Christianity--Q&A

[Eor]

Soooo, what your arguing is, why did paul use a synonym? And you cant really argue the word homosexual since Pual actually never uses the word "homosexual".
I like how Young's literal translation puts it-sodomites. There's no mistaking there.

Jesus never mentions nor condemned sacrificing your children in a fire either. That means he was for it right?

It was not a synonym. It was a word made up. It doesn't matter now your bible translates it, there are dozens of translations and it's not based off of the Greek word. The Living bible translates it as "homosexuals", while others just translate it as "sexual pervert". The word is derived of two parts, "man" and "beds". You can translate that to mean "homosexuality" as a man lying with a man in a bed, but that is ignoring the word in front of it that is meaning "young", in relation to pederasty.

Let's say I was going to write out a sacred commandment against murder. What should I say, "Thou shall not murder", or "Thou shall not bulletbody". Or perhaps "Thou shall not knifehead", or "Thou shall not nonlife", or "Thou shall not endbody"? Because everything but the first one is as ridiculous as what the book says

And I'm pretty sure Jesus mentioned both scarifies as well as murder, thank you very much.

 

[Peeze]

Yeah nothing about sodomy is vague. It loses credibility because there's so many "versions" that people make it say whatever they want it to say.
If the Bible said straight up "all gay people go to heaven" I'm sure you'd be less opposed.
EDIT: didnt see EOR's post yet. one sec please

1. Arsenokoitai doesn't mean "man, bed" means "man" "sexual intercourse" obviously the idea was of sexy time being made between two men, i dont think we're disputing that. But you can't argue that "if he ment gay he coulda just sed it", because if he meant pedophile, he similarly could have used the greek word for pedophile. Remember too that the congregation in corinth was also made up of jews, who would have been familiar with the law as paul was. They knew Lev 18:22 which says ""And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female." Which translated to greek means "kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos." MAN-SEX

So instead of saying homsexuality, he said man-sex.

And I'm pretty sure Jesus mentioned both scarifies as well as murder, thank you very much.

You just taking a stab in the dark aren't you?

 

[Eor]

Note: For most of the bible quotes I use I use the King James Bible, as it is the earliest English bible and therefore the less likely to be mistranslated, as later editions switch the meaning and definitions of the words.

1. Arsenokoitai doesn't mean "man, bed" means "man" "sexual intercourse"

Koitai means multiple things. Sexual Intercourse is one of three definition, and was used more as slang then as an actual definition.

obviously the idea was of sexy time being made between two men, i dont think we're disputing that. But you can't argue that "if he ment gay he coulda just sed it", because if he meant pedophile, he similarly could have used the greek word for pedophile.

Pederasty is not the same as pedophilia.

Remember too that the congregation in corinth was also made up of jews, who would have been familiar with the law as paul was. They knew Lev 18:22 which says ""And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female." Which translated to greek means "kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos." MAN-SEX

Ah, that is interesting. So it'd mean that he was combing the Greek words used in Leviticus in his speech to harbor back to the laws. But either way, the definition you're using is not at all similar to what the greek says, but instead is someone changing around the meaning of a translation, like in the Living bible and elsewhere. The word "Koiten" or "Koitai" here means "bed". This is where it gets difficult, because Leviticus was written in Hebrew and not in Greek, but in Hebrew Lev 18:22 is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman", which is translated into Greek would use the word bed.

So instead of saying homsexuality, he said man-sex.

In English he'd of said man-sex, but unlike English just because he combined them together doesn't mean much. Ladykiller is an English word that means neither murderer or anything of the sort (it means promiscuity).

And the word was used to mean masturbation until recent, as I've already said, and it was thought to meant that universally, not only in a small section of society or a specific order. It was still thought to mean that recently, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 still used that meaning.

You just taking a stab in the dark aren't you?

No, I was mocking you for your ridiculous argument. But thank you for showing how you handle yourself when faced with your own ridiculous argument

 

[Zero Beat]

Ignorance is bliss.

Christians, have you ever wondered why Australia has completely different animals than America? And if you say "because god chose where they should live", you might just kill RDK.

Hell no, ignorance is DANGEROUS.

RDK's been respawning non-stop ever since he posted in that "Fallacies of Christianity" thread.

For any of the believers trying to look into Evolution(haha), start with comprative embryology.

 

[Peeze]

Note: For most of the bible quotes I use I use the King James Bible, as it is the earliest English bible and therefore the less likely to be mistranslated, as later editions switch the meaning and definitions of the words.

LOL dude the KJV is ful of flaws, thats why they made a New KJV. Its just that a version(which means how i see the story), not a translation(which means straight from the original language to english). The KJV was various scribes writing what they thought the verses said.

Koitai means multiple things. Sexual Intercourse is one of three definition, and was used more as slang then as an actual definition.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Pederasty is not the same as pedophilia.

your arguing semantics, and missing the entire point. You cannot say "if he meant homsexual he would have said the greek word for homosexual", because if he meant PEDERASTY he would have said the greek word for pederasty.

Ah, that is interesting. So it'd mean that he was combing the Greek words used in Leviticus in his speech to harbor back to the laws. But either way, the definition you're using is not at all similar to what the greek says, but instead is someone changing around the meaning of a translation, like in the Living bible and elsewhere. The word "Koiten" or "Koitai" here means "bed". This is where it gets difficult, because Leviticus was written in Hebrew and not in Greek, but in Hebrew Lev 18:22 is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman", which is translated into Greek would use the word bed.

it means he was calling to mind things they would be familiar with. And even if you substitute sex for bed, the thought of sexytime between men is still conveyed, since it says in the same way you lie with a woman. You can't misinterpret that to mean just sharing a bed.

In English he'd of said man-sex, but unlike English just because he combined them together doesn't mean much. Ladykiller is an English word that means neither murderer or anything of the sort (it means promiscuity).

No in greek he would have said man sex.
Good catch on ladykiller never heard that before, thought it was a band name.

No, I was mocking you for your ridiculous argument. But thank you for showing how you handle yourself when faced with your own ridiculous argument

You just said you were mocking me and then you criticize my debate tactics. You sir are an idiot.

 

[Proverbs]

Okay, may I point everyone back to rule #1? I selected a few responses here, but yet again you guys just keep on rambling. It's pretty unfair if you ask me. You have about almost the entire debate hall arguing against Christianity in some way, and I have myself and so far maybe two others. Chill out and don't just post because you have a question that might already be answered if you just wait a minute or two.

