Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Jesus said something about homosexuality? What?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What if homosexuality is deemed "wrong"? Then what?
- Thread starter MSizer
- Start date
Jesus said something about homosexuality? What?
As far as the various punishments for differrent sins that's how we as flesh and blood deal with it, you do the crime you pay the time. Spiritually though there is one punishment ---Sin---separates us from God. It's like having a relationship with the greatest Dad ever, you talk to one another, he gives you advice you can always bank on, and never closes the door when the times get tough. Then suddenly, that's all taken away from you. Now that's gotta hurt!!! That's what sin does.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And he only has one drawback! He's imaginary. But other than that, and smiting you if you break the rules, he's just great! Almost like Ozzie Nelson.
Atoms exist but are not seen by the naked eye, the universe exists but we see only a small part of it. Hate exists and we see the result of it. Love exists even when we can't explain it. God is Love! I know my mom loves me, I don't have to see her to know it---I just do. Yeah, we have or have had a relationship where I came to the conclusion from all that was evident that my Mom loves me. Now if I were to tell you that My Mom loves you then you would find that hard to believe. Especially since she doesn't know you, or anything about you. It took time to build that relationship with my Mom and there are things everyday that remind me of her. Just like there are things I see everyday that remind me of God. I don't have to see Him to know He exists, because I know He does. The beauty of this is He does know you, now it's up to you to get to know Him.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What on earth are you blathering on about. Yup, some things exist. Others don't. And?
And here you just said God was a caring father.
Doesn't it help that you have met her, though?
Key fact: Your mom exists.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Couldn't tell you.
BUt it sems to me that if God really thought that "sin is sin", he would not have prescribed so many differing punishments for the various sins.
Some of the various punishments for sin:
burning (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 20:14; Daniel 3:6),
hanging (Numbers 25:4; Deuteronomy 21:22; Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29; 2 Samuel 21:12; Esther 7:9; Esther 7:10),
crucifying (Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:35),
beheading (Genesis 40:19; Mark 6:16; Mark 6:27),
slaying with the sword (1 Samuel 15:33; Acts 12:2),
stoning (Leviticus 24:14; Deuteronomy 13:10; Acts 7:59),
cutting in pieces (Daniel 2:5; Matthew 24:51),
sawing asunder (Hebrews 11:37),
exposing to wild beasts (Daniel 6:16; Daniel 6:24; 1 Corinthians 15:32), bruising in mortars (Proverbs 27:22),
casting headlong from a rock (2 Chronicles 25:12),
casting into the sea (Matthew 18:6).
hanging (Numbers 25:4; Deuteronomy 21:22; Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29; 2 Samuel 21:12; Esther 7:9; Esther 7:10),
crucifying (Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:35),
beheading (Genesis 40:19; Mark 6:16; Mark 6:27),
slaying with the sword (1 Samuel 15:33; Acts 12:2),
stoning (Leviticus 24:14; Deuteronomy 13:10; Acts 7:59),
cutting in pieces (Daniel 2:5; Matthew 24:51),
sawing asunder (Hebrews 11:37),
exposing to wild beasts (Daniel 6:16; Daniel 6:24; 1 Corinthians 15:32), bruising in mortars (Proverbs 27:22),
casting headlong from a rock (2 Chronicles 25:12),
casting into the sea (Matthew 18:6).
Yet God himself spelled out various punishments for differing sins.
See the above list
Huh?
Sin is the punishment for sin?
I am guessing that I have misunderstood what you are trying to say here.
if that is what what it is like for you....
You say that God does not exist, so be it, you are entitled to your opinion. You also say God is imaginary and part of a "bizarre-myth" system. These are your beliefs and you say them, I say that God does exist and offer some reasoning as to why I think as I do, whether excepted or not. I was stating what I believe just as you have. Now you warn me against preaching---I am not preaching, but offer responses to posts. It appears that a double standard exists, you can say what you will about your beliefs, but I can not. I offer my thoughts just as others do. As to your question, there is no "Fallacy" to my reasoning, only limited time and space to express it. With all that is written by even the greatest of philosophers concerning the existence of God; by both the atheist and the believer, only one thing is certain---we will continue to disagree.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
What post is this in response to?
It seems like a double standard because often times people preach without realizing that that is exactly what they are doing.
If you cannot express your opinion in the "limited time and space" without it coming across as a fallacy, one would think that it would be better to not even make the attempt than to present such a false impression of ones opinion.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, actually, read the thread. I stated what I believed, just as you did first, and with just as much support.
But, if "I know God exists because I know He exists" is your reasoning, you are doing a good job of dissuading anyone who was considering sharing your belief, so good job there.
Doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? So instead of making bald-faced claims with no support, evidence or logic, how about if we all try to make substantial and substantiated contributions to the thread, O.K.?
