CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there any chance that you would join the Christian faith?
I'm just wondering, for those who do not have a religion or are apart of another religion other than Christianity, is there a way that you would join Christianity? Is there something not there that you are looking for? Do you not like parts of the bible or have unanswered questions? I would like to know if anyone is willing to share information. All are welcomed to post.
I don't think a Christian would want to damage your brain just to get you to align with God. Do you have any other ways that you may convert or any problems with the faith you see in your eyes?
With this guy you have to understand that he doesn't mean anything he writes nor does it reflect his personality. It is better not to reply to the content of his arguments.
Because you write something and then go tqeraehraeeahraeraetw when someone challenges you. Thats because what you said has no base on your own opinion and you never manage to answer with anything relevant to what you originally said. I don't know what you really believe I just know that you offer so many contradictory 'views' (really just random jibbering) that there is no way you believe what you say even most of the time.
What I typed wasn't gibberish, It makes a sentence if you rearrange the letters . I only did that once.
Misinterpreting my responses is in no way "challenging" me. It's a waste of time trying to debate someone who just misinterprets...which is how most "debates" here pan out anyway.
If you don't know what I really believe then how can you know what I say has no base on my own opinion ?
Contradictory views? You're just making shit up now.
Yeah... in your brain . TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
This is a reply to the first post not the post above my name. Just thought Id clear that up... So yeah... dont really know what to say now so ill just sing ooh you touch my tralalala by nightcore...
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, you touch my tralala,
0 no u didn t m9! The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
In this case it is a very small chance for me though. Too many things that one is required to believe in that I find unlikely and unrealistic. God, souls, original sin and so on.
But I cannot predict the future. Who knows how I'll feel in 20 years?
In this case it is a very small chance for me though. Too many things that one is required to believe in that I find unlikely and unrealistic. God, souls, original sin and so on.
I see, well for me these things sort of came in a bundle. I was raised up in church so it may be much easier for me to believe in them. Of course I don't know your background either and from what I usually see you posting you do know your stuff and have good reasons behind it.
But I cannot predict the future. Who knows how I'll feel in 20 years?
True, and logically I have to say the same for myself.
I was raised to be Christian. My parents' faith waxed and waned, but for several years we were closely involved with our church. My parents, my extended family and the congregation we were a part of were all moderates. We believed that the Bible was not intended to be taken entirely literally. We believed in and were knowledgeable about science. Our church was open and supportive to the homosexual community.
Basically, if I was ever to join a church as an adult, it would be one like that.
But as far as I can remember, I never believed. Maybe when I was really young, but by the time I was 7 or 8, I just couldn't ignore the fact that it all seemed fishy to me. My parents pretty much always told me that I would understand as I got older, but the exact opposite happened. By the time I was in high school, I was smart enough to bring serious contentions regarding the religion, and the answers I was given seemed pretty weak, often like they were dodging the actual question at hand and/or giving non-answers.
Over the intervening years I have had several different "spiritual phases". Agnostic, hard atheist, Buddhist, I was even a wiccan for a brief time. But as I get older, I am more and more on the side that is skeptical of all religions and spirituality in general. I keep my mind open, but I still test what I've been told, and nobody has convinced me of Gods, souls or the specifics of any religion.
I was raised to be Christian. My parents' faith waxed and waned, but for several years we were closely involved with our church. My parents, my extended family and the congregation we were a part of were all moderates. We believed that the Bible was not intended to be taken entirely literally. We believed in and were knowledgeable about science. Our church was open and supportive to the homosexual community.
Ah, well you do have a start in church. I can say our church does promote scientific advancement and (recently) began accepting the homosexual community. I already accepted them, but the church never tried to give an official opinion about it, until we changed pastors who supported the homosexual community.
Basically, if I was ever to join a church as an adult, it would be one like that.
Probably not to hard to find.
But as far as I can remember, I never believed. Maybe when I was really young, but by the time I was 7 or 8, I just couldn't ignore the fact that it all seemed fishy to me. My parents pretty much always told me that I would understand as I got older, but the exact opposite happened. By the time I was in high school, I was smart enough to bring serious contentions regarding the religion, and the answers I was given seemed pretty weak, often like they were dodging the actual question at hand and/or giving non-answers.
I can relate with you there actually. There were a few times where I asked simple questions and I was nearly shamed for it and the answer was never really given. I still hold to my faith, but I did want some questions answered. So, I can relate to you on that part.
Over the intervening years I have had several different "spiritual phases". Agnostic, hard atheist, Buddhist, I was even a wiccan for a brief time.
Really? That's actually quite interesting to hear since a member of my family recently became a Wiccan. Of course, since my family is primarily Catholic/Christian they didn't accept that family member at all. I still accept him for who he his. Now hard Atheist? Is that like a more extreme version of a typical Atheist? Imagine a typical Atheist just being a common non believer. Someone who really just didn't care about religion that much and never thought much on it.