No, I followed your point to the letter.

What you seem to be missing is that the Church and religious texts are supposed to be the medium for conveying these rules. So what good are they if they can simply decide as time goes on which ones are the REAL rules and which ones should be thrown out?

No you didn't follow the point to the letter.

Christianity=following the BIBLE and only that. If the church at any point starts saying something is sin that was not noted in the Bible or approves of something condemned in the Bible, then the church is wrong. That is why I have an issue with most churches today because many of them are not following God's word at all.

Christendom is just picking and choosing what you like, basically what many churches have done today.

Alright. No. Stop. WRONG.

Don't recycle clichés and talk about things like this if you don't understand what you're talking about. And no offense, but you don't in this case.

This is a headache I have had numerous times... COUNTLESS times trying to pound a very important distinction into people's heads. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Now you see why I'm frustrated when you guys recycle cliches. It's the same concept, really. But I wasn't saying that it is some loosely held hypothesis. I was saying it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven. Likewise, I would suggest that it is not supported by all the available evidence. From what I've looked into evolution, it is highly impractical for things to have evolved the way they did.

Think about it this way: It is a commonly accepted fact that the universe tends toward chaos, right? So why would random mutations lead to something so ordered? As is stated in someone else's post later, the mutations it would have taken for things to evolve would have inhibited the creature before they became useful and would not have survived 'natural selection'.

I'd also like you to take a look at the book Mathematical Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, which is an old book that was basically a recording of several scientists and mathematicians who sat down together and said: "Okay, what's the real probability of evolution happening like this?" Upon the final result many people flipped out and refused to believe it was that improbable. If you try looking for the book, it'll be hard. It's out of print now. I wonder why.

Evolution is supported by ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO US. It's not just some word people like throwing around. Because people of science work a little differently. You see, they don't make an idea up and then desperately try to prove themselves RIGHT. They do, in fact, go the opposite way, and CONSTANTLY try to prove themselves WRONG in order to advance their own world perception.

Firstly, see what I just said about that book above.

Secondly, if this is truly the best way to go about things, then you must clearly be a monstrous hypocrite. If the way things work should be to continually look at other frames of mind and try to prove yours wrong and if, at the end of the day, you find yours to stand up much better against others, then you should have a solid way of looking at the world. As it is you came rampaging into this topic trying to prove everyone wrong and have not even tried to understand at all.

You may say that I do the same thing, but this is not true. When I said I had studied much philosophy, this includes non-Christian philosophy. I've looked into other religions and philosophies and none of them seem to make sense as much as Christianity does. That's why I've stuck with it. Not because I ignore the other religions. I don't know every religion, but I've seen enough to be sure of my own.

Also, the fact of the matter is that people don't want to believe in Christianity. People have been looking to disprove it for years and have always been trying to rebel against it. Take for instance half of the threads in the Debate Hall. Even if Christianity is mentioned in a bad light people feel like they need to jump on the bandwagon and bash it. Does it really bother you that much? Then maybe--just maybe--there's a reason for that.

Likewise, anyone who in the scientific world who tries to even suggest intelligent design is immediately ostracized. Ever seen the movie 'No Intelligence Allowed'? It's quite the eye-opener. The fact is that scientists have not been following to where the evidence leads in the case of evolution. When the idea of God is suggested, that person is immediately no longer 'scientifically-minded', even if the evidence leads in that direction.

So if they would really be so warm and opening to the idea of God, why is it that many scientists who even suggested intelligent design were rejected as a whole by their peers even at the mention of it?

I know it's "not my turn" to ask a question, but how do you justify this?

This has to stop. This is the second time you try to pass off the fact that you're directly disobeying the rules by noting the fact that you are. Stop violating the rules because once you do so, everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and we get an extra 4 pages that I haven't read but am supposed to respond to. You seriously detracted from intelligent discussion by letting this whole thread run wild. Sure we got a few good opinions in there, and for some of them I'm glad. But sooner or later people just got way off topic, and that's from the first few pages that I read.

evolution is observed. so it's a fact. and the people you talked to probably don't even know what evolution is. there are mounds of evidence that support evolution and common decent.

Evolution is not observed at all. You don't support anything in this statement. The people I talked to don't know what evolution is? They're not mentally disabled and they have had public education--they know what evolution is. And the reason why I spoke with them was because they had more information about evolution than I did. You honestly just made like three completely unsupported claims.

so a completely wrong answer is better than a useful answer consistent with observation?

Does anyone see what I mean about people not wanting to accept Christianity now? Even if I gave everyone here undeniable proof for Christianity, chances are over half of you would reject it. Now, Arrowhead, I never said Christianity was completely wrong. So you must be blatantly trying to offend me by saying it is. Honestly, if you're trying to be a real debater, this is not the way to go about it.

so you admit religion is all in what you believe? then why advertise it as the truth?

Did you even read what I said?

not according to this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our-universe.html

That looks like someone forming a hypothesis. I skimmed it but it just seemed like an idea. You can't disprove my idea with another idea. It's just an idea without evidence.

Every time someone says "Evolution is just a theory" and actually expects that to be a sufficient argument, I die a little inside.

Ah, much nicer without the red text. Anyway, you know me RDK--at least enough to know that I'm a fairly intelligent person. And if you read my post thoroughly, as another intelligent person would, you would realize that I didn't just expect that to be enough. I didn't just say that and go away, but I continued in saying that from what I've discussed with people that it's very unfounded. I admitted I'm not a scientist and don't have all the facts, but I'm sure that no one here does, so my opinion's just as good.

Wrong. YOU don't know all the facts because YOU never bothered opening a book on the matter. Talking to pseudo-scientists won't give you a correct answer on the mechanics of evolution, especially how researchers came to think about Natural Selection as an explanation. The gibberish you fill the Debate Hall with is a poor attempt at bringing down science.

Sorry, but I have to point this out right here. You're just angry and ranting. Note the 'YOU' in all caps. This is not intelligent discussion. You insulted my friends by calling them 'pseudo-scientists' and called what I said 'gibberish'. Since I'm trying to help people understand Christianity, you just called my religion 'gibberish'--just another poor attempt at an insult.

