People don't choose to be gay, why should they be punished for something they didn't choose to be?

When did you CHOOSE to be straight?

I didn't. but that doesn't prove that homosexuality isn't a choice.

I don't think you have actually met and gotten to know a real gay person. They are born in such a way that they are attracted to the same sex, they don't just wake up one morning and think, "A dick in my ass sounds really good right now".

So they gradually realize their cravings for genitals they already possess? I'm just saying dude, I've known people who are gay for several years, I grew up with these people. We got into the same trouble, were exposed to the same beliefs, and everything you can imagine. They were not corrupted, it's just that when you come to like the opposite sex at around 11 or so, they for some reason like the same sex. I don't have an explanation, but it is not a choice. What exactly would corrupt people to become gay anyways?

My mom started off straight and then turned gay when she was 24. Now she's in her 40s and dating a guy again. Care to explain?

I've seen that since being gay has been more acceptable then before, more people are coming out that we labeled as straight for decades. It's just discovering yourself, some may know exactly who they are and what they want, other might not. That's the way I've had it explained to me by one of my gay friends.

some people think they're gay when they're not. others might do it for attention.

So you're saying it's possible for someone to be genetically predisposed to one type of sexuality and yet behave as a member of another?

Also, as a sidebar, do you define homosexuality as being based on attraction, or behavior? That is, what makes someone gay, the sex they're attracted to, or the sex they actually partake in?

Yes it is, it happens in nature constantly as a sort of population control mechanism. In people it's most likely a mixture of that and chemical imbalances in the brain.

for your first question: yes, most definitely. it probably happens all the time on both ends of the spectrum.

for your second question: that's a doozy. its impossible to know if someone has a predisposition to one sex or another, because i believe that people mistake certain feelings all the time, like i said. so the only way to judge a person's sexuality is by their behavior, but ideally it should be about base attractions rather than behavior.

The reason I ask is because you're basically saying that people choose their sexuality. Don't get me wrong, that's my view too, it's just...idk, it's weird to hear someone else say it. I'm so used to everyone else saying it's not a choice.

And as for the second question, I bring that up because I often wonder if, when the Bible says no homosexuality, it just means no gay sex. I've often thought maybe God did make certain people genetically gay but that His intention was for them to have the willpower to resist those urges, as a form of spiritual exercise (or exorcise? Get it? Anyone? No? Ah, screw you).

thats not really what im trying to say. people are definitely predisposed to a sexuality. im saying its a choice of how you display your sexuality. i use the word choice loosely because ive said before, you cannot fight instinctive urges, and sexuality is definitely one of them. being gay is not a choice.

thats an interesting philosophy, but its nearly impossible to "resist those urges" because they're as natural for gay people as sexual attraction is for straight people. its not an unnatural urge, its an instinctive reaction.

Right but I'm saying, given what our faith teaches, when you combine it with what science teaches, that seems to be the only logical conclusion. God knows that these people have a natural inclination to be gay and He want them to resist it.

that is a completely valid way to interpret it. i dont really have any reason to argue about that, its what you believe and that is perfectly fine.

Thank you.

Because He's God and He can do whatever the hell He wants. He's done it before. I forget if it was this thread or another one where I mentioned comparing Noah to Job. Both were decent, God-fearing men who loved and obeyed God, yet God saved Noah while killing everyone else, and later He destroyed everything good about Job's life. God doesn't treat everyone equally in this life. But it's all about maintaining your faith in spite of everything else.

Because god doesnt want to take a fat ogre shit

Because God decided to put Shrek in the swamp.

And swamps have onions, which have layers.
And Ogres have layers, it's a perfect fit.

maaaaaaan

ill have you know he was proven to have existed....ow

nuh huh

Well he did EXIST.
The miracles he performed are the questionable part.

what... the fuck...
Guess I'm reconsidering my life...

Nothing, it just seems a bit childish to me. But since mankind always wants more, it does not surprise me that they will reach out to something that is probably impossible.

Maybe. But I doubt it.
And if there is some powerful being, it's not anything in any of our textbooks.

I'd rather believe in many gods than a single one. If science was used to create us, I find it much easier to believe that a group of super beings created us than a single omnipotent and omniscient being.

It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it cannot be proven or disproven, because we cannot interact with it (unless the God decided to interact with us himself). I personally do not find a problem with an omnipotent creator.

I wouldn't say I don't hold hope in a higher power.

I just don't like it when large groups of people announce how to please it.

And then judge others when they do it wrong.

well look at the term you used to describe it. "supernatural". by definition, the concept is beyond nature and thus inconceivable if you actually try and reason it all out instead of using it as an explanation for everything.

of course the fact that it is impossible to rationalize god's will does not actually detriment the notion in any way, it just makes it harder to use it as a basis for a lifestyle for many people. it is actually very easy to use god as an explanation as opposed to trying to explain god.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of god.

If he provides some evidence or some reason to believe he exists i would accept that fact. It would certainly give more of an impression if he showed that he is evidently real.

But sadly that is not the case. This supernatural being is undemonstrable and unfalsifiable completely relying on gullibility rather than evidence. So while i am open to it i still have to see evidence.

just wandering, what kinda evidence would be sufficient?

Empirical evidence - If we saw god with our own eyes like we see the sun then we can validate it's existence.

that would be difficult , because looking at God would be the equivalent of stand about 5 away from the sun.

If God is all-powerful, he can do anything. He can easily make himself visible.

He can make himself visible, to easily he could do that, but its in the eyes of the beholder were it becomes difficult. like i said, it would be the equivalent of standing 5 feet away from the sun. There is enough power radiating off to fry anything.
You could also try to think about it like this. It would be like seeing time and space before you. past. present. future. everything and nothing, thry to imagine actually seeing that with you own eyes, in a singular spot in the universe and to comprehended at the same time. it is impossible for your mind to keep up or even process that much information.

Pic not mine.

Humans are dumb. We just need a few miracles.
If god exists and is omnipotent, he is capable of showing himself
Clearly he doesn't want us to.

Want us to know about him

What did i just say to arnistle? I said "He can make himself visible, to easily he could do that, but its in the eyes of the beholder were it becomes difficult." it not the fact that he can't or doesn't want to, its that there is to much power to be able to live through. That is why he works through miracles. so yes, Humans are dumb. we have just began to be able to understand the universe and what is out there, we still have trouble trying to figure out what causes the basic functions and laws of physics across the universe. But you think you could process everything all at once? No ones mind could be able to process that, not yet atleast.

And yes he kinda made himself visible once, if you believe in Jesus. but that is debatable, that is since he is the "son of god " and not God himself.

Ugh, you didn't read my comment correctly. If God is all-powerful, he can easily make himself visible in such a way that humans can see him without any issues like all of time and space being in their brains/not have their heads blow up.

many logical and mathematical truths are not empirically verifiable, this does not mean that they dont exist

This is a good point, one reason why I do not completely oppose religious, as I am not a science elitist.

They are experimental, testable and falsifiable. God is not.

the concept of God is certainly testable and falsifiable. if you can prove that the concept is logically incoherent or self-contradictory, you can falsify it. and if you can prove that the concept is necessary, you can prove it

Neither of that applies to a personal deity.

