In my opinion, I don't rag on people who believe in God.
Personally, I believe in reincarnation and a lot of different things from different religions.

Everyone needs something to believe in sometime. When the plane starts to uncontrollably shake, or when it's 12:30am and their child isn't home from their party yet, or when the police officer comes to their door and says, "We've got some bad news".

I don't blame anyone for believing in anything to keep themselves sane.

However, I don't think anyone should tell anyone what they should or should not believe.

Originally Posted by Ava The Vampire

In my opinion, I don't rag on people who believe in God.
Personally, I believe in reincarnation and a lot of different things from different religions.

Everyone needs something to believe in sometime. When the plane starts to uncontrollably shake, or when it's 12:30am and their child isn't home from their party yet, or when the police officer comes to their door and says, "We've got some bad news".

I don't blame anyone for believing in anything to keep themselves sane.

However, I don't think anyone should tell anyone what they should or should not believe.

But aren't you doing precisely that when you debate someone or give them your opinion about one of your own experiences?

---------- Post added 04-24-2017 at 11:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Well to anyone who does not believe in god, the first 4 are pointless.

The ten commandments are not the secret to world peace in the slightest, and if even Christians can't seem to follow it how do you expect the rest of the world to do it?

I grew up on the bible, and considering the modern bible is rewritten, it will have a clean appearance. But the supposed original isn't in english and I can't read that. Many bibles have removed parts from the bible they disagree with.

If the Ten Commandments, or following God's word, isn't the secret to world peace in the slightest then perhaps you could enlighten me as to what is. If everyone ceased lying, stealing, and killing, I think world peace would be imminent. It would, at the very least, create many a dull news cycle. But, you would disagree.

Christians fall off the wagon for the very same reasons everyone else does.
People smarter and more influential than I are unable to get all Christians in line so I can't imagine myself faring better than they. As my father was fond of telling me in my youth, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

By no means is this a pass for falling back into sin, even if temporarily, it's simply a matter of fact. All I can do is set the best example I am able to and ask God's forgiveness should I fall out of line. The one that says I don't go to church because of the hypocrites is a hypocrite himself.

---------- Post added 04-24-2017 at 11:48 PM ----------

All I can say about the different bibles is they are really just word variations. Does this change the meaning? Yes. It can. I've been taught the King James version and that's what I stick with. As I am sure you know, the original bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and translation isn't always spot on. However, when I read the bible, it can impact me in ways that no other book can. Truly, the word of God is alive. What you read once can speak to you differently when read again.

As for books being removed, yes, that has happened. But there are books available that include all the books of the bible enabling you to read what you wish to.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wrong

But aren't you doing precisely that when you debate someone or give them your opinion about one of your own experiences?

Giving an opinion is different than ragging....
"You're stupid, God doesn't exist."

Versus,

"I don't believe in God, and here's why..."

It's a matter of debating skills.

But the issue with having removed books, is that there's a lot of illegitimate books. How do you know which ones are legitimate? After all does it not say to watch out for false prophets? It's very possible some of those men are also false prophets.

Given religion is the number one reason people are murdering other people, I say remove god, and world peace is possible.

Christians can be very passive-aggressive especially, which can result in a lot of tension. I've had numerous ones telling me I am going to burn in hell (including my own mother) simply for not attending church as a kid, and these being people who are very highly regarded. They tend to look down on people who "aren't going to heaven". There is a very very strong lack of "love thy neighbor". I mean have you seen how much powerful hatred gays have gotten from Christians? Yet I have never seen a verse which references that this is even a sin.

I know God exists, there are somethings that can't be explained by 'science' and that are considered a supernatural miracle of sorts. So from what I know, God does exist. He might be known by different names in different parts of the world or by different religions.

I'm not one of those scary religious people. So, don't be afraid to state your opinions or thoughts around me. :3

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

But the issue with having removed books, is that there's a lot of illegitimate books. How do you know which ones are legitimate? After all does it not say to watch out for false prophets? It's very possible some of those men are also false prophets.

Given religion is the number one reason people are murdering other people, I say remove god, and world peace is possible.

Christians can be very passive-aggressive especially, which can result in a lot of tension. I've had numerous ones telling me I am going to burn in hell (including my own mother) simply for not attending church as a kid, and these being people who are very highly regarded. They tend to look down on people who "aren't going to heaven". There is a very very strong lack of "love thy neighbor". I mean have you seen how much powerful hatred gays have gotten from Christians? Yet I have never seen a verse which references that this is even a sin.

Yikes Poet, I had Pentecostal like church people said I had some horrible spirit inside of me. I knew it was untrue but still, it was a frightening experience.

For someone to say that a person is going to hell because of not attending church or for various other reasons aren't very Christ-like.

I agree there has been an extreme lack of "Love thy neighbor". The world needs more kindness and love. I even thought about becoming a Humanist but my faith in God won't allow me to become a full Humanist by name. I can use the values and morals from Humanism to be a better person though. :3

Lizzy - The biggest issue with the concept of "Many things science can't explain" though, is that many things which were previously not explainable are now explainable.
I mean, for a very long time many things not understood were considered witchcraft.

Well, the biggest problem is that most Christians aren't Christ-Like. They go to church for their own salvation, selfishness of their own future in itself. Most of them only care about their own soul.

