Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

sozobe wrote:

But then...

<steps aside, lets Thomas have the honors since he set that one up so well>

But then ... how do you reconcile this with Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17, both of which are statements of the New Testament?

In 5:18-19, Matthew wrote:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

In 16:17, Luke wrote:

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

And why did you say the following, given that the ten commandmends are as Mosaic as the rest of them?

Momma Angel wrote:

I never intended to imply, technically or otherwise, that we are not bound by the Ten Commandments.

This makes no sense to me. If you read the context of those quotes, you will see that Jesus is clearly talking about the Old Testament laws. And two evangelists independently confirm this point. (Matthew 5 here, Luke 16 here)

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Brandon,

Reality: I am going to die. My physical body will someday die. That's reality. I accept it. That's just the way it is.

If, because I believe in a spiritual afterlife, you think I am not facing the harsh realities of life, so be it. You are more than entitled to what you believe, think, etc. It doesn't change me in any way.

So basically, you define yourself to be right, and you define God to be in the right at all times, and that is your universal answer for any and all specific logical objections or contrary evidence. Not so much different from someone who thinks he's Napoleon.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I will get back with you on your post.

Brandon,

So basically, I am telling you what it is like for me. So basically, you are trying to tell me what it is like for me. So actually, I am not Napoleon but I am beginning to think you think that I am. :wink:

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Jason Proudmore Wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:
God has infringed on our own right to free will? Where do you think we got that free will? It came from God.

The thing is that you seem to misunderstand the point that I'm trying to make. If God wanted us to have free will so badly, why did He use His power of persuasion for His own agenda? Why not leave it the way it is?

Quote:
God created us.He is the potter and we are the clay, not the other way around.

Well, so many people say that it is the other way around...that we created God to establish fear and order in human society.
Quote:
I guess God could have made us all like zombies that don't think and just walk around and do only what He wants us to do and not give us any freedom at all, but He didn't.

But why didn't He? Why did the god of the Bible influenced the pharaoh, persuaded him into refusing to free (willingly) the slaves? The pharaoh was going to do it anyway. Why "harden his heart"? Did God want to create a complex plot that would result into carnage for His own entertainment? (It would be entertaining if you were to play "Age of the Empire") Was this necessary? I think that if God wanted us to do all those silly stuff from the Bible, He should've made us all zombies. Why not? He has controlled the mind before. Why not do it to all of us?

Quote:
He gave us the choice between what is right and what is wrong. Well, I don't approve of homosexuality and abortion because I believe it is against God's law.

How can we possibly know right from wrong? Nobody knows the difference if we aren't taught about them as we grow up. How can I learn right from wrong by someone telling me to not eat from the fruits of one specific tree? That's absurd. Considering Adam's and Eve's example, how could they know the difference, who to trust about telling the truth ( God or the Devil?). Every time I think of the story of Adam and Eve, I associate the metaphor with a jealous parent who just tells his children not to eat cookies from the cookie jar on top of the refrigerator because it's wrong. The parent tells them that it would be wrong to eat those cookies, and he/she doesn't tell them why, doesn't go into details to make the children understand (just obey). The children (being innocent) would think that the parent just wants the cookies for him/herself. Adam and Eve were given free will, nevertheless, but to understand the details (without being explained) of knowing right from wrong is something impossible to grasp (taking in consideration how God operates).

You do believe that homosexuality and abortion are wrong. It doesn't matter that you believe that they're wrong and your actions and sexual preferences are right. What matters is that people who think like you are capable of harm when they have the power to apply laws and vote against their actions, and even take "justice" into their own hands with violence. And I hope you are smart enough to know that homosexuality isn't just a choice, but it is a genetic variation in the DNA that gives them such choice. And what they do is none of your, or anybody's business.

About abortion, I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to keep having something growing inside of her. This, also, is none of mine, yours, or anybody's business. I believe that doing the right thing is to not hurt people (physically or emotionally) or undermine somebody's confidence. [quote] I didn't approve of them before I became a Christian so I don't know what to make of that other than the fact I have just always felt they were wrong.