How not?

yes they do.

"If he provides some evidence or some reason to believe he exists i would accept that fact."

Why don't you accept the cosmological argument or the ontological argument?

Because they have faulty premises zlamous we have gone over this. Nothing has begun to exist in the way the universe has, so the premise "Every that begins to exist has a cause" is false because we have never viewed anything "begin to exist" and therefor cannot apply it to needing a cause based on how we view the reconstruction of pre-existing material.

i've already explained this we don't need to examine something begin to exist ex-nihilo, to establish the first premise. if things could begin to exist without having a cause, it's inexplicable why things don't come into existence all the time. you are denying basic logical truths.

Cosmological argument is flawed because it's a god of the gaps argument. There are an infinite number of causes other than a human-inspired god that could have caused the creation of the universe. The creator of the universe need not even be supernatural, or sentient or intelligent to satisfy this argument of "first cause".

The ontological argument is a fallacy because the argument can be completely broken and made laughable by simply changing "God" to "The Most Perfect Island" (or something similar). The argument remains structurally valid (that is, nothing in the symbolic formulation of the argument is incorrect), however, we come to the laughable conclusion that "The Most Perfect Island" must exist. You could also replace "God" with "Unicorns" and define "Unicorns" as "that than which no greater horse can be conceived". We now have an argument for the existence of unicorns, another mythological creature.

"There are an infinite number of causes other than a human-inspired god that could have caused the creation of the universe.......The creator of the universe need not even be supernatural, or sentient or intelligent to satisfy this argument of "first cause"

Wrong. based on current evidence, we can determine the nature of the cause. We know it had to be timeless and immaterial, because time and matter is a product of the universe. we know it had to be causeless, to avoid the problem of an infinite regress. the only things that fit this description are minds and abstract objects. abstract objects can't cause things to exist, so we can conclude that it was a conscious being.

"the argument can be completely broken and made laughable by simply changing "God" to "The Most Perfect Island""

"the most perfect island" and unicorns aren't necessary beings, and they're logically incoherent concepts, so they are not comparable to God.

Since when does it require to be intelligent in order to be immaterial, timeless and causeless? It simply means that the first cause goes beyond our own physical laws. A mere “First Cause” that has apparently done nothing more than cause the Big Bang hardly seems to warrant the label “God.” It isn’t necessarily worth worshipping, revering, or even giving much thought to.

The point still remains. Just because you can think of something that cannot be contradicted does not automaticly mean it exists.

Since when does it require to be intelligent in order to be immaterial, timeless and causeless?

the only things that fit this description are minds and abstract objects. abstract objects can't cause things to exist, so we can conclude that it was a conscious being

"A mere “First Cause” that has apparently done nothing more than cause the Big Bang hardly seems to warrant the label “God.” It isn’t necessarily worth worshipping, revering, or even giving much thought to. "

He's done a lot more than that. Read the Bible.

"The point still remains. Just because you can think of something that cannot be contradicted does not automaticly mean it exists. "

So you're saying that even though I've proven you wrong, you're still right? this is the definition of self delusion.

"Abtract objects can't cause things to exist"

Says who? You got no evidence to say it does. Conciousness (so far as we know) are the direct product of the action of a physical brain. So a mind cannot possibly be the most probable candidate for being a prime cause. It could easily been immaterial objects that move beyond our physical laws that caused the big bang to happen. Just slapping "goddidit" isn't going to help anyone.

You suddenly claim that out of all gods it had to be the christian god yet your cosmological argument is only an argument in favor of deism. I could easily make up my own personal god and claim that he is the first cause instead of the christian god.

How did you prove me wrong? My argument still stands. You have provided no reason to suggest that thinking of something that cannot be contradicted has to exist.

Explain how it's logically possible for an abstract object other than a mind to create something. the number 7 can't cause anything to exist. it can't affect anything.

"Conciousness (so far as we know) are the direct product of the action of a physical brain. So a mind cannot possibly be the most probable candidate for being a prime cause. "

Material objects cannot create immaterial objects. i believe that the mind and the body are connected, but the mind can exist separately.

"It could easily been immaterial objects that move beyond our physical laws that caused the big bang to happen. "

based on our current evidence, they only thing immaterial things that can affect anything is a mind. you can't just say "well there might be new evidence that contradicts this in the future" because you could do that with literally any argument. it's pointless.

"You suddenly claim that out of all gods it had to be the christian god yet your cosmological argument is only an argument in favor of deism."

I don't use the cosmological argument to prove Christianity, i just use it to disprove atheism

"How did you prove me wrong?"

I refuted all of your objections.

I actually remember someone giving the argument that the perfect god would create the universe without existing. Obviously it was a joke on the creators part, but it essentially makes the pointless argument null.

thats kind of how i fell about it. i guess my question was more directed at people who think that there is no possible way god could exist

noblexfenrir, kanade, thebritishguy, and dmagen are all trolls. They don't actually believe anything they're saying, so don't take them seriously when they respond.

I really was sure you were a troll until I saw how long you will debate for

>trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

Thank you, I appreciate this.

you spelled kanade wrong

>feeding the trolls

heh. that's exactly what i've been doing.

Yeah, i'm being humiliated by the guy who doesn't know the difference between 'were' and 'where'

You think I've lost any argument with you? You really are self deluded. Seek help.

"On the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons. The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the 'Star Spangled Banner', but in fact the message was this: So long and thanks for all the fish." - Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy

Who's Ronnie Snow?

someone made up guy from the looks of it.

I've presented all the evidence. you're just pretending it isn't there

It depends on how well you know your shit. Zlamous has just put extensive thought into his positions.

thanks. you're a lot nicer than most atheists.

I appreciate that. Although I don't consider myself atheist.

you're agnostic right?

That's probably the closest thing you could label me as. I just prefer to say, no religion. I've always wondered, what sect of Christianity are you a part of?

I've never heard of apatheism.

i'm nondenominational.

Essentially what Eight said, I wouldn't attribute ignorance to being a good debater. But even so if he is, he is only efficient in the place of holding a position. When it comes to citing reliable information, correcting false information, etc. he is extremely bad. However, giving the same disproven information, and holding onto arguments we know are wrong (such as his understanding of biology which is laughably broken), he has become incredibly good at doing.

"and holding onto arguments we know are wrong"

The irony burns. You don't believe that abstract objects exist, you think that gene flow can produce new morphological features, you don't believe that Jesus ever existed, you don't think any philosophical arguments can be used as evidence, you don't think that thoughts are ever created.

all of these things are demonstrably false, yet you continue to believe them because you're too stupid and cowardly to admit that you're wrong.

" You don't believe that abstract objects exist"
Because they don't, not in the sense you are trying to make them seem to be. They are pre-rendered representations. They are not created, nor are they anything new. I've explained this but you don't listen.

" you think that gene flow can produce new morphological features"
Gene flow, mutations, etc. Yes they can, this is because the feature is "new" but the information to create it isn't.

" you don't believe that Jesus ever existed"
That's just a matter of their not being enough evidence outside of biblical accounts, I've gone through almost every common source presented (except the dead sea scrolls but even then one can make the argument of it barely being extra-biblical and carries the same weight as the accounts in the bible itself). Even so though, it hardly matters if he existed or he didn't.