Now, I might ask you, who is filling the Debate Hall with more 'gibberish': The one trying to help people understand a frame of mind, or the one angrily insulting people without adding anything to the discussion?

No, homosexuality is not a sin. The bible never actually condemns homosexuality. The translations were just a little off. If someone cares to point out the passages where it says that, I'll point out what they actually meant.

Sure, show me what this passage actually meant: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22 NIV).

I think it's pretty clear about what it is to lie with a woman, here. And 0rion, this is a good example of Christendom: people trying to explain away parts of the Bible and omit things that were clear commands.

This is also in a section of unlawful sexual relations, the one that comes after this says it is unlawful to have sexual relations with an animal. For this to have 'another meaning' is VERY unlikely, and realistically impossible.

Oh, and just in case you were thinking "Well Paul said that we're free from the law, meaning that this is no longer unlawful thanks to the New Testament." Wrong, Paul still made it absolutely clear that there was still sin, and the author of Hebrews (which was probably Paul) said "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Hebrews 10:26 & 27 NIV).

Still don't believe me? Well it even references homosexuality as wrong in the New Testament. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26 & 27 NIV).

You'd be pretty hard-pressed to tell me that these passages have an alternate meaning. If you're a real Christian you need to start letting the Bible form your view of God and not try to make the Bible fit your view of God. The thing is, if we accept the Bible to be God's Word, then we have to start there and figure out what it means, not try to change every part of it to fit today's frame of mind.

My hypothesis on homosexuality is that it used to be a psychological condition caused by various factors as a man grew up and learned that caused him to not be sexually attracted to women. However, recent evidence points to it being actually a genetic trait, so it may have "evolved" (i know that's not the right word) into a genetic mental trait.
It's kind of hard to explain.

Recent evidence? What evidence? Anyway, I honestly doubt it's genetic. I've seen a straight guy turn gay and I've heard of gay guys who later married women and couldn't be happier. And how does this explain bisexuality? The American Psychological Association had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder for a while and that was changed I think somewhat recently (not the past year, but I mean in the past decade or so), if that helps at all. I, personally, don't have a real opinion when it comes to how homosexuality develops. I'm not really sure and don't pretend to know.

But so you guys don't think I'm just being a jerk here: Before I became a Christian I had a time when I was unsure if I was gay or not. Compared to many men I can tend to be feminine and for a while most of my friends were girls and they understood me better. Most people thought I was gay and I was still unsure. Some of my friends were gay too and I had no problem with that.

As you can see, homosexuality being wrong was hard for me to accept. I didn't agree to it because it didn't apply to me. As to 'why' it's wrong the short answer is that it's unnatural. Unnatural relations are the ones that are condemned in the Bible. The long answer is only my speculation and is this:

A man and a woman fit well with one another. Not just physically (as we know that homosexual partners don't quite 'fit' with one another physically), but I mean psychologically, emotionally, and in regards to personality. The qualities that a man has a woman tends to lack, and the qualities that a woman has a man tends to lack. One author describes them as a 'human unit', that they were created to work with one another. In all honesty, I see a great beauty in the way God designed this; taking time to outline things exactly so things would work so perfectly as they do. Now, the reason why homosexuality is wrong in all of this is because it's basically spitting in God's face. He created the relationship between a man and a woman to be sacred and beautiful and you show a complete disregard for what He made. That is why I see it as wrong.

Well guys, I'm back and I'd like to elaborate on this.

Let's look at the nature of a mechanism. Many differentiated parts that interlock to form a construct that achieves a purpose that the individual pieces do not. Such constructs include computers, cars, and so on and on.

Now let's consider bodily mechanisms, organs one could say. Look at my eye. It consists of multiple parts that work together in incredibly complex ways in order to allow me to see. Let's establish two things.
1. Eyes are very complex systems.
2. A part of an eye without the rest of the parts is useless. If I just had a cornea and nothing else, I couldn't see.

The eye is far too complex to have "evolved" all in one go, right? right. This means that multiple mutations must have led into the evolution of the eye. But wait..... If an eye must be evolved piece by piece, each piece would have to be constructed by individual mutations. But a piece of an eye is useless. A useless piece of an eye would not help an organism in any way, and so it won't be likely to survive the test of Natural Selection. Thus, the only way for an eye to have evolved is that a member of a certain species mutated a part of an eye, then his offspring miraculously mutated the rest of the parts, and all survived the test of natural selection by sheer luck.
This is ridiculously improbable. I'm sorry but I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution could have possibly occurred without the supervision of a powerful designer. Natural selection cannot explain the formation of an organ that is built from parts that would be useless by themselves, because they do not make an organism more likely to survive and pass on mutated traits.

This means that the only still-standing creation theories are those that include a Designer.

On a less-important note, have you heard of Theistic Evolution? It works the same with the way we build things.

Henry Ford could not have made any of the marvelous SUVs with built-in computers back in the day, but through a great deal of trails (done by designers might I add) they were able to make progress because the advantageous additions appealed to the market (which plays the role of natural selection in this allegory). Eventually they ended up with our modern ford cars. That is the real evolution. Trials done by a designer that succeeded. Ofc with God the trials would have been made simply for biodiversity's sake.

Did you guys know that Darwin didn't know anything about cells?

EDIT:
Oh, and with regards to homosexuality. God would not allow his Word to be mistranslated to the extent of making something moral look immoral. I would guess that it is immoral because it doesn't produce offspring, it's merely sensual pleasure for the sake of itself (which also is why condoms and birth-control are frowned upon). It's not really the way it was meant to be naturally.
That's my assumption though. The reason I think it's immoral is because God said it was, and God knows a lot more than I do so I'll let him do the dictating. He has a reason, however. The above is just what I think the reason is.

Thanks. That's basically what I've heard perpetuate among my other friends but since I put little effort into science (except physics), I wasn't prepared to fully explain the idea.

Your problem is that you're taking the eye as it is NOW and trying to break it down. You're also making a gross oversimplification of the sensory reception of countless living beings.

Doesn't that make sense, though? He's taking a look at what the eye is now to see what it would have needed to bring it to that level. According to evolution the first organisms didn't even have eyes, so mutations would have had to happen one by one to advance the organisms.

Yay ad hominem! He also didn't know about cell phones, either.

Yes but cell phones didn't exist, cells did. Also, cells actually have to do with biology, and cell phones don't. You just sort of threw that in there to devalue his point with a humorous comment. You didn't explain why it wasn't important that he didn't know about cells at all.

