantics" make a pretty big difference frankly. You listed three things that make him a psycopath, and I THINK I justified all three of those things except witches burning. The Bible only meant people who were ACTUALLY witches! If there were any people who were wrongfully accused of being witches, that's the peoples fault, not Gods.

Wait a minute though, I haven't debunked the rest of your arguments though, have I? Silly me, I'll get right on that after school.

Edited October 16, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Crystal Shards]

Or maybe the Bible is just a text that's useful for anthropological reasons and nothing else.

I was just talking about the assumptions that you need to make in order to respectfully participate in a theological argument.

Read my last post.

I believe that's just as important as an assumption as any other. It's still relevant in a discussion on theology.

[Esau of Isaac]

Sexual proclivities involving doing sexual things with gay men of course. But there's a huge difference between having those sexual desires and actually entertaining them.

No it's not. Killing someone because they enter into homosexual relations shows that you do not approve of homosexuals.

What belief? That gay men having sex should be destroyed, or that God exists? Look, I thought about it, and I'll bet your frustration with me is that I seem to be expecting gay men to actually know that having sex with other men is not a good thing to do, even the ones who have never heard of the Bible and wouldn't know that it is bad. Well, if you read Deuteronomy or Exodus, or whatever chapter God was layin down all his rules, he clearly says that he isn't anywhere near as hard on people who don't even know that they're sinning by doing whatever it is they were doing. He still punishes them to some extent though, which brings me to my next point....

That doesn't fucking matter. It's implying that homosexual sex is morally wrong, and it is condoning the murder of them.

Physically however? It is CLEARLY bad! My father actually told me two of the things that gay men having sex do...one of them is basically a blowjob, except with a man doing it to a man instead of a woman doing it to a man (though either way it is unhealthy and unsanitary to the extreme), and the other? Well, do you really want to know? Either way though, those two things that gay men having sex usually do are both unsanitary and make it so that both are very vulnerable to contracting life threatening diseases.

Oral sex is not intrinsically unsanitary, either way, and even if your bullshit word-of-mouth argument were at all valid, that wouldn't make it wrong.

Even if God doesn't exist, the evidence behind the things that some gay men suffer because of sexual intercourse does. I don't think a gay man knowing not to do sexual acts is as hard as you think Esau.

I think you are a child that has no grasp on what you are condoning, and I think that your speaking of ignorance of others is both ironic and pitiful.

No they don't. One is having the desire to do something, and the other is actually doing it.

By sanctioning the murder of those who are participating in homosexual sex, he is condoning the murder of innocent men and women merely because of their sexuality.

Um...thanks? I think those "semantics" make a pretty big difference frankly. You listed three things that make him a psycopath, and I THINK I justified all three of those things except witches burning. The Bible only meant people who were ACTUALLY witches! If there were any people who were wrongfully accused of being witches, that's the peoples fault, not Gods.

All of them were wrongfully accused of being witches, because the Devil is a non-existent entity invented to justify bigotry and right-out xenophobia. And whatever you THINK, you have not explained anything, and only tried to handwave the murdering of several innocent only because you construe them as "yucky". It's fucking pathetic and makes you look even younger than you are.

[Agro]

Physically however? It is CLEARLY bad! My father actually told me two of the things that gay men having sex do...one of them is basically a blowjob, except with a man doing it to a man instead of a woman doing it to a man (though either way it is unhealthy and unsanitary to the extreme), and the other? Well, do you really want to know? Either way though, those two things that gay men having sex usually do are both unsanitary and make it so that both are very vulnerable to contracting life threatening diseases.

Gasp! Your father TOLD you? What, because you live in the middle-of-fucking-nowhere and didn't realise that gay people FUCK EACH OTHER IN THE ASS? Seriously, grow the fuck up; you act like gayness is something people have never heard about. It's been around for ages, and it's normal. So it's unsanitary? Oh, shit. Well, we'll wear a condom. What now, christfag? What about a handjob? No penetration there, and it's as clean as masturbation. So what now that I've debunked your "buttsex is unhealthyyyy11!" argument? Is it only bad because your God said so?

[FionordeQuester]

Ok, ok, sheesh, I get your point >_<!

No, I did not realize that gay dudes did that to each other till my dad told me. I always imagined that they would just lay on top of each other, thrust their penuses into each other penus over and over again, and splatter semen all over themselves. That sounded EXTREMELY uncomfortable and painful though, so that's why I asked my dad about it.

So what if they do have condoms? Condoms aren't infallible, and I've heard that they're not even able to ward off all types of sexual diseases, and that there are cases in which condoms HAVE failed! And quite frankly, if your seriously willing to stick your penis up someone elses butt in the first place, just for the sake of experiencing sexual pleasure, there's something at least slightly weird going on. That's just me though. I might change my mind if I talked about this with a gay man so that I'd understand his perspective on this.

Also, what the heck is a handjob? Is that supposed to be where you grab someones penis and shake it up and down? I don't know ALL of the ins and outs of swear words, sexual innuendo, euphimisms, sexual expressions, and all that crazy stuff! I didn't even know the proper definitions of "fuck" and "screw" until my ex-girlfriend took it upon herself to drill me on their definitions until I could always answer them with 100% efficiency.

Edited October 17, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Agro]

You realise that you can get STDs through normal means of sex as well, right?

[Esau of Isaac]

Ok, ok, sheesh, I get your point >_<!

