For all the people that claim that homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the bible you should check this out.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.

That is the quote from the leviticus that says homosexuality is bad.

Here is just one of the many ridiculous quotes from the leviticus.

"A woman who has a flow of blood in her body shall be a "niddah" for seven days, and all who touch her shall be ritually impure until sundown."

I don't understand how people can take things on gay marriage and the bible so seriously, yet other things just completly ignore.

I am not gay....lol

[This message has been edited by jacobjc73 (edited 03-30-2006).]

Because it's easier to hate someone if you can justify it as correct or just.

One of the books often quoted against homosexuality is Leviticus, in it it also condemns such things as eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabric clothes.

Leviticus is a book of laws written to jews, and it doesn't apply to gentiles. (thats how we 'pick and choose') look at the context

Yep.

Maybe christians shouldn't quote from it when attacking homosexuality since it doesn't apply.

No we shouldn't, and your steriotyping http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I personally do not have a problem with homosexuality, or homosexual marriage.

Its pretty simple - we are all human.

In truth, people should stop using a book, or set of texts which started out being handed down mainly by word of mouth... Ever hear of the game Chinese Whispers?

It isnt exactly - erm - reliable, now - is it?

Plus as far as I can see - the christian faith is almost as contradictory as that of the chaote - and chaotes often pride themselves on their contradiction!

EDIT:

quote:I am not gay....lol

Yeah but I'm bi.

[This message has been edited by sikkoabbadon (edited 03-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yep.

Maybe christians shouldn't quote from it when attacking homosexuality since it doesn't apply.

So it would mean that you can just pick and choose whatever suits you best? That's so hypocritic.

I pick there is no God and I get to buy your daughter if I rape her. Sweet...

quote:Originally posted by sikkoabbadon:

I personally do not have a problem with homosexuality, or homosexual marriage.

Its pretty simple - we are all human.

In truth, people should stop using a book, or set of texts which started out being handed down mainly by word of mouth... Ever hear of the game Chinese Whispers?

It isnt exactly - erm - reliable, now - is it?

Plus as far as I can see - the christian faith is almost as contradictory as that of the chaote - and chaotes often pride themselves on their contradiction!

EDIT:

I am not gay....lol

Yeah but I'm bi.



Chinese whispers affects the message when you have 20 or so people participating.

However you cant tell me that the texts have any significant error when translated from the original texts writen by the disciples. That gives very little room for error.

It amazes me that people like you eem to believe that the Bible has been copied down millions of times over the course of a few thousand years when that is not the case at all.

You just said yourself that Chinese Whispers contains around 20 people, but yet you then say that everyone acts as if it has been translated millions of times. Even if 5 people are in the game, the original message loses some of its meaning. The original message doesn't just magically get distorted when it reaches the last person relative to how many people were in the group, the change is gradual. So even if it was translated only 3 or 4 times, there is room for error to be made. And I think most of as have seen how broad or general translations can be.

[This message has been edited by Hematemesis (edited 03-30-2006).]

Whispering in someones ear is very different than copying a text.



but getting back to the original topic... There is enough against homosexuality in the new testament to not even have to mention the old. And it is by the new covenant that the Christian live. I don't personally know any christians who hate homosexuals. Most christians just dislike the practice of homosexuality because it undermines the natural order by which we were created.

In the Chinese Whispers game, they're all whispering to one another in the same language.

I agree, I dislike anything that contradicts the natural order of incest laid down by God. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I would say it's stronger than dislike for many christians.

For example, I dislike baseball, thus I don' watch it or play it. What would you call it if I actively tried to get national baseball banned and picketed the houses of baseball players?

MOst of the Bible is myth or metaphor, but a few of the ideas there DO make sense--that is, if you happen to be living in a primitive tribal nomadic society.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

Whispering in someones ear is very different than copying a text.



but getting back to the original topic... There is enough against homosexuality in the new testament to not even have to mention the old. And it is by the new covenant that the Christian live. I don't personally know any christians who hate homosexuals. Most christians just dislike the practice of homosexuality because it undermines the natural order by which we were created.

Didn't god whisper into their ears though?

quote:Originally posted by jacobjc73:



"A woman who has a flow of blood in her body shall be a "niggah" for seven days, and all who touch her shall be ritually impure until sundown."



