NationStates Jolt Archive

For a start, I never said it answered every question as it does not.
I know you didn't say that. I said that you seem to be using it that way, and I base that observation on the way you've been using it in this thread.

Just as your appeal to pure logic serves your worldview, my faith shapes mine.
I have never made an appeal to "pure logic" -- in fact, anyone who has been reading the "to parents" thread would find that remark very funny. Also, unlike some other posters here, I do not see logic and faith as mutually exclusive -- though, apparently, you do.

The dismissal was broad, but it is hardly shallow.
No, it was both broad and shallow. If it had depth, it would have been an argument, not a dismissal.

The doctrinal significance of the fall stretches into great depths of thought, wisdom and research. I do not use the bible as an alternative to thought, but I do allow it to shape my life. They are two very different things.
Not in this thread they're not, because your Bible-based arguments on this topic do not reflect even a good understanding of the content of the Bible, let alone the nuances of Christian theology. They do not appear to have had any thought put into them at all, as opposed to being merely knee-jerk, rote reactions, which when challenged, you scramble to find explanations for after the fact.

I have placed no position against gay marriage, none at all. Instead, what I did do was respond to a position earlier claiming Christianity took marriage from other cultures. I disagreed and suggested it originated from the biblical book of Genesis, and have continued that line throughout.
However, you are mistaken about that, as a point of fact.

Not once have I said it should be imposed on those outside of the church, but instead I attempted to at least demonstrate where the coservative Christian line of thought originates to the liberal opposition in the United States of America.

Debate followed towards my interpretation of the verse, and we got tied up in that, but, I feel you have mistaken my position somewhere along the way, which I do not think is fair.
You seem to think that because I kept asking you the question, it meant that I was accusing you personally of opposing gay marriage. That is not the case. I kept asking that question because it is the only part of the issue that really matters.

Conservative Christians have the right to believe anything they like, with no interference from me. The only time I have any right at all to question any part of their belief system is when that belief system calls upon them to impose their beliefs on me.

So all right, I get it -- they don't like the gays, and they claim the Bible backs them up on that. I happen to think they are reading the Bible selectively and self-servingly, but that's neither here nor there. My opinion as to whether their Biblical justification for not liking the gays is bogus or not is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters where their lives and mine overlap is the part that has them backing measures like Prop 8 in California or calling for an amendment to the US Constitution to deny gays the right to marry.

It is none of my business why they don't like gays, but if they are going to claim a right to impose their religious beliefs on me and others who are outside their religion, then I want to see their justification for THAT. And if they claim their justifications are all in the Bible, then I want to see what parts of their Bible tells them that they get to be the boss of me.

Now, may I take your comments above as an indicator that there is no Biblical justification for imposing your/their religious beliefs onto me, the gays, and others?

Small nitpick: he did no such thing. As pointed out in the happy holidays topic, Jesus was a hate-inciting jerk where it came to atheists and people of other faiths.
Out of interest, can you point to the relevant bit in the thread, or passage(s) in the Bible?

I've got a message for your God. "God, I do not want, nor need, your help. Have a nice eternity."

What is with this ridiculous thing about God being the only one able to help humans? Are we all children who can't do anything right without daddy's help?
I've heard some people claim that "God helps those who help themselves," so I figure, I'm fine, I don't need to bother the creator of all existence for my little petty stuff, thanks. I can handle my own life.

Out of interest, can you point to the relevant bit in the thread, or passage(s) in the Bible?

GnI pointed at some of the relevant bits of John in the other topic. I shall see if I can find the link...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14336108&postcount=91

The rest of John is not that nice either.

But I won't argue this any further lol you've only proven my point not take away from it. In response to Ifrean, you may be rebellious by nature lol your parents may have alot to say about you but as a child I tried to stay out of trouble not look for it. Likewise with God, God says something is wrong for a reason and those reasons and shown all around. You may say something else but the consquences that happen will definately shut your mouth if you look.

I don't support the people who hate homosexuals because they are just people why hate them? Should I support something I believe to be wrong? No. Should you vote for God in schools because of the religious people who want it? No because that is your decision. I am not asking you to accept my God, only to look into Him. There's no changing my mind because I know God to be true for the facts that I've seen in life lol God brainwashed me then? lol He's the only one I'd trust and not question now. Later people I really hope you stop being stubborn and ask God why.