What is bad about being a humanist? I've not heard that term before. Though, personally I prefer the route of just being pleasant and friendly to anyone even if I disagree with them elsewhere in time.

Originally Posted by Ava The Vampire

Giving an opinion is different than ragging....
"You're stupid, God doesn't exist."

Versus,

"I don't believe in God, and here's why..."

It's a matter of debating skills.

But do we not believe our own opinions? So when we give our opinion, are we not telling someone what we think they should believe or at least attempting to influence what they think or believe? I fully admit that is what I am doing on this thread and on other threads.

And last time I checked, what you consider "ragging" isn't illegal, but rather a matter of etiquette. There's a multitude of folks nowadays who absolutely despise anyone of faith and become nasty at the mere mentioning of God or the bible. I'm human, so when someone like that insults what I believe, then I will fire back. At least one of those folks has been on this thread should you care to review our exchange.

Furthermore, I'm not going to stop espousing what I believe to be true here on my own thread because you believe I am "ragging" on someone.
All who post on this thread do so of their own accord and I will reply to them in as much of a biblical context as I can. I don't pursue negative thread posters on other threads or via pm.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Lizzy - The biggest issue with the concept of "Many things science can't explain" though, is that many things which were previously not explainable are now explainable.
I mean, for a very long time many things not understood were considered witchcraft.

Well, the biggest problem is that most Christians aren't Christ-Like. They go to church for their own salvation, selfishness of their own future in itself. Most of them only care about their own soul.

What is bad about being a humanist? I've not heard that term before. Though, personally I prefer the route of just being pleasant and friendly to anyone even if I disagree with them elsewhere in time.

There is nothing bad about being a humanist. The only issue I have is some humanists deny that there is a God/High power. I can't deny that there isn't a God. I can't find it within me to deny God. Hence why I can't be a full humanist. :S I can take note of some of their values and morals. Which includes treating your fellow person with respect and doing acts of kindness because it is the right thing to do. :3

Lizzy - So being a humanist is basically... common decency? It's really depressing that we need a specialized term for that...

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Lizzy - So being a humanist is basically... common decency? It's really depressing that we need a specialized term for that...

I'll inbox you a link that'll explain it better than I can.

Originally Posted by LizzyCollinsDeArc

There is nothing bad about being a humanist. The only issue I have is some humanists deny that there is a God/High power. I can't deny that there isn't a God. I can't find it within me to deny God. Hence why I can't be a full humanist. :S I can take note of some of their values and morals. Which includes treating your fellow person with respect and doing acts of kindness because it is the right thing to do. :3

This bible verse came to mind when I read the above text.

Romans 16:18 KJV For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

---------- Post added 04-25-2017 at 11:36 PM ----------

Isaiah 30:10 KJV Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

And so did this verse.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wrong

But do we not believe our own opinions? So when we give our opinion, are we not telling someone what we think they should believe or at least attempting to influence what they think or believe? I fully admit that is what I am doing on this thread and on other threads.

And last time I checked, what you consider "ragging" isn't illegal, but rather a matter of etiquette. There's a multitude of folks nowadays who absolutely despise anyone of faith and become nasty at the mere mentioning of God or the bible. I'm human, so when someone like that insults what I believe, then I will fire back. At least one of those folks has been on this thread should you care to review our exchange.

Furthermore, I'm not going to stop espousing what I believe to be true here on my own thread because you believe I am "ragging" on someone.
All who post on this thread do so of their own accord and I will reply to them in as much of a biblical context as I can. I don't pursue negative thread posters on other threads or via pm.

In my opinion, stating an opinion doesn't necessarily mean trying to change the opinion of someone else, just letting them know that there are other sides to one story.

I also never said anything against what you are doing in this thread, rather, I dislike it when people say, "Believing in God is stupid. There is no God." And don't give reasons to why they think so. I also think it's sad that some people define "god" by other people's standards and not their own.

I am not religious, nor do I consider myself Christian, but I do believe in bits and pieces of all religions and I feel that before people should throw judgement on someone else's beliefs they should try going one day living in someone else's shoes and learning that sometimes the only thing we have in life is faith and it can be a really, really depressing, shitty ass life if you go through it thinking that there is no hope or no way of redemption.

I think it's scary to think that my life might not be worth anything and I am just here by accident. I would much rather believe that I have a purpose and meaning to my life rather than just, "oops, Ava is here".

Originally Posted by Ava The Vampire

In my opinion, stating an opinion doesn't necessarily mean trying to change the opinion of someone else, just letting them know that there are other sides to one story.

I also never said anything against what you are doing in this thread, rather, I dislike it when people say, "Believing in God is stupid. There is no God." And don't give reasons to why they think so. I also think it's sad that some people define "god" by other people's standards and not their own.

I am not religious, nor do I consider myself Christian, but I do believe in bits and pieces of all religions and I feel that before people should throw judgement on someone else's beliefs they should try going one day living in someone else's shoes and learning that sometimes the only thing we have in life is faith and it can be a really, really depressing, shitty ass life if you go through it thinking that there is no hope or no way of redemption.

I think it's scary to think that my life might not be worth anything and I am just here by accident. I would much rather believe that I have a purpose and meaning to my life rather than just, "oops, Ava is here".

Well, Ava, you are not here by accident. None of us are. If one can believe that we are all but accidental intelligent protoplasm, and there is no God, then our existence is pointless. Our lives take on no meaningful purpose.