Now its funny http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:



but getting back to the original topic... There is enough against homosexuality in the new testament to not even have to mention the old. And it is by the new covenant that the Christian live. I don't personally know any christians who hate homosexuals. Most christians just dislike the practice of homosexuality because it undermines the natural order by which we were created.

I'm not very well versed in the new testament so i dont know much about that. The reason I posted this is because i saw a guy with a sign protesting gay marriage and on that sign it had the quote from the leviticus. It seemed stupid to choose something against gays that comes from a section in the bible that is so ridiculous.

i don't think you understand the context. The verse about homosexuality being a sin. Yes, it's true. It is a sin.

The one about the woman's blood thingy, it's no longer relavent. The Bible was written 2000-5000 years ago. They had different laws back then.

They made that rule because they thought, when blood flowed out of someone, their spirit was leaving. so they figured, after the bleeding stopped, wait seven days to make contact with this person so their spirit can grow back up inside them.

They were scared that if they came in contact with a person with lesser of a spirit, they'd be affected and it'd hurt their spiritual journey with God.

Now, of course, we know that blood is not your spirit. It's just body fluids. So we know that you can touch whoever you want whether they've lost blood or not.

So when you read the Old Testament, you need to realize that the people who wrote it, didn't know much about the world.

Honestly, you'd be better off sticking to reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Bible is too much for a young christian (assuming you're young) to handle. Those books i mentioned should be more then enough to keep you busy and have plenty of homosexual references in them.

quote:Originally posted by Hematemesis:

You just said yourself that Chinese Whispers contains around 20 people, but yet you then say that everyone acts as if it has been translated millions of times. Even if 5 people are in the game, the original message loses some of its meaning. The original message doesn't just magically get distorted when it reaches the last person relative to how many people were in the group, the change is gradual. So even if it was translated only 3 or 4 times, there is room for error to be made. And I think most of as have seen how broad or general translations can be.



No. If you play with people who make a concerted effort to not lose the meaning, you dont.

It isnt the Chinese whispers game. You have a piece of paper in front of you containing the actual message and you have another which you put down that message into another language.

My pastor has translated most of the NT from the Textus Receptus in his college years and he notes that the KJV and his translation are pretty much the exact same (minus of course the italicized words and most likely differences in dictionaries used). So I really dont see what all the fuss about "lost in translation" is all about when none of you have even looked at the original and compared to what we have today.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

i don't think you understand the context. The verse about menstrating being a sin. Yes, it's true. It is a sin.

The one about the homosexuality, it's no longer relavent. The Bible was written 2000-5000 years ago. They had different laws back then.

They made that rule because they thought, when men have ass-sex, their spirit was leaving. so they figured, after the bleeding stopped, wait seven days to make contact with this person so their spirit can grow back up inside them.

They were scared that if they came in contact with a person with lesser of a spirit, they'd be affected and it'd hurt their spiritual journey with God.

Now, of course, we know that blood is not your spirit. It's just body fluids. So we know that you can touch whoever you want.

So when you read the Old Testament, you need to realize that the people who wrote it, didn't know much about the world.

Honestly, you'd be better off sticking to reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Bible is too much for a young christian (assuming you're young) to handle. Those books i mentioned should be more then enough to keep you busy and have plenty of homosexual references in them.

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:

Didn't god whisper into their ears though?





Absolutely not. If he did, the bible would not have so many contradictions, disgusting barbaric acts carried out and sanctioned by god, irrational moral laws, and stories whose real morals are terrible (don't eat from the tree of knowledge; in other words, be a mindless unquestioning sheep- and boy have some took that to heart).

The men claimed they were 'divinely inspired.' Of course, from then on many leaders of horrible atrocities claimed to be divinely inspired, so there is no reason to believe they are special, especially in light of the whole, you know, completely disproven by science thing, and the immoral bigoted laws, etc etc.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



My pastor has translated most of the NT from the Textus Receptus in his college years and he notes that the KJV and his translation are pretty much the exact same (minus of course the italicized words and most likely differences in dictionaries used). So I really dont see what all the fuss about "lost in translation" is all about when none of you have even looked at the original and compared to what we have today.

The Textus Receptus isn't the oldest manuscript we have of the bible; moreover, the King James bible was deliberatly based on the Textus Receptus. So that we don't see many errors between the two is not surprising at all.