But as I get older, I am more and more on the side that is skeptical of all religions and spirituality in general. I keep my mind open, but I still test what I've been told, and nobody has convinced me of Gods, souls or the specifics of any religion.
I see, well nobody has really convinced me either. It's more like a leap of faith as my pastor calls it since God is a faith based god. I do keep an open mind and try not to let religion cloud my thoughts and try not to let it totally change my perception on things.
Is that like a more extreme version of a typical Atheist?
This comes from the school of thought that there are at least two different kinds of athiest. Hard, positive or gnostic atheism describes those who actively believe there is no God.
I currently consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not believe in God, but I don't claim to know for a fact there is no God. I find it hard to reconcile what I've heard about God with what I've observed in nature.
It's more like a leap of faith as my pastor calls it since God is a faith based god.
Simply put, I rarely put my faith in faith. I realize that we all use faith on some level in our day-to-day lives, but I don't think it is wise to do so any more than necessary. Knowledge, in my opinion, trumps faith at every turn. Blind faith can be antithetical to knowledge. Also, I don't understand why a faith based God would give us a) the ability to use logic and observation to obtain knowledge and b) a reality where all evidence for his existence is less than complete. To me, that is like telling someone to meet you 20 miles away, giving them a brand new car, and then refusing to let them in if they actually used the car to get to you. It makes no sense to me.
I currently consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not believe in God, but I don't claim to know for a fact there is no God. I find it hard to reconcile what I've heard about God with what I've observed in nature.
That makes sense, and I respect your views. Is God not equatable to the reality you've observed so far?
Also, I don't understand why a faith based God would give us a) the ability to use logic and observation to obtain knowledge and b) a reality where all evidence for his existence is less than complete. To me, that is like telling someone to meet you 20 miles away, giving them a brand new car, and then refusing to let them in if they actually used the car to get to you. It makes no sense to me.
Well, as my pastor explains it, God doesn't want to impede on free will. If everyone knew God existed then we wouldn't give him true love, but treat him as the eye in the sky. As something that is just there. Also, we have to be able to think about God. He doesn't want to limit our thoughts. He wants us to be autonomous in our decision making. That way we can understand anything that is brought our way, or at least try to understand if I may say.
Is God not equatable to the reality you've observed so far?
Only by being described as an entity beyond the boundaries of our universe does it seem that God can accomplish all he has been credited for. We have never seen anything without limits, yet God is said to have none, except perhaps self-imposed limitations or the supposed inability to perform acts of evil. This doesn't gel with anything we know about nature, about physics. How exactly does he do everything he does? How can something be the best at all things, know of all things, etc. Its just too much.
Yet if he DOESN'T have all of those qualities, than it becomes too little. How could a limited being create an infinite universe?
Too me it seems much more realistic to say that the concept of God was created by imaginative men for a variety of reasons: to "explain" unusual phenomena, to threaten wrong-doers, to ordain themselves with power and so on.
If everyone knew God existed then we wouldn't give him true love, but treat him as the eye in the sky.
I've never believed that. That would be like saying we can't have true love for our parents or significant others because we know they exist.
The fact is, if there is a heaven and hell, as well as a soul to reside in those places throughout eternity, it would be much more compassionate to give us raw knowledge of these things in a concrete manner. Make souls detectable, allow humans to travel to heaven and hell and teach them how to act in a way that that allows them ACTUALLY choose where to go, all cards on the table. If parents had such valuable knowledge but refused to share it with their children, we would call them horrible parents, I would think.
Knowledge doesn't destroy free will, it empowers it.
I was raised Presbyterian, and my mom is a religion
major(all religions, not just Christianity) she also moved many religions, but came back to Christianity. So I can pretty freely ask questions and get what she believes, what my denomination believes, why, how, when, why.... Like the following example:
I asked my mom what she thought of heaven and hell
She told me she believed that there was no hell except for eternal separation from God. Heaven was when we become one with God.
I asked her where she got the belief from, because I ha never heard it before.
She told me that scientifically, the energy in our bodies has to go somewhere, but also, in the bible it doesn't say anything about fiery hell and torture, that's actually, most likely, an adaptation from Greek culture into Christianity about their afterlife, which is supported because our version and the Greek version of hell is the same. We even sometimes call it the Greek name Hades. She explained that the bible tells us that the evil will be thrown to the darkness where there will be gnashing of teeth.
Then I wondered why would there be that separation, why not treat everyone equally?
She told me that the point of heaven is to become one with God, if we are violent or evil, we cannot be one with God because God uses the good in us. If we have the hearts, or lack there of, to murder someone in cold blood, then we really have no good in us that ever shows.
She told me that scientifically, the energy in our bodies has to go somewhere,
This isn't really a very scientific understanding of energy. Most of it is stored as potential energy and released by the microorganisms that consume our bodies or other environmental factors. Unluss we are cremated, in which case it is released by the fire as heat.