Some folks put all their faith in science, which is but human understanding, to answer their own questions about our existence here on earth and refuse to believe God exists. Yet science cannot determine what happens after we die. Science cannot explain apparitions and other paranormal activity. Science cannot determine where a thought originates. Science knows there is cognitive brain function during thought processes, but cannot pinpoint its source. One cannot see a thought, but yet thought does exist.

Science can explain to us many things about the universe, but not why there is a universe. The same goes for the earth, everything in it, and ourselves. Yet there are those that willfully ignore the "why" questions and will even go so far as to mock and criticize those who do. Bill Maher is a great example of this.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Lizzy - The biggest issue with the concept of "Many things science can't explain" though, is that many things which were previously not explainable are now explainable.
I mean, for a very long time many things not understood were considered witchcraft.

Well, the biggest problem is that most Christians aren't Christ-Like. They go to church for their own salvation, selfishness of their own future in itself. Most of them only care about their own soul.

What is bad about being a humanist? I've not heard that term before. Though, personally I prefer the route of just being pleasant and friendly to anyone even if I disagree with them elsewhere in time.

Science cannot explain where a thought comes from. Science cannot explain what consciousness is. Science cannot explain what dreams are. Science cannot explain what makes reality.

Can we see, touch, smell, feel, taste, or measure thoughts, consciousness, dreams, or reality?

You say the existence of God cannot be proven because He cannot be measured or known to our five senses, and yet we have thoughts, we have dreams, we are conscious, and there is a reality.

Science also couldn't explain why some people sneezed in sunlight. It requires advancing our knowledge to understand these things. And each day we get one step closer to understanding them and making breakthroughs.
Just because science at it's current state can not explain something does not make it an act of god. Take the Salem Witch Trials for instance. The things that caused people to be burned at the stake and hung now has been explained. People suspected them of witchcraft for what they could not explain. Doing the same for religion is illogical. The unexplainable does not by default prove god. It is plain and simple an unknown.

How sure are you that this is reality? Can you prove that this is not a virtual reality? Can you prove that you exist? Perhaps things that can not be explained are simply glitches, you can't prove it isn't, but yet the majority of people would say it's not possible. Same concept for god isn't it? We would be his virtual reality program so to speak.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

But the issue with having removed books, is that there's a lot of illegitimate books. How do you know which ones are legitimate? After all does it not say to watch out for false prophets? It's very possible some of those men are also false prophets.

Given religion is the number one reason people are murdering other people, I say remove god, and world peace is possible.

Christians can be very passive-aggressive especially, which can result in a lot of tension. I've had numerous ones telling me I am going to burn in hell (including my own mother) simply for not attending church as a kid, and these being people who are very highly regarded. They tend to look down on people who "aren't going to heaven". There is a very very strong lack of "love thy neighbor". I mean have you seen how much powerful hatred gays have gotten from Christians? Yet I have never seen a verse which references that this is even a sin.

There are several bible verses in which God condemns homosexuality.

Anyone can be passive-aggressive. Christians do not have a lock on that type of behavior. And while Christ and His teachings are perfect, His flock is not. Nowhere does the bible state becoming a Christian elevates you to perfect status, and yet so many people hold Christians to this unreasonable standard. This is why the bible states that all have fallen short of the glory of God and that you must be born again.

I'm sorry your mother chooses to wield Hell as a weapon and I know there are other Christians who do the same. Jesus never did such a thing during His time on earth as a man and neither should any Christian. No culture on earth holds arrogance or selfishness in high regard so one should avoid that sort of behavior. Honey catches more flies than vinegar.

As as Christians showing contempt for homosexuals, I would say there's no love lost on either side. Remember, Christians are subject to human nature just like everyone else is. And like everyone else, we are subject to the same temptations and range of emotions all humans have.

One must also bear in mind that homosexuals, for the most part, are in open rebellion against God and rail against Christians as a rule. And it's these types of homosexuals who put themselves on display during gay parades and openly mock heterosexuality. This is why most gay parades are held on or near Father's Day. So it should come as no surprise when Christians show the same contempt for the homosexual who displays contempt for Christianity.

---------- Post added 05-20-2017 at 01:19 AM ----------

Time for a boring history lesson.

It puzzles me why some folks have such a disdain for history and I wonder if you are among that rank and file.
When I saw that you believed that removing God would spare so many live since so many have been killed in His name.

First, let me start off with what I stated in another post months ago. Those who wage war in God's name actually do so contrary to the correct teaching and application of God's word. The Crusades are a great example of this. The Catholic church chose to initiate war for its own gain and killed many Christians and Muslims alike. The Spanish Inquisition is also an excellent example of Catholic misapplication of God's word.
As you may begin to see, God isn't the problem here, but rather man is. And whether that man is Muslim, Catholic, or Christian, he is still subject to sin nature and can act accordingly.

You've heard it before, but it bears repeating: There was only one perfect man on this earth and He was crucified.

And if you're curious about the Catholic church, read Revelations chapter 17.

So, what if we did remove God? Could mankind achieve world peace?

