Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,489 comments
  • 1,141,349 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
1) For me to say that homosexuality is both a terrible sin and a temptation from devil is absolutely normal and logical from my aspect as a believer in Jusus Christ and his Word.

Is it a Terrible sin, or just a sin?

And again you bring it up as a temptation. Who is tempted? You? What straight guy is tempted by another guys nuggets?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand there are sins which one can be forgiven for and there is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable. Is there some special gay sin I am not aware of?

I don't know why, but people like you seem to want to place so much emphasis on homosexual sin. Do you even realize how few homosexuals there are?

I would be willing to bet, that on any given spring break weekend, there is much more sinning (fornicating) going on between the straight kids, than between all of the gay people all across the land all year long.
 
Why would God make is into something we weren't meant to be? The bible says that God made us in his image, but it's clear his image is not for us to be gay.

In my post to Imari, the Satanic influence we are born under is what attempts to make us into something other than what we are meant to be, or abuse ourselves.
We all have pre dispositions to sin. Some one thing, some another, and some, something else.
Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin, there are lots of others.

So if someone loves someone in a sexual way, as well as a love them as a person does that cancel out sin?

I'm afraid not.

If that person wanted to do something what is essentially theirs and theirs alone, I have no problem with it. I don't get to dictate what someone gets to do with what they have.

Yes, I agree.
It's their life and their decisions.
However, I have to draw the line when it infringes on others right to live their lives as they decide.

My heart is for anyone that I want to have it, as well as anyone who wants to take it. For this matter, it would have to be my Fiance, but that wouldn't change my view even if it was a male either.

As said thats up to you.

How would you know what reality is if you cant even see it?
Obviously not all reality is optical.
You just got through describing something other than that.

I mean, for a start, it reads from beginning to end like a trip on mushrooms (largely due to the fact it is)...


Or it's due to the fact that drink I told you about is a lot better than any trip you can take on mushrooms.

What? It's your establishment and you had the awesome drink - therefore you can tell me where to find it.I've been to loads of those. I was even Christened in one. Jesus didn't appear.


No, it's not my establishment, it's his.
I got it from his establishment.
No one else dispenses it but him.
He has exclusive rights to it.
I didn't say Jesus would appear in the physical.
Did you decide to be Christened?
Do you have better directions?


Sorry, no I do not.
But I do not see how you can miss with the one's I gave you.

Assuming we were created and God wanted us to do something, why would not doing that be a crime? Creation of something inanimate implies ownership, but people are not such things. Unless God feels the need to be a slave owner, he is pretty far out of place for "punishing" people who do not do what he wants.

I don't think you are taking all the possiblities into account.
Is he punishing you, or are you punishing yourself?

There is zero abuse in a normal, loving homosexual relationship.
Obviously none that you are aware of.

I think that would have to do more with the fact that you're likely to sustain injury or vehicle damage doing so. There is nothing wrong with it though and to label it wrong is to show massive bias.

Yes and with an emphasis on injury and damage.
It is biased, but that does not mean it is necessarily wrong.

What is obvious? Two men/women can do everything a subset of heterosexual couples can except directly conceive (not something all hetero couples can do). This includes having a relationship, sexual pleasure (I don't see how there is any evil in that at all), raising children, caring for each other, etc.

If God does not exist perhaps you are right.
However, if he does then you are claiming you are more wise and intuitive than him.
Sound's familiar.
Gen 3
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity.
That's Satan doing the talking, BTW.

Not being able to have children is a very distinct advantage at times, because unchecked population growth can be a major problem and there are situations that would just be miserable to be born into.

So you get to decide that?

Unless a person signed this directly, they can partner with whoever they want. Else it's God trampling on free will.

Thats not the question.
You can partner with whoever you want, can't you?
Who is stopping you?
The question is: " Is God's blessing on it?"

That's almost the opposite of what I said. Perception is all we see of reality. We do not see reality itself ever, "see" referring to any sense.

