Do you believe in God?

[DQuaN]

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

Not true. Incorrect. False. Wrong. Falsch. Mal. Errado. Sbagliato. Forkert. Feil. Anghywir.

Any of those work for you?

 

[The McMerc]

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

Let me try and word this so you can understand.

You claim that gay people, at some point in their lives, chose to be gay. Let's assume you're correct (and you're not). If being gay is a choice, that would mean that me, you and everyone on this planet has chosen their sexuality. So when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[squadops]

Many gay people would choose to be straight if they had the chance. Unfortunately it's not so easy to decide to be attracted to the opposite sex.

I've always wondered if that is true, would it be based on social acceptance, or having children, or being at odds internally.

Why is it that Christians often think everything is a choice, like sexual orientation, belief, etc? Acts are choices. Feelings and thoughts are not.

The difference if it's in regard to sin should not mater to the type of person you are describing, sin would be sin and all attempts to ride their life of it should be taken. I wonder if 'they' feel the same way about addiction, or even their own faith. That's a good question actually, are Christians born that way. It would have to be a predisposition to fill a void, much like addiction somehow inherent and/or 'hardwired'. Faith is considered a gift by Christians so it's not exactly a choice by description.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not true. Incorrect. False. Wrong. Falsch. Mal. Errado. Sbagliato. Forkert. Feil. Anghywir.

Any of those work for you?

Or "Ooh, get HER!".

@DCP has finally, in my opinion, demonstrated just how far from the plot he actually is. And he's paying someone for this, 10%! I'm in the wrong job.

 

[Scaff]

You are in the UK are you not?
I am referring to primarily Europe and the United States.

I'm referring to the world, you unsurprisingly want to limit it to culturally Christian countries.

Well I'm not surprised at that response.
And you are still avoiding the question.

You asked a question in that?

The inclusion of a question mark is advisable when asking a question, as is something other than word salad in the actual content.

And you seem to forget it was rectified under that same influence.

Citation please.

However I would add that its hardly an advert for the Bible as a source for law given that would be God screwing up spectacularly with the clear support for slavery and then changing his mind. Way to go God, all those who suffered must be so stoked.

None of that estabishes or supports the conclusion that Jesus did not say it, and it was not ligitimately added later.
It only prompts the question of why it was not in the Codex_Sinaiticus.

Legitimately added over 350 year later by who?

But putting that aside for a moment, do you agree with the statement or not?

No

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

Prove it.

Oh and answer my questions as well given that I've already addressed this utter nonsense you keep repeating

 

[Mike458]

If you don't know Him, obviously you'll say whatever pleases you to say about Him.
typical lost human behaviour, which by the way, we don't know how it arrived, since everything arrived from nothing in your world view. God is the creator of everything, whether you like to think so or not, and there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you try, sorry.

God has always been there, hence why you can't get rid of Him, or disprove Him, not matter how strong your sin controls you, and how much you love to drown in them.

I mean, even in your theory of the first man from apes and or primordial soup, where and how did any of them come up with God and religion?

God is Light, and truth. What He said in His word, is fact. Oh you better be ready, irrespective of what you have wilfully chosen. The ifs and buts will stop permanently then. Peace

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

@DCP is now most likely a troll in my opinion. Please actually make an attempt to actually answer the questions that we've asked.

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

Again, people are not born gay.

people are not born gay.

born gay.

...

Please don't tell me you just said that...

I don't even.

If you make that claim, then click the spoiler below on what you should do:

Spoiler

Prove it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Even when I was religious I still thought the big bang was real because there's just to much scientific proof to say it didn't happen.

There's also not enough proof to say that it definitely did, http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html Not saying that god did it, just that it's important to remember accepted theory doesn't equal cast iron proof.

 

[Danoff]

I'll pile on because why not.

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

I have a gay sister who has always been christian (I myself am a heterosexual who has always been godless). When she came out to me, we reconstructed that I had known she was gay before she knew she was gay. How is any of that even possible in your world?

