whats beyond the universe?

[o_shinyhappydan]

Well the main problem with having sex with relatives is that any children are much more likely to have genetic mutations, which is not good. This actually does affect the gene pool etc, unlike homosexuality which does not affect it at all, other than shrinking it ever so slightly.

If two people from the same family want to have sex or whatever, that's up to them. It's stupid if you ask me but I'm not going to call them evil because they do it. Who am I to judge?

Also please don't say things like "relatives share the same blood... then you could state that gay share the same testosterone". Are you actually that stupid? WTF do you mean "the same testosterone"? It's just a chemical, it's hardly the same as DNA.

As for the voice, get this into your brain please: NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A GIRLY VOICE, HENCE IT IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL TRAIT.

Yes, some of them want to sound like that, but it has nothing to do with them pounding ass. It's about their personality. Just like because you to label others as bad/wrong even when you are in no position to judge, doesn't mean that all Christians are that stupid.

If you're going to reply to this, do me a favour and reply to all of my other points which you conveniently ignored, most likely because you can't think of what to say to them.

[o_weetbix]

ok you win... its cool to be gay...

btw youve only wrote four messagess and im pretty sure ive commented on all but one... thats enough for me.

[o_shinyhappydan]

Yeah because I was arguing that it's cool to be gay.

I didn't mean you didn't reply to all my posts, you simply selected which parts of the post you would respond to.

Goodbye

[o_etzell]

Originally Posted by RobG

Fair point. However you can't blame the Jews for not directly believing in Jesus when there's nothing they could've done to know about Him. The Old Testament is pretty full of references to Him (e.g. here, here, here) but not in enough of a way to know exactly what would happen. That doesn't change the fact that the statement you quoted only works one way in time: people couldn't have known that before it was said.

In the Old Testament God is clearly seeking a people who will follow Him. When they turn away from Him then that's when the problems start. He is seeking a people who will offer their best to Him, and depend on Him. A people who sacrifice their best livestock to Him.

Christians don't need to sacrifice livestock, however. This practice - set up by God - was never enough to carry away sin by itself; it instead did two things:
1) Showed that the person was willing to give their best to God.
2) Pointed towards a sacrifice which would be acceptable to God: Jesus (often referred to as the Lamb).

And in fact in the Old Testament there are examples of non-Jews also having their eyes opened to praise God. It's a heart thing even back then. I'm not saying that the Jews had to live perfectly in order to please God (of course not!): guys like David, Moses and Noah all do things wrong, sometimes horrifically. But they all had their hearts yearning for God, which is all God wanted from them.

So yes. The John passage is clearly instructing those after it was written. God is pretty clear on what He wanted from people (Jew and Gentile alike) before Jesus came along, but when He did come along, and God shows us everything of His massive plan, then we need to respond. And everyone does respond to it on hearing it, one way or the other.

The whole point of God sending his Son was so that people could get forgiveness for their sin. If people could get to heaven without Jesus, his birth would be completly unnecessary.

[o_etzell]

Originally Posted by weetbix

lol, not only that but yeh thats me...

on the choice thing... choose to have a wife... give something to the world...
homosexuals base their life on sex!.. not love..., maybe in the end they do fall in love.. but nothing comes from it. real love bears a child... i guess theirs a problem with that arguement with women/women.. but i`ll just say they need a father figure.

Homosexuality could be determined as an evolutionary path. Seeing as how breeding is around to keep the population strong, and humanity is living longer and breeding faster, there's not a large need for every single person to pass their genetic code on, so some turn to same-sex companionship.
Hmm... I don't believe anymore and I seem to be a LOT more tolerant than a lot of you believers.

Upon reviewing the rest of this thread, I have determined that, weetbix, you are a good reason why a lot of people dislike religion.

[o_broodingdude]

Wow... you guys are the toast of the debate.

Religion vs. Non-... AKA Atheism.

The buy-bull thumper is pissed because some of you are professed atheists. Which, as I understand it, pisses 'em off 'cuz they think that atheist actually means anti-theist. I won't go in to a lesson of the english language there...

But anyway, I am an agnostic. As far as I can extrapolate, and analyze, I have personally come to the conclusion that there must have been something to start it all. I am talking long before the human race came to be... as science puts it. I postulate that the universe is far too old for humanity to be the 'first race'. By accepting that we simply are, and we simply have to do, is enough to give a person a basis. Now from that basis we can grow, love and understand. Stagnation and decay will out eventually. Thoughts and actions of evil will become boring. If you really analyze it, evil is youthful. Demoralization, apathy and other forms of human negativity is youthful. Youth has no idea how to be and to act. Parents rear their children as best as they can. I speak generally... a person can be 60+ years old and still act childishly. There may be a physiological or psychological explanation as to why our venerable man is acting like a 2 year old, but the fact of the matter is is that our race is still young by cosmological standards. Some need religion, some don't. The less and less people that do, the more we have a handle on things and have matured enough where we don't need a threat to act with conscience and love, it simply is. Those that don't need to be threatened can reach in to their past or accurately extrapolate/empathize with those that do.