In the carnal sense, that is absolutely correct.
Unless you recieve the drink I spoke of, you will never see true reality.
At least in this life.


I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.
 
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position"....mob rule.

My instant reaction on reading that is to consider that around 6% of the UK population regularly practice worship to any god compared with around 60% in the US who specifically worship Christian God.

I'm then drawn to wonder which of the two countries has seen the most rioting and how recently.

I think God has little to do with it.
 
No, it's not my establishment, it's his.
I got it from his establishment.
You seem to have fallen over your own metaphor here. Let's try again:
Let me ask you, if someone told you that they were at a certain establishment and they got a drink there and it was just out of this world good, and you should try it.
Would you say, well that drink doesn't really exist so I wouldn't waste my time with it?
No, we'd ask for directions to the establishment.
So "someone" went to a certain establishment and got a drink that was awesome. My response to them relating that tale would be "Really? Where is it?" not "That doesn't really exist so I wouldn't waste my time with it."

They'd give me directions to the establishment, and I'd go try for myself.

For your metaphor to be apt, you should be able to give me directions to the establishment where you found religion so I could go there myself and try the religion drink.

For some reason, the directions are always considerably more vague than "It's Jeff's on the High Street" - as if those who have found God don't actually want to share it, or if it's a process that does not repeat objectively.
Sorry, no I do not.
But I do not see how you can miss with the one's I gave you.
Either the directions are bad or the drink isn't available to all who seek it equally.

And I've been in some extremely large places of worship during services with a great many believers.
 
In my post to Imari, the Satanic influence we are born under is what attempts to make us into something other than what we are meant to be, or abuse ourselves.
We all have pre dispositions to sin. Some one thing, some another, and some, something else.
Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin, there are lots of others.
So God considers it a sin to be under the influence of a supposed being powerful enough to manipulate minds. Somehow he expects you to make a "choice" and change your sexuality, despite extensive medical and scientific research, and significant amounts of people testifying to the fact that this is not possible. Oh, and also the fact that extensive prayers, camps, and even exorcisms don't seem to work. It seems to me like god doesn't really care...
 
I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.

I assume the whim of man is a Zombie Jesus reference? Otherwise, I see no concept put forth.
Challenge accepted.
 

Or it's due to the fact that drink I told you about is a lot better than any trip you can take on mushrooms.
Not in my experience

I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.
Not this nonsense again.

Religion doesn't have a lock on moral behavior (in fact religion gets it wrong a lot of the time), morals are a product of logic, this has been covered countless times before.
 
I've always been of the opinion that anyone who is a 'good person' so that they can get in to heaven or due to fear of going to hell, isn't actually a 'good person'. They're being good for selfish reasons.

It is possible to argue, philosophically, that all reasons are selfish reasons.

Whether you're altruistic because you believe some supernatural power will reward your altruism, be it the cosmos, God, Fate, Karma... or because you believe other humans will reciprocated to you or your kin/friends... or because you seek approval from other humans or even yourself... you perform altruistic acts to further some selfish goal.

Otherwise, you would not feel satisfaction at having performed those acts.

The real trick is finding an instance where the altruist does not get that endorphin rush of self-satisfaction upon performing an altruistic act....
 
It is almost humorous to glance at this thread occasionally. The "I'm right, You're wrong" attitude from both sides gets a bit comical. Oh, well. To each their own. ;)
 
The "I'm right, You're wrong" attitude from both sides gets a bit comical.
One "side" wants to be wrong - indeed it always starts by assuming it is wrong and trying to prove it, learning both through proving itself wrong and failing to do so.

An atheist will change his mind in an instant if it is proven that a deity exists.
 
It is almost humorous to glance at this thread occasionally. The "I'm right, You're wrong" attitude from both sides gets a bit comical. Oh, well. To each their own. ;)

On the contrary, most atheists and theists agree that atheists do not possess the knowledge of whether there really is a God, and if there is, which God is the real one.

It's at the claim that theists do possess that knowledge where our opinions diverge.
 
