-->
@RoderickSpode
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
It's not just homosexuality that brought on a death penalty. Pretty much most of us here would be potential candidates for harsh punishment. You're not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The invitation to receive God's grace is as much open to you as anyone else.
But anyway, I understand the conflict as far as Christianity and homosexuality is concerned. I would say the reason why there are Christian churches, or Christian individualswho identify as being gay is because they know God is love. Some might see it as a struggle. Some may have a difficult time resolving between God's love for them, and God's stance against homosexuality. But it all boils down to it being between us individually, and God. That time will come for all of us.
Homosexuality is not meant to be a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is. What I mean by that is, sex is only a small part of a marriage union. There comes a time when a couple grows old enough to the point they may not have the ability to engage in sexual activity. But the union between the two is to be as strong as it was on the wedding day. That's love. Since same sex marriage is a major issue, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life with one partner of the same sex until the day one of you passes on?
Even at a young age, the marriage vow implies that faithfulness is mandatory. If not, it's not love. Or certainly not ultimate love. If a wife or husband has an unfortunate accident or illness that renders them incapable of sexual activity, the marriage vow still suggests sexual faithfulness. Even if the person who is no longer able to perform sexually tells their spouse they understand their physical needs, and it's okay to find a sex partner, the ultimate act of love would still demand complete faithfulness. If you were in a same sex union, would you be able to remain faithful should something unfortunate happen to your partner?
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.
Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research.
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.What assumption are you talking about?
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?
Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research.I'm not trying to give you a lesson on relationships if that's what you think. That should be evident though due to the fact I've been asking you a fair amount of questions. Why do I do that? Basically it's because I don't know.And I'm not one to push people into a conversation. If you you wish to stop, I assure you there's no offense.
To be clear, I am okay with continuing the conversation as long as you are.
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.This is assuming that atheists are begging the question, which is false, no the position of an atheist is that no evidence presented thus far (thus far referring to the current state of affairs) has been valid. If one can demonstrate valid proof that god exists, I would change my mind.Thus far, there has been none I find convincing.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.Now you are quite literally begging the question, you are presuming your conclusion in your premise. There is a fundamental flaw in the way you see the burden of proof and how evidence should change our mind.Essentially: I do not discount evidence for god because I am an atheist, I examine each piece of evidence to see if it is valid, sound, logically consistent, etc... That is exactly how theists should look through the evidence for a god, not presume one's existence, but check to see if any evidence established is sound, valid, logically consistent, etc..
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.1, 2, 3, 4, assertions have been made. That means you have necessarily adopted a burden of proof. Please demonstrate how a god exists, how humans are proof of god, how evil is proof of god, and how atheists are proof of god.For your note: An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. Take that as you will.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.You, yourself admitted that whenever you looked at the evidence, you were committing a logical fallacy! How then, could one come to the conclusion that your proofs are at all evidential or valid?
i disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion. It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything per se would be evidence for God's reality. It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence. The former is a truism just as the latter is. The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice.
I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise. That is not true. It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof. I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist. The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better. If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises. The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms.
I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason. Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically. Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places. Yet we all fall back to our axioms.
It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment. The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it. The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God. I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not. What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing?
If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly. Something else must be going on.
I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.
Within the context of the silly question, the obviously better choice would be something loosely referred to as GOD or BOB or DAVE or BIG BANGO or whatever.Though it would be foolish to think that this proved anything other than acceptance of something.Something is something and nothing is nothing.As I said, the question is silly. And simply states the obvious..... That is to say, something from nothing.