Guess what, I've been through this part of your life, where you believe in God and that he ordained this, except he didn't. You say God is almighty and perfect, so that means he cannot make mistakes. If this is true, then God created all people the way they are. Who are YOU to say that God is wrong then?
And if God made a mistake in creating gays and other non-heterosexual peoples? Then that just proves that your God is fallible and that your beliefs are based on an imperfect creature, who is controlling you with imperfect ideas of morality and what is "right".
Make a choice, they can't both be right, and neither can you.

Out of interest, can you point to the relevant bit in the thread, or passage(s) in the Bible?

I think it is in the sermon on the mound that he talks about how he didnt come to bring peace, but war. to put father against son mother against daughter stuff like that.

as for attacking atheist and such, i dont know.

Here ya go
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.


Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.


He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

GnI pointed at some of the relevant bits of John in the other topic. I shall see if I can find the link...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14336108&postcount=91

The rest of John is not that nice either.
Um... for a start, the Sermon on the Mount isn't in John, so GnI's got something wrong there.

But, that's not the point of the matter.



Here ya go
Aye, well the first two are OT, so we can't blame Jesus for that.

As to the 'damned' thing... it's certainly not a lovely attitude, but I think it's fairly clear that the character of Jesus is leaving the damning up to God. Moreover, the damned will be resurrected; albeit eventually.

Um... for a start, the Sermon on the Mount isn't in John, so GnI's got something wrong there.

But, that's not the point of the matter.




Aye, well the first two are OT, so we can't blame Jesus for that.

As to the 'damned' thing... it's certainly not a lovely attitude, but I think it's fairly clear that the character of Jesus is leaving the damning up to God. Moreover, the damned will be resurrected; albeit eventually.

Meh, I can't be expected to remember what books go with what testament, and in any case I did demonstrate that the attitude didn't change from old to new testament.

Well, It will be the death of the Human Race....

I mean, think about it....This Woman has a choice between A) Hot, silky smooth, sexy lady...lets say in a school girl outfit

or B) A big fat hairy man...In baggy shorts and a black shirt....aka, me, lol...


Which are you choosing? Obviously Lesbians will be the death of the Human Race, its no contest...


Im okay with Gay Guys though.....Just lessens the Playing Field, lol....

Well, It will be the death of the Human Race....

I mean, think about it....This Woman has a choice between A) Hot, silky smooth, sexy lady...lets say in a school girl outfit

or B) A big fat hairy man...In baggy shorts and a black shirt....aka, me, lol...


Which are you choosing? Obviously Lesbians will be the death of the Human Race, its no contest...


Im okay with Gay Guys though.....Just lessens the Playing Field, lol....
At 2% of the female population? I doubt it.

At 2% of the female population? I doubt it.

I was Joking dude, lol...

I was Joking dude, lol...
Poe's Law, I guess...

What is with this ridiculous thing about God being the only one able to help humans? Are we all children who can't do anything right without daddy's help?

I thought only Tom Cruise could help us. Or is that only after a car accident?

Without God, none of us would be breathing air or exist period. I'll be praying for one and all because without God we will only bring further doom upon ourselves.

Your faith is your right; if it brings you comfort to pray for non-Christians, do so. I, myself, renew my hope for peace, compassion and understanding throughout the universe each night. I just don't particularly care what path each creature takes there.

There's no changing my mind because I know God to be true for the facts that I've seen in life lol God brainwashed me then? lol He's the only one I'd trust and not question now.

God says you need to cut the netspeak when you're speaking for him lol

Here ya go

"I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Um... for a start, the Sermon on the Mount isn't in John, so GnI's got something wrong there.


Or you could, you know, read the link... (or the Bible), and see that the verses I cited were (indeed) from John (Mostly from John 3).

Or, you could, you know, attribute the comments in question to who said them. Melphi suggested the Sermon on the Mount. Not me. And you weren't provided a link to verses from the Sermon on the Mount, either.


But, that's not the point of the matter.


No, on this you are right. Mainly because you are talking about comments I didn't make.


Aye, well the first two are OT, so we can't blame Jesus for that.