Hardly. And it's foolish to think so. Here's why: I'm sure you've heard of Karl Marx.
Well, he is the founder of Marxism and the author of the Communist Manifesto. From Marxism, all left-wing ideology is formed. Karl Marx had an idea, and that idea was to dethrone God. For whatever reason, Marx hated God and wished to spite Him. How best to accomplish this than to invent a system of government in which God is not recognized and that man is elevated as being the captain of his own ship and not needing God.

This philosophy gave rise to statism or the totalitarian state. Obviously, tyranny was nothing new to mankind, but Marxism is insidious in that it promises wealth and equality for a majority working-class, or proletariat. Now, a pure form of communism would be an ideal form of government except that those who assume power never want to share or relinquish their power to others.

My point is that Marxism has given birth to socialism, communism (which is an extreme form of socialism), and yes, even Nationalist Socialists. Which is what the Nazi's were. Many people would have you believe that the Nazis were a right-wing party, but that just doesn't hold water. The main difference being that right wings folks believe in individual liberty, whereas the Nazis did not. Nazi Germany didn't offer their citizens a Bill of Rights or free elections. Any bonehead knows right wingers support free elections.

The biggest lie the left wants every white person to believe is that only whites are capable of racism. They never state this openly, but it is certainly implied. Every time you hear the word "racism" used, what do you automatically think? It's always about white hating blacks. Blah blah blah. This is as hypocritical as it gets. You don't have to read much history about the American Civil War to learn that it was the Democrats in the south that were the slaveowners and even fought to keep slavery intact.

In this know that racism doesn't belong exclusively to the right, but mainly to the left and history bears this out.

The question which remains is how many people died at the hand of religion versus how many died at the hands of those who opposed religion. Obviously, we will never know, but there are rough estimates as to how many people those who oppose religion killed.

Hitler's Germany: Around six million with most victims being white.

Stalin's Soviet Union: approximately forty million dead.

Mao's China: it is estimated that more than sixty million have died under Chinese communisn.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia: about one and a half million.

Castro's Cuba: probably in the thousands.

South America and Africa: I have no idea.

Wars fought over religion: Certainly in the millions or even tens of millions, but I doubt it's close to the one hundred plus million numbers left-wing ideologies produce and continue to produce.

Lastly, you can see that my point is applying the word of God correctly, because when you don't or even attempt to deny or replace God, great evil takes place.

Those "open mockeries" are not to flaunt themselves before your eyes, as it has nothing to do with you. They do those things to get the word out that "hey we are a minority but we're human too" and show the world what kinds of people they are.
Also last I checked I could not find a single verse which condemned it. But what I have found is condemning things such as tattoos and eating of certain foods. Every single thing people use as weight against homosexuals is Old Testimate. Do you know why this would be important? Because if men laid with men and women laid with women, no children would be born, and for a small population this is bad.

Do you have any verses within the bible which condemn homosexuals within the New Testimate? As if I recall, the Old Testimate was revised to be the New Testimate.
And if you DO follow the Old Testimate, tell me, why have you not been stoning these people as is your teachings. Homosexuality in the Old Testimate was a death sentence. Lying about being a virgin also got you that. Sleeping with a woman on her period. Not bleeding on the loss of one's virginity. These all gave you the death sentence. These people in the Old Testimate were stoned or in some other way executed. Do you still condemn all of these things? Would you openly demand execution for these?

The majority of things the Old Testimate forbid were for reasons of sanitation or population management. They are no longer valid in today's society with high quality medical treatments available as well as high populations.

The only mention I have found regarding Homosexiality in the New Testimate, is very unclear as to what it means. Romans 1:26/1:27 do mention "unnatural" but do not specifically explain what that is.

The issue with what you've stated is that you think any of that is about you. But it's not about you. In fact, I highly doubt any of them have god in mind when they walk that parade save a few, and some of those go to church on a regular basis as worshipers, pastors, choir members, or repenters.

I know that people going around aimlessly murdering people isn't "with his teachings", but that does not stop people from wielding his name like a weapon to slay others. The name which many are so strongly bound to, rallies people to bloodshed without knowing why.

When I hear the word "racism", I do not in fact see one specific race. I recall back to specific instances of racism that I have personally seen. Racism exists everywhere because one race feels itself to be superior to another. One's skin color means very little when determining how someone will act before they speak.

The issue with those instances of "removing god" is that these men get revered almost like a god themselves. They are blinded into only seeing what the government wanted them to see.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Those "open mockeries" are not to flaunt themselves before your eyes, as it has nothing to do with you. They do those things to get the word out that "hey we are a minority but we're human too" and show the world what kinds of people they are.
Also last I checked I could not find a single verse which condemned it. But what I have found is condemning things such as tattoos and eating of certain foods. Every single thing people use as weight against homosexuals is Old Testimate. Do you know why this would be important? Because if men laid with men and women laid with women, no children would be born, and for a small population this is bad.

Do you have any verses within the bible which condemn homosexuals within the New Testimate? As if I recall, the Old Testimate was revised to be the New Testimate.
And if you DO follow the Old Testimate, tell me, why have you not been stoning these people as is your teachings. Homosexuality in the Old Testimate was a death sentence. Lying about being a virgin also got you that. Sleeping with a woman on her period. Not bleeding on the loss of one's virginity. These all gave you the death sentence. These people in the Old Testimate were stoned or in some other way executed. Do you still condemn all of these things? Would you openly demand execution for these?