No, I did not realize that gay dudes did that to each other till my dad told me. I always imagined that they would just lay on top of each other, thrust their penuses into each other penus over and over again, and splatter semen all over themselves. That sounded EXTREMELY uncomfortable and painful though, so that's why I asked my dad about it.

Why are you even debating here, when you're getting your entire opinion from a family member? You don't even seem to understand common forms of foreplay, let alone the act of sex.

So what if they do have condoms? Condoms aren't infallible, and I've heard that they're not even able to ward off all types of sexual diseases, and that there are cases in which condoms HAVE failed!

So what you are saying is that because there is a chance for homosexual sex to receive negative repercussions (the same being true for heterosexual sex), that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong, and more that anyone practicing homosexuality is deserving of death?

And quite frankly, if your seriously willing to stick your penis up someone elses butt in the first place, just for the sake of experiencing sexual pleasure, there's something at least slightly weird going on.

Expound here. How is there something weird going on?

That's just me though. I might change my mind if I talked about this with a gay man so that I'd understand his perspective on this.

Also, what the heck is a handjob? Is that supposed to be where you grab someones penis and shake it up and down?

You should stop posting before you make yourself look worse than you already do.

I don't know ALL of the ins and outs of swear words, sexual innuendo, euphimisms, sexual expressions, and all that crazy stuff! I didn't even know the proper definitions of "fuck" and "screw" until my ex-girlfriend took it upon herself to drill me on their definitions until I could always answer them with 100% efficiency.

facepalm.jpg

[FionordeQuester]

Prove that any real divine being had an actual say in what was written, relative to any other "holy texts" across the world, including the Koran and the Talmud.

How? We've already gone over hundreds of times about how Gods existence can't be undisputably proven to exist. Personally, I think his existence is kind of proven because I can't think of a single instance that following its advice has ever steared me, or anyone else I know, wrong. But that's not HARD evidence, so I can't prove him.

Also, about that whole "gay men must be put to death" rule in Leviticus? Well, that's another flaw in your argument, the fact that that quote was written in Leviticus, as in, one of the chapters of the OLD Testament, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross! Things don't WORK that way anymore! Now, all that God requires of us is to admit that we've done wrong, and we are forgiven! Now, killing a gay man who is not purposely sinning against a God that he knows exists is just as wrong and abhorrent as killing a regular ol dude. And yes, that means that even if he doesn't think it's wrong, he's still just as entitled to being treated with kindness as everyone else.

That doesn't fucking matter. It's implying that homosexual sex is morally wrong, and it is condoning the murder of them.

It is implying that homosexual sex is wrong. But it is NOT condoning the murder of them at any point after Jesus's death, as I've already gone over. If that were the case, I'd also be killing steers, ducks, birds, and loads of other animals for every sin I've committed, which is absurd.

Oral sex is not intrinsically unsanitary, either way, and even if your bullshit word-of-mouth argument were at all valid, that wouldn't make it wrong.

Yes it is. Why do you think it's unhealthy to not regularly change your underwear? If even your undergarments are getting in the need for cleaning, I don't think your groin is going to be any less sanitary.

But if I AM in fact wrong, show me how and why please. Seriously, if your going to call my argument bullshit, at least go into detail about HOW it's bullshit with specifics please.

I think you are a child that has no grasp on what you are condoning, and I think that your speaking of ignorance of others is both ironic and pitiful.

Yes I do. And like I said, the Bible is not condoning what you think it's condoning since our times are not taking place in the Old Testament anymore.

By sanctioning the murder of those who are participating in homosexual sex, he is condoning the murder of innocent men and women merely because of their sexuality.

Once again, that was in the OLD testament! There are significant differences in what God deems necessary before Christs death and after Christs death.

All of them were wrongfully accused of being witches, because the Devil is a non-existent entity invented to justify bigotry and right-out xenophobia. And whatever you THINK, you have not explained anything, and only tried to handwave the murdering of several innocent only because you construe them as "yucky". It's fucking pathetic and makes you look even younger than you are.

Neither I nor God said that they should be murdered because they were "yucky". He murdered them for doing something that was against his natural design for them, even after he EXPLAINED that it was. Remember, God KNEW that this was too harsh, that was the whole reason he had Jesus die, so that things didn't HAVE to be that way!

Your right, I haven't countered the rest of your arguments (that is what your saying I think), so here we go!

Then God is not omnipotent, and one more quality of it becomes senseless.

Of what? Besides, I only said that MAYBE there was a check to his power. Besides, even if that was the case, it's still anything but senseless to follow him since he's omnibenevolent.

If God cannot change reality to suit its whims, how did it possess the ability to put together reality as it is today?

First off, God is clearly referred to as a he, so you don't have to say "it". And we don't know whether or not he can warp reality based on a whim. Or at least I don't. Maybe he literally IS the reality, and yet the master of it at the same time. It'd certainly be a good explanation for how he has so much power. Heck, we already know that he consists of three different entities making up a whole entity, so it doesn't seem far out of the way to say that he IS a part of the universe and that the universe is a part of him. It'd also explain how he's able to be everywhere at once now that I think of it.

I highly doubt that no children ever died as a result of the Scriptures stating it was best to stone them to death; and the fact of the matter is that God stated it was good to do such a thing. If it was supposed to mean that God didn't like bad children, it wouldn't have explicitly said it's alright to kill them.