As to the 'damned' thing... it's certainly not a lovely attitude, but I think it's fairly clear that the character of Jesus is leaving the damning up to God. Moreover, the damned will be resurrected; albeit eventually.

Not sure where to start.

Most Christian groups argue that Jesus appears throughout the OT. Indeed, they argue he was there BEFORE the act of creation in Genesis. Hence, the plurality of 'God' in the Hebrew.

Also - the Book of Revelation is usually read with the understanding that the resurrection of the dead-in-Christ is to see them judged for that sin, and condemned to eternal damnation. The damned will be resurrected from the death of sleeping, to be condemned to eternal torture. Not much of an incentive.

Lastly, the will of Jesus is usually argued to be one with the will of God. If God wants you to burn in hell, Jesus wants you to, too.

Or you could, you know, read the link... (or the Bible)...
I did, and was thrown by reading your, Alma Mater's, and Melphi's posts all together. Apologies.

Still, no need to get all pissy; 'twas a simple mistake.

Most Christian groups argue that Jesus appears throughout the OT. Indeed, they argue he was there BEFORE the act of creation in Genesis. Hence, the plurality of 'God' in the Hebrew.
Most groups, sure, but not all. A significant chunk of Christians just ditch the OT altogether. Indeed, as I'm sure you well know, a lot of Christian denominations, use very little (if anything) of the OT within their practice. I was brought up this way; and I see the character of Jesus as rejecting the old OT religion of fire and brimstone and preaching a new NT religion of peace and love, albeit with the major caveats that we're discussing.

What's more pertinent, however, is that I'm responding to Alma Mater's comment of "Jesus was a hate-inciting jerk where it came to atheists and people of other faiths". I think we can certainly highlight examples of where Jesus believes non-Christians are not going to be saved (as you did) but that doesn't amount to preaching hate. Indeed, I think it's clear that, although he says folks like ourselves are going to have a bad time of it, he's saying the opposite of, "go kill them non-believers".

Judge not, that ye be not judged... Love thy neighbour, and so on.

I'm not denying that the NT spells out that non-believers are bad; I am denying that Jesus is hating them, or preaching that they should be hated.

I know you didn't say that. I said that you seem to be using it that way, and I base that observation on the way you've been using it in this thread.


I have never made an appeal to "pure logic" -- in fact, anyone who has been reading the "to parents" thread would find that remark very funny. Also, unlike some other posters here, I do not see logic and faith as mutually exclusive -- though, apparently, you do.

Apparently, however it is not the case. But I will admit that they come into conflict. At times my faith will grow greater than my logic. Why, I do not know, but I admit it and I recognise it.

For some logic is everything and if it cannot be scientificly explained then it must be ignored. I do not believe that, not any more at least.


No, it was both broad and shallow. If it had depth, it would have been an argument, not a dismissal.

Once again, I disagree, and if you demand detail on everything that we post, I must insist, that you recognise your own shallowness. All on NS General are as guilty as I.

Not in this thread they're not, because your Bible-based arguments on this topic do not reflect even a good understanding of the content of the Bible, let alone the nuances of Christian theology. They do not appear to have had any thought put into them at all, as opposed to being merely knee-jerk, rote reactions, which when challenged, you scramble to find explanations for after the fact.

Pardon me? While I understand I do not know everything about the bible, I have and will for the rest of my life invest in significant biblical study. While, some could toot their horn at this, I share it because I feel it is a necessity for you to understand, that I am not a raving biblical looney, but instead someone who is at least studying as much as possible. It is my passion, my faith and my job.

I have preached and do preach, and I have argued. I have read the bible back to front and front to back from the day I was saved, so please, do not patronise me or even imply that I do not understand the scriptures, there is need for it.

If you feel the need, then comment on my communication skills and not my understanding. If anything, I can charge most here with a lack of biblical understanding. Most I encounter comment without ever reading the book. Of which I am sure a lot of NS General are guilty.

I recognise my points of view may not be expertly communicated but allow me to suggest, that responding to so many on NS general who do, tend to enjoy a good rip into the christian is a difficult task. All I can ever do is try my best. I am not writing to argue, only to state a point of view, and elaborate on the why. If it were an argument I would be attempting to pursuade. Perhaps that is why you feel my arguements were poor, as you have not realised my objective.