Oh, come on. Even the most hardcore of Christians can't actually believe this. People commit atrocities in the name of God all the time. It's unbelievably easy to skew The Bible to make it say what you want it to say.

What people do and what the Word of God says are two different things. The only examples you can use would be God approving of something that you would think He would condemn. Likewise, it may be easy to skew wording, but only to the people who don't know their Bible at all. The way I see it is that the person doesn't have to argue if something is really all that bad, but they have to prove to me that God would not just be neutral about, but would approve of what they're doing. That is where skewing God's Word is not so easy.

And anyway, have you even read the Bible? From what you've said it's pretty clear you either just went to Sunday school and hated it or else never read from the Bible at all.

That was a bad question on my part. I forgot people believed in the literal truth of the creation story. I use that question for religious debates with my friends that don't, but I just never really thought that much about using it here.

Even if I don't take the creation story literally (which I do--if God can make someone walk on water, the sun stand still, the shadows move backward, and fire fall down from heaven on multiple occasions, I'm sure He can create a man and a woman at a specific point in time), the flood is still a very literal story in the Bible--whether or not you believe it. The thing is, if you're going to argue with Christians about what God does you need to argue about it from the Christian point of view. Meaning, you have to take the history that they say happened into account and create a flaw within it's own structure. If it supports itself on its own, then people who hold that mindset aren't easily dissuaded.

America doesn't equal the world. The entire eastern half of the world had no contact with Christianity for (in your biblical timeline, which I disagree with but I'm going to mention that later in the post, and I'll play along) about 4,600 years. Even if we accept that the first generation to move there that had "forsaken" God, all their children are innocent, yet still ****ed to Hell for not believing in Christ (as the bible states). The Bible never mentions the far east. I know there is a believe that one of the disciples went and preached as far as China, but there is no way his word could of been heard by everyone, and the fact that there is no indigenous Chinese church shows that even if the man ever did get there, it failed.

Firstly, when does America come into this? Israel is in the Middle-East. And there are times when they say that the disciples preached in Asia. You seem misinformed. I won't quote the passages here directly, not because I don't want to, but because there are too many. But I'll list the references to Asia in the Bible: Acts 2:9, Acts 6:9, Acts 16:6, Acts 19:10, Acts 19:22, Acts 19:26-27, Acts 20:4, Acts 20:16, Acts 20:18, Acts 21:27, Acts 24:19, Acts 27:2, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Corinthians 1:8, 2 Timothy 1:15, 1 Peter 1:1, and Revelation 1:4. Note that most of these are in Acts, which is the book describing the evangelistic missions that the disciples went on. And most of the references that I saw were them preaching in Asia. Whether or not they rejected the Word is irrelevant. They regarded it as worthless and that was their choice. As for their children, I did reference Romans 2 when it says that they have the requirements of the law written on their hearts, so that they are without excuse. Likewise, in Romans 9:18 it says that "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (NIV). So even if they did sin even though they have the law written on their hearts (which they would have for the Paul says that no one has not sinned except for Jesus) that they still have a chance. You might be curious about the hardening part of that Scripture and to that I'd just have to say that it is an integral part of Christian belief that we are people and that God is God and that He knows best and that we have no right to argue with Him. He is the author of Good, and anything apart from that is evil, therefore He cannot do evil as it would conflict with His own desires.

I know there were other people's posts I didn't respond to. I just didn't have time. That's why if you're interested in the Christian opinion at all (as given by me or by whoever else helps out that knows Christianity at all, and hopefully is a Christian), the questions should be given one at a time. Otherwise you're just using this as a place to air your own thoughts and it leads to no one's education.

 

[Xsyven]

*snips part that interests me*

Recent evidence? What evidence? Anyway, I honestly doubt it's genetic. I've seen a straight guy turn gay and I've heard of gay guys who later married women and couldn't be happier. And how does this explain bisexuality? The American Psychological Association had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder for a while and that was changed I think somewhat recently (not the past year, but I mean in the past decade or so), if that helps at all. I, personally, don't have a real opinion when it comes to how homosexuality develops. I'm not really sure and don't pretend to know.

I don't have any hard evidence myself, but let me tell you this. Straight guys cannot 'turn gay', nor can gay people 'turn straight'. They've either always been gay, and finally came out of the closet, or they're just so sick of being ****ed to hell, and spat upon by society, that they marry a woman.

Bisexuality does exist-- and some of the people you mentioned may have been bi-- but trust me, being gay is not a choice. I was raised extremely religious, and I contemplated suicide numerous times before coming out of the closet. I just couldn't figure out which of the two was the bigger sin. I chose to interpret the bible differently... but not valuing its opinion whatsoever. It saved my life. Why would god birth me as sinner? I feel that it was a cruel joke.

But so you guys don't think I'm just being a jerk here: Before I became a Christian I had a time when I was unsure if I was gay or not. Compared to many men I can tend to be feminine and for a while most of my friends were girls and they understood me better. Most people thought I was gay and I was still unsure. Some of my friends were gay too and I had no problem with that.

Sounds to me like you were just out of luck in the female department. If you like dudes, you know you like dudes. Simple as that. If you like dudes, but you're in complete denial over it due to your love for the bible, I'd consider seeing a psychologist. Being gay and christian is a deadly combination. =/

As you can see, homosexuality being wrong was hard for me to accept. I didn't agree to it because it didn't apply to me. As to 'why' it's wrong the short answer is that it's unnatural. Unnatural relations are the ones that are condemned in the Bible. The long answer is only my speculation and is this:

Its very natural. How is it unnatural? People get corrective eye surgery, heart transplants, amputations, blood transfusions. Are these all unnatural? are they sins?

A man and a woman fit well with one another. Not just physically (as we know that homosexual partners don't quite 'fit' with one another physically), but I mean psychologically, emotionally, and in regards to personality. The qualities that a man has a woman tends to lack, and the qualities that a woman has a man tends to lack. One author describes them as a 'human unit', that they were created to work with one another. In all honesty, I see a great beauty in the way God designed this; taking time to outline things exactly so things would work so perfectly as they do. Now, the reason why homosexuality is wrong in all of this is because it's basically spitting in God's face. He created the relationship between a man and a woman to be sacred and beautiful and you show a complete disregard for what He made. That is why I see it as wrong.