Well that's what I heard. Nobody ever literally followed Gods command on that. And how would you know that? It could've just been a badly translated line for all you know.

Alright, let's apply this elsewhere; I think that God, which is stated to exist explicitly, is just a metaphor of the Bible.; what do you think?

I think you'd be really dumb to think that considering the constant interactions with him and all the other characters, and considering that at least 75% of what happens in the Bible is a direct result of his decisions. You can't carry conversations and literally speak with metaphors.

Then you're fucking blind.

No, your just making the very critical error of thinking that Gods Old Testament rules actually apply to all the events after the New Testament. Like I said, God himself was dissatisfied with having to be so harsh, which was why he went out of his way to have Jesus die on the cross.

Why are you even debating here, when you're getting your entire opinion from a family member? You don't even seem to understand common forms of foreplay, let alone the act of sex.

I know what the act of sex is. I don't know what foreplay is, but I know what happens during sex.

And I'm not getting my entire opinion from a family member? The only thing I got from my dad was that it was physically unhealthy as well as spiritually unhealthy. The Bible told me that it was spiritually unhealthy. To be honest, I never would've thought gay sex to be bad till the Bible said so.

So what you are saying is that because there is a chance for homosexual sex to receive negative repercussions (the same being true for heterosexual sex), that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong, and more that anyone practicing homosexuality is deserving of death?

Well, it seems to me that the consequences of sinful sex is actually a pretty good indication. Hell, just check out all of the STDs that people are suffering from today, and tell me that a great deal of that grief couldn't have been prevented just by following what the Bible says on sex.

You should stop posting before you make yourself look worse than you already do.

Just tell me what a handjob is.

facepalm.jpg

What? It's true!

Edited October 17, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Agro]

Or you could Google "handjob" and save us a few keystrokes.

[Phoenix Wright]

No, your just making the very critical error of thinking that Gods Old Testament rules actually apply to all the events after the New Testament. Like I said, God himself was dissatisfied with having to be so harsh, which was why he went out of his way to have Jesus die on the cross.

If you think God has any power beyond any human being, then you cannot believe this. Ever. God wasn't happy with HIS OWN actions? Isn't God supposed to be perfect?

Just today in class, we had a discussion about God's law or man's law being more important. I was intentionally in the middle (though leaning towards God's law). Another atheist girl then gave her interesting opinion: God is fake. God's law was first created to give human beings a moral code.

I wasn't going to start a debate in my class, but a few questions arose. Why use a supernatural being to describe morality? Was it because the common man couldn't do it alone? No, that couldn't be it, for the simple fact that he wouldn't be able to tell people about God alone. The obvious solution is that people were afraid of death, so they chose to believe in some guy's theory...eventually. Who knows? I can't give a full analysis (or summary, really) because she was so quiet and probably afraid to state her atheist views in front of a possibly-intolerant crowd.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Old Snake

[lolDeath]

FionordeQuester, a good friend of ours has informed me that you're kind of in the dark about sex, and I've taken it upon myself to give you the talk. So take a seat, grab a soda, and get ready to learn!

When a man and a woman love each other very much, or dislike one another a great amount, or drink too much, they like to take the male penis (that thing between your legs) and the female vagina (the thing in the same general area on a woman, like a MASSIVE VOID) and put them together. How is this done, you ask? Well it's fairly simple, you just shove the penis in there in one massive thrust and begin humping in whatever position you please until one or both of you reach climax, or until your parents walk in.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. You may get bored of regular sex and want to spice things up. But how is this done? Again, fairly simple, the vagina is substituted with the anus. With this method it is best to use a condom unless you want to get shit all over your ramrod (or penis). Same basic idea with a twist, thrust until climax is achieved or until tears begin to flow. This can be done the same between members of the same or opposite sex. Beyond that is oral sex, which involves putting the male penis into the mouth of an unsuspecting male or female, and even though it is called a "blowjob", there is no blowing involved, but sucking. And moving their head. And more sucking. You'll know when it's over. Shit is so cash.

In any of these ways between people of any gender you can catch sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes or chlamydia, so it is best to always use a condom.

Now for some simple terminology, take your time to study.

Penis - ramrod, twat-sickle, mangina, pee-wee, johnson, willy, one-eyed trouser snake, beef bayonet

Vagina - beaver, box, hooha, poon, ponani

Sex - bumping uglies. that's the only one you need to know

Beyond all of this there are a plethora of "advanced" techniques, but I don't want to overload you right now. Once you go through puberty you'll probably figure it out anyways, people have known since before language existed.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Death

[Defeatist Elitist]

Prove that any real divine being had an actual say in what was written, relative to any other "holy texts" across the world, including the Koran and the Talmud.

How? We've already gone over hundreds of times about how Gods existence can't be undisputably proven to exist. Personally, I think his existence is kind of proven because I can't think of a single instance that following its advice has ever steared me, or anyone else I know, wrong. But that's not HARD evidence, so I can't prove him.

Also, about that whole "gay men must be put to death" rule in Leviticus? Well, that's another flaw in your argument, the fact that that quote was written in Leviticus, as in, one of the chapters of the OLD Testament, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross! Things don't WORK that way anymore! Now, all that God requires of us is to admit that we've done wrong, and we are forgiven! Now, killing a gay man who is not purposely sinning against a God that he knows exists is just as wrong and abhorrent as killing a regular ol dude. And yes, that means that even if he doesn't think it's wrong, he's still just as entitled to being treated with kindness as everyone else.