The majority of things the Old Testimate forbid were for reasons of sanitation or population management. They are no longer valid in today's society with high quality medical treatments available as well as high populations.

The only mention I have found regarding Homosexiality in the New Testimate, is very unclear as to what it means. Romans 1:26/1:27 do mention "unnatural" but do not specifically explain what that is.

The issue with what you've stated is that you think any of that is about you. But it's not about you. In fact, I highly doubt any of them have god in mind when they walk that parade save a few, and some of those go to church on a regular basis as worshipers, pastors, choir members, or repenters.

I know that people going around aimlessly murdering people isn't "with his teachings", but that does not stop people from wielding his name like a weapon to slay others. The name which many are so strongly bound to, rallies people to bloodshed without knowing why.

When I hear the word "racism", I do not in fact see one specific race. I recall back to specific instances of racism that I have personally seen. Racism exists everywhere because one race feels itself to be superior to another. One's skin color means very little when determining how someone will act before they speak.

The issue with those instances of "removing god" is that these men get revered almost like a god themselves. They are blinded into only seeing what the government wanted them to see.

Unnatural means going against the course of what is natural; abnormal. Therefore committing an unnatural act is shameful.

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged their natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In the greater context of Romans chapters one and two, John speaks of a judgment that has already been passed. So, at some point, God had already given a law to those mentioned as being condemned meaning this judgment probably occured in the Old Testament and therefore, by its mentioning in the New Testament, makes it currently relevant.

---------- Post added 05-21-2017 at 12:29 AM ----------

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

Abusers of themselves with mankind means homosexuality.

---------- Post added 05-21-2017 at 12:34 AM ----------

As for stoning anyone to death, I'm obviously not going to do that nor do I know of any other Christians who would.

So basically a feminine male is condemned? Given that is not the male's choice but hormones and upbringing, to condemn that is ridiculous and harms the credibility of the bible.

If you aren't to stone them, then you can not pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow. You must follow all of the old testimate or none of it. To pick and choose that one thing or another is still valid or not based on your own insight, that is defacing of the bible.

Now lets go to the root words.
malakoi (effeminate) and arsenokoitai (abusers of themselves with mankind).
Effeminate, was actually a poor translation of weakness. Why? Because men who are weak are said to be "like women" which is insulting to women as well in that regard. But likely this is the origin of a lot of heavy sexism.
As for arsenokoitai - Translates to Man Lay from what I'm finding. From that translation someone decided it means "abusers" while abusers is not mentioned. Translating it directly to greek it means Arsenic. Still nothing about abusers. However, that could be a reference to being "toxic" to others.

In regards to unnatural. It could also refer to the use of intimacy for pleasure instead of reproduction. Could condemn the routes that do not cause reproduction. So still, the word "homosexual" in any way still has not been directly mentioned. But has been conveniently vague enough to let people bash homosexuals for something that they can't change.
So ultimately, who's flaunting at who? Seems far more likely that the Bible is translated to a way that was convenient to the ones who translated it.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

So basically a feminine male is condemned? Given that is not the male's choice but hormones and upbringing, to condemn that is ridiculous and harms the credibility of the bible.

If you aren't to stone them, then you can not pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow. You must follow all of the old testimate or none of it. To pick and choose that one thing or another is still valid or not based on your own insight, that is defacing of the bible.

Now lets go to the root words.
malakoi (effeminate) and arsenokoitai (abusers of themselves with mankind).
Effeminate, was actually a poor translation of weakness. Why? Because men who are weak are said to be "like women" which is insulting to women as well in that regard. But likely this is the origin of a lot of heavy sexism.
As for arsenokoitai - Translates to Man Lay from what I'm finding. From that translation someone decided it means "abusers" while abusers is not mentioned. Translating it directly to greek it means Arsenic. Still nothing about abusers. However, that could be a reference to being "toxic" to others.

In regards to unnatural. It could also refer to the use of intimacy for pleasure instead of reproduction. Could condemn the routes that do not cause reproduction. So still, the word "homosexual" in any way still has not been directly mentioned. But has been conveniently vague enough to let people bash homosexuals for something that they can't change.
So ultimately, who's flaunting at who? Seems far more likely that the Bible is translated to a way that was convenient to the ones who translated it.

I believe effeminate refers to cross dressers or those males who otherwise act in a feminine manner. God creates us as being male or female. We don't get to decide what gender we want to be from one day to the next. You may Google Weizmann Wonder Wander to learn about the 6500 genes that are different in men and women.

Since the word "homosexual" is only about 100 years old, this explains why it isn't found in older translations such as the KJV, but is found in versions such as the NIV. And I don't know how much more clear it can be made that a man who lies with another man as with a woman indicates homosexual sin. On this point you may as well be telling me that water cannot make you wet.

I also believe homosexuality is a choice as surely as the decision to be sexually immoral in heterosexuality is a choice. It all comes from thought and not because anyone was "born that way" or because of some hormonal imbalance. Science does not know where thoughts originate other than thoughts come from outside the brain. To the believer, we know that thoughts come from either God or lower spirits. I'm sure you've had thoughts enter your mind that tell you to do horrible things. And you may ask yourself, where did that come? I would never do such a thing.

In this regard, it's safe to say that our thoughts are not our own. However, we do have the choice of whether or not to take hold of this thought and either keep it or discard it immediately.