I have considered that my posts have been written carefully to the extent of using respected sources and honestly entering into a dialogue, politely and respectfully, though disagreements certainly fell from both sides. If you go back through the thread, tell me, by examining the language, if my posts were knee jerk reactions, as I do not feel that the language and content would indicate such.

Though in irony, the previous paragraphs are certainly my first knee jerk reactions in this thread.

However, you are mistaken about that, as a point of fact.

So you claim, but the bible itself comments otherwise in the letters of Paul as I have referenced previously. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence, once again you are free to disagree, but I feel that it would be, illogical.

You seem to think that because I kept asking you the question, it meant that I was accusing you personally of opposing gay marriage. That is not the case. I kept asking that question because it is the only part of the issue that really matters.

Conservative Christians have the right to believe anything they like, with no interference from me. The only time I have any right at all to question any part of their belief system is when that belief system calls upon them to impose their beliefs on me.

So all right, I get it -- they don't like the gays, and they claim the Bible backs them up on that. I happen to think they are reading the Bible selectively and self-servingly, but that's neither here nor there. My opinion as to whether their Biblical justification for not liking the gays is bogus or not is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters where their lives and mine overlap is the part that has them backing measures like Prop 8 in California or calling for an amendment to the US Constitution to deny gays the right to marry.

It is none of my business why they don't like gays, but if they are going to claim a right to impose their religious beliefs on me and others who are outside their religion, then I want to see their justification for THAT. And if they claim their justifications are all in the Bible, then I want to see what parts of their Bible tells them that they get to be the boss of me.

Now, may I take your comments above as an indicator that there is no Biblical justification for imposing your/their religious beliefs onto me, the gays, and others?

None tell them, that they get to be the boss of you. All I attempted to do was show where the Christian origin of marriage was taken from and why.

Apparently, however it is not the case. But I will admit that they come into conflict. At times my faith will grow greater than my logic. Why, I do not know, but I admit it and I recognise it.


Do you recognise that that means you are presenting a bad argument?

Because your faith isn't a good enough reason for the laws that determine MY life, you understand?


For some logic is everything and if it cannot be scientificly explained then it must be ignored. I do not believe that, not any more at least.


Which is unfortunate, because the views you discuss are being used to apply law on a population of which you (personally) are a tiny fragment. If you can't make your arguments in OBJECTIVE terms, then your arguments have no place in law.


Pardon me? While I understand I do not know everything about the bible, I have and will for the rest of my life invest in significant biblical study.


Which, I have to point out, doesn't mean you'll EVER understand it.


I have preached and do preach, and I have argued. I have read the bible back to front and front to back from the day I was saved, so please, do not patronise me or even imply that I do not understand the scriptures, there is need for it.


Claiming preaching as experience? An appeal to authority?

Here's the thing - either the scripture can be understood objectively, in which case it is fair to tell you you don't understand...

...or the scripture can ONLY be understood through discernment, and that means you cannot tell anyone else that their understanding of the scripture is flawed.


If you feel the need, then comment on my communication skills and not my understanding. If anything, I can charge most here with a lack of biblical understanding.


Irony? Consider your previous comments, and my immediately previous response.


Most I encounter comment without ever reading the book. Of which I am sure a lot of NS General are guilty.


But, for the most part, you are encountering responses from people that may have spent literally decades of studying the scripture.


I recognise my points of view may not be expertly communicated but allow me to suggest, that responding to so many on NS general who do, tend to enjoy a good rip into the christian is a difficult task.


Try being an Atheist in a Christian country.


All I can ever do is try my best. I am not writing to argue, only to state a point of view, and elaborate on the why.


Here's the problem. The 'elaboration on the why' isn't strong enough. 'Points of view' shouldn't be deciding the laws that will apply OBJECTIVELY to all.


So you claim, but the bible itself comments otherwise in the letters of Paul as I have referenced previously. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence, once again you are free to disagree, but I feel that it would be, illogical.


Which again, brings us back the the simple dichotomy of the scripture as objective or subjective.


None tell them, that they get to be the boss of you. All I attempted to do was show where the Christian origin of marriage was taken from and why.