In my opinion, I fit perfectly with my ex boyfriend. Mentally, and 'physically'.

Honestly, I've never been happier in my entire life than when I was in a loving relationship with him. If being in love with another dude is a sin, then sign me up to go to hell. For the 10 months I was dating him, I was more confident, it cured my insomnia, I got out more, became more outgoing, and just plain felt better about life.

Prior to that, I was just a depressed Christian, debating on which path of hell to take. Suicide, or homosexuality.

So please, tell me again that I'm a sinner. Because the only thing that God has brought me is depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

 

[Crimson King]

Recent evidence? What evidence? Anyway, I honestly doubt it's genetic. I've seen a straight guy turn gay and I've heard of gay guys who later married women and couldn't be happier. And how does this explain bisexuality? The American Psychological Association had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder for a while and that was changed I think somewhat recently (not the past year, but I mean in the past decade or so), if that helps at all. I, personally, don't have a real opinion when it comes to how homosexuality develops. I'm not really sure and don't pretend to know.

You haven't seen them TURN gay or straight, you've seen them come to terms with what they really are. I know a guy who dated girls throughout high school, then when he graduated, he not only admitted to being gay, but also admitted to never being attracted to women. He didn't TURN gay, he always was, but society forces him to deny and block out those feelings. Same with a person who "turns straight." If a guy is gay, he is always gay. I, again, know of at least two men who are gay, but got married because they felt they had to. $20 says they aren't truly happy, and they probably would break it off if homosexuality became accepted.

Xsyven posted as I did. Nice! But also, Men and Men fit together physically. Why else would the "male g-spot" be located in a place only accomplished by anal sex, but the female's is only accomplished through normal sex? doesn't make ANY sense at all.

 

[Reaver197]

I'm sorry, but the idea that the eye is a "too complex" of an organ to have evolved is bad science, and, frankly, poor understanding of how the eye works. To say that the only way an eye works is to have it fully in the form that we are accustomed to is a fallacy. To give an example, one ailment that can often afflict the human eye (the lens to be precise) is cataracts. The lens, by either trauma, disease, or aging, becomes cloudy and opaque, preventing the person from seeing. A common way to cure that is to undergo surgery where they remove the lens completely, allowing light to go through. Unfortunately, the picture that the person then perceives will no longer be as clear and accurate as it would've been with a working lens, but having an eye without a lens is better than an eye that cannot see at all, which is all there needs to be for it to be naturally selected to work. There are animals that live this day with eyes in such a fashion, having no lens. They do not have the visual clarity that animals with lens enjoy, but it is better than them having no eyes at all.

Here are a couple of articles you can read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

Here is also a short video from PBS about the evolution of the eye.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Also, I should like to point out that not only does it seem that the eye evolved, it seems to have evolved multiple, and independent times in different lines of animals, with the example of the octopus and squid eye in comparison to vertebrates' eyes. I might also add that the octopus and squid have an eye construction that is superior to the one that we humans currently have to cope with.

I would also like to point to this post I made in the other thread.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6277230&postcount=815

I'll make the brief point that although biochemist Michael Behe (a rather poor scientist, in my opinion) tried to argue in the defense of intelligent design, admitted there is, essentially, no scientific evidence, and no research that lends any sort of credibility to intelligent design or creationism. Evolution and natural selection are the only hypotheses suggested that actually works with the evidence that science has found and continues to find.

 

[Deleted member]

Some of you boys need to learn the art of brevity. God**** :/

 

[Reaver197]

Some of you boys need to learn the art of brevity. God**** :/

Not from you, I hope.

If it's too much for you to read, then don't. But just don't make a post to complain about it, and nothing else. No one is forcing you to read the stuff.

 

[Eor]

LOL dude the KJV is ful of flaws, thats why they made a New KJV. Its just that a version(which means how i see the story), not a translation(which means straight from the original language to english). The KJV was various scribes writing what they thought the verses said.

Yes, that is so much different from every other Bible translation. The New KJV is the one that's considered incredibly flawed because they tried to update the KJV and wrote it in a style that's never been spoken before

your arguing semantics, and missing the entire point. You cannot say "if he meant homsexual he would have said the greek word for homosexual", because if he meant PEDERASTY he would have said the greek word for pederasty.

I wasn't arguing your point

it means he was calling to mind things they would be familiar with. And even if you substitute sex for bed, the thought of sexytime between men is still conveyed, since it says in the same way you lie with a woman. You can't misinterpret that to mean just sharing a bed.

You are acting like he said "man sex", which he did not. He combined two words to form a new word, if he wanted to say "man sex" he'd of said "Arsen koitai", not combined them. And you are wrong, I already mentioned multiple times how it can be misinterpreted and how the translation has changed throughout the years to mean whatever biblical teachers want it to mean

You just said you were mocking me and then you criticize my debate tactics. You sir are an idiot.

Reading comprehension! I pointed out how ridiculous your argument about burning children and Jesus was, and instead of dropping it you threw out a random personal attack to hide behind (you're doing it again!). You can call me an idiot all you want, you're still the one getting your moralities from a book that worships a genocidal and flawed God written over a thousand years ago.

Even if I don't take the creation story literally (which I do--if God can make someone walk on water, the sun stand still, the shadows move backward, and fire fall down from heaven on multiple occasions, I'm sure He can create a man and a woman at a specific point in time), the flood is still a very literal story in the Bible--whether or not you believe it. The thing is, if you're going to argue with Christians about what God does you need to argue about it from the Christian point of view. Meaning, you have to take the history that they say happened into account and create a flaw within it's own structure. If it supports itself on its own, then people who hold that mindset aren't easily dissuaded.

I'm aware, which is why I dropped the argument. I realized that my point was not valid if we're accepting the biblical story, which for that argument we were.

Firstly, when does America come into this? Israel is in the Middle-East.

I don't fail at geography, nor am I Mormon. I mentioned America because you said everyone had access to Christianity, and then used things like this forum post and traveling preachers and friendly christian friends, all of which are common to America and other areas with Christian heavy populations.

And there are times when they say that the disciples preached in Asia. You seem misinformed. I won't quote the passages here directly, not because I don't want to, but because there are too many. But I'll list the references to Asia in the Bible: Acts 2:9, Acts 6:9, Acts 16:6, Acts 19:10, Acts 19:22, Acts 19:26-27, Acts 20:4, Acts 20:16, Acts 20:18, Acts 21:27, Acts 24:19, Acts 27:2, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Corinthians 1:8, 2 Timothy 1:15, 1 Peter 1:1, and Revelation 1:4.

