Do you believe in God?

[nascarfan1400]

@Rotorist

Even if being attracted to the same sex were a temptation from the devil, how do you explain the fact that gay people often have no attraction to the opposite sex?

Checkmate.

 

[Mike458]

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.

This.

 

[JKgo]

....My Bruce Lee quote's got hijacked... ....

 

[Rotorist]

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?

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?

I must have missed the Mexican part of the Bible. Do you think that women are subservient to men?

You constantly ask about what I think, instead of asking about the true meaning of Bible's text. You think you comprehend it or you can alter my writing's meaning eh? Well, no.

Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The phrase "for him" needs intepretation to you to understand its meaning? I hope not.

Marriage's biggest purpose is companion, not giving birth to children. So, when a couple cannot make any children, having sex isn't forbidden. After all woman's and man's genital organs are made to offer pleasure when they become united. If this wasn't the case, humanity wouldn't exist after Adam and Eva. Natural instinct is one thing, unnatural one is sin by itself. Simple as that.

As for Sodoma and Gomorra, there wasn't raping that induced God's punishment. It was the total immorality going on form long there, which in the case of the 2 angels who went there and were attacked clearly showed the ultimacy of homosexuality being the ultimate moral sin as the totally innatural moral act one can do along with animality.

And another answer to those who constantly say that Jesus didn't say anything about the specific sin. He clearly told that Moses' law is valid. He just fulfilled it and added the order of love above all. And clearly warned anyone who would alter or deduct anyword or sign form the Law with eternal punishment. So, why don't you read what God told about homosexuality in OT? Jesus directly approved that as He was who spoke to Moses being spirit before he took our flesh.

And something to all atheists here. You might choose to remain atheist (I wish you keep searching for the truth), but don't try to persuade others to become as you. I joined discussion just for the ones who seek for answers, not to spend time replying to provocative questions as the ones some here keep asking. So, you can keep your faith to randomness (pretty un-scientific faith to be honest as chances are too close to 0 that all were made randomly) and I will speak only to whoever I evaluate as possible to own an open mind.

Some atheists are much more fanatic to their non-belief than most of the God faithful who they accuse of being fanatic. Pretty ironic eh?

 

[Famine]

After all woman's and man's genital organs are made to offer pleasure when they become united.

Well that explains why a man's G-Spot is up his arse.

Wait...

 

[Exorcet]

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

Well let's compare the situations of God being present and God not being present.

If God is present and you don't believe in him, you get sent to hell.

If God isn't present and you don't believe in him, nothing bad happens as a result.

I'd say it's very clearly God doing the punishing. Also, to say someone is punishing themselves can be tricky to do. So long as no one is harming someone else, they cannot do wrong. No matter how silly, pointless, or contradicting their actions may seem they are not wrong for pursuing them.

Obviously none that you are aware of.

As above, so long as no one else is being harmed, nothing is wrong. Homosexuality causes no one harm.

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

Highlighting the injury and damage isn't going to support your analogy. Yes, it's a pretty compelling reason to not take a sports car off road. However it doesn't make doing so wrong, also this has nothing to do with homosexuality since there is no injury/damage involved anyway.

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.

God existing has nothing to do with it. I see something that does not make sense and I'm calling it out. That God said it doesn't make it right. You're going to assume that though because you take God existing and being infallible as your starting point. I'm trying to remain neutral in an attempt to determine what is actually true. In that case, there is the possibility of God being imperfect, the possibility of the Bible not containing God's word, and of course the possibility of God not existing at all. If I do not account for these possibilities, I'm simply gullible and waiting for the first answer to cross my path.

This has nothing to do with pride of overestimating myself, it's just honesty.

So you get to decide that?

Decide what? I just made a statement. A gay couple is going to have a really hard time accidentally having a child, while even a careful heterosexual couple might end up with one even if they're not in a good situation to raise a child.

Thats not the question.
You can partner with whoever you want, can't you?

I would say not in God's eyes if he considers marriage in a fashion he doesn't like a sin.

Who is stopping you?
The question is: " Is God's blessing on it?"

I don't see why an all-powerful all-good being wouldn't bless gay marriage just the same.

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.

Any answer you receive is subject to being questioned. It doesn't really matter what sense you want to look at things in, unless you know absolutely everything, you don't know if you know absolutely everything, and since unknown unknowns are possible, you can never know if you really do know everything.