To shed some light on what you just wrote, let's try this: you are saying that you didn't approve homosexuality or abortion even before you were a Christian. I assume that when you were not a Christian, you didn't belong to any other religious groups. If you "always felt" that way, it means that you just don't like what you find offensive from them, apart from what God likes. And that brings me to the following:

I'm heterosexual (I don't like men, and I would dislike a sexual experience with one). I would find such action wrong if I'm forced to act like one, because I'm not homosexual. But that doesn't give me the right to prohibit homosexuals from doing what they do. It is none of my or your business.

And I wouldn't like my wife to abort a fetus growing in her. However, it is her choice, her choice alone. It is she who will be carrying a growing piece of protein in her entrails for nine months. It's her body, not mine or yours or anybody's. Therefore, it is none of your, mine, or anybody's business

Quote:

Jason, I don't hate someone because they are homosexual or because they had an abortion. I don't hate anybody. I may not like what they do but I sure don't hate them for it.[/b][/color]

But you do... if you demonstrate to the world that such action is considered wrong, you do hate homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion. If you teach children to grow up disliking the actions of homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion, you do hate homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion. It is what people do that defines them. Homosexuals are people; they deserve happiness like you and me. A woman needs to do whatever she wants with her body. Don't decide for them. If you don't like it, mind your own business. Don't try to teach the world to be like you.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Thomas,

I will get back with you on your post.

Brandon,

So basically, I am telling you what it is like for me. So basically, you are trying to tell me what it is like for me. So actually, I am not Napoleon but I am beginning to think you think that I am. :wink:

Don't attempt to equate your primitive, superstitious gullibility with science and logic. They are not equal. You believe based on a psychological need, and cannot back up anything you say. Scientists observe, analyze, and experiment.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Thomas,

I will get back with you on your post.

Brandon,

So basically, I am telling you what it is like for me. So basically, you are trying to tell me what it is like for me. So actually, I am not Napoleon but I am beginning to think you think that I am. :wink:

Don't attempt to equate your primitive, superstitious gullibility with science and logic. They are not equal. You believe based on a psychological need, and cannot back up anything you say. Scientists observe, analyze, and experiment,

Jason,

I will get back to you. I need to answer Thomas first.

Brandon,

Lighten up for pete's sake! I was just joking. It was a joke Brandon. You have your opinions. I have mine. I'm not a scientist. Don't want to be one. I'm happy the way I am. You are obviously happy with the way you are.

Cliff Hanger,

Now, THAT is an obvious overuse of emoticons!

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Now, THAT is an obvious overuse of emoticons!

No matter how you put it, your rejection of rationality is not equal to my attempt to use it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Brandon, I reckon you got no chance of getting through.

Seems every "believer" insists that "unbelief" is an equal and opposite form of belief.

It's just wilful ignorance designed to make ridiculous notions look like the same thing as an absence of notions.

Hey, I've had an idea. Let's try an analogy.

I am in a room. A person I don't know enters with a box. He says "I have an elf in this box". I am then put in a courtroom and I'm asked "What is in the box?" My answer would be, "I have no idea what's in the box." A lawyer gets up and says "So you are saying you are certain the box is empty?"

No, I don't know what's in the box. I would guess if I had to that it's highly unlikely that there is an elf in the box, and the idea of the box being empty is much more likely, despite what I have been told.

The main point is NOT KNOWING what's in the box is NOT the same thing as KNOWING that there isn't an elf in the box. I can't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

I agree with both the analogy and the conclusion here wholeheartedly. Agnosticism is an entirely defensable position from a purely logical perspective. Indeed, intellectually at least, that is exactly where Pascal stood.

This, however, is not the same thing as the affirmation that there is no god, no creator and that all religion is necessarily superstition. Several posters here play a game in which they assume a position of atheism in opposing the arguments of those who believe, and quickly hide behind an illusion of agnosticism when they are challenged. It is this specious device that I criticize. Both atheism and belief involve acceptance of unprovable hypotheses - from the perspective of reason alone, there is no basis on which to prefer one or the other.