"you don't think any philosophical arguments can be used as evidence"

Because they can't, they are what requires evidence, not evidence themselves.

"you don't think that thoughts are ever created. "

Because they aren't. Thoughts are the brains interpretation of electrical impulses, if you want to argue the brain creating electric pulses then fine, but it still isn't creating anything in the sense play it off to be.

"all of these things are demonstrably false, yet you continue to believe them because you're too stupid and cowardly to admit that you're wrong."

But they aren't. and Cowardly to admit I'm wrong? If you give actual evidence or are even the slightest bit correct I would admit to me being wrong or atleast you being right. You have yet to do this.

I've already explained how we know abstract objects exist. you haven't listened.

" Gene flow, mutations, etc. Yes they can, this is because the feature is "new" but the information to create it isn't. "

This is contradictory. And you haven't demonstrated how these mechanisms can produce new features. Your only evidence of evolution is an outrageous extrapolation of the evidence for micro evolution.

"That's just a matter of their not being enough evidence outside of biblical accounts"

you're assuming that Biblical accounts aren't reliable and you're ignoring all the contemporaneous accounts that support the Bible

" Because they can't, they are what requires evidence, not evidence themselves. "

That's stupid. you can't use empirical data to prove philosophy.

Without philosophy we couldn't define all the terms used in science. We couldn't describe mathematical and logical truths. You have to use philosophy whether you like it or not.

"Because they aren't. Thoughts are the brains interpretation of electrical impulses, if you want to argue the brain creating electric pulses then fine, but it still isn't creating anything in the sense play it off to be. "

How can the physical brain interpret anything unless it's self aware? our minds our aware of themselves, not our brains.

"I've already explained how we know abstract objects exist. you haven't listened. "
But they do not exist, they are simply concepts and representations. Not singular existing entities. They are just rehashes of things that already exist.

"This is contradictory. And you haven't demonstrated how these mechanisms can produce new features. Your only evidence of evolution is an outrageous extrapolation of the evidence for micro evolution."

Because it isn't producing any "new" features. It's simply a reformation of pre-existing information.
My only evidence? Really now? Well first of all, there really is no different between evolution and micro/macro evolution, it's evolution plan and simple. Even so though, macro is simply micro on a larger scale.
Anyways, we also have fossil evidence, DNA evidence (no it does not support a common creator unless you prove the creator as a possibility. Otherwise, it proves common ancestry), lab tests, observations, vestigial organs, gene manipulation, etc etc etc.
Again we are not going to talk about evolution until you learn more about biology, I'm not here to be your teacher on the subject.

"you're assuming that Biblical accounts aren't reliable and you're ignoring all the contemporaneous accounts that support the Bible "
Well the accounts outside of the bible do not support Jesus, however its up to the reader whether bible is reliable or not. However, I wouldn't assume someone would think it would be if it can't line up with outside information. Again it doesn't matter though, neither the bible nor any outside sources validates the supernatural claims which is all I really focus on.

"That's stupid. you can't use empirical data to prove philosophy. "
Actually you can use empirical data to support philosophical claims, however you cannot use philosophical claims as evidence themselves.

"But they do not exist, they are simply concepts and representations"

*facepalm* So you don't believe that concepts exist?

"Because it isn't producing any "new" features. It's simply a reformation of pre-existing information. "

If you believe in abiogenesis, you have to believe that, at one point, there was no genetic information. so you HAVE to believe that new genetic info can be created.

"there really is no different between evolution and micro/macro evolution....macro is simply micro on a larger scale. "

Macro evolution requires the emergence of new morphological features, genotypes, phenotypes, etc... mirco evolution does not. adaptation is not directional, it can't continuously make directional changes in an organism for thousands of generations. it's literally impossible

"Well the accounts outside of the bible do not support Jesus"

Josephus' letters. this is just one example. there are many others

" its up to the reader whether bible is reliable or not"

No, we can objectively verify the accuracy of the Bible.

" neither the bible nor any outside sources validates the supernatural claims which is all I really focus on. "

no evidence will convince you of any supernatural event because you're a naturalist.

"Without philosophy we couldn't define all the terms used in science. We couldn't describe mathematical and logical truths. You have to use philosophy whether you like it or not. "
What are you talking about, mathematical and scientific truths and principles are derived from observed evidence that is relayed into repeatable understandable concepts.


"How can the physical brain interpret anything unless it's self aware? our minds our aware of themselves, not our brains."

Because the Physical brain has developed a consciousness by which we derive our "self awareness" from. and because the brain is very good at interpreting information into understandable images/concepts, this is where it developed interpreted thoughts.

The best example is to compare it to how we view the world. Every solid object is essentially made up of nothing, just space. However, because of the conflicting force of electrons and other base forces, we cannot simply pass through this empty space. So our brains are very good at giving us images of solid objects to make maneuvering in this world much easier.

mathematics and science couldn't exist without philosophy philosophy lays the groundwork for these subjects.

"Because the Physical brain has developed a consciousness by which we derive our "self awareness" from. and because the brain is very good at interpreting information into understandable images/concepts, this is where it developed interpreted thoughts. "

Don't you see the circular logic you're using here?

Evidence and science is a perfectly reasonable bias to prefer.

Google tho torm "Confirmation Bias". Thos doscrobes occorotoly ovoryothong thot yoo consoder "logoc ond rooson" on those orgomonts.

No Woll Smoth, not you! You were the chosen one!!

Rolox thore, O'm jost clorofooing o torm tho onon osed.

Well granted I said that if it's being applied to my siding with evidence and science then ofcourse I have a confirmation bias. But then it would seem noone is without it making it a moot point.

Thank you Woll Smoth, godspeed to you sor.

No, yoo ose whotovor ovodonse os long os ot opploes to yoor voowpoont. Bosong yoor voowpoont ond cloomong thot no pholosopho con bo osed ogoonst ot os a mojor flow bocoose tho topoc otsolf os pholosophocol. O've soon yoo porsonolly dosmoss soorcos bosed off of thoor stonce on tho ossoe (ono proof thot os not of a Chrostoon voowpoont), so don't gove mo thot lop of yoo hovong onlo on onboosed, onbogotod voow.

Yoo hove not boon doomed wortho bo the Ollomonoo for yoor onsolonce.

What an incredibly pretentious thing to say.

It's pretentious to prefer to have thought experiments proven through evidence, or to follow a method by which that evidence is obtained?

Then yeah I'm pretentious. Hardly see a problem with it if that's what it entails.

no, it's pretentious to imply that you can objectively examine evidence with no bias whatsoever

I have a bias towards reality and what the evidence supports. Nothing more and nothing less. I have no agenda to prove, just to analyze what the evidence proves.

"I have no agenda to prove,"

Really? You think anyone believes that?

What agenda could I possibly have to prove?

secularism

That's not proving something though, that's enforcing a specific policy. Ofcourse I agree that religion and government/society should be separated. Especially since I live in america and that is in our constitution so I'm advocating a policy set by our founding fathers. Where as anywhere else in the world without this, it would simply be my position.

That isn't proving anything though, like I said it's personal preference.

You have an anti-religious agenda. don't try to deny this

Nice try, noblexfenrir.