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".

Logic. Anything goes until you harm someone else. That's morality. What isn't morality is heterosexual sex only, eating only green food on the third Wednesday of every other odd year, and telling a super being that he's the greatest thing ever every Sunday.

no one's idea of conduct is challengable by anyone elses.

Correct. So whatever someone wills to do is fine, unless they mistakenly take their will to be better than someone else's and thus dictate how the other person should go about their business. That's morality.

mob rule.

Wrong conclusion. Having more people on your side doesn't make your will any more correct. It's still exactly as meaningful or meaningless of the minority.

After all woman's and man's genital organs are made to offer pleasure when they become united.

This also works in isolation, with the same sex, and with inanimate objects.

 

[nascarfan1400]

Marriage's biggest purpose is companion, not giving birth to children. So, when a couple cannot make any children, having sex isn't forbidden. After all woman's and man's genital organs are made to offer pleasure when they become united. If this wasn't the case, humanity wouldn't exist after Adam and Eva. Natural instinct is one thing, unnatural one is sin by itself. Simple as that.

You've contradicted yourself. If the purpose of love is companion then I think we are done here, because plenty of homosexual relationships have MORE companionship than heterosexual relationships. Organs are still pleasured with same sex intercourse, and you are simply refusing the logical, scientific, statistical facts.

 

[dylansan]

And something to all atheists here. You might choose to remain atheist (I wish you keep searching for the truth), but don't try to persuade others to become as you. I joined discussion just for the ones who seek for answers, not to spend time replying to provocative questions as the ones some here keep asking. So, you can keep your faith to randomness (pretty un-scientific faith to be honest as chances are too close to 0 that all were made randomly) and I will speak only to whoever I evaluate as possible to own an open mind.

In other words, you refuse to be open minded but expect everyone else to be. Got it.

Not sure how "provocative" questions count as being close minded. Questions are asked in order to understand, and refusing to answer only makes it harder to accept that you know what you're talking about.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You constantly ask about what I think, instead of asking about the true meaning of Bible's text. You think you comprehend it

Yes. Which version/language would you like?

...or you can alter my writing's meaning eh?

Tough one.

Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The phrase "for him" needs intepretation to you to understand its meaning? I hope not.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear....

And the Lord God said, It is not good that a man be alone; make we to him an helper like to himself

You can understand the meaning? I hope so. If the "help" that God describes is sexual and God wants to make him like him... well then, rainbow flags-ahoy.

Marriage's biggest purpose is companion, not giving birth to children. So, when a couple cannot make any children, having sex isn't forbidden.

Adam and Eva (sic) weren't married though... who mentioned marriage?

And another answer to those who constantly say that Jesus didn't say anything about the specific sin. He clearly told that Moses' law is valid. He just fulfilled it and added the order of love above all.

Order of love?

And something to all atheists here. You might choose to remain atheist (I wish you keep searching for the truth), but don't try to persuade others to become as you. I joined discussion just for the ones who seek for answers, not to spend time replying to provocative questions as the ones some here keep asking.

So bite me, when I break the AUP then it will be moderated. Incidentally atheists do generally keep searching for truths... but something tells me that explaining science might be wasted on you.

pretty un-scientific faith to be honest as chances are too close to 0 that all were made randomly

Peer-reviewed source required... that's quite some claim. And a naive one too.

 

[Com Fox]

...and I thought DCP was bad enough .

I'm guessing with the "man should not be alone" means Asexuality isn't allowed either?

 

[JKgo]

....Wait, wait, just when did this thread morph into this one?

 

[Com Fox]

....Wait, wait, just when did this thread morph into this one?

because apparently Homosexuality is Gods problem to fix ???

 

[The McMerc]

because apparently Homosexuality is Gods problem to fix ???

*Homosexual's problem to fix

 

[Mike458]

@Rotorist I have four questions for you to answer. Honest answers please.

1. Why is homosexuality a sin and wrong, even through that humans and some animals do it?

2. What if there was a world with no religion? Would we be better without it?

3. What do you really live for?

4. Did God create the world? You must use legitimate evidence, and this does not include the bible. Why do you believe in God?

 

[JKgo]

because apparently Homosexuality is Gods problem to fix ???

*Homosexual's problem to fix

....Last time I checked, it's nobodies' to fix. It wasn't broken in the first place.

