Janissary Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well, I mean, ultimately, I will say that homosexuality is an abomination in my belief system and that I feel that my belief system is the most cohesive and sensical belief system in existance (even to your lulz). But, if I say that once and then face argument, what am I to gain by stating it again? It's already been made known that anyone here won't take well to me trying to "argue you into the kingdom" so to speak from the Church, so why bother? Argument has it's place, but that place is not now for myself. However, at the same time, I don't want to just sit here and let it be. I want to at least speak my piece in time. You know where I (and by extention where God through the Bible) stand on the issue, and you do with that what you will and face whatever consequences may occur. I won't help anyone by starting a big flame war. In my opinion, Christians get very caught up in the purtiy aspect of the religion (for good reasons), but it causes them to lose sight of some of the other, arguably more important, aspects of the faith, such as love. That being said, this has been a remarkably civil talk based on my previous expiriences with these kinds of things (even before I posted in here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 >God's stance is against homosexuality >Love is important aspect of the faith I'm sorry I find it really hard to believe something that could be created by a person both has no flaws in its transcription and contains such contradictory statements are you sure you have the right version At least try translating it yourself and see if it says the same thing ;/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 As a Christian and IRL friend of RingWraith (kind of), I agree with the above sentiment. I could not care less what the government has to say about gays. The government doesn't tell me what my morality is, and won't ever. If they think marriage is a right to all regardless of gender, go for it. Marriage is largely just glorified cohabitation to the government anyway. That being said, on a religious, moral, and "wedding" level, I oppose homosexuality because the source of my morality has stated that it is an abomination against the natural order. However, governmentally speaking, yeah, they probably should be allowed to marry. How do you explain homosexuality amongst animals in the wild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 It could probably somehow be answered by pulling a wild card and saying animals without souls are incapable of sin. >God's stance is against homosexuality>Love is important aspect of the faith Homosexuality and Love are not linked subjects. One can be had without the other, and they can exist cooperatively, or neither at all. please direct yourself yourself to the nearest craigslist/campus bathroom stalls to find out more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janissary Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 How do you explain homosexuality amongst animals in the wild? Nature isn't perfect either. I don't really see how that would be relevant to a religion that thinks that all of mankind and nature all in a fallen, degenerative state, waiting to be restored by Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [stuff] What? How is it not contradictory to profess love and prejudice simultaneously? It's totally related and in the worst possible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janissary Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 What? How is it not contradictory to profess love and prejudice simultaneously? It's totally related and in the worst possible way. Humanly, I must love all because I do not know the heart of man. Perfectly, God knows all and thus can accurately judge them for their actions. You are tryin to compare the actions of God to the actions of man, which, in the context of Christianity, are not comparable due to the differences between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Forgive me if I misinterpret but basically you're saying that it doesn't have to make sense because the choice of god doesn't have to make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Yes. Assuming all all-powerful God, that is perfectly reasonable to think. Assuming an all-benevolent God, however, that's definitely arguable. An all-benevolent doesn't make whim choices because of the potential evil involved. Ironically, this brings us back to God's omnipotence. But that's a different topic. Edited May 30, 2011 by Crystal Shards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Isn't there a bit in the bible saying that its free will that separates us from animals, and the Fall of Man says that original sin came about from free will. At the least I've heard them both used as religous arguments before at some stage. But I'll leave it at that there's no need to go into the Bible's flaws here. Hopefully after this Con-Dem govt. subsides it can advance beyond civil partnersip as the leader of the Libs and Labour have both said they're for it lol trusting the moral integrity of British politicans, still we're not quite as corrupt as the Italians. That its been almost 60 years after the death of Alan Turing and we still don't have equal rights here yet is almost as apalling as the premise that they have to justify themselves to those who constantly vilify them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 What? How is it not contradictory to profess love and prejudice simultaneously? It's totally related and in the worst possible way. I can love something, and be prejudiced against another thing, or even love and be prejudiced against the same thing. There's no strange conflicts of existing states. You seem to be confusing my words with a thought that's in your head. Explain it out pretty please, 'cause I'd like to hear more than blah : [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 What? How is it not contradictory to profess love and prejudice simultaneously? It's totally related and in the worst possible way. Obviam, it's like our relationship, a delicious mix of caliginuous animosity and steamy matespritship. Christians don't hate homosexuals, they're just confused about their feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) They should call it bromosexuality because Bronouleth has just demonstrated what a fine hunk of bro he is. Forgive me if I misinterpret but basically you're saying that it doesn't have to make sense because the choice of god doesn't have to make sense? Yeah it sounds a lot like this guy prays to a little kid. I can love something, and be prejudiced against another thing, or even love and be prejudiced against the same thing. There's no strange conflicts of existing states. You seem to be confusing my words with a thought that's in your head. Explain it out pretty please, 'cause I'd like to hear more than blah : [ (I still don't get why this is so hard to understand) I am God. As God I demand you In my opinion, Christians get very