Ah yes, the "Get out of jail free card" or "Systematically ignore passages that become far to bothersome to defend". Nice going there mate. We'll keep it up until you do this with the whole Bible.

That doesn't fucking matter. It's implying that homosexual sex is morally wrong, and it is condoning the murder of them.

It is implying that homosexual sex is wrong. But it is NOT condoning the murder of them at any point after Jesus's death, as I've already gone over. If that were the case, I'd also be killing steers, ducks, birds, and loads of other animals for every sin I've committed, which is absurd.

As before.

Oral sex is not intrinsically unsanitary, either way, and even if your bullshit word-of-mouth argument were at all valid, that wouldn't make it wrong.

Yes it is. Why do you think it's unhealthy to not regularly change your underwear? If even your undergarments are getting in the need for cleaning, I don't think your groin is going to be any less sanitary.

But if I AM in fact wrong, show me how and why please. Seriously, if your going to call my argument bullshit, at least go into detail about HOW it's bullshit with specifics please.

Fuck. You. There are literally millions of people who practice oral sex everyday. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals practice it. The chances of catching an STD, while still existent, are lower in Oral Sex than in Vaginal or Anal sex.

Also, I hope you know this, but the person you're having sex with has to have an STD in the first place in order for you to get an STD. If they don't, you are completely safe. Plus, heterosexuals are just as vulnerable to STDs as Homosexuals. The only caveat would be that it is easier to catch STDs through Anal Sex, but heterosexual couples practice anal sex anyway, so hey!

I think you are a child that has no grasp on what you are condoning, and I think that your speaking of ignorance of others is both ironic and pitiful.

Yes I do. And like I said, the Bible is not condoning what you think it's condoning since our times are not taking place in the Old Testament anymore.

lol

By sanctioning the murder of those who are participating in homosexual sex, he is condoning the murder of innocent men and women merely because of their sexuality.

Once again, that was in the OLD testament! There are significant differences in what God deems necessary before Christs death and after Christs death.

lol

All of them were wrongfully accused of being witches, because the Devil is a non-existent entity invented to justify bigotry and right-out xenophobia. And whatever you THINK, you have not explained anything, and only tried to handwave the murdering of several innocent only because you construe them as "yucky". It's fucking pathetic and makes you look even younger than you are.

Neither I nor God said that they should be murdered because they were "yucky". He murdered them for doing something that was against his natural design for them, even after he EXPLAINED that it was. Remember, God KNEW that this was too harsh, that was the whole reason he had Jesus die, so that things didn't HAVE to be that way!

EXCEPT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SATAN AND ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE HAS EVER WORKED FOR HIM. WITCHES DON'T EXIST. Way too fucking many people where killed because they where believed to be witches, when witches did not exist.

Also, most witch burnings occurred after Christ.

And another thing, God is supposed to be omnipotent right? Then why the fuck did Jesus have to die for us? Couldn't he just, you know, make things NOT that way?

Then God is not omnipotent, and one more quality of it becomes senseless.

Of what? Besides, I only said that MAYBE there was a check to his power. Besides, even if that was the case, it's still anything but senseless to follow him since he's omnibenevolent.

Except he is not omnibenevolent either. If he was, he wouldn't hate so many people.

If God cannot change reality to suit its whims, how did it possess the ability to put together reality as it is today?

First off, God is clearly referred to as a he, so you don't have to say "it". And we don't know whether or not he can warp reality based on a whim. Or at least I don't. Maybe he literally IS the reality, and yet the master of it at the same time. It'd certainly be a good explanation for how he has so much power. Heck, we already know that he consists of three different entities making up a whole entity, so it doesn't seem far out of the way to say that he IS a part of the universe and that the universe is a part of him. It'd also explain how he's able to be everywhere at once now that I think of it.

lol

I highly doubt that no children ever died as a result of the Scriptures stating it was best to stone them to death; and the fact of the matter is that God stated it was good to do such a thing. If it was supposed to mean that God didn't like bad children, it wouldn't have explicitly said it's alright to kill them.

Well that's what I heard. Nobody ever literally followed Gods command on that. And how would you know that? It could've just been a badly translated line for all you know.

See the first thing I said again.

Alright, let's apply this elsewhere; I think that God, which is stated to exist explicitly, is just a metaphor of the Bible.; what do you think?

I think you'd be really dumb to think that considering the constant interactions with him and all the other characters, and considering that at least 75% of what happens in the Bible is a direct result of his decisions. You can't carry conversations and literally speak with metaphors.

lol

Then you're fucking blind.

No, your just making the very critical error of thinking that Gods Old Testament rules actually apply to all the events after the New Testament. Like I said, God himself was dissatisfied with having to be so harsh, which was why he went out of his way to have Jesus die on the cross.

lol

Why are you even debating here, when you're getting your entire opinion from a family member? You don't even seem to understand common forms of foreplay, let alone the act of sex.

I know what the act of sex is. I don't know what foreplay is, but I know what happens during sex.

Based on your stunning ignorance demonstrated here, I somehow doubt you do.

And I'm not getting my entire opinion from a family member? The only thing I got from my dad was that it was physically unhealthy as well as spiritually unhealthy. The Bible told me that it was spiritually unhealthy. To be honest, I never would've thought gay sex to be bad till the Bible said so.