 

[Com Fox]

....Last time I checked, it's nobodies' to fix. It wasn't broken in the first place.

Sorry if I said the wrong in text and/or didn't mention, I was being sarcastic there.

 

[nascarfan1400]

@Rotorist I have four questions for you to answer. Honest answers please.

1. Why is homosexuality a sin and wrong, even through that humans and some animals do it?

2. What if there was a world with no religion? Would we be better without it?

3. What do you really live for?

4. Did God create the world? You must use legitimate evidence, and this does not include the bible. Why do you believe in God?

Id Like to add one:
Regardless of your opinion, Why are you so against people living the lives that they want? @Rotorist

 

[TRLWNC7396]

It's really easy if you dispense with the idea of sin.

So, then what IS sin in your eyes?

 

[JKgo]

So, then what IS sin in your eyes?

....Didn't mean to intrude, there's one sin I just can't get past.
Whenever I order a rare steak, I want it rare, dang it, not medium. RARE.

How hard is it for a waiter/waitress to understand that????

Edit: @RESHIRAM5 It's cool man. Got it.

 

[ryzno]

Funny enough it is the restaurant that determines if they sell raw meat. I've been to plenty of places that sell mid-rare, as their lowest cook temp.

 

[Famine]

So, then what IS sin in your eyes?

Do you mean what I'd class as sinful behaviour (nothing - it doesn't exist) or what my thoughts are on the existence of the concept of sin?

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Sort of the latter. My take on it is this: If there are no sins, then it's okay for me to hire a hitman to viciously torture someone to death in front of you, then do the same to you.

Sins are relative, just like being "good" and "decent" are relative.

It all depends on what you accept as Okay. Where is YOUR line drawn? What makes YOU happy?

Anything better than that is not a sin. Anything worse than that is a sin.

Who cares what some "rule" is. You can always break the law.

 

[Famine]

Sort of the latter. My take on it is this: If there are no sins, then it's okay for me to hire a hitman to viciously torture someone to death in front of you, then do the same to you.

Why would that be okay in the absence of a notion of offending a supernatural entity?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

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.

Very artful piece of drive-by analysis there.
Given the history of our propensity for a rebellious attitude tempered only by acknowledgement of God,
it would stand to reason, the secular humanist assault would accelerate the breakdown of civility here.
We do not have the distinct advantage of hundreds of years under the blind submission to the crown as those in the UK do.

In reality, civil unrest can and does occur elsewhere, including the UK at times.
And under my theory I think you can look for it to increase.

You seem to have fallen over your own metaphor here. Let's try again:


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.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.

The drink should be available at any place of Christian worship, but I can't vouch for the strength of it.
Considering the statistic by TenEightyOne, perhaps in the UK they water it down.

Are you asking for the particular establishment I got it from?

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...

Yes, I am familiar with that more than you know.
He most assuredly does care.

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

Well that could be, but there are much worse concepts available than that one.

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.

Thats not the relevant point.
The point is your morals have no authority, higher than the next guy, you being on the same level as him.
(just a man)
That being the case, he has no obligation from an authority standpoint to observe anything you may deem as moral, since he is a man as well, and resultingly can justify practically anything under his own code.
His logic maybe completely different from yours.

As I've said before, proclamations of morality attributable to logic are quite easy to make, while you are resting in the luxury of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence.
Believe what you want, but 2000 yrs without it, in my estimation would not yield even close to that beneficial of a result.

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

When I am told I must support their decisions and participate in them.

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.

No I don't compel them to do anything I might do or participate in what I do.
I've already as good as said so.
In the post above I said:
"Yes, I agree.
It's their life and their decisions".
If they ask my opinion then I would tell them where I stand, but otherwise it's live and let live.

Perhaps you are unaware of a recent court case where a judge ruled that a Christian had no right for religious reasons to refuse to provide the floral provisions for a so called same sex marriage, and ordered them to provide the flowers, attend the ceremony, and pay the couple $135,000.00 in damages.
That idiot Judge whoever he is, is ruling in direct opposition to the 1st amendment.
If allowed to stand, thats the kind of thing that is going to foment big problems sooner or later.

It's one thing for someone to participate in something I don't agree with on religious principle.
It's quite another for them to attempt to ram it down my throat under civil authority, particularly when there is a specific provision to prevent that in the "Supreme law of the land".

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.

See my post to Scaff above.