caught up in the purtiy aspect of the religion (for good reasons), but it causes them to lose sight of some of the other, arguably more important, aspects of the faith, such as love. demonstrate love for your fellow [men and women]. Oh, while I'm at it, I also demand that you be unkind to homosexuality. "Why?" Because it's wrong. "Why?" Because I said so. "Why?" Because I'm an ornery little kid, and you have to do what I say! Wha! Related note, some lady didn't get benefits from her husband's death because she used to be a man and had an operation to become a woman or something. All the arguments were shit like "the kids need the money" (they would get it better through the mother who could manage it properly) and "the marriage was invalid [because she was a man at the time of the marriage or something]" (as if homosexual marriages are so terrible and hurt all kinds of people (guess what they don't)). Who was listed as the beneficiary? Her. Who got the money? Not her. Who's rolling in their grave? Her poor husband, who probably wonders, assuming her kids aren't old enough to take care of themselves (I don't actually know but even so) how his kids are going to be well taken care of without the only (potentially) financially secure parent they have left being able to take care of them. Edited May 31, 2011 by Obviam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 demonstrate love for your fellow [men and women].Oh, while I'm at it, I also demand that you be unkind to homosexuality. Love fellow man, Don't love those who are sick Nothing contradictory. According to the Bible as it's being examined here, what is decided to not be loved is dependent on qualitative states. Simple If-Then. Love, but not if homosexual. Eat all, but not if rotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Nature isn't perfect either. I don't really see how that would be relevant to a religion that thinks that all of mankind and nature all in a fallen, degenerative state, waiting to be restored by Christ. Yeah, perhaps. But nature isn't in a "fallen" state. It's been evolving for billions of years. Why would this one planet, out of the billions in the Universe, be "blessed" by God, anyway? None of it makes any sense. I don't think the State should pay any mind to a morality derived from something that has not yet proven it even exists, anyway. You have allowed yourself to be told what your morality was by a book, but not by humans that exist physically. I'm not saying your morals should be decided by the government, but I am saying it's quite funny because the opinion you have on morality is quite contradictory to me. Humans are born with a sense of morality; it's not given to us by a deity. That's my take on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 born with morality? are you insane? platonic form, in my people? balderdash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janissary Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Isn't there a bit in the bible saying that its free will that separates us from animals, and the Fall of Man says that original sin came about from free will. At the least I've heard them both used as religous arguments before at some stage. But I'll leave it at that there's no need to go into the Bible's flaws here. Man had the free will to choose to stay in God's plan but willingly left perfection via eating the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil back in Genesis. Ever since then, man has had no free will to choose to follow God's plan (in the sense that I can not of myself choose God unless God has acted on my heart; but this is kind of a tangent on Christian Theology, so feel free to ignore it). Anyway, the seperation between man and beast is that man accounts for his actions and has a soul, while my dog does not. Yeah, perhaps. But nature isn't in a "fallen" state. It's been evolving for billions of years. Why would this one planet, out of the billions in the Universe, be "blessed" by God, anyway? None of it makes any sense. Nature is in a fallen state. If you want to argue in the context of Christianity, you have to accept that. The world had not been evolving for years, it has been arguably de-evolving. Many creatures have become extinct, but no true new life has been found. It's almost an antithesis to what should be happening. As for the sensicalness of Earth, that's kind of the point. This planet was chosen because it had what God wanted it to have. I am not going to sit in and try to explain. For one, I don't know, and for two, even if I did, you wouldn't accept it anyway, so why spend the energy on something you have already decided to reject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliban of Sycorax Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 You're basically arguing Anti-Darwinism in that case, because Darwin's principle was "survival of the fittest" which explains many extinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) The world had not been evolving for years, it has been arguably de-evolving. Many creatures have become extinct, but no true new life has been found. It's almost an antithesis to what should be happening. From what I know, there have been five major extinctions, and we are in the sixth. The sixth is primarily due to us, so scientists say. The extinction after the Permian period killed ninety percent of all life, millions of years before Christianity existed. What do you mean, "no true new life has been found"? We haven't discovered all the species that exist yet. We aren't close to, either. Also, I find it hard to believe (aka impossible) that after billions of years of evolution a new complex organism is going to show up without any lineage. It's ridiculous. As for the sensicalness of Earth, that's kind of the point. This planet was chosen because it had what God wanted it to have. This doesn't make any sense. If God created the Universe, it could have created any and all planets to harvest life. Yet, out of nowhere in the billions-of-years old Milky Way galaxy, our planet is the "Chosen One." Better yet, why make a Universe that makes the very existence of a Creator seem unlikely? Why have anything at all pointing towards being a skeptic? And while I'm on the subject, if God truly loved us, it would show proof of its existence, so as to make sure not a single person follows bad ol' Lucifer into hell. I am not going to sit in and try to explain. For one, I don't know, and for two, even if I did, you wouldn't accept it anyway, so why spend the energy on something you have already decided to reject? Contrarily, I'm quite an open-minded person. That's the reason I started to be a skeptic in the first place, understanding and eventually agreeing with the more logical side. BELIEVE ME, I want an afterlife to exist (I don't want to die, I don't want to become nothing), but giving up my sanity in place for a deity to fill my feeling of emptiness is not worth it. I'm willing to bet there are many things you don't know, like the rest of us. I'm just failing to see a