I'm not going to read every one of those right now, but when I said "asia" i meant eastern asia, aka China, Japan, and so forth. I do believe the Bible mentions as far as India and that's it (though I'm welcomed to be proven wrong)

As for their children, I did reference Romans 2 when it says that they have the requirements of the law written on their hearts, so that they are without excuse.

I don't what your quote is suppose to mean. Unless you're actually saying that everyone is born with belief in Jesus Christ?

L

ikewise, in Romans 9:18 it says that "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (NIV). So even if they did sin even though they have the law written on their hearts (which they would have for the Paul says that no one has not sinned except for Jesus) that they still have a chance.

Jesus sinned. He committed aggregated assault and wiped people out of a temple.

You might be curious about the hardening part of that Scripture and to that I'd just have to say that it is an integral part of Christian belief that we are people and that God is God and that He knows best and that we have no right to argue with Him. He is the author of Good, and anything apart from that is evil, therefore He cannot do evil as it would conflict with His own desires.

Which is silly, you should always challenge your own beliefs and not just accept it. If someone doesn't make sense to you, don't just bow down and gloss over it, challenge it.

I know there were other people's posts I didn't respond to. I just didn't have time. That's why if you're interested in the Christian opinion at all (as given by me or by whoever else helps out that knows Christianity at all, and hopefully is a Christian), the questions should be given one at a time. Otherwise you're just using this as a place to air your own thoughts and it leads to no one's education.

I asked first! We should still be focusing on my question and my response! I didn't respond to any of your evolution things because you based it off other people's arguments, but use mine!

 

[BFDD]

As to 'why' it's wrong the short answer is that it's unnatural.

I hate this argument.

It is natural:
1. Homosexuals are born as homosexuals. Ask someone who is gay what turned them gay. They will probably be offended that you assumed they were turned that way. There is even scientific evidence to support that they are born that way

2. There are animals in the wild that take part in homosexual behaviors. What possible event in the wild is unnatural that turned them gay.

Lets ignore that evidence for now and continue with the assumption that it is unnatural. Unnatural does not mean wrong.

1. Reading and writing is unnatural. Ever see animals read or write? That also means the bible is unnatural. That makes the bible wrong.

2. Using a computer is also unnatural. It is a completely manufactured object. By posting in this forum you are committing a sin.

3. Monogamy is unnatural. Humans are not a naturally monogamous species. As seen from the fact that dating, multiple sexual partners, divorce and adultery exists. If humans were naturally monogamous we would stick with our first partner for our entire lives.

So if you want to conclude that unnatural is bad, you should ditch your bible and live naked in the woods. You should also sleep around with anyone you find attractive. It is unnatural to not spread your genes to as many people as possible.

 

[Deleted member]

Not from you, I hope.

If it's too much for you to read, then don't. But just don't make a post to complain about it, and nothing else. No one is forcing you to read the stuff.

I wasn't actually singling out anyone in particular, but what you post is generally excessive. I'm just giving you some advice. Your points (while usually very redundant - you repeat previous points and produce evidence and examples already referenced) will be better received when they aren't encased in anecdotes and other walls of text.

 

[Reaver197]

I wasn't actually singling out anyone in particular, but what you post is generally excessive. I'm just giving you some advice. Your points (while usually very redundant - you repeat previous points and produce evidence and examples already referenced) will be better received when they aren't encased in anecdotes and other walls of text.

Ah, but what better way to point out the falsity of claims of a lack of or no evidence for, in this case, evolution than to repeatedly brandish and, in a sense, beat them over the head with evidence?

Anyway, I didn't really take your advice to apply simply to me, I was figuring it was more of a general statement, but it just isn't a very relevant or helpful one, particularly if only one person seems to care enough about the issue to post about it.

As for me, I'd rather be careful, thorough, and redundant than incorrect or pointless. However, I do try to make my points as expedient as possible, however little that actually comes across, lol. I shall try to make it more of a point though, to try a little harder about that, if it so affects how people read my posts.

I also don't think my reception currently isn't as contingent upon how I'm writing as opposed to what I'm writing about. But, that could just be me.

If I may, I hope I can give a tidbit of advice as well. Some of the things you say comes across as immature and, if I can say this, unprofessional in a sense. I'm one for approaching things with a light heart and looking for a good laugh, but I think a more tempered, judicious way of deciding what to say and how to say it might do you some good.

 

[Deleted member]

Hey, I'm always open to advice. Noted. I've grown senile and cranky in my ripe old age of 19.

I just want to emphasize that your posts are quite good. You just need an editor. (and as they say in the publishing business - every good writer has a good editor behind them)

 

[Reaver197]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It is quite easy for me to ramble on a bit when I start trying to talk about such expansive topics, lol. It would also help with school papers and the such. I guess that's part of the reason why I post here, to work on my presentation and writing manner.

Anyway, thank you for the kindly manner in which you received my criticism, it was probably a bit more barbed than it should've been, to be honest, but not many people are able to cope with it in such a way.

Now, I'll stop running this little side-show distraction that I started, lol.

 

[RDK]

No.... I just really don't have that much time on my hands. My faith is probably unshakable to anyone here, and I'm really not going to go an extra mile trying to understand Atheism when I know that it's wrong. It should be enough that I'm here and I'm making arguments that, at least to me, make sense.-.-

I'm not dropping my older argument, I'll get back to that when I have time I guess. Anyways, I have a question about evolution. Can someone explain to me when a species becomes another species and how? Because if a change in species occurs in one organism it wouldn't be able to reproduce. How does evolution change the species of an organism. This might be more of an "I'm confused" and an unanswerable question, but either way.

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. I'm not going to put time into trying to educate you about something when you just completely ignore any relevant posts we make anyway and say to our face that you're not going to let any of our arguments even potentially change your point of view. That's rude, and it's not how you debate.

 

[AltF4]

Evolution is not observed at all. You don't support anything in this statement.

This is entirely and completely false.

Arizona State (the university I attend) regularly holds demonstrations open to the public showing evolution empirically. You can literally observe it yourself. And it only takes a couple weeks worth of time. You can even do this yourself.