The fact is that if we base ourselves with the oldest manuscripts known as of now, we do see differences. Words and even complete stories/parables are different.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Chinese whispers affects the message when you have 20 or so people participating.

However you cant tell me that the texts have any significant error when translated from the original texts writen by the disciples. That gives very little room for error.

It amazes me that people like you eem to believe that the Bible has been copied down millions of times over the course of a few thousand years when that is not the case at all.

Wrong, Argon. There exists no known copy of a work written by a disciple of jesus. The earliest physical copy we have is from the 170's AD. Thats a good seven generations later. And thats just one of the Gospels. The second earliest is from the third century, and the other two are from the fourth.

So slickt0mmy, you admit that the Bible is not infallable? That it contains the ignorant myths and beliefs of a barbarian nomad tribe?

Thats the first step to recovery.

they weren't barbarians, they were guys who did what God told them to do. therefore, God chose that they were the right ones to write some parts of the Bible.

Have you ever read the Bible? Most of it were deffinatly NOT written by nomads. Take Matthew, for example. He wrote a book in the Bible and he was a tax collector. Back then, a tax collector was the most coveted job in town! They were the richest people because they stole money from everyone else.

He ended up writing a book called Matthew (imagine that) because Jesus saw him, told him to leave everything he had and follow him. Matthew knew that something about this man was different. He left all of his money, family, and friends to follow Jesus. He ended up being one of Jesus' closest friends and a good Christian.

And don't forget the 24,000 other manusripts that prove that the Bible is real. There have been recovered writings from back when Jesus was on earth that talk about his existance. They have nothing to do with the Bible and half of the authors that wrote these manuscripts weren't Christians! How do you explain that?

For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were found in a cave in the Dead Sea by a shepard boy. They are exact replicas of the Bible dating back a few thousand years. How could we have made up the Bible when there is an exact copy that was written back when Jesus was here? We couldn't have just made all that up.

Have you noticed that Jesus is the only leader of a religion that suffered and died for it? Take Buddha.(spelling) That fake just sat around getting fat! What commitment he had, huh?

I'm telling you, if you do the research you'll find that Christianity is the ONLY religion that makes ANY sense. The only contradictions in the Bible are spelling errors. BIG DEAL!

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:



I'm telling you, if you do the research you'll find that Christianity is the ONLY religion that makes ANY sense. The only contradictions in the Bible are spelling errors. BIG DEAL!

Really? Then it should be extremly easy for you to answer the questions/problems raised here:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005209.html

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056.html

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005167.html

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004918.html

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005210.html

Go right ahead.

Tommy, you're a fucking child. You truly know jack fucking shit about your religion or the world.

quote:they weren't barbarians, they were guys who did what God told them to do. therefore, God chose that they were the right ones to write some parts of the Bible.

Have you ever read the Bible? Most of it were deffinatly NOT written by nomads. Take Matthew, for example. He wrote a book in the Bible and he was a tax collector. Back then, a tax collector was the most coveted job in town! They were the richest people because they stole money from everyone else.

You're right. During the New Testament, the people involved were Romans. In the Old testament (You know, the part we were talking about when i made that comment), the Isrealites were a nomadic barbarian tribe that attacked and slaughtered every city they came across (men, women, children, pregnant women. Everyone except the virgin girls, who the kept as sex slaves.).

Maybe you should actually read the damn book, and go learn something about pre-modern societies before you you yap on about tax collectors like you know a damn thing beyond what your "hip" youth pastor dumbed down for your dumbass idiot self.

quote:And don't forget the 24,000 other manusripts that prove that the Bible is real. There have been recovered writings from back when Jesus was on earth that talk about his existance. They have nothing to do with the Bible and half of the authors that wrote these manuscripts weren't Christians! How do you explain that?

For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were found in a cave in the Dead Sea by a shepard boy. They are exact replicas of the Bible dating back a few thousand years. How could we have made up the Bible when there is an exact copy that was written back when Jesus was here? We couldn't have just made all that up.

There are no 24,000 manuscripts. That's simply a lie. Jesus was never mentioned by a respected contemporary historian, even though there were several. There's actually just as much historical evidence for the existance of Heracles as there is for Jesus.