Wasn't me sparky, when have I ever used an anon account?

heh. guess i owe you an apology.

I'm anti-religion, but that isn't my agenda when it comes to applying evidence. If there was evidence that proved a god was real then I would believe in a god, but the evidence doesn't point that way. Hence my standpoint.

If you really think he is a good debater then i suggest thinking that maybe you're just a terrible debater.

I wouldn't call a good debtor someone who constantly provides the SAME sources over and over to try and prove a point.

Anyone can debate. Whether the information is credible and true is another matter. All it takes is pressing the reply and writing some gibberish that somewhat relate to the discussion.

Yes.

I pray because it makes my relationship with God feel more personal. Knowing I can talk to Him directly and that He will listen gives me comfort. And I actually haven't been to church since December of 2011. I felt like I was being forced to go and I didn't like that. But I plan on going back this Sunday because I feel God urging me to go back. I don't have to, nor am I particularly excited about getting up early for it. But when I feel God speaking to me I want to obey.

you do not know, if you knew faith would be irrelevant

Fine, I sense that He's listening.

you are now an agnostic

No, I'm not. Agnostics don't even sense God.

do you know that what your sensing is God?

Yes, because it's telling me to start going back to church and that I should get a degree in Bible Study so that I can become a youth pastor. Why would anything other than God be sending me that message?

oh yes because the only option is that a thing is sending you messages because that is completely logical. It is a mental disorder or it is your sub conscious or it is thoughts...wait...what the hell it is thoughts, explain yourself

Well I don't have a mental disorder (or else you'd have to say that one-third of the human race has the same disorder, which is not the general consensus). As for my subconscious, I doubt it. My subconscious has told me to do a lot of things before. None of them felt like this. This one feels like a command, something I actually should do, whereas everything else has just been thoughts I have no obligation to comply with.

I never thought I'd say this, but Cleverguy hit the nail on the cross head.

well then Christianity is extremely wrong, innocent people will be tortured for eternity because they were born into the "wrong" country

Yes, I know it says that, and as I just said, clouds are water.

it doesn't say that the clouds are made out of water it says the sky is made out of water

You're splitting hairs now. And frankly it's kind of pathetic.

that is what it says he separated the waters by firmament, and called the top half sky

Where are you getting "top half"? Genesis 1 says: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”" The vault is the sky, the water is not physically part of it. They just exist near each other.

I take this as the people knowing that water comes from out the clouds and so they think that there is a sea of water above them.

You can take it however you like. I stand by my interpretation.

As I've said, no one is innocent. And even so, they get tortured because those of us who know the Gospel aren't delivering it to them. That's our fault for failing to do our duty.

that is according to your beliefs and not mine, a 5 year old girl who loves her family and does not understand hate does not deserve to be tortured for eternity and is guilty of nothing

That's not referring to the whole Bible, just the prophets of the Old Testament making predictions about the coming of Jesus. Here's a lengthy explanation of the verse:
www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm

I AM SHITTING RIGHT NOW, How was it that the prophesies were so accurate? it's the same fucking book and even then they had parts which were wrong. he said there is "no" scripture that is up for interpretation

Okay, let's say it's referring to the whole Bible. Even so, all that means is that if two people interpret the text different ways, both of them can't be right. There's only one way that it's meant to be taken. But notice it doesn't say it has to be taken literally. It just means that you can't conform it to your own personal philosophy. You have to conform your personal philosophy to the text. Even if the text is speaking in metaphors, that means that those who do not take it as a metaphor are reading it wrong.

so you have to conform your views to believe that witches need to be killed?

Not anymore. Jesus said don't kill anyone. That's not even up for argument.

Jesus also said to beat your slave and criticised people for not killing their innocent children, God said not to kill people to in the ten commandment but then he appeared to forget and end up telling people to kill a hell of a load of people

Oh, and Revelation is all about the end of the world. Judgment will obviously be brought upon those who reject Christ. But that's not going to happen until the prophesies come to pass.

the prophesies have already been proven impossible in many cases

Well it's been almost universally accepted that Revelation is mostly metaphorical.

I don't think you can just say that anything that is impossible is metaphorical, metaphorical for what?

Well the Four Horsemen are literally named for what they stand for: War, Pestilence, Famine, and Death. There's also the Seven-Headed Beast, which could be some sort of governmental collaboration with seven leaders. Although that one is just my personal speculation. The point is any one of the prophesies could represent something more realistic.

but other things in the bible like the creation story I can't think what it would be a metaphor of it is completely false

The Creation story can be loosely compared to evolution. In the Beginning the Earth was empty and formless. Not unlike a ring of dust orbiting the sun. Then God gave it shape, filled it with both land and ocean, and then created these things in this order: Plants, marine life, land animals (perhaps reptiles first and then mammals), then humans.

the bible says that the sun was created after plants and the sky is water and birds were around at the same time as fish

I didn't say it was a perfect comparison. But yes, the sky is partly water. That's what clouds are made of, are they not?

by "nor perfect" (no idea why religious people use this when describing the most ridiculous shit ever) you mean entirely wrong in almost every detail? there were more parts that were wrong than right. It says the sky is made of water I'm not even joking.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ8tMApaEK0

God made specific exceptions and certain times but unless you're given direct orders by God then you have to abide by the general laws. When He criticizes them for not killing children He's simply drawing their attention to the fact that they are not without sin themselves. And which passage are you referring to in which Jesus says to beat slaves?

In response to your picture, those are some easy things to confuse. Once again He was just pointing out that no human is perfect. As for the thing about abandoning your families, He doesn't mean literally. He means put your faith before anything else including your families. We're called to love God so much that our love for our families is like hatred by comparison. But only by comparison. We're still supposed to love them, but we just need to love God that much more.

Luke 12:47, you just keep interpreting it so it is well not nice so it is a little bit civil, the fact he recognises not killing your children as sin in the first place is fucked up.

I'm trying not to belittle your intelligence but you're making that rather difficult. The passage in Luke is a parable Jesus gave to symbolize Revelation. The illustration He gives is servants taking care of their master's home while the master is away, and because they don't know how long he'll be gone, the one in charge thinks he can fuck around and not worry about getting caught. But when the master comes home unexpectedly, he beats the servant for being shitty. This is transparently allegorical of Jesus' return, which is still yet to come. We are the shitty servant, He is the master, and He will come at a time when we don't expect Him and He will punish those of us who are not prepared for His arrival. And again, that will happen when the prophesies of Revelation happen, but it is by no means encouraging that we beat slaves.

Yes, God is just and good. Perfect, actually. And the fact that Muslims would kill anyone is not the fault of God, it's because of their own misguided views. If they're children converted to Christianity and got killed because of it, that would be better for them than if they remained Muslim, because at least they would go to heaven. You don't seem to grasp that because you're so bent on the justices of this life, when in fact this life is finite and microscopic compared to the life that awaits us after our bodies die.

hmmmmmmm...I wonder.....I wonder why...oh yeah because I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT. is this a difficult concept? by saying that you have proven my point from earlier you believe 5 year old children deserve to burn for eternity and this is justice, you sick fuck

I worship a God who believes the same thing, yet He allows them into heaven regardless of what they deserve, so long as they accept Jesus. How is that sick? It's the most merciful thing anyone could ask for.

no, you said the children who didn't heat about Christianity were going to hell and the bible says they are going to hell, you can't keep making up bullshit off the top of your head when I have read the bible

Please re-read my comment. Yes, I said they ones who hadn't heard about Christianity were going to hell. But if they do hear about it, and if they accept it, then they go to heaven. Even though they deserve otherwise. That's merciful. Making sure they know the Gospel is our way of delivering God's mercy to them.