0 Replies

The problem with all this to-ing and fro-ing of interpretations,it seems to me,is that "believers" become fragmented and at war with each other and in the struggle the authority of the true Church is discredited as it is lumped in under the title "religion" with the headbangers.Once that has happened legislation which the Church finds abhorrent gets passed.
From this it follows that the competitive heresies,and it is a heresy to interpret the Bible for yourself without any training,are the actual cause of the legislation being passed.They shoot themselves in the foot which serves to provide them with opportunities to rant and rage at the legislation for ever and ever and to pose as saintly.
I am content to be guided by the Holy Father the Pope even though I'm not a practicing Catholic or a believer.He has all his onions in a row which is only to be expected when one views the experience of the Church.Upstart sects have to be "different" and "tailored" to be sects at all.There are quite sufficient orders in the Church already to cover every realistic religious base.
Gimmicks based on the Bible are still gimmicks.

0 Replies

George is hiding behind selective views of the definition of atheism. It is possible to find definitions which describe atheism as simply a lack of theism, as well as definitions which describe atheism as a denial of the existence of god. I have repeatedly pointed out that i am an atheism in the definition of others. I point out that as i have no good reason to believe that a deity exists, i am "without god," and therefore atheist--without god. But i have also frequently pointed out that this is an essentially meaningless definition, as the absence of god for me is the absence of god for everyone, whether or not they know or acknowledge it, which means everyone is atheist.

The Jesuit ManquÃ© wrote:

This, however, is not the same thing as the affirmation that there is no god, no creator and that all religion is necessarily superstition.

This is the strawman erected by all theists who try so desparately to equate a rejection of their belief with the holding of an equivalent and polar opposite belief. It is not axiomatic that an assertion that religion constitutes superstition is also an assertion that there is no god. Superstition is an irrational belief, held without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. A belief in a deity is a belief held without evidence--it is superstition. But pointing out that theism has no evidence is not an assertion that there is no and can be no deity. That would be the sine qua non of that position by believers, and it is lacking. This is nothing more than yet another feeble attempt to assert that what is going on here is a contest of competing beliefs--and that is an essential proposition to authorize both a charge that those who are not theists are indulging in spiritual elitism, and that neither "belief" is superior to the other.

And, yes, George, i called you a Jesus Monkey . . .

0 Replies

Thomas Wrote:

Quote:

sozobe wrote:
But then...

<steps aside, lets Thomas have the honors since he set that one up so well>

But then ... how do you reconcile this with Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17, both of which are statements of the New Testament?

In 5:18-19, Matthew wrote:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

5:17-19 Messianic Law

Jesus explains how the Messianic kingdom relates to the law of Moses, and to the way that law was applied by the Old Testament prophets. Much depends on the meaning of "not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law till all is accomplished" (5:18). In view of the next section (5:21-48), where Jesus gives a quite new interpretation for seven important areas of Jewish law, the kingdom is obviously going to interpret law in a very different way from the usual rules and expectations of our nation.

Matthew knew that the early Christians had very quickly abandoned the Old Testament kosher food laws (Acts 10:13-16). And certainly by the time the temple was destroyed in AD 70 the practice of worship based on animal sacrifice had been replaced by new covenant worship (Hebrews 9:11-10:25).

Paul is also very clear that Christians should obey the laws of the land they live in (Romans 13:1-7) rather than try to set up a kingdom based on Old Testament criminal and civil law. He also views the last four of the ten commandments as fulfilled in Jesus law of love (Romans 13:8-10). Paul viewed circumcision as fulfilled by a spiritual circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:26-29, based on Deuteronomy 30:6).

We can view the Old Testament as a history of the Jewish people with the culture and laws that they lived by. In his manifesto, concerning every major point of moral law, the Messiah declares "But I say to you" (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). And in every country where churches are established He will say "But I say to you" concerning every item of each nation's culture and laws.

How then can he say "not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law?" One explanation is that the ten commandments are really ten categories of moral judgment, but they have no content till they are applied in particular situations and laws are made to enforce them. People make judgments about the behavior of others and their own behavior under each of these categories, but they often differ about how the categories of honoring parents, work and rest, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and coveting are to apply.

Evidently there is a distinction between the way the Jewish people applied these categories of moral judgment and the way Jesus interpreted them. So the Messiah is not about to weaken the moral law and its application in various situations, but rather fill them out with their proper meaning by the standard of God's kind of love.