As for the dead Sea Scrolls, I've actually read several of them. Did you know that in those and other manuscripts Jesus explains that reincarnation is real, and that before him, no one had ever gone to heaven? I wonder why they were purposely left out of the Bible when a group of bishops gathered three centuries after Jesus does to choose a fraction of the "holy books" to make official?

And as I mentioned before, there is no copy of a book from the actual bible that is contemporeanous with Jesus. The earliest is from 170AD. The next from the third century, and the other two Gospels are from the 4th century.

quote:Have you noticed that Jesus is the only leader of a religion that suffered and died for it? Take Buddha.(spelling) That fake just sat around getting fat! What commitment he had, huh?

Osiris. Mithra. Krisna. There is nothing original about the Jesus myth. Those three religions did the whole thing first.

And the Buddha wasn't fat. He went from wealthy prince, to hardcore ascetic, to a path of moderation. He is depicted as fat in the hopes he will bless a home with prosperity.



Fucktard.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

Take Buddha.(spelling) That fake just sat around getting fat! What commitment he had, huh?

WHOA WHOA WHOA, Where in the fuck did you get your information from? You need to get your facts straight son. Don't come on these boards trying to defend a religion by bashing another with falsified claims.

Here you little fucking twit, Read up and learn something for once.

"The word 'Buddha' means 'enlightened one' or 'awakened one'. The person who became a Buddha was Siddhattha Gotama who was born in what was then a part of Northern India (present -day Nepal) in or around the sixth century BCE. The traditional story describes him as a prince who became discontented with his life of pleasure when he began to realize that it would pass and that life was subject to old age, sickness and death. Consequently, he left his home and family and spent six years searching for enlightenment. To achieve this, he starved his body and undertook other activities hoping that he would find an ultimate answer to the mysteries of life. At the end of these six years, he realized that the methods he was using were not working. So, he went back to eating properly again, thinking that it was important that he looked after his body enough to maintain health and vigor. And then, one day, he sat under a tree and began to meditate, determined to win enlightenment or die. Before he arose once again from that spot, Gotama Siddhattha had become an enlightened being - a Buddha."

Pulled from, http://buddhism.about.com/library/blbud101b.htm



Need I say anymore?

[This message has been edited by Apoxyus (edited 04-05-2006).]

I didn't read anything that's posted above, but I agree with you (topic starter), even though I am kind of a Christian. Bible = written by Man.

ok, I apologize about bashing Bhuddism. I did not have my facts straight.

But where do you get your facts? Isrealites were SLAVES! The egyptians captured everyone of them and made them their slaves. READ THE BIBLE!

"ne respected historian has ever mentioned Jesus"? What about Homer? You know, the guy who wrote the Illiad? Maybe if you paid attension more in history, you'd know that he talked about a man that traveled the land doing miracles and had followers from all around.

You've read the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ok, that means you read an exact copy of the Bible in HEBREW! I doubt you know how to read Hebrew. Even if you got a translated version, it's probably not the real thing, switched around by an idiot like you, to make people skeptical about Christ.

Osiris is a greek god, genius. He's not real!

Well, you've just showed your true colors: You're a troll; and what's worse, you suck at it. Change your name and try harder next time.

Double-Standards: Can you give me the book that dates back to the time the Earth was created that has to do with fairies and unicorns? i don't think so. YOU know they're not real so why are you even arguing this? If they WERE real, we'd have proof that they were. You're saying that throughout the years the Earth has been around, there are unicorns running around out there yet no one has EVER seen one? hmmm.....that seems odd. or how about all of the books that were written in Renniasanse (spelling) that talk about the bed time stories that moms used to tell their kids about magical ponies in a far-away land that have a frickin horn on their head!? those mothers made up those stories about those things to put kids to sleep.

evolution: evolution is a stupid believe by Charles Darwin where people are supposed to believe that a single celled organism (that nobody knows how it got here) started evolving into a better organism and eventually formed the earth and everything in it. BULLCRAP!

first of all, if that were true, why have things stayed the same for the thousands of years we've been here? why aren't there any more organisms evolving to make a giraffe with eight heads and an udder? Why has this suddenly stopped?

and second, why are there animals out there that prove evolution totally wrong by themselves!? take birds. all the same. maybe different species, sizes, and color, but they're basically the same make-up. But what about the bird (can't think of the name right now) that has it's tongue going up through the back of it's throat, through it's skull, through the roof of it's mouth, and out? Why is that ONE species of bird different from all the others? why is it the ONLY one that it's tongue does that? don't you think that the cells evolving would make more then one species like that, considering every other one is basically the same? look up "animals disproving evolution" they have a DVD that disproves evolution just using animals.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