The problem with any evolutionary step is that the mutants rebel and create their own society. The majority is still stuck in one place, while the mutants must hide and breed in secret from the oppressive majority. With laws as they are now, we can be open and not fear for our lives or children. Mutations of this nature are good... I consider it a step forward where a person is born with a conscience hard-wired in their brain, as opposed to needing to be threatened. Fear is often the first reaction to a mutation, even disgust. Fear us not, my monotheistic cousins, we will rule the earth in fairness and bring us to the stars and beyond. We are unchained by the old ways, and we will forge ahead to bring the old ways and the new together in harmony.

[o_binarylife]

If you need the pretty thought of heaven to motivate you to be good, or the fear of hell to keep you from being bad then you truely have a cheapened sence of morals.

For I fear nor believe in either in the sence that you do and I still help friends, donate money, and do my best to solve problems.

[o_sigma]

Originally Posted by Etzell

Homosexuality could be determined as an evolutionary path. Seeing as how breeding is around to keep the population strong, and humanity is living longer and breeding faster, there's not a large need for every single person to pass their genetic code on, so some turn to same-sex companionship.
Hmm... I don't believe anymore and I seem to be a LOT more tolerant than a lot of you believers.

Upon reviewing the rest of this thread, I have determined that, weetbix, you are a good reason why a lot of people dislike religion.

My opinion as an active believer:
Lying is a sin -> wages are death (insert spiel here)
Homosexuality is a sin -> wages are death (insert spiel here)
Murder is a sin -> wages are death (insert spiel here)

Now that that is clear (sin is sin)... Here is my question: why are people so intolerant of homosexuality but not of lying? I must truely be one of a select few if my view point is shared by so few Christians.

One more little spiel... One reason we were given free will is so that people can choose. Its moronic to force people to conform to your religion when it states that free will is a god-given-right. I don't recommend nor condone such acts (sin), but of course it's your right to choose. Laws are supposed to be in place to prevent people hurting others, not to control them. I truely must be unique if there are so few people out there that believe like me.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

That's right. You see, the religious morals have been superior to the general populations' for thousands of years. However, this became exactely the other way recently (60/70/80s). Most current day people don't mind homosexuality, abortion, condoms etcetera, anymore. Contrary to religion, which has been stuck in the same morality it had been in for thousands of years (as you pointed out). Religion's morals haven't moved forwards, and seeing as the general population is now beyond religion's morals, it's time to drop this whole religion thing.

Perhaps that is the case in Europe. It is not, however, the case in the States. Each state that has brought to a vote whether to recognize Gay relationships under the umbrella of marriage have been overwhelmingly voted down.

Homosexuality as an evolutionary trend? What a joke? There's NEVER natural offspring from a gay pairing....

Also....

Denying the existence of God because of Religion or how some people present it is like missing the forest for the trees.

There is an entire world the atheists miss through their stubborn blindness and unwillingnes to see.

[o_etzell]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Homosexuality as an evolutionary trend? What a joke? There's NEVER natural offspring from a gay pairing....

You see, that's the WHOLE POINT! It's not about reproducing, it's about NOT reproducing. There isn't as big of a need for every single person on earth to reproduce, in fact, it'd be better if some STOPPED doing it.

[o_binarylife]

A sin is simply going against the bible. Since I don't live my life by the bible the line between immoral acts and bad choices is drawn between who it hurts.

Vanity is self indulged nonsense. However, if a person cared so much about themselvs that they ignored others, and in turn hurt others then it would be immoral. Hence, looking in the mirror to make sure you look good or buying expensive things to look better is not immoral. But crashing your car into a person because you can't take your eyes off your reflection in the mirror is quite immoral.

Homosexuality is not new. Leonardo Davinchi had a male lover. In fact, a lot of people did in those times. It was considered normal to have a wife, and a man. I'm not saying it was widely practiced, but it was practiced. It actualy doesn't hurt a damned soul. There's a common association, however, in beliefes with the one that states homosexuality is a sin.

Since it doens't hurt anyone, and victimless crimes are often ignored, it must have a victim. Some may cry out that the children not born are victims of murder. That same person is pro life. Beyond that, that same person is also against masturbation because every sperm is a potential life and each one will die upon a meaningless ejaculation.

I'm not saying everyone believes that way, but those ideals seem to trend together. All I'm doing it pointing it out, my observations need not be shared.