5:17 If the above is a correct explanation then Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets by giving the proper outworking of law in his kingdom. Since all nations have laws and rules of behavior, we could say that the Sermon on the Mount sets out ways in which the norms and laws of any nation are given their proper meaning. And wherever churches have been established in any country one can see this beginning to happen.

5:18 Criminal law changes from nation to nation and from time to time, and there were changes even in Old Testament laws at various periods in Jewish history. So it is not the details which are "accomplished" and never change. But if we take all the do's and don'ts that are imparted to children, the laws and unstated norms of each society, and a people's moral sense relating to every item of justice and fairness, then we can see how each of these must be corrected and filled out by the love of God.

5:19 This means that the Messiah's kingdom does not operate by overthrowing the culture of every nation, but by helping people to see every item of right and wrong from God's point of view. The "scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven" will teach morality in a totally different way (13:52).

http://www.brow.on.ca/Books/Matthew/Matthew5.html

Thomas Wrote:

Quote:

In 16:17, Luke wrote:
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

The Lord, in emphasizing that the purpose of His ministry was to fulfill the law, rebuked the Pharisees with the comparative statement, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Lk. 16:17). He used two illustrations of extremes within His observable creation for emphasis. Heaven and earth comprise the largest realms of the Lord's created physical work (cf. Gen. 1:2-19). The smallest thing in God's observable creation is the dot or chireq in the Hebrew OT that constitutes a vowel. The Lord Jesus Christ's statement declared that before the smallest observable thing He created fails (parelthein), it would be easier for the largest thing He created to pass (pesein) first! It would be difficult to miss His point: the minutia of the OT law will not fail but will be preserved until He completely fulfills it. The OT law was made up of statements, warnings and predictions that were made up of words that had consonants and vowels. The Lord promised that the Hebrew text would be preserved perfectly, as He had previously stated (Lk. 4:4), so that it could be fulfilled perfectly by Him, down to the very words of the law.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/tittle.htm

Thomas Wrote:

Quote:

And why did you say the following, given that the ten commandmends are as Mosaic as the rest of them?

Quote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I never intended to imply, technically or otherwise, that we are not bound by the Ten Commandments.

This makes no sense to me. If you read the context of those quotes, you will see that Jesus is clearly talking about the Old Testament laws. And two evangelists independently confirm this point.

Thomas, nine of th Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. Therefore, I believe they are also part of the New Covenant.

0 Replies

This whole discussion is a straw man behind which hides the man or woman of independent thinking who will accept no higher authority than him or herself as the sole arbiter of wisdom.It is a self-indulgence position trying to justify itself.

That is why it never faces up to the problem of running society and for providing an orderly continuation of it and its improvement. And why it will never answer the question of how a society of irreligionists would organise itself or face up to the obvious fact that religion has had a profound effect on how we got to where we are which is a very comfortable position for most of us and hopefully one day for all of us.

"Do you ever wonder what it is that God requires?
You think he's just an errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires."

When You Gonna Wake Up? Bob Dylan.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

This whole discussion is a straw man behind which hides the man or woman of independent thinking who will accept no higher authority than him or herself as the sole arbiter of wisdom.It is a self-indulgence position trying to justify itself.

That is why it never faces up to the problem of running society and for providing an orderly continuation of it and its improvement. And why it will never answer the question of how a society of irreligionists would organise itself or face up to the obvious fact that religion has had a profound effect on how we got to where we are which is a very comfortable position for most of us and hopefully one day for all of us.

"Do you ever wonder what it is that God requires?
You think he's just an errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires."

When You Gonna Wake Up? Bob Dylan.

Just because organizing and running societies may be difficult is certainly no evidence that a God exists. Your position is logically incorrect. The idea that not believing things without evidence is "hiding" is preposterous.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Brandon, I reckon you got no chance of getting through.

Seems every "believer" insists that "unbelief" is an equal and opposite form of belief.

It's just wilful ignorance designed to make ridiculous notions look like the same thing as an absence of notions.

Hey, I've had an idea. Let's try an analogy.

I am in a room. A person I don't know enters with a box. He says "I have an elf in this box". I am then put in a courtroom and I'm asked "What is in the box?" My answer would be, "I have no idea what's in the box." A lawyer gets up and says "So you are saying you are certain the box is empty?"