Double-Standards: Can you give me the book that dates back to the time the Earth was created that has to do with fairies and unicorns? i don't think so. YOU know they're not real so why are you even arguing this? If they WERE real, we'd have proof that they were. You're saying that throughout the years the Earth has been around, there are unicorns running around out there yet no one has EVER seen one? hmmm.....that seems odd. or how about all of the books that were written in Renniasanse (spelling) that talk about the bed time stories that moms used to tell their kids about magical ponies in a far-away land that have a frickin horn on their head!? those mothers made up those stories about those things to put kids to sleep.

Learn to read before you open your stupefying mouth.

The point of the thread was that unicorns don't exist, or a the very least that the absolute majority of people do not believe in them. The small minority which does believe in unicorns are seen as delusional; yet Christians who believe in something just as unsubstantiated and incredible, are not seen as delusional, hence the double standard.

So the point was not to show that unicorns exist, but that we should judge theistic beliefs as we judge unicorns: we hold those beliefs as delusional and unsubstantiated until proven otherwise.

well, seeing that number 3 actually PROVES the Bible, i'll let that one go.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

evolution: evolution is a stupid believe by Charles Darwin where people are supposed to believe that a single celled organism (that nobody knows how it got here) started evolving into a better organism and eventually formed the earth and everything in it. BULLCRAP!

first of all, if that were true, why have things stayed the same for the thousands of years we've been here? why aren't there any more organisms evolving to make a giraffe with eight heads and an udder? Why has this suddenly stopped?



1. Evolution is a long process. It does not take thousands of years. It takes millions of years to see any effects noticible with the naked eye. Your objection is simply idiotic.

2. We have seen the creation of new species:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

3. Evolution hasn't stopped.



quote:

and second, why are there animals out there that prove evolution totally wrong by themselves!? take birds. all the same. maybe different species, sizes, and color, but they're basically the same make-up. But what about the bird (can't think of the name right now) that has it's tongue going up through the back of it's throat, through it's skull, through the roof of it's mouth, and out? Why is that ONE species of bird different from all the others? why is it the ONLY one that it's tongue does that? don't you think that the cells evolving would make more then one species like that, considering every other one is basically the same? look up "animals disproving evolution" they have a DVD that disproves evolution just using animals.

More ignorant bullshit.

" The genetic changes necessary for such a modification are quite minor. No new structures are required, merely an extended period of growth to lengthen an existing structure. It is likely that in ancestral woodpecker species which began to seek grubs deeper in trees, those woodpeckers with mutations for increased hyoid horn growth had a fitness advantage, as they could extend their tongue farther to reach prey. Some woodpeckers have no need for long tongues, and thus genes which shortened the hyoid horns were selected for. The sapsucker,(2) for example, drills tiny holes in trees and then uses its short tongue to eat the oozing sap on the tree's surface (and insects which stick to it).

Many other interesting adaptations are seen in different species of woodpeckers. Some species, for example, have modified joints between certain bones in the skull and upper jaw, as well as muscles which contract to absorb the shock of the hammering. Strong neck and tail-feather muscles, and a chisel-like bill are other hammering adaptations which are seen in some species. The same creationist sources which present inaccurate information about the tongue often claim that the sheer number of adaptations found in woodpeckers provide an argument against evolution. They state that all of these adaptations would have to have came about "at the same time," or they would all have been useless. Of course, such an argument ignores the fact that many species of woodpeckers alive today lack these adaptations, or possess them in a reduced form. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2006).]

number 4: First of all, Noah's flood did NOT carve the Grand Canyon. Wherever they found that was wrong.

and second, yes he took one of each species of animal. He did not take plants because God didn't destroy them!

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Did it mention in there ONCE that he destroyed the plants? No. Even if he DID, they'd grow back! Most of them don't need seeds. Look at wild flowers, how'd they get there? No body went out and planted them. They just grew.

God not showing himself: He hasn't showed himself because

A: He's letting us decide whether or not he wants to believe in him. He's not going to try and persuade us.

B: He said in the bible the next time he returns, he will take all Christians with him up to heaven.

