SHOULD CHRISTIANS SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY?

[Firemorphic]

What is soft or hard atheism? The definition is specific

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is down to misrepresentation of the definition to suite personal sensibilities

i sort of share your contention, sure, Either one does or doesn't believe in "God" (however you define it will be important)
However there are subtitles between religious atheism all the way down to anti-religious atheism (or anti-theism), likewise who theism doesn't preclude a religion in and of itself.

 

[Baroodi]

any thing against nature is abnormal and off track

 

[Firemorphic]

So it doesn't sit well with you that the Satan of Judaism in entirely and completely different from the Satan of Christianity and Islam, which only exists because Christians decided to take the core Hebrew books and make them the basis for their own religion, complete with a totally reinvented and revamped Satan who now stands opposed to god.

This is old news and something I've been over a million different POVs about. No, Satan is not opposed to God either, that's an absurd thing to say.
Everything goes back to my first comment on this here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i sort of share your contention, sure, Either one does or doesn't believe in "God" (however you define it will be important)
However there are subtitles between religious atheism all the way down to anti-religious atheism (or anti-theism), likewise who theism doesn't preclude a religion in and of itself.

"Soft atheism" is a very logical position. One does not believe in a deity because evidence for a deity is lacking. It is a much more reasonable stance than that of many, if not most, theists that way They would not change their beliefs regardless of the evidence.

 

[Firemorphic]

"Soft atheism" is a very logical position. One does not believe in a deity because evidence for a deity is lacking. It is a much more reasonable stance than that of many, if not most, theists that way They would not change their beliefs regardless of the evidence.

Deity itself is the monotheist's great irony (I don't believe deities, rather oppose them, yet I'm a strong-monotheist)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deity itself is the monotheist's great irony (I don't believe deities, rather oppose them, yet I'm a strong-monotheist)

That does not appear to make any sense.

 

[Firemorphic]

That does not appear to make any sense.

....because people think we worship deities....

 

[Subduction Zone]

....because people think we worship deities....

Most theists do.

 

[Jesus from the Ghetto]

Hi guys, much as happened within our society over the past few years. Many have claimed one side or the other when it comes to homosexuality and the Bible. In this video, I give some statements about each side of the scope and discuss them a bit. I hope it help and maybe gives a new perspective.

Human rights say gay is ok. Why the hell should we care what someone else does with their genitals.. ?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

any thing against nature is abnormal and off track

And therefore, all you need to do is show that something is actually "against nature." And with something that seems to occur naturally, at a pretty standard rate, and throughout the history of our species, I rather suspect you'll have a ***** of a time proving it's "against nature."

(Oh, and a hint for you, your prejudices and predispositions don't actually have anything to do with nature, nor do mine. Humans throughout all the history that we know of have been born stupid or genius, and everywhere in between, or short or tall, and everywhere in between, hale and healthy, or deformed and sick, and everything in between. And it's all "natural." Or, if it isn't, God's god some 'splainin' to do.)

 

[Jos]

I didn't say I didn't believe he existed. I simply said there is no proof. Reasoning tells me that someone probably did exist at the center of the story, even if the story has been embellished to make him sound implausible, or to promote some religious agenda.

Don't most New Testament scholars agree that He existed?

 

[SomeRandom]

any thing against nature is abnormal and off track

You mean like man made technology?

 

[SomeRandom]

Deity itself is the monotheist's great irony (I don't believe deities, rather oppose them, yet I'm a strong-monotheist)

I’m curious of your monotheistic stance if you oppose deities?
Do you oppose the anthropomorphic representations of the divine in general?

No hate, just curious.

 

[PureX]

Don't most New Testament scholars agree that He existed?

I don't know. But what they believe is not proof of anything.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's what the Bible teaches though. Didn't Jesus Himself say to go and preach to all nations?

Mark 16 records that they did preach the gospel to all nations, that their commission was completed and that the gospel went everywhere. "He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.....Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it." Mark 16:15...20 The gospels record these things. Pauline letters record half conversations.

The straightest talking writer in the NT is James, and he plainly, not cryptically or through stories says that most preaching should be done through living not talking....except for a few specially equipped people. In my opinion these people should be the cream of the crop, the very best of the best. Instead we have a huge mess of ex convicts and immature people taking up preaching as an occupation. Its nothing to be proud of. Young men are put into position, people with no life experience, strangers, anyone who can speak.

All the agnostics and atheists are being attacked everywhere and treated like a plague, and homosexuals are blamed for natural disasters. There is no excuse for this, and its doing no good for the churches. There is no excuse in my opinion for so many people trying to go around preaching the gospel, today. They don't know what they are doing. They are ignoring the plain teachings in the NT while claiming to do the opposite!

The lyrics to Procal Harum's song "Strong as Sampson" says "Ain't no use in preachers preaching when they don't know what they're teaching" which can be taken two ways, both of which seem correct. Its a sign of the madness that has gotten into the churches today, who are attacking people left and right and can't seem to stop. They should stop, and they should begin by leaving homosexuals alone.

 

[Firemorphic]

I’m curious of your monotheistic stance if you oppose deities?
Do you oppose the anthropomorphic representations of the divine in general?

No hate, just curious.

Monotheism is naturally meant to be a revelation/realization beyond deity, were many peoples saw The Absolute Reality (what one may term "god" or any other number of names) for what it was and worshiped it. The monotheist stance is that The Absolute Reality is transcendent and self-revealing, that the universe emanated from it.
Yes, theologically I completely oppose anthropomorphism and any literal use of the word "he", "she" etc in regards to it. Outside of categorical word-play, Monotheism, Monism and PanENtheism aren't all that different from each other. An Abrahamic that has spent long enough studying the nature of reality according to their religion will inevitably see the Brahman+Atman aspect of the fractal relationship between the individual and The Absolute Reality.

(of course, I take an interest in pagan and Hindu deities outside of this position)

Over here: Very different paradigms I spoke my greater views towards both traditions, I'm not against deity per se but we are on the topic of God itself, in which I take a psychological view towards deity.

 

[blü 2]

Hi guys, much as happened within our society over the past few years. Many have claimed one side or the other when it comes to homosexuality and the Bible. In this video, I give some statements about each side of the scope and discuss them a bit. I hope it help and maybe gives a new perspective.

Religion is irrelevant.

It's a question of whether you're a person of decency or not.

Decency has many facets, not least inclusiveness and courtesy.

 

[Baroodi]

You mean like man made technology?

not at all. This is a different story

 

[Baroodi]

And therefore, all you need to do is show that something is actually "against nature." And with something that seems to occur naturally, at a pretty standard rate, and throughout the history of our species, I rather suspect you'll have a ***** of a time proving it's "against nature."

(Oh, and a hint for you, your prejudices and predispositions don't actually have anything to do with nature, nor do mine. Humans throughout all the history that we know of have been born stupid or genius, and everywhere in between, or short or tall, and everywhere in between, hale and healthy, or deformed and sick, and everything in between. And it's all "natural." Or, if it isn't, God's god some 'splainin' to do.)

Not at all, to refute this it costs no time at all. When men marry men, mankind extincts within 100 years roughly. this tells you it is against nature

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not at all, to refute this it costs no time at all. When men marry men, mankind extincts within 100 years roughly. this tells you it is against nature

Members of the jury, I present into evidence "Exhibit 1" for making an ineffective argument. Just assume the subject of the argument, whatever it is, not only applies to all but is mandatory for all.

I have said before, and I shall no doubt have occasion to say again, "there is a cure for ignorance, but it is doubtful that the patients most in need will take it."