Most gay people go through a denial stage where they try to convince themselves that they're heterosexual just like everyone else. In my sisters case her closest friends asked her if she was gay, and her family members knew she was gay, years before she was willing to admit it to herself. She eventually came to terms with the fact that she was born that way.

 

[Imari]

There's also not enough proof to say that it definitely did, http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html Not saying that god did it, just that it's important to remember accepted theory doesn't equal cast iron proof.

There's no such thing as cast iron proof. A theory can always be overturned or modified. A theory is the best explanation at the time, that's all.

The only thing that could ever be described as cast iron are beliefs. We have a couple in this thread at the moment who are prime examples, absolute believers who believe absolutely, and will not change their minds even were God Himself to tell them to.

 

[Touring Mars]

To properly explain and understand human sexuality requires the complex interplay of many scientific disciplines - psychology, sociology, psychiatry, anthropology, gender studies, genetics, neuroscience etc.

Why do I get the feeling that DCP is not an expert in any of those topics?

 

[FoRiZon]

This is probably sums up everyone's concern:

We don't need people to tell us what we already know, and by
we, I mean born again Christians, walking by faith, and not by
sight, and know

 

[GBO Possum]

God is love. Deceiving someone doesn't portray love at all.

There are many instances in the bible where your god did deceive people. Jeremiah 20 is but one example.

As for "God is love", tell that to the innocents who died in your god's flood, people, animals and plants worldwide. Tell that to the firstborn children in Egypt who were slaughtered by your god because of a disagreement between him and the Pharaoh. Tell that to the children in Jeremiah 2:30. Tell that to the wives in 1 Peter 3:1.

Really, this "God is love" declaration is getting a bit old. The bible is rife with god's hate, injustice, violence, cruelty and murder.

Wake up DCP, stop posting and actually read the word of god. Then come back and rejoin as an informed participant in the discussion.

Postscript on love: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

 

[Imari]

Postscript on love: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

I know that when I love someone my first thought is to chop off bits of their willy. It shows that I care.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There's no such thing as cast iron proof. A theory can always be overturned or modified. A theory is the best explanation at the time, that's all.

The only thing that could ever be described as cast iron are beliefs. We have a couple in this thread at the moment who are prime examples, absolute believers who believe absolutely, and will not change their minds even were God Himself to tell them to.

I know. I was paying closer attention to @nascarfan1400's wording than my own perhaps. He accepts the Big Bang as "real" because of the "scientific proof" for it.. because that's how your average person terms things and sees things, and because people mostly accept what science tells us as fact. Is their proof? Is it real? Most people don't know, but I think many will claim to because they accept what they are told, assuming there must be evidence to back it up - and in that regard I think there are parallels with peoples religious opinions.

 

[Terronium-12]

That's amazing. People aren't born homosexual? Then people aren't born heterosexual either.

Or are we just going to conveniently ignore the logical fallacy there?

 

[eight6er]

If a person was living their life as a heterosexual even though they were really gay, it would probably seem like a choice to them. That's probably where the confusion comes from.

 

[Dan]

@DCP If the bible told you that two plus two equals five, would you believe that or use your own hands?

 

[Terronium-12]

If a person was living their life as a heterosexual even though they were really gay, it would probably seem like a choice to them. That's probably where the confusion comes from.

There's a difference between not coming to grips with one's own personal identity and outright choosing a lifestyle that entails mass hatred, criticism, ignorance, violence, and a number of other issues.

Why would anyone willingly subject themselves to that if it were a choice?

 

[eight6er]

There's a difference between not coming to grips with one's own personal identity and outright choosing a lifestyle that entails mass hatred, criticism, ignorance, violence, and a number of other issues.

Why would anyone willingly subject themselves to that if it were a choice?

Yes I agree with you, I don't personally think it's a choice.
I was just trying to come up with a reason why someone could possibly think it's a choice. Though really they would just be denying what is natural to them.

 

[huskeR32]

We don't need people to tell us what we already know believe...

Fixed that fo.. Oh, why bother? At this point, the number of words you misuse is probably nearing triple digits.