C: And yes, it IS like that SIMS analogy. The Bible says that 1 million years is like 1 second to him.

well, there ya go. I'm not going to answer anymore "attacks" on Christianity because frankly, I'm not qualified to answer anything you ask. I'm just telling you what I've learned. So if you have more questions, I'd suggest going to a church on a weekday and ask the pastor. I doubt the people on Totse are qualified either. Although it IS nice to see what they think about things.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

well, seeing that number 3 actually PROVES the Bible, i'll let that one go.

That link doesn't prove the bible at all. Please read the whole thread, and not the first post.

Either the bible has described the value of pi incorrectly, given the dimensions of the circle incorrectly, or - if its describing a non-circle- done pathetic and atrocious job in doing so. Which one is it?

quote:

number 4: First of all, Noah's flood did NOT carve the Grand Canyon. Wherever they found that was wrong.

and second, yes he took one of each species of animal. He did not take plants because God didn't destroy them!

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Did it mention in there ONCE that he destroyed the plants? No. Even if he DID, they'd grow back! Most of them don't need seeds. Look at wild flowers, how'd they get there? No body went out and planted them. They just grew.

You're picking and choosing arguements to "refute" and are deliberately ignoring everything else.

1. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a world flood happened.

2. Carrying two of each species of animals (male and female) would be impossible in the the boat he created. There are hundreds of thoudand of species, and many more that haven't been discovered yet. Some that require specific temperatures and specific diets that would be impossible to replicate.

3. The current "explanation" according to creationists is that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood. If you don't believe it, then welcome to the club.

quote:God not showing himself: He hasn't showed himself because

A: He's letting us decide whether or not he wants to believe in him. He's not going to try and persuade us.

B: He said in the bible the next time he returns, he will take all Christians with him up to heaven.

C: And yes, it IS like that SIMS analogy. The Bible says that 1 million years is like 1 second to him.

a. Great. Then to blame us when we don't believe in him based on reason, and a lack of any evidence for his existence, is disgusting.

b. That doesn't answer why he hasn't shown himself.

c. It's nothing like the sim analogy. He has the power to see time pass at whatever rate he wishes.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2006).]

Wow, damn you area ranting dumbass son-of-a-bitch...

I'd argue with you, but I don't even feel you are worth my time.

To help tommy out a little bit, God does reveal himself, but not in a physical "Hi, I'm God, nice to meet you...I made you 17 years ago, just wanting to check up on ya." type of way. If God were to appear on Earth right now, he would undoubtedly kind of ruin the whole "I'm giving you free will to decide whether you want to be a Christian or not" because...if God appeared and started performing insane miracles and doing crazy things, either A.) Naysayers would claim him to be a heretic/warlock and would just say that it's simple magic, even though they couldn't refute it, or B.) Everyone would be awestruck and would fall to their knees, praising him. And since he's God, I'm sure he wouldn't let the nay-sayers say anything and he'd just make people fall to their knees. He's a jealous God and he's a God that wants praise. It even says it in the Bible. Why else would he say "That shalt have no other gods before me."? He would take away the free-will by revealing himself.

Or at least that's what I believe.

Nothing you said removes free-will save for him actively deciding to remove free will.

He's omnipotent. He has the power to choose not to be a jealous god. He has the power to reveal himself without removing free will. He even has the power to force us to believe in him while still preserving free will - however illogical that may sound.

Sorry, but what you said doesn't answer anything.

What I'm stating is that...if you were to see God...like...actually view him with your eyes, there's no way you can say you'd just stand there and be like "Are you supposed to be some sort of deity? I don't care." The awesomeness of God himself, would make you want to fall to your knees and proclaim that he is amazing.

Which is not a removal of free-will in the least. Even then, he still must have the power to present himself without having his presence inspire me in such manner. He's omnipotent.

Again, that doesn't answer anything.

I'll refute this shit for the sake of completeness. But make no mistake tommy. Everything you've said has been utter shit.

quote:But where do you get your facts? Isrealites were SLAVES! The egyptians captured everyone of them and made them their slaves. READ THE BIBLE!

Yup. And then they wandered, committing attrocity after attrocity. All in the Bible.

quote:What about Homer? You know, the guy who wrote the Illiad? Maybe if you paid attension more in history, you'd know that he talked about a man that traveled the land doing miracles and had followers from all around.