reason to have faith just because I do not know, just because I'd like to have life after physical death. Whoops, forgot this was the homosexuality thread... So...just because I don't want to read, who's opposed to gay marriage? Edited May 31, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ring Wraith Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 So...just because I don't want to read, who's opposed to gay marriage? At this point, it's become a Christianity thread, since that's the main reason against gay marriage. Both Janissary (it's so weird to call him by that name again, haha) and I have stated that: governmentally speaking, they probably should be allowed to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The world had not been evolving for years, it has been arguably de-evolving. Many creatures have become extinct, but no true new life has been found. It's almost an antithesis to what should be happening. Organisms in nature are continuously evolving to suit their environments, there is no such thing as de-evolution, and even mass extinction events mean absolutely nothing relative to the point you're trying to make. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you should feel bad for trying to act like you do. As for the sensicalness of Earth, that's kind of the point. This planet was chosen because it had what God wanted it to have. I am not going to sit in and try to explain. For one, I don't know, and for two, even if I did, you wouldn't accept it anyway, so why spend the energy on something you have already decided to reject? Shouldn't you be asking yourself that question? You're not exactly holding a demonstrably "open" point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK-201 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The world had not been evolving for years, it has been arguably de-evolving. Many creatures have become extinct, but no true new life has been found. It's almost an antithesis to what should be happening. If you take a population of students, and then take only the top few, would you say that the resulting population is evolved in terms of intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janissary Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 You're basically arguing Anti-Darwinism in that case, because Darwin's principle was "survival of the fittest" which explains many extinctions. Darwinism isn't exactly the best explanatory factor for things such as The Cambrian explosion anyway, so I am not sure why you are so shocked I am opposed to it. I am, after all, a Christian :). From what I know, there have been five major extinctions, and we are in the sixth. The sixth is primarily due to us, so scientists say. The extinction after the Permian period killed ninety percent of all life, millions of years before Christianity existed. At the risk of losing all credability, this isn's best argument to present to Christians who believe (generally speaking) that the earth was created approximately 10000 or less years ago. Though, to be fair, most Christians don't have an answer to the science, so I understand why you bring it up. My personal thought is that, just as Adam appears to have been created as a full grown, the earth was created as a full grown planet, and thus, the varying ages between the around 10000 years ago that I believe the earth was created (this is obviously an approximation, no one really knows) and the age science gets can be reconciled. This doesn't make any sense. If God created the Universe, it could have created any and all planets to harvest life. Yet, out of nowhere in the billions-of-years old Milky Way galaxy, our planet is the "Chosen One." Better yet, why make a Universe that makes the very existence of a Creator seem unlikely? Why have anything at all pointing towards being a skeptic? And while I'm on the subject, if God truly loved us, it would show proof of its existence, so as to make sure not a single person follows bad ol' Lucifer into hell. You are assuming omnibenevolence, which has been established. Also, even were omnibenevolence to be established, you would have to prove that omnibenevolence means that all shall be saved, and not simply that he cares for all in a creator-creation way. If you take a population of students, and then take only the top few, would you say that the resulting population is evolved in terms of intelligence? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Essau is right in saying that "de-evolution" does not exist. I would also not consider the example with the students to be an example of evolution simply due to the fact that there is no change in the phenotype from doing that (basically evolution cannot happen in one generation). However, if one takes a population, then only allows those with desired traits (in this case intelligence) to live (and this is done for multiple generations) then there is the potential for evolution to occur. The Cambrian explosion did not happen in a day -- it happened over the span of a few million years. The species "created" during the explosion did not come from nothing -- they came from pre-existing animals known as acritarchs. This phenomenon can be explained by the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium, which basically states that evolution does not occur uniformly, but rather there are periods where little evolutionary change occurs (called "stasis" periods) and periods where large amounts of change occur. The sudden change in the rate of evolution may be due to the availability of new resources (in the case of the CE, this resource is oxygen). To say that god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient can be summed up nicely by Epircurus' argument (which was posted somewhere else in SF if I recall): Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then were does evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? This shows that omnibenevolence and omnipotence cannot coexist. Besides, surely a god who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent would not allow beings that he claims to "love" to suffer for all eternity just because they did not worship him. Or if for some reason he does enjoy torturing people he "loves" for not worshiping him, then a kind god would at the very least make it obvious that he exists. There is simply no benevolence in eternal torture without a chance for redemption -- that is cruelty at its worst. Edited May 31, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ring Wraith Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Where are you getting that God is omnibenevolent? Jani said specifically (and I agree with him in this area) that God is not omnibenevolent in the way that people tend to think of Him. You are assuming omnibenevolence, which has been established. Also, even were omnibenevolence to be established, you would have to prove that omnibenevolence means that all shall be saved, and not simply that he cares for all in a creator-creation way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts