“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#547656 Oct 8, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It is okay. According to CM if you are christian you can go out and kill people and blame it on her hateful posts and then the murders that you committed will be her fault for making anti-religious comments in the first place.
Once again, a horrid anti=theist immediately referring to violence while trying to debate me. Can you use some other type of examples next time? Your evil , wicked, death-wishing examples are so , so ,... so "atheistic" of you. Try something new next time, like kindness. Oh wait, you are not capable of that.

Christine M is wrong, so your example failed right out of the gate.

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547657 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't always interpreted that way, though. The word "homosexuality" didn't exist in its current definition until around 1930 - Freud introduced it as it stands. It probably was used this way among the general populace up to 10 years earlier, though.
Prior to that, in the late 1800's, homosexuality was a medical diagnosis for someone who had too much sex with the same sex. Heterosexuality was its opposite: someone who had too much sex with the opposite sex. At that time, sexologists believed that too much sex was dangerous and was therefore a medical category.
Prior to these times, non-opposite intercourse was covered by the word "sodomy." It didn't just mean anal sex as it does now, but covered everything that was considered not normal (i.e., not missionary position). If you go back to pre-Luther, then the Bible isn't even in English, but in Latin. So it had different meanings at that time, too.
Also, if you read the sexual history of the church, all throughout, priests and nuns were enjoying all kinds of sexual behavior, including same sex encounters - with brief interludes where one bishop or another would get all upity and forbid it. In the 15th century a famous anti-same sex bishop died and at his funeral, one bishop said to another "oh, thank god. Now we can go back to buggering."
---
To your second point: if you religion hates people based on their sexual preferences (assuming adult consenting sex here), it's not a moral religion. Moral goodness does not include bigotry.
If you really have the "perfect being" behind your religion, He Created same sex sexual behavior, too. You want to interpret that He concurrently hates it but is all-loving? That makes no sense.
A perfectly moral being wouldn't judge people the way that you or I do. I expect true leadership in morals from those who claim access to divinity - but I never see it. Why not? Why don't Christians inspire us all with their closeness to perfect?
Seriously - doesn't your connection to the Almighty, the Creator of the Universe give you some sense of peace and happiness where you can understand and accept all of His Creations? I really don't get it. If a perfect being spoke to me, I'd be happy about it.
:p
Ok, the word "homosexuality" is relatively new to describe gays. But in the Bible it says that one man can not lay with another man the way he would with a woman, it is an abomination. Pretty cut & dry, eh?

And to your second point, my religion does not hate people based on their sexual preferences, so....

God did not create homosexuality no more than He created S&M... Homosexuality is man-made & not natural.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#547658 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't always interpreted that way, though. The word "homosexuality" didn't exist in its current definition until around 1930 - Freud introduced it as it stands. It probably was used this way among the general populace up to 10 years earlier, though.
Prior to that, in the late 1800's, homosexuality was a medical diagnosis for someone who had too much sex with the same sex. Heterosexuality was its opposite: someone who had too much sex with the opposite sex. At that time, sexologists believed that too much sex was dangerous and was therefore a medical category.
Prior to these times, non-opposite intercourse was covered by the word "sodomy." It didn't just mean anal sex as it does now, but covered everything that was considered not normal (i.e., not missionary position). If you go back to pre-Luther, then the Bible isn't even in English, but in Latin. So it had different meanings at that time, too.
Also, if you read the sexual history of the church, all throughout, priests and nuns were enjoying all kinds of sexual behavior, including same sex encounters - with brief interludes where one bishop or another would get all upity and forbid it. In the 15th century a famous anti-same sex bishop died and at his funeral, one bishop said to another "oh, thank god. Now we can go back to buggering."
---
To your second point: if you religion hates people based on their sexual preferences (assuming adult consenting sex here), it's not a moral religion. Moral goodness does not include bigotry.
If you really have the "perfect being" behind your religion, He Created same sex sexual behavior, too. You want to interpret that He concurrently hates it but is all-loving? That makes no sense.
A perfectly moral being wouldn't judge people the way that you or I do. I expect true leadership in morals from those who claim access to divinity - but I never see it. Why not? Why don't Christians inspire us all with their closeness to perfect?
Seriously - doesn't your connection to the Almighty, the Creator of the Universe give you some sense of peace and happiness where you can understand and accept all of His Creations? I really don't get it. If a perfect being spoke to me, I'd be happy about it.
:p
enough of ancient times; what are your personal feelings on sodomy?;)

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#547659 Oct 8, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
could you please define 'respecting differences'? it's always very confusing to me that people who use such terms are the very one's who can't seem to respect any one who disagrees with them.....:(
Liberal code words for being "tolerant". I'm against being tolerant. I think things that are wrong and sinful should be pointed out, exposed, and punished.....not blindly ignored and swept under the rug.

That's what atheists try to do as they make attempts to hide from their guilt of sin and rebellion and try to deny their upcoming eternal punishment.

Judged:

12

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#547660 Oct 8, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Here's one intelligent design......
The giant and colossal squids have a donut shaped brain and their esophagus runs right through the center of it.
If they swallow anything to large , they suffer brain damage.
Intelligent design at work!
That's to keep them from overeating and becoming obese.

There's nothing worse than an obese giant squid.

Judged:

10

10

2

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#547661 Oct 8, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, are you under 30, or just clueless? The Theory of Evolution absolutely did try to explain the origin of life, but when all kinds of holes were punched into it, they started separating it into the study of abiogenesis, microevolution, macro, allele frequency of populations, the age of the universe,etc. You know this, which is why you try to lump all else as Intelligent design.

What evolutionist say is: I can't explain it, observe it, test it, or examine it, so it must be evolution.

You try to call science the study of natural phenomenon but they you call man infused breeding part of evolution, you call the white rat part of evolution when it is a lab rat, you call the domestic dog and cat part of evolution when it is humanly manipulated.

Here is the clue: When man inserts himself into the object of his observation, it no longer becomes natural. That is why models are told to forget that the camera and the photographer are present.
Do you do everything backwards?

Or is it just reason.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#547662 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =gPKH_XjY5aIXX
Please don't worry, Riverside, there's a cure on the horizon.
It's not up to you to decide to cure anyone of their beliefs.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#547665 Oct 8, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal code words for being "tolerant". I'm against being tolerant. I think things that are wrong and sinful should be pointed out, exposed, and punished.....not blindly ignored and swept under the rug.
That's what atheists try to do as they make attempts to hide from their guilt of sin and rebellion and try to deny their upcoming eternal punishment.
i agree! that's why i'm eternally greatful that Jesus pointed out, exposed and punished sin in His own body forever & for all who will believe in His Name!

Judged:

10

10

2

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#547670 Oct 8, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You see no reason for such an extreme act of deception?

Yeah...right.
Is that you in your avatar?

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#547672 Oct 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that you in your avatar?
What "that"?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547674 Oct 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that you in your avatar?
Do you have anything to say or are you just full of one liners?

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#547675 Oct 8, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Then I made the statement that atheists have never founded an atheist school, in America. I also had pointed out that Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Oxford were all founded as religious universities.
I don't see what the point would be? Seems more logical that atheists would just found a "school", and not an "atheist school". No need to toot one's own horn in order to provide high quality education.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#547676 Oct 8, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>I know, imagine if Jesus were like Al Garcia, then He would have ignored all these sisn, like homosexuality, and He would not have died for them. Liberals Christians think they are doing gays a favor, when in fact those like Al Garcia are denying them salvation for their sin.
I guess it's a good thing that we have people like you to interpret 2000 year old texts for the purpose of saying that gays and liberals are evil. Too bad that an all powerful God is not powerful enough to do that on it's own.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547678 Oct 8, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see what the point would be? Seems more logical that atheists would just found a "school", and not an "atheist school". No need to toot one's own horn in order to provide high quality education.
They why don't they just found a school?(not an atheist school)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547680 Oct 8, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess it's a good thing that we have people like you to interpret 2000 year old texts for the purpose of saying that gays and liberals are evil. Too bad that an all powerful God is not powerful enough to do that on it's own.
Did he say that gays are evil? no.

How hard is it to interpret "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." ??

Seems pretty cut & dry....

That's not to say that gays are evil, they're just doing wrong.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#547682 Oct 8, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>That is not proof, dingy. It is a written list compiled by people who have no evidence. It is funny, your type denies the Bible as evidence because you say it was written by men, by then you try to use lists and books written by men as your evidence. Your brain is not connected, so you have a disconnect.
The Bible is not evidence of there being a God. It might be considered something to support the reason we now have religions based on God, as being the text prepared by the fathers of these religions, but how in the world could it be considered evidence of something that can't be seen.