No, I don't know what's in the box. I would guess if I had to that it's highly unlikely that there is an elf in the box, and the idea of the box being empty is much more likely, despite what I have been told.

The main point is NOT KNOWING what's in the box is NOT the same thing as KNOWING that there isn't an elf in the box. I can't see what's so hard to grasp about that.
I agree with both the analogy and the conclusion here wholeheartedly. Agnosticism is an entirely defensable position from a purely logical perspective. Indeed, intellectually at least, that is exactly where Pascal stood.

This, however, is not the same thing as the affirmation that there is no god, no creator and that all religion is necessarily superstition.

What is warranted is the statement that a positive belief that a God exists is unwarranted. That is by no means to claim knowledge that no God exists. I also have no evidence that the world was constructed by magical mice, so I won't waste my time believing that either.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is warranted is the statement that a positive belief that a God exists is unwarranted. That is by no means to claim knowledge that no God exists. I also have no evidence that the world was constructed by magical mice, so I won't waste my time believing that either.

Not quite. The fact is that, without god you have no explanation whatever for the existence or creation of the world and your own consciousness. Moreover, there is no basis on which you can expect that human science will ever provide one. Is the decision to go forward in the greip of that dilemma (or, as is far more comnmon,to simply put it out of mind) also "warranted"??

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

God has infringed on our own right to free will? Where do you think we got that free will? It came from God.

Jason Wrote:

The thing is that you seem to misunderstand the point that I'm trying to make. If God wanted us to have free will so badly, why did He use His power of persuasion for His own agenda? Why not leave it the way it is?

[/color]

Jason, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by leave it the way it is? Leave what the way it is? I will come back to this once I understand what you mean. I hope that is ok.

Momma Angel Wrote:

Quote:

God created us. He is the potter and we are the clay, not the other way around.

Jason Wrote:

Well, so many people say that it is the other way around...that we created God to establish fear and order in human society.

[/color]

I realize what many people say, Jason. Just because they say it doesn't make it right. Just because I say it doesn't make it right. It is either right or it is wrong. What matters is what you believe.

Momma Angel Wrote:

Quote:

I guess God could have made us all like zombies that don't think and just walk around and do only what He wants us to do and not give us any freedom at all, but He didn't.

Jason Wrote:

But why didn't He? Why did the god of the Bible influenced the pharaoh, persuaded him into refusing to free (willingly) the slaves? The pharaoh was going to do it anyway. Why "harden his heart"? Did God want to create a complex plot that would result into carnage for His own entertainment? (It would be entertaining if you were to play "Age of the Empire") Was this necessary? I think that if God wanted us to do all those silly stuff from the Bible, He should've made us all zombies. Why not? He has controlled the mind before. Why not do it to all of us?

[/color]

Why didn't He? I think He didn't make us zombies because He does love us and wanted us to have some freedom and to think for ourselves. What good is love if it is forced? You cannot make anyone love you. God does not make someone love Him. You either do or you don't. No, I do not believe God wanted to create a complex plot....for his own entertainment. Was it necessary? Obviously, God thinks so. Whose mind has He controlled, Jason? Do you have scripture for that?

Again, what good would love be if you had to make someone love you? What kind of love is that? God wants us to love Him because we want to love Him.

Quote:

Momma Angel Wrote:

He gave us the choice between what is right and what is wrong. Well, I don't approve of homosexuality and abortion because I believe it is against God's law.

Jason Wrote:

How can we possibly know right from wrong? Nobody knows the difference if we aren't taught about them as we grow up. How can I learn right from wrong by someone telling me to not eat from the fruits of one specific tree? That's absurd. Considering Adam's and Eve's example, how could they know the difference, who to trust about telling the truth ( God or the Devil?). Every time I think of the story of Adam and Eve, I associate the metaphor with a jealous parent who just tells his children not to eat cookies from the cookie jar on top of the refrigerator because it's wrong. The parent tells them that it would be wrong to eat those cookies, and he/she doesn't tell them why, doesn't go into details to make the children understand (just obey). The children (being innocent) would think that the parent just wants the cookies for him/herself. Adam and Eve were given free will, nevertheless, but to understand the details (without being explained) of knowing right from wrong is something impossible to grasp (taking in consideration how God operates).