If by energy, you meant "spiritual energy"/"soul"...well that is something that has yet to be scientifically demonstrated.
if we are violent or evil, we cannot be one with God because God uses the good in us. If we have the hearts, or lack there of, to murder someone in cold blood, then we really have no good in us that ever shows.
It goes deeper than that though. First, we are supposedly BORN as sinners, meaning that no matter how good you thought you've been living your life, being a good and peaceful person is not enough. One must repent the sinner's life. But one cannot do that by good works alone. Indeed, Christianity is one of the few where one's good works, while encouraged, are essentially irrelevant. The really important thing is to have belief in God and Jesus as our savior. Failure to do so equates to damnation. This all carries implicit with it the idea that belief is a choice rather than a reaction to the data provided to you.
I'm not a perfect person, but I strive to constantly be a better person. I have no love for violence or the will to take a life. I am also not a believer. I find it highly spurious that an all-powerful all-benevolent being, one who is supposedly responsible for my creation, would damn me to hell for not believing when a reformed murderer who has caused more pain than I ever could can "become one with God" simply through his belief in Christianity. This does not sound benevolent to my ears.
It goes deeper than that though. First, we are supposedly BORN as sinners, meaning that no matter how good you thought you've been living your life, being a good and peaceful person is not enough.
I believe that we are not born sinners. Essentially, Jesus said that a child is precious, if you look through the eyes of a child, you will go to heaven. I believe sin is learned.
I'm not a perfect person, but I strive to constantly be a better person. I have no love for violence or the will to take a life. I am also not a believer. I find it highly spurious that an all-powerful all-benevolent being, one who is supposedly responsible for my creation, would damn me to hell for not believing when a reformed murderer who has caused more pain than I ever could can "become one with God" simply through his belief in Christianity. This does not sound benevolent to my ears.
There are many who believe the same in every denomination, but that is not technically a theological statement that non-Christians go to hell. I know I said this already, but people not of the Christian faith can still go to heaven, actually, they have about the same chances. Another belief on the matter, is that a reformed murderer, even if he is Christian, might follow God, but he doesn't follow his plan. An atheist of any sort, can follow the plan of God, but not Him Himself. The plan of God is to have the lion lay down with the lamb, for peace among us. He knows we aren't perfect, as he created us, so as long as we try our best to be a good person, he'll know.
Does not the Garden of Eden story suggest otherwise?
There are many who believe the same in every denomination, but that is not technically a theological statement that non-Christians go to hell.
I'd love to believe you, and indeed there are SOME quotes from the scriptures that seem to support you, but then you have stuff like this:
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Both atheists (the faithless) and followers of other religions (idolaters) appear to be in as much trouble as any sinner.
The basic premise of religion is control but if you disregard the full idea that you need to take orders for you to not kill, no dishonor your mom and dad and be a peaceful person then religion is not a bad thing. You see people blame God for 100% of the things that MAN has done. We create war, follow money with blind eyes into a dark alley and then actually have the audacity to say something like "if there is a god, then why is there world hunger?" And all of this with no regard for the collective fault of our own. I don't mean to say that religion fixes everything but more and more everyday we get sucked away from religion and if you look out there today, things don't look so great. Religion is a way for people to congregate, obviously there are a lot of bugs but none as terrible as stablished governments, so why give it such a bad rep? It's like if you were a child and you broke your mom's favorite china plate and you said that it was God's fault for letting it fall and not yours for pushing it over the edge.
Very good way to put that, Christians pretty much celebrate God and that he doesn't controls us like puppets, then we blame him for the stuff that we do while we aren't being controlled like puppets.
I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction I dislike fiction
Your right thewayitis :D! How could I have been so blind. Why didn't I realize it before! That must also mean :O gasp That must also mean sonic the hedgehog exists!!
Just saying, historical evidence such as death records and manuscripts verify That he was a person, whether or not he is Christ is the actual argument...
Maybe it is the whole world being created in 2000 years, a perfect being that behaves so evily etc etc that he finds fictitious. Legend is probably a better way of describing the Bible - parts are loosely based on truth but most of it our to make a good story (in this case the story is good because it allowed the church to control the masses).
What does some date whether correct or wrong have to do with anything? If I said that Roman fell in the 1880's does that mean that Roman Empire is then somehow still going strong? The Roman Empire fell, fact. Have the wrong date doesn't rewrite the events that happened. Grow up and stop looking for excuses to justify the way you live. You must have a really guilty conscious to keep looking for an excuse to clear it.
If you tell me you are the authority and I should believe you over all others about all things to do with the Roman Empire, you tell me that your source of knowledge is God and that all other interpretations of the Roman Empire are inherently false..... and THEN tell me that Rome fell in the 1880s. Well... should I take your knowledge of the Roman Empire seriously? What if you tell go on to talk about the ancient Greeks... do you think I should assume you are a credible source on that?
ou must have a really guilty conscious to keep looking for an excuse to clear it.
Actually, an atheist has to live with their guilt. You will find that many atheists turn to God in prison. "oh you raped your own son. Doesn't that feel bad? Well don't worry!!! For the price of every Sunday (except when you don't feel like it) we can take away that guilt! No hidden costs! Just give yourself to the book that says the Earth is a few thousand years old! (but we also say many things that are actually true ;) ) and never feel guilty about your son's suffering again!!!"
Maybe it is the whole world being created in 2000 years
The world was not created in 2,000 years. God had 6 installments of unknown time-frames where he created what we see today. The Hebrew text implies a much longer period of time.
a perfect being that behaves so evily
God doesn't participate in evil deeds, nor has he committed evil. God cannot do evil since that goes against his nature.
in this case the story is good because it allowed the church to control the masses
These stories are recorded accounts of history, Will you call anything we haven't seen that occurred in the past a legend?
My other arguments below were much better. You probably should have replied to them... :/
God doesn't participate in evil deeds, nor has he committed evil. God cannot do evil since that goes against his nature.
You have a strange sense of right and wrong if you consider all God's acts good. What about getting someone to burn their daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11:30-39)? Sending bears to kill innocent children (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Drowning nearly everyone (Genesis 7:21-23)? Also, have a look at the suffering he is planning for us in the book of revelations. And why? Because we don't give our lives to Him. But what if you're a good person? Fuck it. Suffer for all eternity. He is the evil character in the Bible. If He were real - we should all be very God-fearing indeed.
What about getting someone to burn their daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11:30-39)
I will post the verses for our sake.
Judges 11: 30-39
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
We actually have a slight translation error in the reading as he was not required to burn his daughter as a sacrifice at all. In fact, that was his own choice. The translation we have is a problem with the words "or" and "and". The verse should read:
“If Thou wilt indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD’S, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
Also, God wouldn't have asked for a human sacrifice since that would have broken Mosaic law, and God upholds law. He commands his subjects to follow the law of the land, as long as it aligns with Christ. God didn't want a human sacrifice, he would have been asking for an animal sacrifice.
Sending bears to kill innocent children (2 Kings 2:23-24)?
2 Kings 2:23-24
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
Nothing actually says God directly commanded the bears to maul the children. Elisha just spoke out in God's name and bears appeared. My church never believed that God actually did anything to send the bears.
Drowning nearly everyone (Genesis 7:21-23)
Genesis 7:21-23
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Is it not right for God to destroy the wicked? God is the God of judgment. Those who walk in sin and follow in the paths of sin eventually get destroyed. This is exactly what happened. The amount of sin was incredible. I don't see anything wrong with divine judgment.
Also, have a look at the suffering he is planning for us in the book of revelations. And why?
Suffering? Those who align with God have no suffering. Those that choose to ignore God's grace and choose the path of sin with endure suffering. The powers held back by God's mercy will be let loose. If they want to live with sin then they shall. In revelation the power of sin is fully shown. Then God strikes down his final judgment and all is well for those who remained faithful to him.
Because we don't give our lives to Him. But what if you're a good person? Fuck it.
The pope actually said those with good moral lives will enter heaven. I'm not Catholic, but he must have noticed something we didn't. So, I wouldn't count those who lives good lives out.
He is the evil character in the Bible.
God cannot be evil, thus invalidating your statement. God cannot possess, or act out evil, by any means without faltering his nature.
If He were real - we should all be very God-fearing indeed.
God doesn't participate in evil deeds, nor has he committed evil. God cannot do evil since that goes against his nature.
The verses I showed you previously say otherwise.
These stories are recorded accounts of history, Will you call anything we haven't seen that occurred in the past a legend?
Give me some historical evidence for Noah's ark,Jonah and the whale, and Jesus's existence. The answer is, you cant. Especially not Jonah and the whale. From a biological perspective, it is impossible for a man to live inside a whale's stomach.
No, they didn't. Same as this user. You two haven't proved anything. God doesn't participate in evil deeds, nor has he committed any evil acts. The verses you showed me are just your interpretation of the verses.
Give me some historical evidence for Noah's ark,Jonah and the whale, and Jesus's existence. The answer is, you cant.
Jesus existed in many texts other than the bible. I do know that much, I don't know how I can find you evidence for Jonah's whale since pretty much and super old whale could be Jonah's whale so there is no point in asking for that. The ark is a valid question, but I'm not an archaeologist or a geologist, so I don't really study these things. I don't think any evidence for the flood exists that would be accepted as God's work. I'm sure many will attribute it to the natural instead of the supernatural.
From a biological perspective, it is impossible for a man to live inside a whale's stomach.
With God anything is possible. I'm not a gastrologist either so I don't know how that works.
We had a discussion about you morality, this lead me to this conclusion. I thought you would see this as another subjective interpretation.
Fair enough I suppose. I suppose you can interpret them however you want as I will.
Did Julius Caesar exist?