---------- Post added 05-21-2017 at 11:18 PM ----------

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

A great example of immediately discarding a thought from a lower spirit comes from the story of Jesus on the way to the cross at the garden of Gethsemane. Satan put into Jesus' mind that He should escape His own crucifixion and continue on as He was doing; "Let this cup pass from me". But Jesus discarded that thought without hesitation. He did not allow it to take form in His mind, but instead continued with "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Had Jesus not immediately discarded this thought and proceeded to die for all man's sins, mankind would be condemned to Hell without any chance of salvation.

While some genes are different, there are people who are more one than the other. Gender Dysphoria is real and not something a person has a choice in the matter of. And as people do not have a choice, it is unreasonable to call it a horrible sin worth pushing people to suicide for. It's no different than say telling someone to "stop being depressed". It doesn't work.

But there is also the fact of homosexuality and animals. There are quite a number of animals who regularly practice it. Some are designed BY GOD to do so to encourage breeding with females (it excites the females). Man did not make these animals like this.
So to classify homosexuality as unnatural is false, because by law of nature it is natural.

You say that they have a choice, but there has been a lot of resounding proof of otherwise. Sure, you can bury the urges, many will go on to have an opposite gender spouse, have kids, and eventually 20 years later they get divorced because he can't fake it anymore.

Thoughts and their source? Of course I know where the horrible thoughts are from. Me. Because I think those horrible things. I don't need the assistance of some lesser being whispering in my ear to feel horrible about myself.

That last verse actually hurts your point. Because had he decided otherwise us all being condemned to hell as his creations makes him a barbaric god. Many scenes show him wrathfully punishing people and cities. He is continuously barbaric.

By saying our thoughts are not our own you say that we do not have free will. If we do not have free will, then we are not responsible for our sins. Which according to the bible we are not only responsible for our sins but for the sins of the first humans.

In response to the OP... I'm sure many of these points have been brought up... don't have the attention span to read 6 pages though lol. As a result I do not expect anyone to humor me in reading my essay response either lol...but for those who are bored and are willing to take the risk of mild entertainment vs. further boredom:


In response to the student's argument:

The whole heat vs. cold, and light vs. dark part I have little problem with... except the conclusion it is leading to, which is trying to say the professor's conclusion of God existing must be wrong due to false premises:

‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.

Consider this argument:
P1) I have four cats cat.
P2) All together they weigh 5 mllion lbs.
C) In conclusion, I currently live in Canada.

P1) is false. I only have two cats.
P2) is false. My cats don't weigh 5 million lbs together lol.
C) is true. The logic structure is non-sequitor, invalid, yet the conclusion's truth is independent. The argument as a whole is unsound...but no matter what reasons I give you... I currently do live in Canada and this is true. If I want to CONVINCE anyone that I do, depending on the person I may need to provide better argument.

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’
‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains.
‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one,"

1) The professor does not appear to be arguing that there is a good god and a bad god. Rather he seems to be using "The Problem of Evil" argument to show that there is an inconsistency with evil and both an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenveolent being (God) existing. He's trying to demonstrate the evil does exist, which is for the purpose of making the argument that it must be impossible for a God defined by those characteristics existing.

2) When he says the science cannot explain a thought... alright? There is plenty yet to be explained in the world. There was a time in history where we did not know that adding salt to most foods preserves them... does that mean at that point in history salt had 0 effectiveness as a preservative? Our knowledge or lack of knowledge something in most cases does not influence it's truth (*leaving it open at most, due to the observer effect that's being explored in quantum physics). Unlike God, with science, we do not make claims that it is all knowing. Rather the argument for using scientific method as a primary way of knowing is that it's one of the most consistent paths to knowledge.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’

1) To view death as the absence of life rather than the opposite is still working under a duality/binary framework. Presence vs. absence. Therefore; the student is not illustrating an error of duality reasoning.

2) Furthermore, death is not the absence of life. A rock is absent of life. It is not dead. It is simply not living. All dead things are not living, but not all living things are dead.

‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’
‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’
‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavors, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

This is a decent counterargument at the professor's argument based on the senses and Jesus. The original senses argument was not very good.

However, evolution has been observed first hand in experiments... a couple of examples that comes to minds is with breeding of fruit flies and microorganisms.

‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’
‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.

‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’

The thing is though, without exception, if you were to perform an operation on a person's brain, you would find one there. There has yet to be a case where someone went in for brain surgery, and there was the complication of, brain not found. It is cogent inductive reasoning to assume that the professor has a brain without needing to actually verify it. This is a very small leap of faith and a very unextraordinary claim.

This situation does not parallel the extra, extraordinary claim that there is being existing eternally, that has knows everything, is all powerful, all good, and created literally everything (God). Furthermore, with Christianity having 10 commandments plus an ungodly *pun* amount of other expectations and impositions on how to live your life... with many of them being questionable... thought crimes, anti-pre-marital sex, slavery, women as property, food restrictions, fabric restrictions, man's dominion over the world, etc. I'd say it is pretty important to not just accept that it's true without some pretty good evidence supporting such grandiose claims.

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

God is never absent under a Christian viewpoint though. God is claimed to exist before the Earth, and to exist forever after, eternally. "

Evil" as operatively defined earlier by

Is there sickness? Immorality? typo? Hatred? Ugliness?