While you wait to find out which alien created you, it will be too late.

You're making no effort at all to actually understand what you're arguing against.

Incidentally, for all the same reasons that you think it's silly to believe we have an alien creator, I think it's silly to believe we have an invisible sky dad creator.

You don't know how the big bang happened...

Who claimed to? How does that make it less valid?

...yet you believe it because people tell you it could and might, and maybe happened.

Nope. We believe know that it's currently the best explanation for the information we have available to us. And it doesn't matter if anybody tells us about it or not. We can all take the same information, apply the same scientific methods, and arrive at the same conclusion on our own.

--

For the love of Forseti, stop conflating science/knowledge with belief. If you still want to keep ignoring things that are scientifically established in favor of myth and anecdote, fine. That's your choice.

But stop denying what science is, does, and what it has illuminated for us. The word "belief" should never be used when discussing a scientific theory. Not knowing an answer to one question does not invalidate other answers that we do know. Science isn't being told the truth, it's being shown how to find it on your own.

Before going any farther with your arguments, give all of us the basic respect of understanding what we say, what we hold to be true, and the methods that allow us to know those things. This thread is full of people who have taken the time, and put in the effort, to understand your viewpoint. Return the favor.

They are the people that run your life, and tell you how to, where to, and why to.

If you don't know where life came from, and the big bang, then you must believe it happened.

Again, that's simply not how it works. Saying "I don't know" about one thing does not invalidate everything else that you know.

We may not know how life first appeared, but we can still plainly see the process of evolution in action ever since.

Since it can't happen from nothing...

I tire of having to address this same fallacy over and over again.

Not knowing where the matter in the big bang came from =/= it came from nothing. Nobody here has claimed that the big bang came from nothing. We simply say the truth: We. Don't. Know.

...you must then believe what your religion is teaching you.

I don't believe anything. And nobody is "teaching" me anything about what existed or happened before the big bang. The big bang theory explains what happened after the bang. That's it. For everything before that point, we simply say the truth: We don't know.

One more time, with emphasis: Know what you're arguing against.

Again, Christianity is a relationship with Christ. It's not rules and laws and paganism.

All religions are about having a relationship with their deity. Christianity is not special in this regard. To borrow one of your favorite phrases as of late: Christianity is a religion, whether you like to think so or not.

Having a relations with your wife, shouldn't make it a religion.

Do you mean "relationship?" Because if I had relations with Jesus, the question of god's stance on homosexuality would be immediately and forever resolved.

And assuming you meant relationship, your logic is still faulty anyways. Any time it suits, Christians trot out the "god exists on an entirely different level that we can never understand" bollocks. So it would stand to reason that, while having a relationship with my significant other may not constitute a religion, having a relationship with an omnipotent and omniscient being certainly would.

God has always been there, hence why you can't get rid of Him, or disprove Him, not matter how strong your sin controls you, and how much you love to drown in them.

Russell's teapot. Invisible pink unicorn. Flying Spaghetti Monster. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I mean, even in your theory...

There you go misusing that word again.

...of the first man from apes and or primordial soup, where and how did any of them come up with God and religion?

Looking at all of the logically sound, brilliant ideas our species has come up with, I'm comfortable saying that we were also quite capable of cobbling together a fantastically inconsistent and self-contradictory notion like god.

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

I know at this point that I'm just adding to the dogpile, but it's a question you need to answer if you're going to keep spouting this:

[W]hen did you choose to become heterosexual?

 

[nascarfan1400]

DCP Keeps dodging our questions because he knows that we have him cornered.

 

[Mike458]

DCP Keeps dodging our questions because he knows that we have him cornered.

Or he's most likely a troll.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is a sorry state of affairs indeed when there are some people in the world who believe that love is an abomination.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Or he's most likely a troll.

It's worrying that it's hard to tell the difference

 

[JKgo]

....I think DCP was reading this when he said aliens creating us.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Sounds like a cult.