He sure did, but see here's the difference between Caesar and Jesus. Caesar has more historical evidence than Jesus. You cant really make that comparison.
He sure did, but see here's the difference between Caesar and Jesus. Caesar has more historical evidence than Jesus. You cant really make that comparison.
Are you sure? You didn't see him and neither did I. Merely because a book says something existed doesn't make it true right? I mean I could say this about lots of people in history. I did say Jesus existed, but I mean what would you accept as evidence? His body is gone. Clothes are most likely gone. So what would you want besides writing?
The thing is, we have documentations from Julius Caesar himself. Hell there's tons of evidence confirming these documents. Im not saying Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying there's not enough evidence to confirm it.
I meant there was no documentation from himself. I want to see documentation from Jesus and I would like to have other documentations confirming it. Only then will I be satisfied.
That's true. Jesus didn't really write anything, rather he spoke in parables and told stories, and performed miracles. So, I guess I have no believable evidence to present you.
Your heading into well treaded areas. The way you use the word "faith" is an equivocation in this instance. Using the word faith as you have tried is not the same definition I used. For instance you may have faith your parents love you, this is not the same as religious faith.
One uses definition 1, the other 2. The meaning is not interchangeable even if it is the same word.
faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Past experience with you shows you know this use of the word faith to be fallacious but continue with this reasoning anyway. You have also in the past not looked at evidence presented to you, after you ask for it even.
I have little faith there is any real discussion with you. Which definition of faith am I using now? ;p
Why not have a crack at newer folks who don't know you?
Why not have a crack at newer folks who don't know you?
Because I cannot stand the cries of atheists that hide behind every excuse under the sun to ignore the truth. Trust in something can be trust in God or anything else as stated in your definition. Thanks for pleading my case.
I would like to be Christian. They seem to be on average much happier than atheists. However, it seems so incredibly improbable that some things in the Bible are true (garden of Eden being a good example) that I have to doubt the Bible as a whole's credibility. I can't see how the Christian God is knowable with what tiny information that might actually be true in the Bible. I concede that there might be a God, and sometimes I believe there is, but the Bible doesn't help us know Him.
Another reason there is no chance that I would become a Christian is that I wouldn't want to give his existence the benefit of the doubt, even if there were evidence for it. The Christian God is a malicious being. He doesn't value his followers because they do good but rather simply because they are faithful.
Also, I kind of think that most Christians don't fully believe in God. If my atheists friends and relatives were going to burn in hell for all eternity I just wouldn't be able to live my daily life... i would keep breaking down in tears. How can Christians go around with a smile on their faces?
I want to kind of clear up some things here... I'm Presbyterian, so we are taught to question, not just flat out believe so I may have a few more opinions than most Catholicism or stricter denominations...so I'll list a few things here:
1. Many things in the bible are symbolic including the Garden if Eden Story(Adam and Eve). The bible lists two different stories of creation next to each other, they aren't supposed to be factual.
2. The amount of information about God is something Christians struggle with as well... But the reasons why there isn't much on God, is because
- The people who wrote the bible didn't know much about God either.
- The disciples who probably did know about Him, thought that he was going to come back in their lifetimes
3. Actually our religion is based on this: "Love your neighbor as yourself". We actually believe (I'm not trying to make a generalization, so when I say we, I mean Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other theologically similar faiths) that even people who are not Christian can still go to heaven, atheists included. Judgment is based on the good of a person. To support that, I use the example of a Buddhist in Nepal was born Buddhist, grew up Buddhist, died Buddhist, and was not able to know Christianity through their whole life, they should not be punished for their life, as long as they I'd good unto others... "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee? And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25:31-46)
4. We can go around with smiles on our face knowing that if we do the right thing, or at least try not to do bad things, we will be saved. Which again goes to the point above.
Isn't is better to believe in a God and find out there isn't one than not believe in a God then find out there is one?
Don't mean to be profane but I would rather excrete in my hands and clap then become a Christian
That's actually very profane. I don't see why that was a necessary comparison either, but I can't change that.
I couldn't be one because of my sexuality.
Why do you say that? Are you homosexual? If so our church accepts the gay community and we believe God accepts all people. Sexuality will not prevent you from the grace of God.
Why do you say that? Are you homosexual? If so our church accepts the gay community and we believe God accepts all people. Sexuality will not prevent you from the grace of God.
I am Bisexual. It is clear that you're religion hates my kind. Just look at the abomination that is Leviticus 20:13.
Our religion does not hate your kind especially since we do not live under Judaic law which is exactly what you posted. If I were Jewish sure, maybe that would hold weight, but we do not condemn people for their sexuality since we do not follow Judaic law in most modern forms of Christianity. This is what our church teaches, so you would be accepted.
If what the Old Testament says is not relevant to Christianity then why is it still in the bible? Also didn't Jesus support what the prophets before him said? Furthermore there are many Christians out there who are against gays. It may be true that not all religious people are homophobic but most Homophobics are religious.