And the problem with that is - there are laws that are literally stripping civil rights from some people, and the excuse we keep seeing, is personal faith. Worse, it is personal faith defended by interpretation of scripture.

Christian marriage was not the first marriage. It's based heavily on Old Testament marriage, and even that is not the first marriage.

Christian origins of marriage are irrelevent to modern marriage. Doubly so, when they are used as justification for how marriage should work for NON-Christians.

Apparently, however it is not the case. But I will admit that they come into conflict. At times my faith will grow greater than my logic. Why, I do not know, but I admit it and I recognise it.

For some logic is everything and if it cannot be scientificly explained then it must be ignored. I do not believe that, not any more at least.
As I neither promote nor defend arguments or positions that are not mine, I will thank you, then, to reserve your "pure logic" comments for those who do argue from that position.

Once again, I disagree, and if you demand detail on everything that we post, I must insist, that you recognise your own shallowness. All on NS General are as guilty as I.
No, actually, not all on NS are as guilty as you on this point. I have given the reasoning behind every one of my statements, for instance. I have never shrugged something off with an unexplained and unsupported remark about something resulting from the fall, and leave it at that. If you cannot be bothered to actually make your arguments, do not blame others if they choose not to waste more time debating with you.

Pardon me? While I understand I do not know everything about the bible, I have and will for the rest of my life invest in significant biblical study. While, some could toot their horn at this, I share it because I feel it is a necessity for you to understand, that I am not a raving biblical looney, but instead someone who is at least studying as much as possible. It is my passion, my faith and my job.
I do not doubt that. I encourage you to keep working on it, as your mistakes -- such as claiming that Adam and Eve stand as a Biblical definition of marriage -- are glaring, but should be easy enough to correct.

I have preached and do preach, and I have argued. I have read the bible back to front and front to back from the day I was saved, so please, do not patronise me or even imply that I do not understand the scriptures, there is need for it.
I did not say you don't understand the scriptures. I said your arguments in this thread show little understanding of the content of the Bible -- as when you claimed that the story of Adam and Eve contained points that it does not. Perhaps that distinction is too subtle for you?

If you feel the need, then comment on my communication skills and not my understanding. If anything, I can charge most here with a lack of biblical understanding. Most I encounter comment without ever reading the book. Of which I am sure a lot of NS General are guilty.
Another assumption about people on NSG? Another instance of you projecting your failings onto others? You might be right, or you might not, but in either case, what others do or fail to do is not excuse for what YOU do or fail to do.

I stand by my criticism of the quality of your argument.

I recognise my points of view may not be expertly communicated but allow me to suggest, that responding to so many on NS general who do, tend to enjoy a good rip into the christian is a difficult task.
Your problem is not anti-Christian "ripping". Your problem is that you are bending your source material to try to serve the point you want to make, and doing it poorly.

All I can ever do is try my best. I am not writing to argue, only to state a point of view, and elaborate on the why. If it were an argument I would be attempting to pursuade. Perhaps that is why you feel my arguements were poor, as you have not realised my objective.
I have realized your objective. You stated a conservative Christian point of view. I challenged your explanation of that point of view on the grounds that you were not applying the Bible correctly when you said that Adam and Eve defines what marriage is. That could have been taken in either of two ways -- (1) that the conservative Christian point of view is based on an error, or (2) that you made an error in your explanation of it. So either the point of view is at fault, in which case there's nothing you can do about that and it's not your concern anyway; or your explanation is at fault, in which case you can take the opportunity to correct your mistake.

I have considered that my posts have been written carefully to the extent of using respected sources and honestly entering into a dialogue, politely and respectfully, though disagreements certainly fell from both sides. If you go back through the thread, tell me, by examining the language, if my posts were knee jerk reactions, as I do not feel that the language and content would indicate such.
I do not dispute that you went to a great deal of trouble in writing your posts. However, I do not believe you were following your source, so much as steering your source where you wanted it to go. And as I said earlier, your explanations of the Adam and Eve story and other sections of the Bible you have referred to have sounded like the most basic Sunday School, superficial overview versions of the story for quick absorption by children. Not like someone who has spent their life studying and living by the Bible.

If your understanding of scripture is not bad, then your use of it in this thread is.