Yes it does.
But there is one pivotal difference between a cult and this.
You are never at any time under any pressure or obligation to participate.
It's up to the freewill choice of the individual.
You are encouraged to participate and become a member but it's up to you.
You can come and go as you please.
Nothing is compulsory.

So god cares...but he just doesn't really feel like doing anything, or getting involved at all.

To the contrary he got involved to provide an ultimate solution that was completed at the cross.
When Jesus said "it is finished" it was done.
Now it is up to the individual to pursue it or not.
To accept and receive it or not.
As I pointed out above he is not going to override your freewill or even unduly influence it.
It's up to you.
He said "draw close to me, and I will draw close to you".

I'm referring to the world, you unsurprisingly want to limit it to culturally Christian countries.

Primarily means primarily, not exclusively.
On second thought, it would probably be more in line to say Europe primarily, since the Americas were settled primarily by Europeans who brought Christianity and other cultural influences with them.
For the same reason the Colonial influences of which included Christianity, have been spread around the world by the European countries and perhaps represents the lion's share of that influence World wide over the last 2000yrs.
The Americas through missions have contributed mightily, but only over the last 200yrs or so.

You asked a question in that?

Earlier, in my last reply to you concerning my theory.

It is based on observation of the structure of moral authority and the resulting conclusion that could be drawn from a culural restructure of that.
Accordingly you would need to address "why you believe on a level moral field of authority, anyone is obligated to adhere to anyone elses moral standard" ? <(edit)

My bad, I didn't have a question mark on it so I added one.

The inclusion of a question mark is advisable when asking a question, as is something other than word salad in the actual content.

Even though I have one eye on the sky while answering.
I agree.

However I would add that its hardly an advert for the Bible as a source for law given that would be God screwing up spectacularly with the clear support for slavery and then changing his mind. Way to go God, all those who suffered must be so stoked.

Well I think you are missing the obvious.
Somebody screwed up alright, but it wasn't God.

Legitimately added over 350 year later by who?

Good question.
I have no idea who.
Any number of whos with any number of legitimate or illigitimate reasons.
Or perhaps the guy transcribing missed a line in the oldest copy.
IMO it is still consistent with the rest of his teachings and I believe it is likely legit.
Personally, I would rather err on the side of swallowing a gnat, as opposed to a camel.

No

How come?

There's no such thing as cast iron proof. A theory can always be overturned or modified. A theory is the best explanation at the time, that's all.

The only thing that could ever be described as cast iron are beliefs. We have a couple in this thread at the moment who are prime examples, absolute believers who believe absolutely, and will not change their minds even were God Himself to tell them to.

I think thats a two way street here.
My point is I already have the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of God.
So in that sense God is telling me whats what.
Likewise should I believe God or man?

That's amazing. People aren't born homosexual? Then people aren't born heterosexual either.

Or are we just going to conveniently ignore the logical fallacy there?

Are they born Homosexual, or are they born under the influence of something they are powerless to overcome?

I once saw a documentary on a fellow who robbed banks. He went to prison for ten years on the first count and after serving the sentence, got out and went back to robbing them again. He was caught again and sentenced to another ten years. After he got out, he started robbing banks again. After being caught the third time, he was sentenced to life with no parole. Now you could say he was just born to rob banks. Or he was unable to control the compulsion to do so. One thing you can say for sure, punishment didn't seem to have any affect on his decision making.
Now I'm not saying being a homosexual is behaviorally criminal as with this fellow.
Only that there are certain compulsions among individuals that are seemingly too powerful for them to overcome.
And they can vary considerably.

 

[The McMerc]

To the contrary he got involved to provide an ultimate solution that was completed at the cross.
When Jesus said "it is finished" it was done.
Now it is up to the individual to pursue it or not.
To accept and receive it or not.
As I pointed out above he is not going to override your freewill or even unduly influence it.
It's up to you.
He said "draw close to me, and I will draw close to you".

Your freewill? What, your freewill to lust for a person of the same gender? But if god will not override or influence your freewill, then how in the world are you ever going to "change" your sexuality, if to do so you need god?