It's not physically unhealthy.

So what you are saying is that because there is a chance for homosexual sex to receive negative repercussions (the same being true for heterosexual sex), that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong, and more that anyone practicing homosexuality is deserving of death?

Well, it seems to me that the consequences of sinful sex is actually a pretty good indication. Hell, just check out all of the STDs that people are suffering from today, and tell me that a great deal of that grief couldn't have been prevented just by following what the Bible says on sex.

Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Heterosexual people catch STDs JUST LIKE HOMOSEXUALS. That's, you know, why Africa is riddled with AIDs.

You should stop posting before you make yourself look worse than you already do.

Just tell me what a handjob is.

Dude...

[Esau of Isaac]

Personally, I think his existence is kind of proven because I can't think of a single instance that following its advice has ever steared me, or anyone else I know, wrong. But that's not HARD evidence, so I can't prove him.

So then my personal regret at following the tenets of the Bible because they failed me must mean I have proof that God is non-existent?

Also, about that whole "gay men must be put to death" rule in Leviticus? Well, that's another flaw in your argument, the fact that that quote was written in Leviticus, as in, one of the chapters of the OLD Testament, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross! Things don't WORK that way anymore!

So you are saying that nothing in the Old Testament is observed anymore by the majority of Christians?

Now, all that God requires of us is to admit that we've done wrong, and we are forgiven!

No one should have to admit they've done wrong by engaging in homosexual relations, because the act is not in itself wrong at all.

It is implying that homosexual sex is wrong. But it is NOT condoning the murder of them at any point after Jesus's death, as I've already gone over. If that were the case, I'd also be killing steers, ducks, birds, and loads of other animals for every sin I've committed, which is absurd.

It isn't implying that homosexual sex is wrong, it's explicitly stating it. And while the New Testament doesn't explicitly condone the deaths of homosexuals, it very clearly states them to be immoral, and that they will under no circumstances be admitted into God's Nirvana.

Yes it is. Why do you think it's unhealthy to not regularly change your underwear? If even your undergarments are getting in the need for cleaning, I don't think your groin is going to be any less sanitary.

It's unhealthy for the same reason it's unhealthy to not regularly change your goddamn shirt. Oral sex is in no way an intrinsically unsanitary process, and you're like fucking fifteen so you're in no position to be lecturing anyone on this when you don't even know what a handjob is.

But if I AM in fact wrong, show me how and why please. Seriously, if your going to call my argument bullshit, at least go into detail about HOW it's bullshit with specifics please.

It's the one making ludicrous claims that has to prove their point. Especially when they get all their information from their father, and doesn't actually know what they're talking about.

Yes I do. And like I said, the Bible is not condoning what you think it's condoning since our times are not taking place in the Old Testament anymore.

You don't. You have the barest knowledge of sexual practice, and rely on word of mouth to support yourself.

Once again, that was in the OLD testament! There are significant differences in what God deems necessary before Christs death and after Christs death.

Are you saying that God does not condone the murder of others in the New Testament?

Neither I nor God said that they should be murdered because they were "yucky". He murdered them for doing something that was against his natural design for them, even after he EXPLAINED that it was.

God explained nothing to anyone. He hasn't, he isn't, and he won't, and the comment of "yucky" was referencing your childish summary of homosexual relations.

Remember, God KNEW that this was too harsh, that was the whole reason he had Jesus die, so that things didn't HAVE to be that way!

An omnipotent being had to have himself incarnated and then live for approximately thirty years, this all following centuries of strife and conflict and suffering because of his view of immorality, so that he could save people?

I am becoming physically ill.

Of what? Besides, I only said that MAYBE there was a check to his power. Besides, even if that was the case, it's still anything but senseless to follow him since he's omnibenevolent.

Of what? Of your god. And what, now there isn't a check to his power? Make up your damn mind.

First off, God is clearly referred to as a he, so you don't have to say "it".

God is referred to as He in place of a suitable means by which to describe it, and because of a strong misogynistic culture at the time of its creation. I will say "it" because god, were it to exist, would be neither a male nor a female.

And we don't know whether or not he can warp reality based on a whim. Or at least I don't.

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Care to repeat that?

Maybe he literally IS the reality, and yet the master of it at the same time. It'd certainly be a good explanation for how he has so much power.

That would make no sense, unless you view reality to be perfect, along with all its component parts.

Heck, we already know that he consists of three different entities making up a whole entity, so it doesn't seem far out of the way to say that he IS a part of the universe and that the universe is a part of him. It'd also explain how he's able to be everywhere at once now that I think of it.

Can you stop trying to defend yourself with hypotheses you literally made up on the spot?

Well that's what I heard. Nobody ever literally followed Gods command on that.

There is a sentence here that suggests you're not actually knowledgeable about what you're speaking.

And how would you know that? It could've just been a badly translated line for all you know.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=NIV

Pick any fucking translation you want. All of them incriminate your beliefs.

I think you'd be really dumb to think that considering the constant interactions with him and all the other characters, and considering that at least 75% of what happens in the Bible is a direct result of his decisions. You can't carry conversations and literally speak with metaphors.

Oh, no, you're willy-nilly deciding to apply metaphors where you wish. I say the entire Bible's events are all one metaphor, meant to inspire man to do better.

Prove this view wrong.

No, your just making the very critical error of thinking that Gods Old Testament rules actually apply to all the events after the New Testament.