[/color]

Jason, God created Adam and Eve. Why shouldn't they trust Him? He told them what was right and wrong. He said don't and they did. Their choice. Well, my mom used to tell me when I asked her "Why?" She said, "because I'm the mom and I said so." Well, when I was very young that was good enough for me. I learned later in life that when she set up rules she did it because she loved me and wanted me to know right from wrong. Impossible to grasp? Not really. Jason, it takes a leap of faith. That's what it took for me. I had to trust God. I do trust God.

Jason Wrote:

Quote:

You do believe that homosexuality and abortion are wrong. It doesn't matter that you believe that they're wrong and your actions and sexual preferences are right. What matters is that people who think like you are capable of harm when they have the power to apply laws and vote against their actions, and even take "justice" into their own hands with violence. And I hope you are smart enough to know that homosexuality isn't just a choice, but it is a genetic variation in the DNA that gives them such choice. And what they do is none of your, or anybody's business.

[/color]

People like me? What do you mean people like me? Jason, I will tell you just like I tell everyone else. And I mean this with the utmost respect, you have the exact same rights under the Constitution as I do. You vote for what you think is right. I vote for what I think is right. If I vote for what I think is wrong then I am going against what I believe and I will not do that. I will not apologize for it. I am not ashamed of it. If these issues are brought up on the voting ballot then it becomes my business just as it becomes everyone else's. I then have a choice. I vote yes because I think it's right. I vote no because I don't think it's right. That's just the way it is. I realize that because many of ethics, principles, and morals are based in my religion many find that offensive and imposing. I am sorry if they do. I do not question what they base their ethics, principles, and morals on when they vote so they have no right to question mine either.

Jason Wrote:

Quote:

About abortion, I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to keep having something growing inside of her. This, also, is none of mine, yours, or anybody's business. I believe that doing the right thing is to not hurt people (physically or emotionally) or undermine somebody's confidence.

[/color]

I am sorry, Jason, but I believe the life of a child is a lot more important than somebody's confidence. If they were not confident enough in the first place then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. I am not speaking of every woman that gets an abortion mind you. I speak of the ones that use it as birth control or call the pregnancy inconvenient. How sad that a life is inconvenient to anyone.

Momma Angel Wrote:

Quote:

I didn't approve of them before I became a Christian so I don't know what to make of that other than the fact I have just always felt they were wrong.

Jason Wrote:

To shed some light on what you just wrote, let's try this: you are saying that you didn't approve homosexuality or abortion even before you were a Christian. I assume that when you were not a Christian, you didn't belong to any other religious groups. If you "always felt" that way, it means that you just don't like what you find offensive from them, apart from what God likes. And that brings me to the following:

I'm heterosexual (I don't like men, and I would dislike a sexual experience with one). I would find such action wrong if I'm forced to act like one, because I'm not homosexual. But that doesn't give me the right to prohibit homosexuals from doing what they do. It is none of my or your business.

And I wouldn't like my wife to abort a fetus growing in her. However, it is her choice, her choice alone. It is she who will be carrying a growing piece of protein in her entrails for nine months. It's her body, not mine or yours or anybody's. Therefore, it is none of your, mine, or anybody's business.

[/color]

No, I did not belong to any religious group. The thought of two men or two women together having sex doesn't appeal to me whatsoever. I believe it is wrong. I have always believed it is wrong. But, that does not mean that I hurt anyone because they choose to live their life that way. I can't prohibit them from doing anything. I don't get to vote on whether they get married or not so how can I hurt them? By having a discussion on a public forum with countless other people? Well, if that hurts them then I would say they are in for a pretty rough road because this is most assuredly mild compared to some of the things I am sure they have to (unnecessarily IMO) deal with.

If you feel that it's your wife's and your wife's choice alone to decide whether she has a baby or not that's right, that's your business. It becomes my business when it comes up for public vote, as I am part of the public. And again, I will vote yes if I think it's right and no if I think it's wrong.