Just take some fruit flies of the same species, then separate them into different groups. Place each of these groups in different conditions (humidity, heat, cold, etc...) and watch them evolve. Just add water, simple as that.

When later compared, you will find that the different groups are now completely different species, having adapted (read: evolved) to meet their new surroundings. This evolution is an observation. It is a fact. Species evolve over time.

The only thing up for debate is how and why they evolve. Natural Selection is a theory which attempts to explain how this evolution takes place. There are no current scientific theories to challenge natural selection, however as it has gained the status of consensus.

 

[Zero Beat]

I've noticed a very sad thing which may be the cause of it all, it's just that I've been shy to point it out but this seems like the right thread to do so, since it's full of it.

Seems to me like the religious people in this thread reject things/or belittle them simply because they don't understand them(the word theory, and the Theory of Evolution). If you're posting in the debate hall, it is expected of you to want to learn and comprehend these popular concepts.

So my question is, why won't you educate yourselves if your faith is unshakable?

Species evolve over time.

Thank you, that is key in evolution. Time.

 

[marthanoob]

I hate this argument.

It is natural:
1. Homosexuals are born as homosexuals. Ask someone who is gay what turned them gay. They will probably be offended that you assumed they were turned that way. There is even scientific evidence to support that they are born that way

2. There are animals in the wild that take part in homosexual behaviors. What possible event in the wild is unnatural that turned them gay.

Lets ignore that evidence for now and continue with the assumption that it is unnatural. Unnatural does not mean wrong.

1. Reading and writing is unnatural. Ever see animals read or write? That also means the bible is unnatural. That makes the bible wrong.

2. Using a computer is also unnatural. It is a completely manufactured object. By posting in this forum you are committing a sin.

3. Monogamy is unnatural. Humans are not a naturally monogamous species. As seen from the fact that dating, multiple sexual partners, divorce and adultery exists. If humans were naturally monogamous we would stick with our first partner for our entire lives.

So if you want to conclude that unnatural is bad, you should ditch your bible and live naked in the woods. You should also sleep around with anyone you find attractive. It is unnatural to not spread your genes to as many people as possible.

Point well taken.
Except I would disagree that "something being unnatural, therefore wrong" is an argument at all.
I would call it a narrow-minded excuse to criminalize something solely because it's unconventional.

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. I'm not going to put time into trying to educate you about something when you just completely ignore any relevant posts we make anyway and say to our face that you're not going to let any of our arguments even potentially change your point of view. That's rude, and it's not how you debate.

You mean educate people for the 10th time about something people should learn in 10th grade biology class.
Debate? I'm struggling to classify it as communication.

 

[Dash_Fox]

This is entirely and completely false.

Arizona State (the university I attend) regularly holds demonstrations open to the public showing evolution empirically. You can literally observe it yourself. And it only takes a couple weeks worth of time. You can even do this yourself.

Just take some fruit flies of the same species, then separate them into different groups. Place each of these groups in different conditions (humidity, heat, cold, etc...) and watch them evolve. Just add water, simple as that.

When later compared, you will find that the different groups are now completely different species, having adapted (read: evolved) to meet their new surroundings. This evolution is an observation. It is a fact. Species evolve over time.

The only thing up for debate is how and why they evolve. Natural Selection is a theory which attempts to explain how this evolution takes place. There are no current scientific theories to challenge natural selection, however as it has gained the status of consensus.

Oh wow, I like this debate hall I'm learning stuff I didn't know. I didn't know about the fly test, that's both cool and interesting. This is why people shouldn't hold on to middle age myths like the earth is flat and the bible stories. Dark elves and Moses come from the same place, imagination. Killing over which god is the right god (Christians, Jews, Muslims) is like killing over which Star Trek captain is the best one (Picard, Kirk, Janeway).

 

[arrowhead]

Does anyone see what I mean about people not wanting to accept Christianity now? Even if I gave everyone here undeniable proof for Christianity, chances are over half of you would reject it.

this is surprising, coming from someone who rejects evolution

Now, Arrowhead, I never said Christianity was completely wrong. So you must be blatantly trying to offend me by saying it is. Honestly, if you're trying to be a real debater, this is not the way to go about it.

christianity as described in the bible is contradictory. by definition, something contradictory cannot be correct.

Did you even read what I said?

yeah, you described what was stated by christianity as fact, and then described another valid interpretation that you admitted that you didn't believe in. what part of that is objective evidence?

That looks like someone forming a hypothesis. I skimmed it but it just seemed like an idea. You can't disprove my idea with another idea. It's just an idea without evidence.

no, actually if you consider the context, it was to show you that your claim that "something cannot come from nothing" isn't necessarily true.

 

[RDK]

Killing over which god is the right god (Christians, Jews, Muslims) is like killing over which Star Trek captain is the best one (Picard, Kirk, Janeway).

It's Picard, BTW.

TNG FTW.

 

[Ryusuta]

No you didn't follow the point to the letter.

Christianity=following the BIBLE and only that. If the church at any point starts saying something is sin that was not noted in the Bible or approves of something condemned in the Bible, then the church is wrong. That is why I have an issue with most churches today because many of them are not following God's word at all.

First of all, no. That's not what Christianity is. Sorry to break it to you.

More importantly, though, The Bible can at best be used as a vague outline for morality. As has been demonstrated countless times in this topic alone, you can pretty much twist the words of The Bible to make it say whatever you'd like it to say. Even if The Bible is the word of God, putting it into any human language will always allow it to be misinterpreted. And this being the case, there is no sense in using it as the be-all, end-all for morality, because there is no positive way to determine which interpretation is the correct one. Why do you think there are so many sects of the Christian faith?

Christendom is just picking and choosing what you like, basically what many churches have done today.

Which ones?

Now you see why I'm frustrated when you guys recycle cliches. It's the same concept, really.

It's not even CLOSE to the same concept. To even suggest that a theory is the same as a hypothesis is - no offense - a fairly ignorant standpoint to argue from.

But I wasn't saying that it is some loosely held hypothesis. I was saying it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven.

It's a theory because it can't be tested in a laboratory environment, NOT because it can't be proven. Theories are supported by ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, AND AREN'T CONTRADICTED BY ANY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Didn't I just go over this?

Which brings me to my next point...

Likewise, I would suggest that it is not supported by all the available evidence. From what I've looked into evolution, it is highly impractical for things to have evolved the way they did.