I guess so, they other guys shut me down and have shown me that the bible just doesn't like homosexuals, our church doesn't follow that part of the doctrine so I guess I see your point. I didn't think our church was that different from others.
If what the Old Testament says is not relevant to Christianity then why is it still in the bible?
Some of it Jewish Ancestry and other things, but it is relevant to Christianity. Christians believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament revealed in different ways.
Furthermore there are many Christians out there who are against gays. It may be true that not all religious people are homophobic but most Homophobics are religious.
Define "homophobic" although people like Fred Phelps I wouldn't disagree with.
Galations 5: 16-21 Mentions nothing of homosexuality.
Timothy - Was Jewish, thus upheld Judaic law. We do not follow the Judaic law.
Romans - This is an account from Paul, not Christ himself. It's even speculated that Paul was in fact more Jewish, than Christian. As Christians, we cannot judge a man by the basis of his sexuality and no sin is greater than another (unless you believe in the ultimate sin). In our church homosexuality is not a sin, and even if one would call it a sin it would be no different than any other. Authors can condemn sexuality, but Jesus accepts all.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (Strong's G733), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Timothy - Was Jewish
So was Jesus...
Romans - This is an account from Paul, not Christ himself.
Paul wrote about 40% of the new testament. You don't like the old testament nor the new testament - does your version of the bible consist of only what Jesus said and nothing else? Even still you would have to explain why Jesus said we should all be eunuchs (Matthew 19:12).
(I'll give you a better answer - everyone is a sinner...)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (Strong's G733), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Ah, I didn't see that one.
So was Jesus...
Jesus never condemned homosexuality.
You don't like the old testament nor the new testament
I never stated my likeness for either testament, do not assume such things.
does your version of the bible consist of only what Jesus said and nothing else?
Our bible is a typical bible.
Even still you would have to explain why Jesus said we should all be eunuchs (Matthew 19:12).
He didn't.
Matthew 19:12
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
But Jesus was Jewish and presumably not excluded from Chrisitanity because of same - so excluding New Testament writers like Timothy because they were Jewish is arbitrary.
I never stated my likeness for either testament, do not assume such things
Right, you just disagree with both in their condemnation of gays - not a bad thing, just means your morals are your own, not the Bible's.
Our bible is a typical bible.
Then it condemns homosexuallity in both the Old and the New Testament.
He didn't.
(Including the prior two contextual verses):
10) The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11) But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
He is saying that he knows it is hard to do, but it is better to not get married (and therefore not have sex) at all.
Well, if you didn't mind I printed out your posts to show to my church at a late night event we had last night, and they were pretty shocked too. I didn't think our church wasn't following proper doctrine. I knew that we didn't discriminate against homosexuals, but it appears to be so in the bible so I see your points and hope you forgive me for the aggression.
Thanks for your post (and general kindness), though I must say it gives me slightly mixed feelings. I would hate to be partially responsible for a church that supports gays moving away from that. Hopefully your church will maintain its openness and remember that it believes everyone is a sinner.
Our religion does not hate your kind especially since we do not live under Judaic law which is exactly what you posted. If I were Jewish sure, maybe that would hold weight, but we do not condemn people for their sexuality since we do not follow Judaic law in most modern forms of Christianity. This is what our church teaches, so you would be accepted.
Before I start I would like to state that this is not an argument towards the morality of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. It is simply a response to you stating that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. I would also to note that I believe Christians who hate homosexuals, that their position is not supported in the Bible.
I would like to thank you for your response. Firstly, there are many verses in the Bible that condemn homosexual acts. There are multiple uses and references to it. The first is male to male sex which can be seen in Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, and Romans 1:27. The second is lesbian intercourse which can be seen in Romans 1:26. The third is a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts which can be seen in 1 Timothy 1:8-10. The fourth is unknown and refers to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The meaning of this is unknown but it is strongly supported by evidence that it is referring to both the passive and the active partners in consensual homosexual acts. That being said, it has enough good evidence to fix into the third category. I will not go into the fifth which apparently refers to rape and the meaning is disputed among scholars as I believe the existing verses already provide enough weight. I am of course referring here to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Judges 18:22.
My question is what do you think each of those verses mean? I hope we have a meaningful discussion. Also, could you go over each verse and tell me your opinion of each verse.
I would also to note that I believe Christians who hate homosexuals, that their position is not supported in the Bible.
Yeah, we don't hate homosexuals, and our church doesn't either. In fact our church supports homosexuals in every way. We have a few homosexual members in our church so I assumed it was okay in the bible, but as JustIgnoreMe has shown the bible does seem to condemn gays.
My question is what do you think each of those verses mean?
At first glance I thought that the condemnation of homosexuals was merely Judaic law and since we aren't Jewish we don't follow it. That's what my church supports.