I'm talking about the ones who never heard about Christianity and have been all along, even if you do not believe in the bible you are in no way EVIL or IMMORAL it just means you don't see enough evidence or you know of counter evidence, there is nothing wrong with not believing in a story which is scientifically impossible and has no proof that it is real in fact it seems completely normal to me.

I understand why you think that, but you have to understand that from our perspective, everyone has sinned and thus everyone is evil. You can't tell me that you have never gotten jealous, or angry, or sexually aroused by someone other than your spouse, or that you've never lied, or been lazy or gluttonous, or that you've never thought you were better than anyone else. Everybody does these things, and they're all sinful.

what is bad about being sexually aroused lol this shit is ridiculous

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:27-28

Look, I'm not saying we're expected to abide by every rule. The commandments and everything Jesus taught about moral conduct was not meant to separate the sinners form the saints. They were meant to frustrate us so much that we would break down and realize we cannot be perfect and thus turn to Christ to save us from our sin. I think I shared this verse with you before but I'll reiterate it for reference:

"Therefore no one shall be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; Rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." - Romans 3:20

God knows some laws are impossible to keep. That's why He made them. To make perfection impossible for humans.

I asked what is wrong with it and you just gave me dogma...wait a minute....Jesus is an abusive boyfriend! he insult you so much you don't feel worthy of him and so you see him as extremely superior when you feel small and pathetic and then he says he loves you and your going to be happy together in heaven, he is manipulating and controlling you exactly like an abusive boyfriend

Ehhh...I wouldn't say He's insulting. He certainly hasn't said anything that isn't true. Nor does He say things in a way that makes me afraid of Him or disheartened with myself. Rather, He gives me hope and makes me feel loved and protected. That actually sounds like a really good boyfriend.

I disagree that they are bad because they are victim less crimes,human nature and I DEFINITELY disagree that you deserve to go to hell for eternity because of something impossible to stop! I hate the philosophy that everyone is sinful and wrong.

I don't like it either but like I said, I'm not one to argue with the guy who decides how I spend eternity.

that is where it has gotten you, you aren't allowed to argue over fear, is this not thought crime and slavery.

It's only a crime if it violates law. And there are no laws over God. As for slavery, I don't think it's like that. There's no chains binding us. We can leave anytime we want. But then it's like our contract is nullified. We don't get our end of the deal. The agreement is we trade our spiritual selves for eternity in heaven, or we don't, and thus forgo heaven. It's optional. You're making it sound like we're prisoners.

yes! as I said before it tells you what to think, say, believe, do, feel, wear, eat, how to have sex, who to have sex with, what you should believe is right and wrong, how to think. Were as I can do what ever I want as long as it isn't against the law of my country. Who is more free?

I choose to serve my master now so that I may receive an infinite reward later. Have you never done chores to earn a reward? Sure, I can walk away, but why would I want to?

Meanwhile, you live a life now which you believe is freer, and don't even believe in any form of reward in the next life. Your life is finite, and mine is eternal. Not to mention the fact that you claim you cannot believe what I believe. As if it's not even an option. You're locked within your world view. And you call me the prisoner.

by world view do you mean reality?

so your argument for not being more free is that you are serving your master? you know that in other versions of the bible servant is translated as slave? when I do chores my Dad doesn't threaten me with torture and burning me alive if I don't do them and you aren't doing chores you are conforming every sense of yourself and your reality to his standards

Servant, slave, whatever. The idea is the same. And when I didn't perform my responsibilities and help my family with my one daily chore (getting my brother on the school bus every morning), my dad kicked me out. In the same way, if we don't do our one chore for God (believing in Christ) then He doesn't let us live with Him in heaven. And yes, serving God makes me free in the afterlife, certainly, and in this life I feel free spiritually. I don't feel trapped by earthliness. I take comfort in knowing this isn't the end.

if all you need to do is believe in Jesus why waste your time praying and going to church?

That's according to your beliefs and not mine.

well thanks for agreeing with me that you have extremely immoral views that a 5 year old girl deserves to be tortured for eternity, would you torture her?

Wait back up. What are you asking about Noah's Ark and rain? You think the Bible is implying that it had never rained until the Flood? I'll get to the other points but please explain that one first because I'm confused.

Only if God told me too. But I highly doubt that's going to happen. And anyway how was I agreeing with you?

what I am trying to prove is that you believe that innocent children deserve to be tortured for eternity and that is revolting

I don't believe innocent children deserve to be tortured. I believe that innocent children deserve to go to heaven. But there are no innocent children. Only sinful ones. So the only way for them to go to heaven is through Christ.

so you think I am sinful?

Yes.

and was Gandhi sinful?

Yes.

are you sinful?

Yes.

get some self esteem jesus! you just believe everyone is sick and sinful, this really is slavery.
do you believe you will go to heaven and me and Gandhi will not?

The Bible never says the Earth is flat. The only times that is implied is either when referencing a dream or when using a figure of speech. Noah's Ark is not impossible. Google "old Earth creationism" and "theistic evolution". If God wants you to survive, you can. Jesus was speaking in parable form, which He did a lot of. I don't recall trolls being mentioned in the Bible. Witches were just like modern day witches, who can't do real magic. Unicorns were a reference to rhinoceroses. The snake was possessed by Satan and thus was given a voice. And once again, google "theistic evolution".

here are more problems with the theory
(1) Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but they were just two Neolithic farmers among about ten million other human beings on earth at that time, and God just chose to reveal himself to them in a personal way.

(2) Those other human beings had already been seeking to worship and serve God or gods in their own ways.

(3) Adam was not specially formed by God of ‘dust from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7) but had two human parents.

(4) Eve was not directly made by God of a ‘rib that the Lord God had taken from the man’ (Gen. 2:22), but she also had two human parents.

(5) Many human beings both then and now are not descended from Adam and Eve.

(6) Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin.

(7) Human physical death had occurred for thousands of years before Adam and Eve’s sin–it was part of the way living things had always existed.

(8) God did not impose any alteration in the natural world when he cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin. (Should Christians Embrace Evolution?, 9)

That's all based on a very literal and small-minded interpretation of the story. I consider much of Genesis metaphorical.

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
The Bible isn't up for interpretation, bud. It's all literal.

the theistic evolution was just made up by some guy it isn't in the bible and goes against what the bible says, it might as well be written by Dawkins

I have no response to that as you put no thought into it whatsoever.

neither did the person who made this theory, he took the theory of evolution and added "God turned up" at the end of the story.