... certainly has existed for quite some time, including when Jesus existed... Jesus was quite the victim of evil. Ain't nothing healthy, loving, or pretty about being nailed to a cross to die.

Therefore; evil is not rendered to be non-existent by the student's argument.

Evil is the result of what happens we have not let God in our help?
Student, please explain murdered babies, infant/child sexual abuse victims, the fact that Christians can die in long, agonizing ways just like many other people, the fact that Christians are immune to natural disasters, and all other types of disasters and suffering, etc.

Also, again the definition of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful being.... really makes no sense why such a being would subject anyone even an adamant active disbeliever to such horrors. Sounds very abusive; love me OR ELSE! Oh and by the way, even those who do love me, don't worry bout all the bad things that happen along the way, it's all part of the plan. ;)


When I have more energy... I'll make my own response to the professor's argument(s) which I do not think is perfect either lol.

Also, I will say Mr. Wrong: thanks for posting such a thought provoking piece! This is one of the most balanced ways I've ever seen of stimulating a discussion on the topic without having a clear bias one way or the other. As someone who will be declaring my major in religion next year, I really loved it!

Originally Posted by Razor

In response to the OP... I'm sure many of these points have been brought up... don't have the attention span to read 6 pages though lol. As a result I do not expect anyone to humor me in reading my essay response either lol...but for those who are bored and are willing to take the risk of mild entertainment vs. further boredom:


In response to the student's argument:

The whole heat vs. cold, and light vs. dark part I have little problem with... except the conclusion it is leading to, which is trying to say the professor's conclusion of God existing must be wrong due to false premises:



Consider this argument:
P1) I have four cats cat.
P2) All together they weigh 5 mllion lbs.
C) In conclusion, I currently live in Canada.

P1) is false. I only have two cats.
P2) is false. My cats don't weigh 5 million lbs together lol.
C) is true. The logic structure is non-sequitor, invalid, yet the conclusion's truth is independent. The argument as a whole is unsound...but no matter what reasons I give you... I currently do live in Canada and this is true. If I want to CONVINCE anyone that I do, depending on the person I may need to provide better argument.





1) The professor does not appear to be arguing that there is a good god and a bad god. Rather he seems to be using "The Problem of Evil" argument to show that there is an inconsistency with evil and both an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenveolent being (God) existing. He's trying to demonstrate the evil does exist, which is for the purpose of making the argument that it must be impossible for a God defined by those characteristics existing.

2) When he says the science cannot explain a thought... alright? There is plenty yet to be explained in the world. There was a time in history where we did not know that adding salt to most foods preserves them... does that mean at that point in history salt had 0 effectiveness as a preservative? Our knowledge or lack of knowledge something in most cases does not influence it's truth (*leaving it open at most, due to the observer effect that's being explored in quantum physics). Unlike God, with science, we do not make claims that it is all knowing. Rather the argument for using scientific method as a primary way of knowing is that it's one of the most consistent paths to knowledge.



1) To view death as the absence of life rather than the opposite is still working under a duality/binary framework. Presence vs. absence. Therefore; the student is not illustrating an error of duality reasoning.

2) Furthermore, death is not the absence of life. A rock is absent of life. It is not dead. It is simply not living. All dead things are not living, but not all living things are dead.




This is a decent counterargument at the professor's argument based on the senses and Jesus. The original senses argument was not very good.

However, evolution has been observed first hand in experiments... a couple of examples that comes to minds is with breeding of fruit flies and microorganisms.



The thing is though, without exception, if you were to perform an operation on a person's brain, you would find one there. There has yet to be a case where someone went in for brain surgery, and there was the complication of, brain not found. It is cogent inductive reasoning to assume that the professor has a brain without needing to actually verify it. This is a very small leap of faith and a very unextraordinary claim.

This situation does not parallel the extra, extraordinary claim that there is being existing eternally, that has knows everything, is all powerful, all good, and created literally everything (God). Furthermore, with Christianity having 10 commandments plus an ungodly *pun* amount of other expectations and impositions on how to live your life... with many of them being questionable... thought crimes, anti-pre-marital sex, slavery, women as property, food restrictions, fabric restrictions, man's dominion over the world, etc. I'd say it is pretty important to not just accept that it's true without some pretty good evidence supporting such grandiose claims.



God is never absent under a Christian viewpoint though. God is claimed to exist before the Earth, and to exist forever after, eternally. "

Evil" as operatively defined earlier by
... certainly has existed for quite some time, including when Jesus existed... Jesus was quite the victim of evil. Ain't nothing healthy, loving, or pretty about being nailed to a cross to die.

Therefore; evil is not rendered to be non-existent by the student's argument.

Evil is the result of what happens we have not let God in our help?
Student, please explain murdered babies, infant/child sexual abuse victims, the fact that Christians can die in long, agonizing ways just like many other people, the fact that Christians are immune to natural disasters, and all other types of disasters and suffering, etc.

Also, again the definition of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful being.... really makes no sense why such a being would subject anyone even an adamant active disbeliever to such horrors. Sounds very abusive; love me OR ELSE! Oh and by the way, even those who do love me, don't worry bout all the bad things that happen along the way, it's all part of the plan. ;)


When I have more energy... I'll make my own response to the professor's argument(s) which I do not think is perfect either lol.