That being said, the verse clearly do demonstrate condemnation for homosexuals, and the events in Sodom and Gomorrah, in my opinion, weren't inherently caused by homosexual acts, but the over abundance of sin. Since you nicely asked me to go over each verse I shall do so.
Leviticus 20:13 - 'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
This verse describes the laws of the land in Judaic times. This still holds weight for many of the churches around America, but we have dismissed this verse since it was a land law and not a moral absolute given by God.
Leviticus 18:22 - 'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Same thing as above, we didn't abide by this either, but this still remains an argument for those who don't support homosexuals.
Romans 1:27 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
This is another instance where it's questionable if homosexuality is absolutely condemned in this verse. It's hard to say and there is much controversy over it. I'm sure the verdict is that it does, but for me this is just another act of divine punishment. Same goes for Romans 1:26.
1 Timothy 1:8-10 - We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
I don't think Timothy liked homosexuals much, and it's clear that the verse is saying that the law is made for them. I don't know what that absolutely means, and we haven't gone over it in church either. So, I don't have much of an opinion on this verse.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Verse is pretty clear, homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but in my opinion if it is a mere sin then God will judge it equally with any other sin. This is why I don't think homosexuals are bad in God's eyes. He gave us a list of things he hates, homosexuals wasn't one of them, nor was homosexuality mentioned in the ten commandments. That's my opinion of course.
Yeah, we don't hate homosexuals, and our church doesn't either.
Your church is Biblical in that position.
In fact our church supports homosexuals in every way.
Your church is not following the Bible in that regard.
We have a few homosexual members in our church so I assumed it was okay in the bible,
Anyone can go to church, in fact one of the uses of the church according to the Bible is to reach the unsaved. Although, if you are following the Bible it would be against the teachings of the Bible, to allow them in positions of authority. I could show you the verses if you want.
but as JustIgnoreMe has shown the bible does seem to condemn gays.
It is condemned, but on the same level as your friends might of had sex when they were young adults. Don't use that as an excuse to hate them which I admit a lot of people who do call themselves Christians do. Read the section of Jesus and the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees at Matthew 23:13-39. False Christians who are hypocrites and commit sex outside of marriage and yet condemn homosexuals and are not saved, in my opinion will have it worse then any gay person could get.
At first glance I thought that the condemnation of homosexuals was merely Judaic law and since we aren't Jewish we don't follow it. That's what my church supports.
The moral laws carry over, sexual immortality is used in the New Testament as in 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, and more. It is clear that Paul and the other apostles were talking to the Jews and would use the term sexual immortality as in what the Jews would think of as sexual immortality. The laws on sexual immortality still carry over today and the moral laws while the laws on cleanliness and rituals died out with the death of Christ.
That being said, the verse clearly do demonstrate condemnation for homosexuals, and the events in Sodom and Gomorrah, in my opinion, weren't inherently caused by homosexual acts, but the over abundance of sin.
Which Jude 1:7 suggests as Homosexuality and rape. It also makes sense that homosexuality would at least be part of God's punishment on Sodom and Gomorrah due to the fact that it is condemned in the Old Testament which they were living under even if you do not suggest it carried over.
Since you nicely asked me to go over each verse I shall do so.
Thanks for going over
Leviticus 20:13 - 'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
This verse describes the laws of the land in Judaic times. This still holds weight for many of the churches around America, but we have dismissed this verse since it was a land law and not a moral absolute given by God.
I explained about that above.
Same thing as above, we didn't abide by this either, but this still remains an argument for those who don't support homosexuals.
Again, I explained this above.
This is another instance where it's questionable if homosexuality is absolutely condemned in this verse. It's hard to say and there is much controversy over it. I'm sure the verdict is that it does, but for me this is just another act of divine punishment. Same goes for Romans 1:26.
Here it is stating that God will allow people to act out their homosexuality and will remove the guilt for doing so.
1 Timothy 1:8-10 - We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
I don't think Timothy liked homosexuals much, and it's clear that the verse is saying that the law is made for them. I don't know what that absolutely means, and we haven't gone over it in church either. So, I don't have much of an opinion on this verse.
I found a good explanation that you can read here about the meaning of that verse. You can find it in the link below. I am trying to keep this response to a moderate length.
Verse is pretty clear, homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
So you agree with my view?
but in my opinion if it is a mere sin then God will judge it equally with any other sin.
True
This is why I don't think homosexuals are bad in God's eyes.
No worse then any other sinners, which I admit some Christians treat homosexuals differently compared to other sins in the Bible.
He gave us a list of things he hates, homosexuals wasn't one of them, nor was homosexuality mentioned in the ten commandments. That's my opinion of course.
A lot of sins aren't mentioned in the Ten Commandments. That doesn't mean they aren't sins.
Your church is not following the Bible in that regard.
We are aware.
Although, if you are following the Bible it would be against the teachings of the Bible, to allow them in positions of authority.
We have no homosexuals in positions of authority.
It is condemned, but on the same level as your friends might of had sex when they were young adults. Don't use that as an excuse to hate them which I admit a lot of people who do call themselves Christians do.