It's about this statement:

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

Essentially, you seem to revel in assumptions and misinterpretation regaurding someone elses statements.

 

[Famine]

The drink should be available at any place of Christian worship, but I can't vouch for the strength of it.
Considering the statistic by TenEightyOne, perhaps in the UK they water it down.

We have the wrong type of Christians, eh?

Are you asking for the particular establishment I got it from?

A reliable and repeatable method would do.

For some reason the religious - like those who claim paranormal abilities - can never repeat their results and always make claims about how unfair the test is, or how it's the wrong kind of church. Meanwhile the objective knowledge they pooh-pooh is shared by telling everyone the exact methods so anyone can replicate them...

So what does God have to hide? Why is he not as open about life-changing knowledge as mankind is?

 

[Mike458]

@Rotorist I have four questions for you to answer. Honest answers please.

1. Why is homosexuality a sin and wrong, even through that humans and some animals do it?

2. What if there was a world with no religion? Would we be better without it?

3. What do you really live for?

4. Did God create the world? You must use legitimate evidence, and this does not include the bible. Why do you believe in God?

Id Like to add one:
Regardless of your opinion, Why are you so against people living the lives that they want? @Rotorist

@SuperCobraJet , also please answer these questions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps you are unaware of a recent court case where a judge ruled that a Christian had no right for religious reasons to refuse to provide the floral provisions for a so called same sex marriage, and ordered them to provide the flowers, attend the ceremony, and pay the couple $135,000.00 in damages.
That idiot Judge whoever he is, is ruling in direct opposition to the 1st amendment.

No, he's ruling in accordance with the following which states, in accordance with Jefferson's notable separation of church/state that;

...laws are made for thee government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices... can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

and

free exercise does not relieve an individual from the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability that forbids conduct that a religion requires

Citing the 1st amendment in cases of discrimination according to a made-up story is nearly 150 years out of date.

 

[Scaff]

Thats not the relevant point.

Actually it is.

The point is your morals have no authority, higher than the next guy, you being on the same level as him.
(just a man).

As are yours, since they are in a book written and edited by men, changed countless times to suit the whim of whatever group is controlling the sect at that given time.

That being the case, he has no obligation from an authority standpoint to observe anything you may deem as moral, since he is a man as well, and resultingly can justify practically anything under his own code.
His logic maybe completely different from yours.

Yet oddly that's not what happens....

"
"Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%)."
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

....its almost as if you're just making stuff up to suit your own agenda (and blind faith) rather than using any data.

As I've said before, proclamations of morality attributable to logic are quite easy to make, while you are resting in the luxury of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence.
Believe what you want, but 2000 yrs without it, in my estimation would not yield even close to that beneficial of a result.

And again as societies move away from religion they get less not more violent, you get less not more crime.

Some of the basis of law does come from religion, but much of what you would cite as religious law (i.e. the Bible) can be found both in older religions and also in secular law that predates the Bible.

Some of the Biblical law would not stand today, as examples Genocide in God's name is moral, death for blasphemy is moral, forcing rape victims to marry the rapist is moral, stoning rape victims for not crying out loud enough is moral. Well according to the Bible it is, personally I would not hold them as moral in any way. How about you?

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Why would that be okay in the absence of a notion of offending a supernatural entity?

I'm not sure I grasp why you say that. Here is my take on what I personally believe is real:

Being a believer in God, I accept certain rules as ones that I should live by. That is what I personally have accepted as MY "normal".

As such, God will judge ME on the "rules" that I personally have accepted to live by.

However, a cannibal in BFE wherever would NOT be held to the same level of "rules".

That is the wonderful thing about God. HE accepts us for where we are and what WE choose to accept/were taught is "good".

That is why I put that up as a point. If, in my life, (to be nicer) being a cannibal was acceptable, and I had never heard or known differently, then that is the level of understanding/belief/ "rules" that I would be judged by.

This "all or nothing" that comes out so much from the "religious" (be they "Christians" or "Atheists", they are still practicing SOMETHING) is just so sad.

Nothing is written in stone. EVER.

What you personally accept as your level of belief and action is what you yourself will be held accountable for. Relative ONLY to your personal understanding of where you set yourself to live to.

Having said all that, if there really WERE nothing out there, why do we hold ourselves to ANY standard?

 

[LeMansAid]

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."

I really have to start using verily more.

Verily I will.