Also, I will say Mr. Wrong: thanks for posting such a thought provoking piece! This is one of the most balanced ways I've ever seen of stimulating a discussion on the topic without having a clear bias one way or the other. As someone who will be declaring my major in religion next year, I really loved it!

While I admit the students' argument is not perfect, no argument is. Even Jesus failed to dissuade those who wished to crucify Him and His enemies had to accuse Him falsely in order to do so. Forgive them, for they know not what they do, Jesus spoke.

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 12:05 AM ----------

The problem I have with science is that it has become an atheists tool. All discoveries and such must fit into the almighty narrative that is Darwinism. If an anomole (biblical truth) is uncovered then it is hidden or ridiculed immediately. The Nephilim mentioned in the book of Genesis is an example.

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 12:23 AM ----------

I believe scientists, for the most part, are following a government/atheist narrative and will lie about most anything up to and including the shape of the earth.

Your example of a fly reproducing with a microorganism confirming the evolutionary process is a bit bizarre to me. The only thing that substantiate evolution is finding bones of a half ape, half man creature. So far in human history this has not happened.

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 12:40 AM ----------

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

The above question was put to Richard Dawkins and even he could not come up with an answer.

I've read articles written by evolutionists that state just because no evidence of evolution has been found, this doesn't mean you stop trying to prove evolution. So my question is when do you stop? How do explain the discoveries of sea creatures thought to have been long extinct? I guess the answer is to redouble your efforts and soldier on in futility.

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 12:57 AM ----------

Now for the fun part: EVIL!!!!

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 02:09 AM ----------

Every man should be responsible to others, nor should any one be allowed to do just as he pleases; for where absolute freedom is allowed, there is nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in every man.

Aristotle

I love this quote.

So the student informs the professor that evil is the absence of good and that the bible says the we are all inherently evil.

Why then is there evil?

It's simple to me now, though that certainly was not always the case. The reason is this: to allow free will. God has given us the choice to choose between Him (good, heaven) or Satan (evil, hell).

Many people have a problem with this and that is understandable. It does certainly seem like we only the choice of following a seemingly unjust God or following the devil.
And of course all the questions about this "unjust" God arise.
Why does God allow the devil to exist? Why does God allow earthquakes, floods, disease, famine, poverty, wars, etc. to exist on an earth He created? And my personal favorite: why do bad things happen to good people?

Most people do not understand that Satan is the god of this earth. Believe me, I had a hard time choking this down when this was made known to me. In other words, God has allowed Satan to do almost as he pleases on this earth, causing the mayhem the devil causes. But it all comes back to free will.

We can choose to internalize all the wrongs in the world as being God's fault or we can blame Satan. It truly is that simple.

If you read the first parts of the book of Genesis, you see that God created a perfect place for Adam and Eve to live. All was provided for them. They need not perform any work, wear clothes, or live in a shelter. They had only ONE rule to follow and that was don't eat this one fruit. But of course they screwed it all up. So God cursed the earth and the weather, taking away the Garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve were created as immortals, but their disobedience made them mortals. With Adam and Eve now tainted, God wanted new people and so Adam and Eve were made to reproduce. So then came the begats and eventually a world population. But eventually God wiped out this population keeping only eight people in an ark. The reason for this was that those people only had evil on their minds continually. To save that which was good, God chose to flood the earth.


What you should note in Genesis that the life span of early humans was nearly a thousand years. Today, we are considered old if we reach 80. Sin is the reason for the severe reduction in life span. Since we live in a collective world, our sins are collective as well. The more we sin the worse things get, i.e. floods, famine, drought, earthquakes, hurricanes, disease. The list goes on.

Who do bad things happen to good people?

This question surmises that people are good. We are not. We have an inherent sin nature. Since we live in that sin collective, and even if we are Christians, bad things still touch us. The bible teaches that there are no sorrows in heaven and so it is only there will no bad things happen to us.

---------- Post added 07-06-2017 at 02:34 AM ----------

Does God exist? Yes, He does. If you have faith. And that faith is what is required to believe anything really. Science, in my view, is a slave to our five senses. The prominent tenet being that nothing beyond our physical world, nothing beyond our five senses can exist. But this simply isn't true.

We cannot see oxygen, but we know it exists. We cannot even see the very thing that enables us to see which is light itself.
We have thoughts and dreams that we know exist yet science does not know where they come from.

The bible says that fear (the archaic definition meaning in awe of, in reverance to) of God is the beginning of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wrong

I believe scientists, for the most part, are following a government/atheist narrative and will lie about most anything up to and including the shape of the earth.

Your example of a fly reproducing with a microorganism confirming the evolutionary process is a bit bizarre to me. The only thing that substantiate evolution is finding bones of a half ape, half man creature. So far in human history this has not happened.

I'm not sure if I would agree about there being a singular narrative. Even among those who agree with the notion that evolution happened there is a fair amount of disagreement.

As for the example, I think they were two separate examples. I don't think they were suggesting that breeding flies with microorganisms was an example to support evolution.

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

I'm not sure if I would agree about there being a singular narrative. Even among those who agree with the notion that evolution happened there is a fair amount of disagreement.

As for the example, I think they were two separate examples. I don't think they were suggesting that breeding flies with microorganisms was an example to support evolution.

There is a singular narrative. I imagine one would hard-pressed to find a professor in any public university advocating any other view than Darwinisn.