We don't hate homosexuals. I don't think we ever did.
False Christians who are hypocrites and commit sex outside of marriage and yet condemn homosexuals and are not saved, in my opinion will have it worse then any gay person could get.
I agree with your opinion, but in the end God is the final judge of man.
The moral laws carry over
True, they do. Unless it was a and law it carries over.
Which Jude 1:7 suggests as Homosexuality and rape. It also makes sense that homosexuality would at least be part of God's punishment on Sodom and Gomorrah due to the fact that it is condemned in the Old Testament which they were living under even if you do not suggest it carried over.
It was, but not entirely. It was merely the over abundance of sin.
No worse then any other sinners, which I admit some Christians treat homosexuals differently compared to other sins in the Bible.
Yes, many Christians treat them differently.
A lot of sins aren't mentioned in the Ten Commandments. That doesn't mean they aren't sins.
That wasn't my point, I was specifically talking about things God hates. Homosexuals isn't one of them.
There is literally no objective evidence substantiating Christianity. Given the growing body of research that indicates religion is a psycho-social construction, it is quite reasonable to conclude that such evidence does not even exist. Finally, scientific research has established that religiousity is a genetic predisposition; some of us lack it, and I suspect myself among them as I never have believed in any religion or theistic creed.
I disagree with you for some reason... I dont really know why I just do so deal with it.
If you need a therapist to deal with my objection I suggest you phone Amy Friedman as she also helped me deal with objection when I was refused love from my mother. I am posting her profile below.
Amy Friedman, Ph.D.Verified Credentials
Counseling Psychology, Psychotherapy, Marriage & Family Therapy
Personally I can't. But I don't see why others can not. I personally can not believe in what the bible says, little alone what church says. To me its just a very twisted, kind of beautiful story. So no, I could not!
I guess you could call it a cult, but that holds such a negative stigma. I don't think religion is responsible for millions of deaths. It's the human that chooses what he wants to do with the religion that is responsible. Religion can't literally do much. It's always man at heart that causes pain and suffering.
I would say no. There are so many different denominations of Christianity, with different views on things, which makes me think that maybe no one really knows god, and his original ideas. Also since I've found some crazy things in the bible (look up evil bible, it's nuts) I think I'd rather sit on the sidelines and say that I don't know whether god exists.
I see, well the different denominations of Christianity are mere interpretations. All usually follow the same ideal God. That typically remains consistent. I also don't think the bible is evil, but if you wish to show me some stuff maybe I can clear up some of your thoughts.
Though I have been part of the Christian faith previously, I think that it is one's own option on what religion, or lack there of, they gravitate toward. Maybe one day I would think about excepting Jesus, but as a gender-fluid and poly-sexual individual, which has been time and time again been beaten upon, verbally and physically, I doubt that I will. I have been given a bad view upon Christianity, not because of judgment, but because they have been the one's to deliberately disregard the Bible and look down at those around them.
I see and understand your case. That's quite unfortunate and I give you my dearest apologize. If I may ask is the reason you disregard Christianity because of the way it has treated you in the past?
Not at all, i don't believe in something being an absolute truth for many reasons. Most importantly i know firsthand it's invalid. Another big reason being that i find it odd that anything you can simply say, "hey, i'm now bla bla bla." holds low credibility in terms of it being true. Anything you can simply join, is something that is easily not questioned in depth.
What exactly is invalid? The idea of the human mind that it is autonomous and with the need to be free is not your instinct to rebel against a God but to rebel against the world. Religion is seen as an establishment in a sense that it controls people and it's not a club. If we eliminate the world religion, and we replace it with common sense, then it's not a denomination anymore, it's a way of living. Now a smart-ass came along and said that they could use the name of a God to control people but individually it's irrelevant, YOU decide what common sense is to you, and you use common sense to make SENSE of the world around you. Eliminate the myths and stigma of anecdotes from 3000 years ago and simply see religion is asking you to be a better person, as long as that's all your take away from it, you're doing fine. No need to avoid eating meat, to avoid all sexual pleasure, just be a better person damn it, it's not that hard.
It's common sense for me to not find better of self, through simply joining a religion i simply am better. It's as though you say those who are without religion are bad people. I understand the christian faith, but if you paid attention to the question; "would i join," i state no. Reasoning that an establishment has no way to better human being. You're emotionally involved with your side far too much, to make rational notice of a differing statement. It's not that hard to allow people to be good without joining a bandwagon.
Highly unlikely, I feel so much more free and joy now that Christianity is out of my life. The only possible way I would return, is if you can somehow prove to me the christian god exists.
Christian belief is of blind faith. They read a book and pick out passages that best to help them in their cause, completely negating any and all passages that contradict their own points. Such as women speaking church, cuckoldry, homosexuality, and various others. It's not a way of bringing people together, it's a way of pushing them away and making themselves feel like the big dogs.