And why is it that so many deeply Christian people also identify as gay?

You seem to have twisted yourself into a little paradox.

 

[Scaff]

Primarily means primarily, not exclusively.
On second thought, it would probably be more in line to say Europe primarily, since the Americas were settled primarily by Europeans who brought Christianity and other cultural influences with them.
For the same reason the Colonial influences of which included Christianity, have been spread around the world by the European countries and perhaps represents the lion's share of that influence World wide over the last 2000yrs.
The Americas through missions have contributed mightily, but only over the last 200yrs or so.

You said you we couldn't look at this as no control group existed, I pointed out that 2/3rd of the world is not Christian. They haven't mob rule and total anarchy.

Earlier, in my last reply to you concerning my theory.

It is based on observation of the structure of moral authority and the resulting conclusion that could be drawn from a culural restructure of that.
Accordingly you would need to address "why you believe on a level moral field of authority, anyone is obligated to adhere to anyone elses moral standard" ? <(edit)

My bad, I didn't have a question mark on it so I added one.

No one is obliged to do so, as an evolved social species we get in built rewards for altruistic behavior and don't need a higher power to stop us doing bad things.

I will defer to Penn in regard to this as it sums up my own views quite nicely:

Well I think you are missing the obvious.
Somebody screwed up alright, but it wasn't God.

Who was it then?

Good question.
I have no idea who.
Any number of whos with any number of legitimate or illigitimate reasons.
Or perhaps the guy transcribing missed a line in the oldest copy.
IMO it is still consistent with the rest of his teachings and I believe it is likely legit.
Personally, I would rather err on the side of swallowing a gnat, as opposed to a camel.

So who would this person have been that added it back in then and how would they have know that Jesus said it?

How come?

Its an unrealistic standard, if the only people who are able to stand in law as judges and jurors are those without any form of Biblical sin then you have no one (not even JC himself) able to implement laws (jury duty would be hilarious however - swore at your parents, nope you're no good out you go). It also removed the concept that people can be punished, serve the sentence and be rehabilitated.

 

[Terronium-12]

Are they born Homosexual, or are they born under the influence of something they are powerless to overcome?

I once saw a documentary on a fellow who robbed banks. He went to prison for ten years on the first count and after serving the sentence, got out and went back to robbing them again. He was caught again and sentenced to another ten years. After he got out, he started robbing banks again. After being caught the third time, he was sentenced to life with no parole. Now you could say he was just born to rob banks. Or he was unable to control the compulsion to do so. One thing you can say for sure, punishment didn't seem to have any affect on his decision making.
Now I'm not saying being a homosexual is behaviorally criminal as with this fellow.
Only that there are certain compulsions among individuals that are seemingly too powerful for them to overcome.
And they can vary considerably.

[Color= dimgray]They're born homosexual. Actually, both things are true, they're born homosexual and are born under the influence of something they have no control over, and that influence is genetics.

The comparison made, if I'm going to be frank, is absolutely ridiculous. You're comparing an instance underlied by choice and psychological implications to homosexuality? Really? And again, all of these supposed counter-arguments that imply homosexuality is some self-made, self-inflicted, or otherwise unexplained choice because reasons seem to pay no never mind to heterosexuality.[/Color]

 

[Danoff]

It is based on observation of the structure of moral authority and the resulting conclusion that could be drawn from a culural restructure of that.
Accordingly you would need to address "why you believe on a level moral field of authority, anyone is obligated to adhere to anyone elses moral standard"?

You don't.

You can behave in such a way that allows others to respect your rights. Or you can behave in such a way that absolves others of any reason to respect your rights. The choice is yours. Violate the rights of others, and you'll have lost your claim to your own rights. Pretty easy.

So the above is it when it comes to obligation - there isn't one. There are only logical consequences for your actions. Murder someone and you have lost your own right to life. Easy.

But of course there is more to it. There is the type of person that you want to be. The influence you want to have on others. This is what Mr. Jillette is speaking about above.