Though in irony, the previous paragraphs are certainly my first knee jerk reactions in this thread.
I don't see any irony in those paragraphs in this context. Are you sure you're using "knee-jerk" correctly?

So you claim, but the bible itself comments otherwise in the letters of Paul as I have referenced previously. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence, once again you are free to disagree, but I feel that it would be, illogical.
You have provided no evidence. You have only quoted the Bible and made claims about those quotes. You have ignored the historical fact, which was pointed out to you by at least one other poster, that the social and legal institution of marriage existed long before the Bible was written and that the pagan Greeks and Romans used a form of marriage that was nearly identical to the one established in the Bible, and they had it long before the Bible was written, according to both historical and archeological evidence. Especially, the Roman form of marriage was clearly adopted by the Christians, which of course, only makes sense, as the Christian church was, in fact, created by Roman converts. What systems would they have developed, except ones derived from the systems they already knew -- you know, before they became Christians.

Therefore, your claim that the Bible created the institution of marriage as we know it today is false. The Romans created it. The pagan Romans.

None tell them, that they get to be the boss of you. All I attempted to do was show where the Christian origin of marriage was taken from and why.
Then that's all I need to know, because it renders moot all explanations of why they don't want gay marriage. As interesting as those reasons may be, they are irrelevant, because they have neither legal nor Biblical authority to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

By the way, it also means that I am correct in denouncing their claims to Biblical authority on this issue as false. Thank you for backing me up on that.

<snip>

Here's the thing - either the scripture can be understood objectively, in which case it is fair to tell you you don't understand...

...or the scripture can ONLY be understood through discernment, and that means you cannot tell anyone else that their understanding of the scripture is flawed.

<snip>
Nice point. Well played.

I do not understand why some people engage in prolonged debates with Xtians about this.

I do not understand why some people engage in prolonged debates with Xtians about this.

Because it's fun?

Because it's fun?

No way.

No way.

It's why I do it...

It's why I do it...

You need Xbox 360.

They aren't fighting for privacy. They're fighting for equality. Ya know, like the rights that everyone else has. Marriage and military service and etc.

And they should have it! You should listen to what Keith Olbermann has to say on the subject because he hits the nail right on the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY


And so all the conservatives have my number, I am also all for racial mixing if the people are in love. Love is love so butt out of it!

You need Xbox 360.

*sits by the mailbox waiting for the XBox 360 from NMG*

*sits by the mailbox waiting for the xbox 360 from nmg*

...

:d

I do not understand why some people engage in prolonged debates with Xtians about this.
Well, for Americans, it's so we can keep up to date on all their new talking points, so we'll be ready when they try to use them to push through legislation. The Californians got complacent on that, and look how that turned out. You have to keep practicing shooting down those arguments for when it really matters.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

I hate to break it to you but your God has nothing to do with other peoples marriages. If some people want to bring god into it, good for you but, it is about a committment and a desire to share a life with another person and complete a journey of becoming whole with your other half. Believe it or not, people manage to do this without brining god into it so, leave religion out of it.

Well, for Americans, it's so we can keep up to date on all their new talking points, so we'll be ready when they try to use them to push through legislation. The Californians got complacent on that, and look how that turned out. You have to keep practicing shooting down those arguments for when it really matters.

Hmm. That'd make a good topic.

I do not understand why some people engage in prolonged debates with Xtians about this.

Because simply wishing the Xtians away won't work.

One has to fight the good fight -- sometimes in enemy territory.

I'm a Bisexual male independent and I would like very much if I were to love another man that I could be connected to him spiritually and not just legally as well as being able to adopt a child. Why does everyone thing homosexual/bisexual men are all pedophiles when 99% of the ones that I know personally are very gentle and caring and would never do anything to hurt a child in a sexual or corporal manner? It disgusts me that the POPE would condemn homosexuals, but even if you are a homosexual, god will forgive you if you are truly sorry. As I grow older I realize how immoral and corrupt the Christian religions are and it makes me quiver at my very core. If only one day all of mankind could be equal no matter their orientation. The immorality of the Catholic Church has made me consider many times to convert to the Jewish Religion, which if you look in to it has more depth and description as well as proof of the articles in the Jewish bibles as well as many other things. From my knowledge, something I heard a very long time ago, there was originally 400 volumes of the bible, but now there is only about 70 in existence. Another reason I find the pope immoral and corrupt.