I've always been of the opinion that anyone who is a 'good person' so that they can get in to heaven or due to fear of going to hell, isn't actually a 'good person'. They're being good for selfish reasons.
Glad I learned that with my religion teacher :D
 
Yes, I agree.
It's their life and their decisions.
However, I have to draw the line when it infringes on others right to live their lives as they decide.

How does a homosexual relationship infringe on your right to live your life as you decide?

Also, to protect this right to live your life, you do realize you have to infringe on their right to do the same, yes? I'd be really interested in hearing your justification for that bit of hypocrisy.

I would like to put forth a concept, feel free to challenge it if you wish.
I don't think many of you are considering the eventual consequences, that I am convinced will result from operating under the "God doesn't exist position".
If there is no higher being of authority upon which to base a standard of absolutes, then there is nothing to prevent the eventual consequence of basically "anything goes". Or whatever goes goes at the whim of man at whatever point in time. Same difference depending.
Now the reason that is an eventuality, is without a higher basis of estabished standard, no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses. Or in other words we are all on the same plane of authority, with no more basis for authority than the next fellow to judge what is wrong or right..
Isn't that what I'm hearing in this thread?
Or in short, mob rule.

I didn't know you had released a Greatest Hits album. Is the second track titled "What 'Evidence' Means to Me"?

It's utter 🤬, and more than a little arrogant, to claim that atheists are incapable of living morally.
 
The question, in the end, isn't whether or not you believe. It's whether or not you have lived well, been a decent person, and helped others do the same. Believing one way or the other is merely the way you interpret the meaning of life.

How you act (or not) makes the difference as to whether or not others feel it is worth listening to you.
 
The question, in the end, isn't whether or not you believe. It's whether or not you have lived well, been a decent person, and helped others do the same.
It turns out that "well" and "decent" are open to interpretation - and some interpret them to mean "believe in [deity]".

As we've seen in these threads (this and some with which this one is twinned), some people who would require "believe in [deity]" to be a criterion of being a decent person also classify "being homosexual" as not living well.
 
Yes, I will admit that there are those who "Follow the rules" that are so stuck on "Being perfect" that they can't accept any others imperfections as simply their walk in life. It's not easy to not judge someone for sinning differently than yourself. ;)
 
Also, to protect this right to live your life, you do realize you have to infringe on their right to do the same, yes? I'd be really interested in hearing your justification for that bit of hypocrisy.

Could you elaborate, is this about the laws regarding homosexuality and religious freedom, or something else?
 
Could you elaborate, is this about the laws regarding homosexuality and religious freedom, or something else?

It's about this statement:

Yes, I agree.
It's their life and their decisions.
However, I have to draw the line when it infringes on others right to live their lives as they decide.

If we trace it back a few quotes, you'll see that the "it" infringing upon others' rights is homosexual sex:

Well now that you mention it, it is not a sin to love someone, but there are different types of love.
To love someone of the same sex in a sexual way is a sin because you were created for a different purpose.

If that person wanted to do something what is essentially theirs and theirs alone, I have no problem with it. I don't get to dictate what someone gets to do with what they have.

Yes, I agree.
It's their life and their decisions.
However, I have to draw the line when it infringes on others right to live their lives as they decide.

How does a homosexual relationship infringe on your right to live your life as you decide?

Also, to protect this right to live your life, you do realize you have to infringe on their right to do the same, yes? I'd be really interested in hearing your justification for that bit of hypocrisy.

-----

Essentially, SCJ thinks that, because homosexual sex somehow infringes upon the rights of others, it's okay to stop said sex from happening.

Of course, stopping them from having sex infringes upon their rights to live their lives how they decide to.

I'm challenging the hypocrisy of SCJ's apparent opinion that homosexuals don't have the same "right to live their lives as they decide" that everyone else gets.

Also worth noting that that's all based upon a faulty premise anyways. Sex between consenting people in no way infringes upon anybody else's rights. That's absurd.
 