What book were the Ten Commandments in?

I know what the act of sex is. I don't know what foreplay is, but I know what happens during sex.

You weren't sure what occurs during intercourse between homosexuals.

And I'm not getting my entire opinion from a family member? The only thing I got from my dad was that it was physically unhealthy as well as spiritually unhealthy.

Which you built your entire argument around.

The Bible told me that it was spiritually unhealthy. To be honest, I never would've thought gay sex to be bad till the Bible said so.

Then maybe, just maybe, it's just the words of a decrepit and outdated mode of thought.

Maybe.

Well, it seems to me that the consequences of sinful sex is actually a pretty good indication. Hell, just check out all of the STDs that people are suffering from today, and tell me that a great deal of that grief couldn't have been prevented just by following what the Bible says on sex.

I bet if we killed everyone, STDs would totally disappear. I think you can agree with that? If there's no one around, there's just no way that people can spread around STDs.

Try and tell me that killing everyone on the planet wouldn't stop the transmission of STDs.

Just tell me what a handjob is.

Ugh. I need some Ibuprofen.

A handjob is the act in which an individual uses their hand/s to sexually please his/her partner's penis. The act is usually done through gripping of the receiving member's shaft and rubbing it liberally until orgasm. It is also sometimes used as a means of foreplay, similar to other forms of sexual gratification that do not involve penetration, such as blowjobs...which I suppose you don't know about either.

I can't believe I had to explain this.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Agro]

Actually, it's probably better that I say nothing.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Wander

[Crystal Shards]

No, your just making the very critical error of thinking that Gods Old Testament rules actually apply to all the events after the New Testament. Like I said, God himself was dissatisfied with having to be so harsh, which was why he went out of his way to have Jesus die on the cross.

If you think God has any power beyond any human being, then you cannot believe this. Ever. God wasn't happy with HIS OWN actions? Isn't God supposed to be perfect?

This. In addition, I'm pretty sure it's preached, maybe even in the Bible itself, that God's Word is unchanging.

Also I love the picking and choosing. I guess the Ten Commandments aren't really relevant anymore either, simply because they're in the Old Testament.

And FionordeQuester, I suggest you do some actual research on both sex and sexuality. Until you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, no one here is going to take you seriously. Here's a start.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[Hero]

The Bible is not evidence.

It is in a discussion about the nature of God. This is the kind of discussion that you need to make a few assumptions to constructively participate in.

Then again, if everyone did that this topic wouldn't have reached two pages.

A theory requires verifiable facts. How do you know that the Bible of today properly reflects what the original human author wrote? It has been edited many times after all, for political and propaganda reasons. Unless you are prepared to find a much earlier copy (preferably in the original language it was written in), you will have a hard time trying to theorise on what the author wanted to say.

It has been changed and added to many times since Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. The Book of Deuteronomy, arguably the most significant of the five books of the Torah, is widely believed to have been substantially rewritten centuries after Moses and continually edited and added to after that, in order to keep up with contemporary legal traditions.

This is why the vast majority of religious people and practically all religious scholars do not take the words of the Bible literally. Religion is all about interpretation.

It was not written by God, nothing in the Bible was written by God. It was written by men with an agenda.

What I'm most familiar with is the Hebrew Bible. For more than fifty years, analysis of the Torah, the five books Moses is said to have received from God, has been at the point where it is possible to identify and even speculate on the origins of the authors of different sections. Even the most religious people agree that it has been added to and corrupted over the millenia. Most scholars, however, agree that certain core parts of the text date back to the time of Moses, and agree that many if not a majority of the stories in it date back to the same time, though they have since been rewritten. Perhaps, these are the original words of God to Moses.

Outside of the Torah, there are recorded the stories of the prophets, and various writings said to have been made under divine inspiration, including the psalms. None of these are the words of God, but God is said to be behind those words. Certainly this was all written by men (and women) with an agenda, but their agenda was to spread God's goodness.

I cannot really be bothered to go on. This argument has the same value to me as using Harry Potter to see what facts we can find about wizards.

What did you expect? You aren't really using the Bible as a source the way you suggest you would use Harry Potter, though, just making statements about it.

But there's a huge difference between having those sexual desires and actually entertaining them.

No it's not. Killing someone because they enter into homosexual relations shows that you do not approve of homosexuals.

If thinking about fucking someone was the same as actually doing it, a lot of people on this forum would be a lot calmer. B)

No they don't. One is having the desire to do something, and the other is actually doing it.

By sanctioning the murder of those who are participating in homosexual sex, he is condoning the murder of innocent men and women merely because of their sexuality.

Careful how you use the word murder. If someone is killed as a punishment for doing something illegal, that person is not being murdered and is not innocent. The original use of the Torah was as books of law.

Just today in class, we had a discussion about God's law or man's law being more important. I was intentionally in the middle (though leaning towards God's law). Another atheist girl then gave her interesting opinion: God is fake. God's law was first created to give human beings a moral code.

I wasn't going to start a debate in my class, but a few questions arose. Why use a supernatural being to describe morality? Was it because the common man couldn't do it alone? No, that couldn't be it, for the simple fact that he wouldn't be able to tell people about God alone. The obvious solution is that people were afraid of death, so they chose to believe in some guy's theory...eventually. Who knows? I can't give a full analysis (or summary, really) because she was so quiet and probably afraid to state her atheist views in front of a possibly-intolerant crowd.

If what she says is true, it's been independently repeated across many cultures, not just one. Even polytheistic religions have their origin in single gods with their own set of beliefs and traditions.

My theory is that attributing the highest, most basic law to a god is to give it the greatest possible authority. In ancient times it was common for their to be a hierarchy with absolute authority on each step, from a familial patriarch to leaders of great tribes, to kings who ruled many united tribes often of common origin, to rulers of incredible amounts of people and land that we call emperors but were often known by an equivalent of the term "king of kings".

Each of these levels of authority would create and enforce different laws, with the higher level laws superseding the lower, roughly similar to how local, state and federal laws work in the United States. By attributing a moral code to a god that rules over all men, or even a certain class of people, the code's creators would give it an authority greater than any earthly magnate's.

Then you're fucking blind.

Extra points if you don't try to equivocate to make your batshit insane beliefs seem plausible and fair, and actually see the fucking point.

So, HURR, you're welcome! Semantics or not, your god's still a deranged psychopath, and you still worship it! Fan-fucking-tastic job there making me look stupid.

All of them were wrongfully accused of being witches, because the Devil is a non-existent entity invented to justify bigotry and right-out xenophobia. And whatever you THINK, you have not explained anything, and only tried to handwave the murdering of several innocent only because you construe them as "yucky". It's fucking pathetic and makes you look even younger than you are.

Gasp! Your father TOLD you? What, because you live in the middle-of-fucking-nowhere and didn't realise that gay people FUCK EACH OTHER IN THE ASS? Seriously, grow the fuck up; you act like gayness is something people have never heard about. It's been around for ages, and it's normal. So it's unsanitary? Oh, shit. Well, we'll wear a condom. What now, christfag? What about a handjob? No penetration there, and it's as clean as masturbation. So what now that I've debunked your "buttsex is unhealthyyyy11!" argument? Is it only bad because your God said so?

facepalm.jpg

You really need to cool off yourself. I don't agree with what FionordeQuester was saying, it's clear he has a beginner's knowledge of his religion and has yet to reconcile his beliefs with each other, but it's out of line to endlessly insult the kid.

The same thing goes for Fia.

FionordeQuester, I'd suggest you take a break from this topic. You're hurting your own cause right now. Try reading a book about Bible interpretations or talking to someone who's an expert on this stuff. I'm not trying to insult you, but I really think you should do this whether you want to return to this topic or not. It'll probably change the way you see a lot of things, including your own spirituality.

[Esau of Isaac]

If thinking about fucking someone was the same as actually doing it, a lot of people on this forum would be a lot calmer.

If one hates books, what does that say about authors? If one hates food, what does that have to say about chefs?

If someone were to state that they find heterosexual sex to be worth murdering, I would take it as a threat against myself, because heterosexual sex is something I gravitate towards. By condoning the murder of those who engage in homosexual sex, you're effectively calling for the death of homosexuals in general. Whether or not it's precise is wholly irrelevant.

Careful how you use the word murder. If someone is killed as a punishment for doing something illegal, that person is not being murdered and is not innocent. The original use of the Torah was as books of law.

Killing innocent individuals with premeditated malice is murder.

You really need to cool off yourself. I don't agree with what FionordeQuester was saying, it's clear he has a beginner's knowledge of his religion and has yet to reconcile his beliefs with each other, but it's out of line to endlessly insult the kid.

I'm not endlessly insulting him.

[Hero]

If thinking about fucking someone was the same as actually doing it, a lot of people on this forum would be a lot calmer.

If one hates books, what does that say about authors? If one hates food, what does that have to say about chefs?

If someone were to state that they find heterosexual sex to be worth murdering, I would take it as a threat against myself, because heterosexual sex is something I gravitate towards. By condoning the murder of those who engage in homosexual sex, you're effectively calling for the death of homosexuals in general. Whether or not it's precise is wholly irrelevant.

I'm not calling for anything. I haven't shared my personal religious opinions or beliefs in this thread for a reason.

Interestingly enough, the passage in question can be interpreted as more than a call to put homosexuals to death. A lot of people think it only classifies homosexual intercourse as an abomination if one of the men a is in a traditionally female position--there's no telling exactly what that would be but this interpretation does certainly allow for a lot of homosexual activities. An even more liberal interpretation is that the passage only refers to male prostitution in pagan temples.

I can't comment on any of those very much, since I don't speak biblical Hebrew, but I will tell you that there are a number of nontraditional interpretations like this for practically every commonly-cited passage in the Bible.

Careful how you use the word murder. If someone is killed as a punishment for doing something illegal, that person is not being murdered and is not innocent. The original use of the Torah was as books of law.

Killing innocent individuals with premeditated malice is murder.

Yes. Killing guilty individuals within the boundaries of the law is not, whatever your opinion is on the law in question.

You really need to cool off yourself. I don't agree with what FionordeQuester was saying, it's clear he has a beginner's knowledge of his religion and has yet to reconcile his beliefs with each other, but it's out of line to endlessly insult the kid.

I'm not endlessly insulting him.

You were. I only quoted a few of the examples.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not calling for anything. I haven't shared my personal religious opinions or beliefs in this thread for a reason.

Ah, my apologies, that was not what I meant to convey. I'm not referring to you, I was speaking about the act itself, and using "you" in its description as a simple placeholder. To rephrase, "By condoning the murder of those who engage in homosexual sex, one is effectively calling for the death of homosexuals in general."