We have none of the authors still alive that we can torture them into confessing whether or not they told the truth or were writing fiction. We have no verifiable confirmation from other people, who might have personally known the authors, who could attest to their stories or to the actual events themselves. We only have other writings made at a later time, which quite likely were referring, at least in part, to previous stories of the earlier authors, so there testimonies would be hearsay at best.

Most of the information known, or thought to be known, about the authors of the various books in the Bible, is taken from the texts written by the various authors, so we can't take their own word for it, because we can't confirm they were reliable, that what they said about themselves is true.

Stephen King writes very good, sometimes very believable, horror fiction. Some of his books have been made into movies (mind you most movies don't do justice to the books), and he appears in a cameo appearance in some of these movies. So would it be sensible to say, supposing that someone was to find a book and/or a movie by King at some point in the far future, that since King was not only the named author of the books, but he also can be seen in the movies made about the books, that these books must then have been factual?

At least in that case we would have the actual video image of a real person, which could be associated with a real existing book, though still some doubt of legitimacy could be there. In the case of all of the stories in the Bible relating to supernatural events and beings, we have nothing to look back at and say, yes, we have the photos or the videos, or whatever of these people, so they actually existed.

The only thing we can say for certain is that the Bible, in various forms, does exist today, and according to tradition, and quite a bit of history, it has existed for several hundred years, and some of it can be traced back a couple thousand years, or so.

We have scholars who have examined the books, and made scientific interpretations of writing styles, etc., and made some pretty educated guesses, that certain stories came from the same author, and others, claimed to be from the same author, were not, according to a different writing style, but we still have no foolproof evidence of who any of the actual authors were, or whether any of the writings had any factual information or not.

One thing that we can be certain of is that any text which contains quotes and/or conversations of various people, would not be based on actual words spoken, because it is impossible to write things said by people many years before in exactly the correct wording, and even in most cases even remotely related to the same events.

Since we know that the actual books were written and re-written, and copied many times by hand, prior to printing, there would also be many changes related to copying errors of the human beings doing the copying.

The likelihood that any text in the Bible is anywhere near close to any actual events in history is very remote.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#547683 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Did he say that gays are evil? no.
How hard is it to interpret "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." ??
Seems pretty cut & dry....
That's not to say that gays are evil, they're just doing wrong.
Well, according to that same book of laws and regulations, eating pork, playing football, and may other things are sinful too.

What's your definition of evil, if it's not chronic wrongdoing?

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#547684 Oct 8, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Now, we need you to interpret 4.5 billion old matters and substance, so you can conclude that gays and you descended from a Jurassic rat 195 million years ago. Did you fall off the turnip truck or get pushed off? Now, for once use your brain or borrow one, first the writings of the Bible, scripture began about 7,300 years ago and yes this all powerful God was powerful enough to give it to Adam, Moses and others. I know that you simply have gay issues, so you only care about deleting gay sins, unless it is the incest, bestiality and necrophilia in Leviticus that really motivates you.
So, which of the sexual sins in Leviticus are you really campaigning for, incest, menstrual sex, child sex, bestiality, homosexuality or necrophilia???
By the way, I do not expect you to accept truth, because when you do, you will no longer be gay.
Please observe as it specifically says that the Lord God said:
Leviticus 18
Unlawful Sexual Relations
18 The Lord said to Moses....
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled
Ezekiel 23:20:
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547685 Oct 8, 2012
Leviticus 18

Unlawful Sexual Relations

18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547687 Oct 8, 2012
boooots wrote:
We have none of the authors still alive that we can torture them into confessing whether or not they told the truth or were writing fiction.
Is that atheist reasoning?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Dr_Zorderz 265,206
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min jethro8 559,664
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min YTubeNASA 605,067
*SEPT 2015 -- Feast of Trumpets/SIGNS of Tribul... 7 min YTubeNASA 1
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 10 min McGold 665
SMOKING: One of the dumbest - deadliest human h... 19 min pusherman_ 42
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 35 min Jolly 23,977
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr mannibterf 441,787
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
More from around the web