How is it a sin to love someone? What is gender but the difference between a testicle and a uterus?

Passion, sexual attraction and true love are too different to mix their meanings, so...

Imagine how logic and normal for a believer in Jesus' word would it be to say homosexuality is a terrible sin if Jesus had said absolutely nothing about it altogether.

What a crazy idea.

Search and you will find my friend. He clearly spoke about Sodomma's and Gomorra's damnation in judgement day.
In Matt 10:15 He says: "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Too clear to not understand.

Is it a Terrible sin, or just a sin?

And again you bring it up as a temptation. Who is tempted? You? What straight guy is tempted by another guys nuggets?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand there are sins which one can be forgiven for and there is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable. Is there some special gay sin I am not aware of?

I don't know why, but people like you seem to want to place so much emphasis on homosexual sin. Do you even realize how few homosexuals there are?

I would be willing to bet, that on any given spring break weekend, there is much more sinning (fornicating) going on between the straight kids, than between all of the gay people all across the land all year long.

Problem is that this specific sin goes against the nature of our bidy construction. All organs serve a purpose when used. God made us the way we are. And Eva was made for Adam. And they were alone. And they went outside paradise when they disobeyed, tempted by devil. All sins are done by temptation at first. That's the motive until they become 2nd nature as a bad habit.

I've always been of the opinion that anyone who is a 'good person' so that they can get in to heaven or due to fear of going to hell, isn't actually a 'good person'. They're being good for selfish reasons.

So, until one person loves God perfectly enough to follow his will just by pure love, why not start denying evil with fear or expectation of eternal life as motive? How someone could start being a true follower of Jesus without having something to expect? After all, Jesus himself talked about reward and damnation. So, the end of the life will judge where one will go for the eternity.
 
Last edited:
Do you even realize how few homosexuals there are?

About 360,000,000.


Search and you will find my friend. He clearly spoke about Sodomma's and Gomorra's damnation in judgement day.
In Matt 10:15 He says: "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Too clear to not understand.

That was for homosexual rape, makes you wonder why the passage (so to speak) is quoted by anti-homosexualists so often. Do you think people often confuse consensual sex and rape, or only in a homosexual context?

Problem is that this specific sin goes against the nature of our bidy construction.

Do you mean that because procreation is impossible then it's against our construction? That would presumably forbid genetically-infertile people from intercourse too, no?

And Eva was made for Adam.

I must have missed the Mexican part of the Bible. Do you think that women are subservient to men?
 
Passion, sexual attraction and true love are too different to mix their meanings, so...



Search and you will find my friend. He clearly spoke about Sodomma's and Gomorra's damnation in judgement day.
In Matt 10:15 He says: "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Too clear to not understand.

View attachment 355562



Problem is that this specific sin goes against the nature of our bidy construction. All organs serve a purpose when used. God made us the way we are. And Eva was made for Adam. And they were alone. And they went outside paradise when they disobeyed, tempted by devil. All sins are done by temptation at first. That's the motive until they become 2nd nature as a bad habit.


So, until one person loves God perfectly enough to follow his will just by pure love, why not start denying evil with fear or expectation of eternal life as motive? How someone could start being a true follower of Jesus without having something to expect? After all, Jesus himself talked about reward and damnation. So, the end of the life will judge where one will go for the eternity.
Eve* (It shocks me that the non religious at times know more than the religious...)

Now how can you call it temptation from the devil if a woman and a woman, or a man and a man have the same feelings about each other as love between a man and a woman? Or is love a mirage and everyone is tempted by the devil? It sounds to me at times like the devil has his priorities more straight than god. I like the heat anyways. Id rather be who I am and support the causes I want to support than be someone im not but be told I get to arrive in a all-but-fictitious land that will apparently reward me for being fake. And then I need to be fake for all of eternity because if I end up saying "I support homosexuals" in Heaven then im kicked out.

Enjoy following your dictatorship! Ill enjoy my years on Earth doing what I want and doing what I feel is right.
 
Back