NO, actually, you can say whatever you want about your beliefs. All you have to do is write, "I believe," or "in my opinion" in front of them. But if you state your beliefs as fact, expect the kind of response you got.
No. Others admit their opinions are opinions, and provide support for what they assert as fact.
Sorry, if A then A is a fallacy. *hint* You'll can never prove anything by assuming what you're trying to prove.
"And he only has one drawback! He's imaginary. But other than that, and smiting you if you break the rules, he's just great! Almost like Ozzie Nelson." These are your beliefs, opinions; but did you state so? Where is your proof that God is imaginary? What are you saying, does He or does He not exist? At one point you say that God is imaginary, then at another He will smite you for breaking the rules. If He is as you say "imaginary" then how can He smite you? Yet if He can smite you then does that not prove His existence. As someone who works in the field of science one thing is certain; there are many things which we do not understand nor see with the human eye, but this does not mean that they do not exist. To say that God is "imaginary", as you have, implies that your beliefs are factual (according to your previous statement, is that correct?). You say that in order to say what I believe, I must first state "I believe," or "in my opinion"; did you? Is there a philosophical argument you wish to discuss to support your claims? Will it be the ontological, the first cause, moral, or argument from design, or another I have not heard of? Someone replied to an earlier post,"If you cannot express your opinion in the "limited time and space" without it coming across as a fallacy, one would think that it would be better to not even make the attempt than to present such a false impression of ones opinion." You are absolutely right, if I say I believe in something, I should be ready to back it up. What I said in that case was a cop out, simply because I was in a hurry. I'll try not to let that happen again.
MSizer
MSizer
As someone who works in the field of science, you should understand the lack of value in a hypothesis which is completely unsubstantiated. We don't need evidence against every hypothesis. The burden is on the holder of the claim to support it. Not the other way around.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, just like you.
The same place as yours that he isn't.
You're not getting my point. I posted in exactly your style, deliberately to demonstrate the problems with that. My post is just as stupid, useless and inappropriate as yours. My point is that just as you can announce your beliefs as if they were facts, so can I. Not very helpful, is it? So let's contribute better quality posts, O.K.?
The same way that Harry Potter can attend a school for wizards.
No, anymore than finding a ring proves Bilbo Baggin's existence.
If they cannot by definition be perceived, nor can any effect be perceived, that means they don't exist.
Exactly. Just like yours. Get it yet?
Yes. And I will do the same. Deal?
If you like, we could start a thread on the subject.
Empirical. (I'm not much one for formal proofs or disproofs of God.)
Good. So if you think you can demonstrate that your God exists and has the qualities you assert, please start a thread, and we'll debate it. I think you'll find though that without assuming your conclusion (which was your mistake) you'll find it rather hard to do. After long discourse, I think you'll find you're stuck with the "watchmaker" argument, which doesn't get you anything beyond a purely Deist God, if that.
If you had any intellectual curiousity or an open mind, this might lead you to question your beliefs.
There were two hypothesis being stated; (1) God is imaginary and (2) God exists. In response to what I have stated, I refer you to Aristotelian philosophy where, "God is viewed as part of the explanatory structure needed to support scientific conclusions, and any powers God possesses are, strictly speaking, of the natural order - that is, derived from God's place as originator of nature." There are many hypotheses concerning those things which are not visible or understood. We know that these things exists for we have seen the result of their existence. Yet we have little or no control over them or understand their methods, but we continue to research them. To look beyond what is commonly accepted as fact. Yet a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. With all the data we have collected about the known universe it is highly unlikely that our existence occured by chance. It really depends on the perspective of the individual one is interacting with, as to how to address the question of existence vs. non-existence. How far are they really wanting to take the discussion, and upon what premises.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You started your search for arguments in favor of God's existence on wiki? O.K., I mean, that's a place to start, but surely have an argument yourself? I have nothing against wiki as a reference, but I would think you have your own argument. God may be viewed this that or the other way; that does nothing toward showing that there is any such thing.
This is what you would need to show. This is the watchmaker argument I was telling you about. Now you have to show how you know that anything is the result of God's existence. Go.
To research what?
What are you talking about?
1. Start a thread. This one is about the consequences of homosexuality being immoral.
2. Please show your math. Because, of course, if you're talking about statistics, it's pure math. Since you've reached a conclusion based on math, I'm sure you can share it.
3. A few of the errors in your logic:
(a) Do you have a set of other universes with which to compare ours?
(b) You do know that the odds of something happening which has already happened are exactly 100%, right?
4. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with my perspective. She either exists, or She doesn't. That's what the rest of us call "reality."
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Thanks. Feel free to start a thread, though.