I've read the Illiad. And the Oddessy. And (gasp) it was outside of school. But I'm afraid Homer lived about 800 years before Jesus. I was referring to Tacitus and Josephus.

quote:You've read the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ok, that means you read an exact copy of the Bible in HEBREW!

I do have a copy of the Bible in Hebrew (or, rather, my sister does. My gift to her last Christmas.) But the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't in the Bible, tool. Also, it's the Torah that was in Hebrew. The ealiest New Testament would have been in either Greek or Aramaic.



quote: I doubt you know how to read Hebrew. Even if you got a translated version, it's probably not the real thing, switched around by an idiot like you, to make people skeptical about Christ.

I don't know Hebrew. Do you? How can you trust that your Bible wasn't "switched around by an idiot"? But to answer your question, the translations were done by Christians, so I doubt anything was purposefully manipulated to make Jesus sound bad.

quote:Osiris is a greek god, genius. He's not real!

Egyptian, tool. His story is nearly identical to that of Jesus. His story also predates Jesus by centuries. Same with Mithra (Allthough only by a sigle century. Did you know that Christianity and Mithraism were competing cults in the first century AD?) And Krisna.

You're ignorant as hell, but now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

To the idiot that stated that evolution is fabricated. You sir are a fool.

The bottom line is i dont believe the bible because jesus did not write it. I agree some of the morals in it but i disagree with others.

Creationist arguments seem to have one common, constant theme: Evolution is a conspiracy made up to discredit evolution.

They try to disprove it, claim atheist scientist hoaxes, claim it isn't science, etc.

See, the problem is, if you are religious it's because you want to believe. There's nothing wrong with wanting something. However, (just like the bible occasionally preaches) you have to be able to control yourself. Just because you want to believe something, it does not justify attempting to disprove science, forcing your religion on others, killing for it, getting it taught on schools, attempting to dicate national law based of your theology, etc etc.

On the contrary, it's not that atheists don't want to believe in God; in all honesty, its very comforting to think that there is someone up there watching over you. The difference is that they seek nothing but the truth, and they follow that truth, wherever it leads- without letting their wants get in the way.

Oh and by the way, this topic got so far off topic I feel like setting it in motion again, so...



Christians: Other then what the bible says, why do you feel homosexual acts are morally wrong?

Homosexuality is natural, or else so many people would not be homosexual. The only possible way to counter this is to claim it is a mutation or disease, but for chrissake, we allow people with physical and mental illnesses to marry. The other argument is that it is a mental decision- unproven, illogical (who would choose it when everyone is bigoted against it?) and also clearly not a conscious choice.

The only unhealthy thing about it is the constant abuse that they receive from evil homophobes and bigots (almost all christian). AIDS is a problem, but better education would solve that so I'm not going to address it. Besides, if you're not gay, you don't need to worry about it.

Don't even talk about 'sanctity of marriage.' That translates into "I am bigoted against them and it makes me uncomfortable," which is your problem, not theirs. "But what about the kids." Well what about them? We shouldn't shun them from homosexuality or teach them that it is wrong. In case it never occured to you (I'm sure it didn't) that's exactly how racism continued. We have to stop it with our kids (read chapter 10 of 'to kill a mockingbird,' the whole thing is an allegory for racism). A further kick in the face is that gay divorce rates are lower then straight marriage divorce rates. That cracked me up.

So my current opinion is that the christianity is just used as a way to justify bigotry against homosexuals. Most christians aren't bigots though, just like most actual christians I talk to aren't against it; they aren't racist or stupid. If you have some real reasons though, I'd like to hear them.

quote:Originally posted by slickt0mmy:

Osiris is a greek god, genius. He's not real!

?????????????????????????????????

slickt0mmy knows almost nothing about other relgions.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

A further kick in the face is that gay divorce rates are lower then straight marriage divorce rates. That cracked me up.

So my current opinion is that the christianity is just used as a way to justify bigotry against homosexuals. Most christians aren't bigots though, just like most actual christians I talk to aren't against it; they aren't racist or stupid. If you have some real reasons though, I'd like to hear them.



And divorce retes between christian based marriages are higher then the normal ones. (it's statistics)

As to your christian friends not being against gays... well only one thing to be said and that is: they are not truly christians.