Interestingly enough, the passage in question can be interpreted as more than a call to put homosexuals to death. A lot of people think it only classifies homosexual intercourse as an abomination if one of the men a is in a traditionally female position--there's no telling exactly what that would be but this interpretation does certainly allow for a lot of homosexual activities. An even more liberal interpretation is that the passage only refers to male prostitution in pagan temples.

I can't comment on any of those very much, since I don't speak biblical Hebrew, but I will tell you that there are a number of nontraditional interpretations like this for practically every commonly-cited passage in the Bible.

But they're not practiced by any majority view, and the language is being flexed after its translation (I know you referred to this, but I'd still like to stress it).

Yes. Killing guilty individuals within the boundaries of the law is not, whatever your opinion is on the law in question.

If the law is killing innocent men and women, I consider it murder. Genocide, even under legal circumstance, would still be murder, for example.

You were. I only quoted a few of the examples.

I wasn't. And if I were, it would be justified.

[Hero]

Ah, my apologies, that was not what I meant to convey. I'm not referring to you, I was speaking about the act itself, and using "you" in its description as a simple placeholder. To rephrase, "By condoning the murder of those who engage in homosexual sex, one is effectively calling for the death of homosexuals in general."

You're right, if you define a homosexual as someone who practices homosexual sex.

There are a lot that disagree with that definition, however.

But they're not practiced by any majority view, and the language is being flexed after its translation (I know you referred to this, but I'd still like to stress it).

You might be surprised by the number of people who do believe these revisionist interpretations. I know I was when I learned about it a couple years ago.

I don't think we disagree too much here, though. ;)

If the law is killing innocent men and women, I consider it murder. Genocide, even under legal circumstance, would still be murder, for example.

Thankfully that's true today, with international laws and national laws with universal jurisdiction in certain countries.

I don't like using the word murder when it's not completely accurate. Unlike the act of killing itself, there can never be even a partial excuse for murder. Words like murder and genocide have lost a lot of their power in the last fifteen years because of overuse, and I don't want to continue that.

I wasn't. And if I were, it would be justified.

I still disagree, but let's drop it. It's the staff's job to take care of issues like that, even if they're not going to, and I realize what I did last night was uncalled for. Sorry about it.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Alright, I will post what I think and will not be back here. I have been cussed out over what I believe in the past.

I do believe in god, I was always questioning it before a certain event. Someone in my family was cured of a disease that was said to be incurable by normal means, after many of my family members prayed to God to sure it (And nearly all of my family doesn't really do much in the way of going to church, or any of the other stuff associated with Religion), it was cured, and the doctor could not explain why it disappeared. It was then that I started believing in it.

I have gotten comments like "Well it sure as fuck wasn't god", yet they care not to give me any better explanation. Regardless. I don't care what religion (Or lack of) someone has, doesn't bother me. I don't go around spouting "YOU WILL BE PURGED" and crap. I merely just live my life as I do. People wouldn't know I was religious unless I said so (Which is pretty much only if they ask), I don't go to church, I don't keep crosses around, or pictures of Jesus or anything.

To answer the original question of the OP. (In my opinion)

God gave people free will. That is why there are evil people. Why does God not do anything about it? well I see it like this. In order to have good, you must have evil, like how in order to have hot, you must have cold. Life is a trial, a test. That is why evil is left on this Earth.

[Shuuda]

Someone in my family was cured of a disease that was said to be incurable by normal means, after many of my family members prayed to God to sure it (And nearly all of my family doesn't really do much in the way of going to church, or any of the other stuff associated with Religion), it was cured, and the doctor could not explain why it disappeared. It was then that I started believing in it.

I have gotten comments like "Well it sure as fuck wasn't god", yet they care not to give me any better explanation.

What about all those times where praying has done nothing for someone? If I had a dying relative and everyone visited them wearing a top hat, would have be evidence that top hats cure incurable illnesses?

Not that I particularly care about your argument from ignorance.

That is why there are evil people

There is no such thing as an "evil" person. Disney villains don't exist (much like your god).

In order to have good, you must have evil,

Do we? What is "evil" as opposed to neutral, or just plain not good? Not that you even know. Is a tornado (or any destructive natural disaster) evil? Exactly how many, and under what motivation, people would I have to kill to be considered "evil" as opposed to being insane or simply doing what I might consider right or necessary?

Life is a trial, a test.

No it's not.

In short, you can take your new age woo and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Shuuda

[Phoenix Wright]

The old ways of Deism answer practically any question. Its just that the answer will never satisfy anyone; "God made the universe perfect, then He left, then we fucked it up."

What about all those times where praying has done nothing for someone? If I had a dying relative and everyone visited them wearing a top hat, would have be evidence that top hats cure incurable illnesses?

Not that I particularly care about your argument from ignorance.

That's one of the reasons why I don't think praying works (assuming God exists, of course). The other reason why (which is entirely my dumb viewpoint, and I know you're not interested, but...) is because the way people pray, it sounds more like a command rather than one humbling asking Him for something (ie, "God please protect my son"). That's like me asking "Mom, please give me 10 bucks." Just because I ask nicely doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

As for evil: No cartoon-like characters exist, but I know there are some that are so "bad" (as in behavior, morals, etc.) that they seem like there's no "good" in them at all.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Ben Stein