This isn't evidence. This is an unsubstantiated opinion.

Think about it this way: It is a commonly accepted fact that the universe tends toward chaos, right? So why would random mutations lead to something so ordered?

Since when were the mutations random? Evolution is the long-term representation of heredity and adaptation. There's nothing random about it.

As is stated in someone else's post later, the mutations it would have taken for things to evolve would have inhibited the creature before they became useful and would not have survived 'natural selection'.

Yeah, that would be funny if evolution was some thing that magically happened during the course of a creature's life.

I'd also like you to take a look at the book Mathematical Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, which is an old book that was basically a recording of several scientists and mathematicians who sat down together and said: "Okay, what's the real probability of evolution happening like this?" Upon the final result many people flipped out and refused to believe it was that improbable. If you try looking for the book, it'll be hard. It's out of print now. I wonder why.

*Sigh* You've got to be kidding me. You actually think something like that is part of some atheist conspiracy or something? Please tell me a misunderstood you, there.

And at any rate the "improbability" argument has been raked through the coals, beaten to death, hung out to dry and then urinated on already, so there's really no need to go into that part any further.

Secondly, if this is truly the best way to go about things, then you must clearly be a monstrous hypocrite. If the way things work should be to continually look at other frames of mind and try to prove yours wrong and if, at the end of the day, you find yours to stand up much better against others, then you should have a solid way of looking at the world. As it is you came rampaging into this topic trying to prove everyone wrong and have not even tried to understand at all.

Umm... wait, what?

First of all, you haven't proven ANYTHING. You haven't even raised a reasonable doubt. To be honest, until you posted this part, I wasn't aware that you were TRYING to prove something.

To start with, let's assume that you somehow demonstrate that evolution doesn't exist. No problem at all. It still doesn't do anything to show that creationism does. So, why not give me something to go on to give me some reason to believe that creationism makes ANY sense whatsoever, when evolution does not?

Because you see, that's the difference, here. LotM flat-out said he wouldn't listen to anyone else's arguments. I WANT to hear what you have to say. I have nothing whatsoever to lose by expanding my knowledge and understanding different points of view. I don't have a "faith" that needs "defending." If atheism is incorrect, show me why I should believe in your specific alternative! Be my guest! If you can show me God exists, then by all means do it! I would gladly concede my point of view without a moment of hesitation. The burden of proof is on your hands, as you should well know by now. Prove to me that Christian teachings are correct. I'm listening, you have my full attention, so do it.

You may say that I do the same thing, but this is not true.

I have made no such claim.

Also, the fact of the matter is that people don't want to believe in Christianity.

What makes you say that? I don't believe in Christianity because it's self-contradictory and sounds like a child's pipe dream. It's the same reason I don't buy into other religions.

People have been looking to disprove it for years and have always been trying to rebel against it. Take for instance half of the threads in the Debate Hall. Even if Christianity is mentioned in a bad light people feel like they need to jump on the bandwagon and bash it. Does it really bother you that much? Then maybe--just maybe--there's a reason for that.

Wait... who's getting bothered by what, now? You still don't seem to understand that I'm not threatened by your faith. At all.

Likewise, anyone who in the scientific world who tries to even suggest intelligent design is immediately ostracized. Ever seen the movie 'No Intelligence Allowed'? It's quite the eye-opener. The fact is that scientists have not been following to where the evidence leads in the case of evolution. When the idea of God is suggested, that person is immediately no longer 'scientifically-minded', even if the evidence leads in that direction.

So if they would really be so warm and opening to the idea of God, why is it that many scientists who even suggested intelligent design were rejected as a whole by their peers even at the mention of it?

Because "God did it" is NOT scientific explanation, for crying out loud. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't advance knowledge for ANYTHING.

But let's say that "God did it" for a moment. Now that we've got that out of the way, tell me HOW God did it. If God created the universe, he created the universe in a specific way. Explain that way for me.

Perhaps evolution is a mechanism that God instilled into his creations, have you considered that? Perhaps man was made in God's image because he's able to improve and adapt to new things as the world changes around him. The "perfect" form of man eons ago is very likely not that same "perfect" form now.

Food for thought, bro.

This has to stop. This is the second time you try to pass off the fact that you're directly disobeying the rules by noting the fact that you are.

I'm saying that your rules are arbitrary, and I have no reason to follow them.

Stop violating the rules because once you do so, everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and we get an extra 4 pages that I haven't read but am supposed to respond to. You seriously detracted from intelligent discussion by letting this whole thread run wild.

Listen. What you want is NOT an intelligent discussion. You want a discussion you can control, which isn't the same thing. That might not be so bad in and of itself, but don't try to pass it off as something that it isn't. No one is forcing you to acknowledge any of our points, clearly. But we still have every right to make them, whether you agree or not.

All too often I see people that confuse "disagreement" with "disrespect." If I didn't respect your right to make your points, I would not be responding to you.

 

[Deleted member]

It's Picard, BTW.

TNG FTW.

*smacks you*

 

[Ryusuta]

No, he's right. It's totally Picard.

 

[pockyD]

is it time to kill this thread yet? nothing here that isn't just rehashing the content of the other 300 threads on the issue

 

[Dash_Fox]

Hey if religious zealots want to debate we'll give them cold hard evidence that debunks their fairy tales and horrible opinions.

Kirk is the best, I'll kill you if you disagree to prove that I am right! Once everyone who disagrees with me is gone, then it WILL be right.

 

[RDK]

Hey if religious zealots want to debate we'll give them cold hard evidence that debunks their fairy tales and horrible opinions.

Kirk is the best, I'll kill you if you disagree to prove that I am right! Once everyone who disagrees with me is gone, then it WILL be right.

I'm moving to a different country to escape your religious persecution, and hopefully force whatever people already live there into my belief system.

Who's with me?

 

[Ryusuta]

That's right! Us Picardians should be free to practice our beliefs without your constant persecution!

 

[-Mars-]

I'm a Christian and agree that there are some common misconceptions around this forum that need addressing.......but I also agree that the original poster is not capable of addressing these matters and not fit to attempt to run such a thread.

 

[lonejedi]

This thread is getting locked, Proverbs, if you want to answer these questions in one of thousands of christian threads. Sorry, I really wanted to see this actually come of some use, but it's just turned into another thread just like the others, and we don't need 5 of these.