I meant giants lol too long on funnyjunk, right the parable would not have made any sense at all if he knew it was false. Noahs ark is definitely impossible the boat would have to be the size of the United Kingdom and there would have to be 3 times as much water on earth than there is now you just ignored the rain argument as well as others, it uses the word unicorn, there is one source when it is in a dream correct but there are others: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_flat_earth_claims, the theory of evolution fucks up the bible because it says humans were made perfect first time at the same time as the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths and of course that God made every animal, also we can't have come from 2 humans because we would all have mutations from incest and die off and there would be no races, you ignored the age of the earth and 500 year old human bullshit

The giants mentioned in the Bible could have been an evolutionary relative of humans. Either that or they were supernatural beings (being half-celestial) and were able to leave the Earth without leaving a trace. As for Noah's Ark, I'm sure the number of animals in those days was far less than what it is now. Also, anyone familiar with the story knows that the water of the Flood was not earthly water, but supernatural water God sent from heaven itself, and then made it disappear because that's how He rolls. Once again I believe that humans evolved, and yes there was probably a lot of incest which is why we have so many different disease and disorders today. And I'm white but if I moved to Africa and had kids and they had kids and so on for enough generations, their skin would darken to adapt to the environment. For someone who supports evolution I'd expect you to know how that works. And yes, humans back then lived much longer. Probably because God decided that was necessary then and now it's no longer necessary. And I didn't ignore the age of the Earth, I told you I'm an old Earth creationist, I agree that the world is much older than a few millenia.

I'm telling you these claims have been made up and were not in the bible and are scientifically impossible, there has always been millions of species that's how we have the selection of genes we need to make the animals we have today. people were far smaller in the olden times not bigger and there could not have been giants, you haven't answered how it said it started raining at Noahs ark when it has rained fir 4 billion years before humans existed. If you agree then why do you believe in the bible were all the peoples lifespans lead to 6000 years?

Sometimes I wonder if my faith is strong enough to get me into heaven. But I know for a fact that a flat-out rejection of Christ will certainly land anyone in hell.

also I assume this goes for children who were born in the "wrong" countries who have never heard of the word Jesus.
if you believe that God is Just and everything that is good then you must also believe these children deserve to be tortured for eternity or drop the claim that God is just and good.

I've told you, every human on this planet deserves to go to hell. But just because we deserve to go to hell doesn't mean will necessarily end up there. Jesus gave us the option of choosing Him to carry us to heaven. And God gave those of us who know the Gospel the option of helping to save those who don't know it. Everyone has the same opportunity if we make the effort to reach the whole world.

no, even then it wouldn't because Muslim families would kill you or their children if they converted to Christianity and that isn't the children's fault remember. You avoided my point, is God just and good?

did you reject Santa Clause? or did you stop believing in him. I did not say "no God, I don't like you so I'm going to stop believing in you" that isn't how humans work. I couldn't believe in God if I tried because it makes no sense and there is no proof for it. In no way does this have anything to do with my morals or decisions I was indoctrinated into religion and I quickly saw that the claims were scientifically impossible and stopped believing in it.

You're rejecting the possibility of Christ, which is equally bad. And the only reason it's "scientifically impossible" is because you're using the word "scientific" in front of it. You're trying to fit the concept of God within the parameters of human comprehension. And the fact is God goes far beyond the realms of our understanding. Just because it can't be explained by science does not make it impossible.

no, science has proven that the bible is false, the world is not flat, Noahs ark is impossible, the earth is 6 billion years old and the universe even more, it rained 4 billion years ago and not after Noah's ark, evolution is now a fact, you can't survive in a fish for 3 days, salt never loses it's flavour (like Jesus said), people can't live for 500 years, trolls, witches and unicorns never existed, snakes can't talk, we have organs we don't need but apes do, we aren't made from dirt there are hundreds of others as well I am sure. Quit with the rejection shit, this may help you to understand www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

haha i try, i try.

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation."

Pope Paul VI

I will admit to the crusades, I will not apologize for them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#The_start_of_the_Inquisition read this (yes, it's wiki, read it). The pope was pressured

Some of the corrupt popes (Innocent VII) did order witch hunts, but several others (Gregory VII, Pope Nicholas I ), prohibited the use of tortune, and in Greg's case, ordered the danes to not put witches to death.

I'm not being selective, I'm saying what some popes did and what some didn't.

Whatever you say man.

well that is just what the pope thinks, it is not what it says in the bible at all in the bible it says that not believing in him is unforgivable and if you don't love Jesus you will be left alone, some sins like getting a tattoo or being a homosexual are not bad through their conscience at all and if it is what is good by your conscience then Hitler would have thought killing Jews was good and he had a good conscience.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Pope, so it's from God. Also, please, please, use capitals and punctuation. I had to stop after the first 'sentence' because nothing made sense.

yeah sorry that comment was rushed I will try again.
well that is just what the pope thinks, it is not what it says in the bible at all. In the bible it says that not believing in him is unforgivable and if you don't love Jesus you will go to hell. Some sins like getting a tattoo, premarital sex or being a homosexual are not bad at all from a natural humans conscience. if it is judged by what is good by your conscience then Hitler would have thought killing Jews was good and there fore had a good conscience from his perspective so would Hitler get to heaven?

lol you really believe God is talking to him? it would make sense he contradicts himself a lot!

christians believe that everyone is a sinner and deserves to go to hell unless they accept jesus christ as their lord and savior because he died for their sins. they believe that is the only way to get into heaven. as for people who have never heard of their religion, that is why they have missionaries. they believe it is their duty to inform those people about jesus themselves.

missionaries can't get to so many children because their parents are Muslim or the country is at war or doesn't let missionaries in like in Kazakhstan, an extremely large amount of people will go to hell for being born into a non Christian country and you don't think that's immoral?

these are not my beliefs because i am not christian, but i think the christian viewpoint wouldn't see it as immoral because god decide what is moral and if god says they'll go to hell for not worshiping him, the one true god, then thats just the way it is.

and they say atheists are immoral

no reason to throw around hateful comments like that

but many people and the bible say that I am immoral without their religion. But their religion says that innocent people deserve to be tortured for eternity, their religion is hurtful. Is this not true?

that's not the most unbiased way to word things. christianity is a religion about peace and love. the bible doesn't teach christians to revel in outsiders going to hell, christians want their brothers to join them in heavenly paradise. this belief that non-christians are in danger of going to hell promotes brotherhood and fraternity among diverse groups of people.

Islam says they are peaceful to, Christians have said they do not "agree" with homosexuality and women should stay under the mans heel, any form of slavery is wrong to me and it clearly says that you belong to God and if you disagree you burn for eternity, sounds like slavery to me. Today my little sister cried because she was scared of hell I do not want to have to see that again.

i just explained what the intended effects of the teachings are. if you want to rant about how horrible religion is, go do it somewhere else because this conversation is getting pretty one-sided. stop being an anti-theist. bigotry isn't god on either end of the spectrum.

I disagree that that is the intended effects though because if they were the bible would say "love everyone and make sure you don't judge anyone based on their sexuality, we are all equal" instead it says to kill gay people, atheists, witches, people of other religions, mutilate babies genitals, don't shave, beat your slaves it says all these things which have nothing to do with being peaceful and loving and are in fact the opposite.

i dont know where you got a lot of those things from. it also says to love thy neighbor and it teaches people brotherhood. if that what you're getting from biblical teachings, then you're doing it wrong.