Momma Angel Wrote:

Quote:

Jason, I don't hate someone because they are homosexual or because they had an abortion. I don't hate anybody. I may not like what they do but I sure don't hate them for it.

Jason Wrote:

But you do... if you demonstrate to the world that such action is considered wrong, you do hate homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion. If you teach children to grow up disliking the actions of homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion, you do hate homosexuals and those who are in favor of abortion. It is what people do that defines them. Homosexuals are people; they deserve happiness like you and me. A woman needs to do whatever she wants with her body. Don't decide for them. If you don't like it, mind your own business. Don't try to teach the world to be like you.

So now, let me ask you this: Are you demonstrating hate towards me because of my beliefs because I don't think these things are ok? Are you demonstrating hate towards me because you are telling me what you think is right and what is wrong? I don't think so. I think you are just telling me what you think, feel, and believe. Now, if you came to my house and beat me up or toilet papered my yard, etc., yeah, that could be construed as hate. But because you are exchanging your ideas with me in a civil manner I should consider it hate? Jason, it is what people do that defines them? Jason, I have two lesbian friends. Wonderful friends. They are lesbian. So what? I should discount everything else about them and hate them because they do one thing I disagree with? You think they should hate me or discount everything else about me because I do something that they don't like? If this were true, Jason, I'd say we all would hate each other because there is something about everyone of us in the world that I am sure someone does not like.

Jason, I am not teaching anyone to be anything. I am doing the same thing you are doing; having a discussion on a public forum about issues that interest me. I do not stand on corners with signs or bomb abortion clinics, etc. I am a 50 year old housewife who runs a homeless cat shelter and loves having the computer because I can talk to other people. I am pretty much homebound with my cat shelter and where I live. You are giving me way too much credit.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote-

Quote:

Just because organizing and running societies may be difficult is certainly no evidence that a God exists. Your position is logically incorrect. The idea that not believing things without evidence is "hiding" is preposterous.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.The argument that God exists or does not exist is,as George points out quite often,completely pointless.
It uses up mental energy which could be put to a useful purpose.It is as if those in this argument about the existence or non-existence of God wish to be out of the loop because that is where they are.There are many reasons why people take both positions which are entirely about themselves and about nothing else.

If you argue that there is no God you need to have ready a mechanical system of government in case your argument is so persuasive that everybody converts to your position.You can't make an argument which is relying on not being effective to not sound silly.
The argument that there is a God has got a long and successful history behind it and is quite ready for everybody to be converted.

I couldn't possibly have argued that there is a God because I haven't the faintest idea one way or the other.But I know one thing for sure and that is that only sheer terror could organise 280 million like me
into the sort of orderly arrangement I'm in favour of.Perhaps you are more civilised than I am or,at least,think you are.I prefer the Holy Father to Big Brother which is what you would HAVE to have with 280 million aetheists especially in difficult times.
If you prefer Big Brother your position is perfectly understandable.

0 Replies

Apart from there not being 280 millions in the world "like you"--thank Dog--your thesis is bankrupt. In just a single striking example, Chinese culture has flourished for thousands of years without a state establishment of religion.

0 Replies

George continues his nonsense. Science does not suffer from a lack of a reference to a creator--the examination of the physical properties of the cosmos does not require an explanation of cosmic origins to proceed in a methodical nature.

It is a canard that any explanation of the origin of the cosmos is necessary to the human race at all. Some people may want to manufacture imaginary friend stories--but no one needs an explanation.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is warranted is the statement that a positive belief that a God exists is unwarranted. That is by no means to claim knowledge that no God exists. I also have no evidence that the world was constructed by magical mice, so I won't waste my time believing that either.

Not quite. The fact is that, without god you have no explanation whatever for the existence or creation of the world and your own consciousness. Moreover, there is no basis on which you can expect that human science will ever provide one. Is the decision to go forward in the greip of that dilemma (or, as is far more comnmon,to simply put it out of mind) also "warranted"??

So why go with God? Let's give all praise to the Three-Headed Purple Mushroom of Sanctity!

Because one group came forward and wrote up a nifty little bedtime story that is ambiguous enough to answer all of life's questions doesn't make it an acceptable alternative to searching for the truth.

0 Replies

Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know