Thanks for your time and for reading my post!

You are misreading or just being far too picky.

That's one.

Nonsense. The bible details Adam and Eves lifespan, and that they fathered many children. Cain will have married one of his sisters, is the likely answer, rather than pulling something out of thin air, instead of dealing with the text purely in the way in which text implies.

So we're clones (Adam's rib), and incest-bred. Neat.

It is a very significant problem as it then subsequently contradicts further texts. Adam and Eve were the first male and female as far as the Bible is concerned. Provide me with biblical evidence to say otherwise and I will agree with you.

Thankfully, history was chugging along long before the Bible existed. Asking for Biblical evidence of something before the Bible existed? A bit disingenuous.

They used a rib for the imagery, no need to be silly.

That's two.

I can agree, that the relationships were incestuous, a direct result of a fallen creation, but it does not mean incest is morally acceptable. Detailed further on, is the mosaic decree against incest.

All well and good, but it means that, from a literal Biblical perspective, the whole of humanity is genetically iffy.

As for outside evidence, I am only giving a biblical perspective as best I can.

Which is what limits your credibility.

Childish and aggressive, at the very least I have been nothing but polite in this entire thread, attempting to answer as many questions as possible. Afford me please with the same respect in which I treat you.

And that's three.

You ARE getting the same level of respect you're putting out.

you know what? fuck you. I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT.

You do your argument no favors by reacting like this and rising to troll bait. Be the bigger person.

I do not believe in your god. so back the fuck off when the claims your religion should run my life.

Calm down.

Its your hell. you burn in it. you talk about "tolerance" when you dont even respect people. 50% divorce rate and you cry sanctity of marriage? read your own book and get the plank out of your eye first before you get the splinter from others.

Better reference, but still, relax.

beside "my fake god says so" why is it wrong? procreation? where is the requirement in law for kids? why is it pleasurable? generally if you're not supposed to be able to do something with your body pain is the result.

*sigh* No help in that presentation. Think and edit before you hit "Submit Reply".

You be christian. dont try to FORCE others into YOUR version of a fake guy in the sky.

People like you are one of the reasons I stopped believing.

You will not make anyone seriously consider your words until you purge them of the vengeful anger you're feeling (and rightfully so).

Well before I go, going to leave a few remarks here because I can see this has the potential of getting ugly. Your mistakes are always your own lol I don't know what your talking about but if you choose to go to hell then that's your choice no one is making you go.

You're either 12 years old or a new convert, one of the two. Possibly both.

Whether you believe or not isn't the case, fact is you don't know and need to know. I apologize for offending anyone but nonetheless I will not take back what I said. Blind obedience is bad not saying you should be blind but on the contrary. What I am saying is that, God will give you all the evidence you need if you trust Him.

Then your apology is worthless. For myself, I know all I care to know at this time. I've met many outstanding Christian witnesses and listened with great respect to what they have to say. You are about as far from one of them as you could possibly get.

The problem is human beings in God's eyes are indeed children. You got the ones who wanna go off on their own and others who want to serve.

Might it not be the case that those who "go off on their own" need more than just your obnoxious word on the matter to really believe? It's difficult to want to serve when you don't know who you're serving.

Unlike when you left your parents, you can't fight Satan on your own that's why your so rebellious now is because you've chosen another father which is him.

Careful -- that kind of all-or-nothing pronouncement is what usually gets your kind into trouble. Some people cannot trust in someone who claims to rule with love, but sends his followers out to disseminate fear. Fear is the opposite of love.

You want to do whatever you like whether its right or wrong and look at the screw up generation that we have now. We all screwed up but we are making the next generation even worse than our own.

You are aware that virtually every generation has thought that the ones after them were lost or doomed, right? Your words have the sound of those you've heard and regurgitated. I have to doubt that you've come to your faith out of any personal journey. Rather, your words have the hollow, vaguely threatening ring of someone who was raised in the faith and has never had it tempered by the reality of doubt. In short, your tests are coming. You are not ready. I pray your parroted faith will be replaced with something far more realistic once your first tests are done. May God bless you in those trials.