I got those things from the bible, contradiction only takes away it's validity. Jesus also criticised the Jews for not killing disobedient children and to beat your slaves.

im no bible scholar, but those could be metaphors.

if you take random bible verses out of context and judge the religion based on that, you will completely miss the real teachings of the religion.

lol metaphors! I have looked into the context of the most shocking of my statements such as the killing of homosexuals and I stand by what I said although some quotes have been taken out of context from atheist websites I agree

you also have to take into context the time period in which these things were written. today those kinds of statements seem ludicrous because thats not how our society is anymore, but back then this was the law anyway and none of the moral teachings in the bible were out of the ordinary.

then what is the point of religion if it just copies the fucked up laws of the time.

gives people reasons to follow those laws, teacher brotherhood, unity, and gives people a sense of identity

once again I disagree, the laws are to kill homosexuals, own slaves and burn witches. It also refers to the people as sheep who must follow strict laws on what to wear, eat, how to have their hair, who to marry, what to say, what to think, who to kill and how you should beat your slave.

as i said, it was a different time and we did grow out of it. i dont know much about islam, i thought we were talking about christianity here?

I just added that as a side note. The fact that it was a different time doesn't make sexism and homophobia or any other form of hate ok. He could have just as easily told everyone to treat each other equally,

i dont understand why you are focusing on just a few things said in leviticus or something to make generalizations about the entire religion.

those may have been the laws in ancient times, but i dont see anyone going around killing homosexuals, owning slaves, ad burning witches and quoting the bible as their rationalization.

it seems like everything you have against religion has come from biased anti-theist information on the internet.

as I say these are rules in the bible and beating your slave was recommended by Jesus. People used to do those things in the dark ages but then we grew out of it, I wish I could say the same for many Islamic groups.

missionaries build schools and churches and live with the communities they are trying to convert. they basically indoctrinate large communities into their culture through charity and kindness. they dont pop in and out, they live within these communities for years.

christians also believe that people should be able to feel god and christ in their hearts and be able to accept god that way. im not saying anything is right or wrong, im just explaining the belief.

think what you want. im just explaining the belief.

look, im not a christian so i dont know if i can explain all of this with complete accuracy, but no one ever said god was fair or that his purpose is to save everybody. according to christians, if people do not accept god or jesus in their hearts because of geographical bias, refusal to accept, or otherwise, then they deserve to go to hell for their sinful lives. end of story. no one ever said it was fair. god does everything perfectly according to the belief.

"everyone exercising faith in him"

this does not include those not exercising faith in him.

i wouldn't say the belief is that he doesnt care. its just that he cannot save their souls until they put their faith in him.

who are we to say what god should do?

it is believed that his omnipotence is the very reason that it is hard to make sense of things like this, but people still believe that he has a plan for everyone

Well said.

but they only get to very few people, billions of people are left to burn for eternity because they were born in the wrong place and this is extremely wrong

Where does the Bible say humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

when it says humans were made a day after all land animals

We've been over this. I believe the Creation story is metaphorical and the seven "days" represent ages in time, being millions or billion of years long.

still doesn't make any sense as humans evolved and it says the sun and space cam after the earth

It does make sense if the "days" are millions of years long, that would give plenty of tie for humans to evolve. And it says the sun was made on the fourth day but not space.

still bullshit, without the sun there could be no plants, it says he made Adam out of dust and Eve out of a rib for the purpose of pleasing man (sexist)

Yes, from dust. Man evolved from earlier species which evolved from much smaller species which were as tiny as dust and thus probably lived among it.

And this is my response to the sun issue. I had to google it, but I like this guy's theory. Earth's early atmosphere was extremely cloudy, like that of Venus. It's possible that God parted the clouds on the 4th day, thus revealing the sun to the Earth. It had been there prior, but just hidden. I'll get back to you about the plant issue after I do more research.

Well I'm not referring to corrupt organizations. Actually I'm not even talking about official charities. I'm talking about groups of individuals who gather their own money and resources and travel on their own to these places. And anyway, obviously it doesn't make sense to evangelize to people who are already Christians (although if they're doing things to help the community that's always a good thing). We're called to "make disciples of all nations." That includes that non-Christians ones. That's who I'm referring to.

don't you think it is dangerous to tell them that if you have a problem just pray for it and it will be ok, what if they pray for a cure for aids or water instead of choosing a rational option.

We will explain to them that God works through humans, as He is working through us. Water can come form donations from humans, and an AIDS cure may come one day from human doctors and scientists. When people realize that small miracles come from God working in humans, then they will begin to see God's hand at work everywhere.

that is not a miracle is it, once again get some god damn self esteem, if I give a kid bread then it isn't a fucking miracle, it is me giving a kid some bread.

It would be a miracle for the kid. You're doing God's will. Even if you don't realize it.

bullshit, look up the word miracle in a dictionary

I stand by my statement. God works through humans. It may have been your choice to do a good deed, but the motivation to make that choice came from God.

there is simply no reasoning when you just make up theories with no proof or evidence or even logical basis to your claims. I regard myself as a free man, you seem like a slave.

Likewise, I consider myself freer than you. You're bound by the limitations of this world and this life, whereas I've been released from my prison. I know what awaits me and it's something greater than anything you or I can imagine. I have purpose, you have emptiness. I have joy, you have bitterness. I have eternity, you have a ticking clock. And all I want to do is share this hope with you.

I have one life so I must value it extremely highly and I must respect those I love because I will never see them again once they die, how terrible! second of all you do not no me, I have joy I play and laugh with my family, if you know (you don't know that is bullshit) what is ahead of you then surely you know it will be mass genocide were millions of sweet children and good men will be tortured and burnt alive? are you looking forward to the next holocaust except far bigger, if so then you need to see a therapist

I was referring to joy in the afterlife. You don't look forward to dying as I do. You're bitter about it. And no, the genocide does not await me. I'll be in heaven and won't have to witness it. I don't look forward to the suffering, but I look forward to the reward. Do you think I rejoice in the loss of those millions? I don't. I wish everyone could be saved. I don't understand why you seem to be holding your anger at God as some sort of personal grudge against me.

I have a personal grudge against you because you said I was joyless and bitter. Still you make assumptions about me saying that I am bitter about death, I would HATE to be in heaven it would be cool for a while but lets say 1000 years later I would lose my mind life would be so meaningless and boring. When I die I will go into a peaceful sleep and I have accepted that. death is a bad thing for my family and friends but not me I'll be dead lol, I obviously don't want to die that is human nature and it is a good thing!

It is human nature to not want to die. But after you die you will no longer be human. We will become like the angels, the Bible says. And you won't lose your mind. That's not going to be possible in heaven.

well if I am going to become brain controlled to become an ignorant smiling robot who can not feel sadness then I would hate that to, it would remove my identity and it will be artificial. When the bible says the world was made in 6 days I couldn't give less of a shit what the bible says, the amount of bullshit in that book is staggering.

It's really not bullshit if you understand what it's saying. Obviously the people who wrote it were all trying to convey the same message which means that there is a way to read it so that it all makes sense.

read it with ignorance, extreme interpretation and blind faith and you will understand!