Kids having kids, increase in domestic violence, divorce, murder, etc, etc, etc the list will go on in what evils we've brought upon ourselves. If we all listened to God we wouldn't have such issues but that day will not come till Jesus comes back. People desire wicked things instead of the things of God. God can prevent STDs, hunger, etc but yet we reject Him and try and do it on our own and see how good we're doing.

More youth group boilerplate.

Without God, none of us would be breathing air or exist period. I'll be praying for one and all because without God we will only bring further doom upon ourselves. Man will destroy man because of his own stupidity, you know the things mentioned in revelation only happened because we chose to rebel. In a sense its saying we will destroy ourselves because of our own carelessness and wickedness.

"Happened"? Uh...as far as I can see, Revelation hasn't happened yet, man's been destroying man for quite some time now, and man's interpretation of God has been directly or indirectly responsible for a lot of that destruction. The wickedness of the true believer is the darkest of all.

Its people like you that keep my faith strong. Humanity wouldn't exist without man/woman relationships. This is a discussion board, not forcing just voicing my opinion or do you have a problem with that? Why don't you ban Christianity then you might accomplish something but then the law wouldn't stop me either lol.

Your extremism suggests that you might need a nap.

Humanity has been regenerating itself quite nicely despite the constant presence of homosexual relationships throughout its recorded history.

Lay off the Red Bull.

Is a person forced to sleep with another because they have to or because they want to? Ask yourself that then come back and say, "I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT."
people sleep with one another because THEY WANT TO not because they have to. get that through your head.

I honestly don't understand your first sentence. A person forced to sleep with another is usually the victim of some kind of sex crime. Homosexuality IS NOT bestiality. You're the one making that claim, so I think YOU are going to have to prove it wrong. All sins are not created equal, and to claim so is utter nonsense.

Yes, actually completing the physical act of sex with someone is a choice. Wanting to do it -- the desire for your chosen attraction? Not so much. Get THAT through YOUR head.

But I won't argue this any further lol you've only proven my point not take away from it. In response to Ifrean, you may be rebellious by nature lol your parents may have alot to say about you but as a child I tried to stay out of trouble not look for it. Likewise with God, God says something is wrong for a reason and those reasons and shown all around. You may say something else but the consquences that happen will definately shut your mouth if you look.

I wouldn't bray on like you do and lecture others about consequences. Matthew 7:3 is looking like a bit you might want to re-read. Your brand of witnessing is really off-putting. You are coming off like a Christian bully, and that's not remotely Christ-like.

The whole "lol" thing? It's insulting. You say offensive things and then think typing "lol" will somehow make up for how offensive you are. It doesn't. Nobody believes you're actually laughing, because if you are at those points, you're a little twisted.

I don't support the people who hate homosexuals because they are just people why hate them? Should I support something I believe to be wrong? No. Should you vote for God in schools because of the religious people who want it? No because that is your decision. I am not asking you to accept my God, only to look into Him.

And yet here you are threatening some in the thread with hellfire instead of preaching about Christ's love. What's wrong with you?

There's no changing my mind because I know God to be true for the facts that I've seen in life lol God brainwashed me then? lol He's the only one I'd trust and not question now. Later people I really hope you stop being stubborn and ask God why.

You've not seen much life, then. And what you've seen has been sheltered. Nobody I know who has come to their faith through personal struggles or misfortune or trials of any kind would be as blithe and cavalier about dismissing people as you have been here.

I have been asking God "why" for longer than you've been alive, and then some. Sometimes I think I get answers. Other times, not so much. I also know that sometimes the answers aren't writing-on-the-wall clear. I do know one thing, though. God doesn't want idiots for believers. From everything I've learned, He sent Jesus so that we might have a semi-human presence to identify with and to come to God through. Jesus was not belligerent, as you have been. He was not boastful, as you have been. He did not sow fear, as you have done. You have much to go through before I will take your word on faith to be anything more significant than parrot-talk and the blind faith of youth. It's sweet and innocent and all that, but it has no place in a serious debate about...well anything, in my opinion. Your answer is all reaction and no real thought. It's all inculcated responses, and no serious experience.

It is therefore nearly worthless.