Ignorance? The more you read it the less ignorant you become.

hmmm that must be why so many people believe humans and dinosaurs co existed? they didn't read the bible, makes sense now

actually they get to a very large amount of people. why do you think christianity is one of the largest religions on the planet?

yes but compared to the entire population it is few, just a little less is the Muslims and less than that is the Jews and then there are the millions of people cut off from any contact who haven't heard of any mainstream religions

and thats why they send out missionaries. christians want them to learn of jesus so that they can get into heaven. they also believe that people should be able to feel god and christ in their hearts and be able to accept god that way.

but the majority of the world are not Christian because it is not part of their culture, do these people deserve to go to hell?

according to the christian faith, yes. everyone deserves to go to hell unless they accept jesus christ in their hearts. this is what the faith believes.

then the Christian faith is immoral is it not? you believe that innocent children deserve to be burnt for eternity and even worship the person who is sending these innocent people to be tortured and saying he is loving when he clearly is a twat

No one is innocent. Humans are all born into sin and it cannot be washed away until Christ cleanses their spirit.

well people who are sweet and kind and gentle, young children go to hell because they were born in the "wrong" country. Where as cunts like Hitler would get into heaven as long as he asked for forgiveness.

Dude if you think it's unfair that some people are born in places that don't know the Gospel, then go give it to them.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”" - Matthew 28:19-20

I don't believe in it though, I am saying the concept is wrong and racist

Okay where do you get racist from?

saying that a race of people like Indians generally deserve to be tortured for eternity because their country is the "wrong" faith

That has nothing to do with their race. Just their faith. People of every color can enter heaven as long as they accept Christ.

I know but a large majority of them are Hindu because of the country they are born in and yet you worship the character who says people who worship idols deserve to die and then be sent to hell

That's why it's our duty to go to where they live and preach the truth to them, so that they can be saved. I plan on doing this one day as soon as I have enough money.

give them some water instead, they will appreciate it far more. I think I may do a similar thing but I will preach the word of.............................................................................. ................................................................................ ...............the flying spaghetti monster

Well yea, obviously missionaries do more than just preach. They do things for the community, like build shelters, wells, teach kids how to read, give them food and/or clothes, all kinds of charitable stuff. But all in the name of God. Because it is His will that we are able to do those things.

not all of them
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080324143322AA2inNG

My church taught that since Christ died on the cross, you were born innocent and that your bad decisions made you unclean.

I guess that's a possibility as well. Either way it doesn't change the fact that everyone is equally sinful in God's eyes since it's impossible not to sin at some point in your life.

Well sure, we aren't perfect. We're bound to fuck up at one point or another. All we can do is learn from our mistakes (and ask for forgiveness if they're religious like you).

but they can't do that as they have never heard of the peoples religions so they are left to burn for eternity in hell with no option

I don't think they are sent to hell for not knowing, I remember being taught that they were just sent to heaven, or were reincarnated.

Revelation 21:8 ESV / 77 helpful votes
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

It just says, the faithless. It doesn't say anything about people who never had a chance to even form an opinion on a religion they never heard.

but it says in the bible and everyone says that if you don't love Jesus your fucked, but I can't find the damn verse

If God really says to people,"LOL you didn't even hear about me? To Hell for you faggot.", that is pretty retarded.

it says he's going to have a sword out of his mouth and kill everyone or some shit, Jesus wasn't all peace and love you know

Indeed. Any sin is forgivable as long as the individual actually repents and seeks forgiveness.

What makes moral relativity correct?

Good thing my religion doesn't have a hell.

Crockaduck

No one does. I just believe in guided evolution is all.

but you have made that up, it isn't in the bible and has no logical basis

Cambrian explosion, look it up.

Teo, I have already explained to you about the cambrian explosion, it is literally no problem whatsoever to evolutionary biologists. The scale of it is beyond impressive and we are still looking for more information regarding the specifics of the period, but the explosion itself and the transition from soft bodies creatures to hard bodied ones isn't a mystery. I literally went over this with you not to long ago.

Also quick question, do you believe in the flood myth?

Sorry for the late reply, had basketball and lacrosse yesterday and today. Yeah, I do sort of believe in the flood. Haven't studied it. And I'm not saying the explosion conflicts with evolution, I'm still wondering on how all this started. The video I watched on it was pretty one sided, so maybe my viewpoint is fucky.

there is no proof that God did it like you claim, there is no mention of this in the bible it is nothing more than an idea

Genesis 1:24 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind'. Fact checking. It's useful in debates.

1:24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." there was no cattle at the beginning of the universe. My version says "his" meaning God

Why is someone's religion less valid if they made it up?

Oh wow.

oh god i died, you just made my day

Welp, I guess they'd have to give up regarding that there would be no point in protesting anymore.

Yup.

I doubt that.

Would they go to hell?

No, I mean God being gay, I don't think he even has a sexuality.

So who does he fuck to make the humans?

Please stop, andnowducks.
You don't even make any sense.

But how would he make the humans?

He's an allmightiness, he simply createg them throught his will.

Oh?

Dogs licking penises. So many dogs licking penises.

the only problem i have with the objective morality argument for god is that the only explanation for those who go against the morals set forth by god is that they have rejected god in their hearts. but how can they do that if they are instilled with the same morality as everybody else? the thing is, people do not have the free will to choose their own morality. mentally unstable people who would consider murder morally justified usually have some kind of chemical imbalance in their brains. how can you considr it free will if their very body chemistry causes them to go against gods will?

The divine morality is instilled from birth. However, through enough corruption of the mind, it can be twisted later in life. It can be compared to clinical depression. Depression is caused by dopamine deficiency, but that deficiency can be caused by environmental factors such as child abuse, social rejection, etc. So if that kind of chemical imbalance can be triggered externally, who's to say the same principle can't be applied to morality?

but a lot of times that chemical imbalance is not triggered externally.

In those cases I would assume one of two things: Either they know they're morally wrong yet choose to go against it anyway, OR they believe they're morally right and God made them that way for some greater purpose.

The entire point of chemical imbalances is that it isn't a fucking choice.

If a serial killer kills people because he has a chemical imbalance, it's still his choice as to whether or not to kill them. No one is holding his wrist and forcing him to stab or shoot someone. It's his choice. The chemical imbalance would only give him an urge to do it, not take over his body and control him.

The chemical balance DOES take over his body. Seriously have you never read ANYTHING about science? The choice isn't made by him it was made by the chemical imbalance that disorted his mind. Therefor having no choice by himself because he was influenced by the mental ilness.

The most a chemical imbalance could do is act as a little voice in the back of his mind saying "Go, kill those people, it's the right thing to do." But you're making it sound like he has to just give in as some invisible force is grabbing him and moving his body against his will.

The mind is stronger than the body. The voice telling him to kill someone IS like grabbing him and moving his body against his will.

I swear it's seriously saddening how discriminating you are to people who are mentally suffering like you know how it works.

Okay, fine. Let's say there was some invisible force working the body like a puppet. In that case the killer shouldn't be called a serial killer and instead be considered the victim of some severe neurological disorder, in which case he should be strapped to a bed and secluded from society until doctors can cure him. It is now up to other humans to fix the problem.