[o_robg]

Originally Posted by qui

Why is it a problem that we dont know where our conscience comes from? I suspect it comes from an evolutionary path that if we work together and generally be nice to eachother than we can achieve more.

You're not countering my argument. I mentioned a case whereby being nice actually holds back social development (looking after people who are past it in terms of reproductive capability); the way to argue against my point is to deal with this by telling me how - in an evolutionary sense - it makes sense to look after people who are no longer going to contribute to the gene pool.

[o_shinyhappydan]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Each state that has brought to a vote whether to recognize Gay relationships under the umbrella of marriage have been overwhelmingly voted down.

What does this mean? That the mojority of people in america think that homosexuality is wrong? Big deal, the majority of people in america voted for Bush, so forgive me if I don't take their ethical opinions too seriously

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Denying the existence of God because of Religion or how some people present it is like missing the forest for the trees.

There is an entire world the atheists miss through their stubborn blindness and unwillingnes to see.

See, now that's just a stupid thing to say. How do you know that an atheist is unwilling to see?

[o_shinyhappydan]

Originally Posted by RobG

You're not countering my argument. I mentioned a case whereby being nice actually holds back social development (looking after people who are past it in terms of reproductive capability); the way to argue against my point is to deal with this by telling me how - in an evolutionary sense - it makes sense to look after people who are no longer going to contribute to the gene pool.

Because these people may be able to offer something else, wisdom perhaps?

[o_robg]

Originally Posted by broodingdude

The less and less people that do, the more we have a handle on things and have matured enough where we don't need a threat to act with conscience and love, it simply is. Those that don't need to be threatened can reach in to their past or accurately extrapolate/empathize with those that do.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

If you need the pretty thought of heaven to motivate you to be good, or the fear of hell to keep you from being bad then you truely have a cheapened sence of morals.

Just thought I'd keep up with the oddness talked about regarding Christianity. Seriously guys, I've probably reiterated grace about four times already, when are you going to get it in your heads? Christianity isn't a threat of hell, it's a simple statement of it, no matter how good/bad you try to be, no one is good enough to get to heaven. That's why Jesus came to pay for the things we did wrong (reasonably accurately described by BinaryLife as "doing anything against the Bible"), because we a) can't live perfectly and b) even if we only did good things from now til we die that still wouldn't make up for the stuff we'd done in the past.

There's a dilemma. God is both holy (i.e. perfectly pure and sinless) but also loving (i.e. wants everyone to enjoy Him and love/be loved by Him). God can't tolerate unpunished sin in His presence due to His holiness, and we can't pay for the sin we have done. So Jesus came as both fully man and fully God: it took a human to represent humans and be punished for their sin, and it took God to live a life good enough to make a sacrifice big enough to successfully pay for that sin.

That means if we repent and believe that He can help us, and have our hearts turned around to love & follow Him, then our sin will be paid for by Jesus' death 2000 years ago - it's a transaction, both legal and loving. No threat of hell to try and keep people in line. This property is unique to Christianity. Any other religion, and also atheism (and agnosticism) are all populated by people feeling bad and trying to do good things to make up for it.

If you realise you're like that, then you need God. Don't let any opportunity to come to know Him pass you by.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by shinyhappydan

What does this mean? That the mojority of people in america think that homosexuality is wrong? Big deal, the majority of people in america voted for Bush, so forgive me if I don't take their ethical opinions too seriously

Meaning that there is still a large disparity between what Europe finds acceptable and what America finds acceptable. And if we voted for Bush we have an Ethics problem? whatEVER!

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Denying the existence of God because of Religion or how some people present it is like missing the forest for the trees.

There is an entire world the atheists miss through their stubborn blindness and unwillingnes to see.

Originally Posted by shinyhappydan

See, now that's just a stupid thing to say. How do you know that an atheist is unwilling to see?

It's not a stupid thing to say and I think it's entirely accurate. Because you refuse to see or consider you are unable or unwilling to see. Look at RobG having to repeat the concept of Grace. Most often Atheists think it's fear of Hell that makes a Christian follow the path they choose. Nothing could be further from the truth. That you cannot see that means that you are unable to do so or refuse to do so.

[o_xstioph]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Me...Shut_Up

I just dont see how atheist (or however its spelled) sleep at night. I mean what do they think about when they die "oh shit this is it for me goodbye forever" I mean come on. Only good can come out of a religion because it alows u to believe that theres something after this life, and instead of sittingon ure death bed saying shit its over, u could say yay i know im going to a better place. If there is no heaven or hell u could still believe in it cause if atheist are right then u wont remember anything cause u wont exist (therfore u can not be angry or dissapointed that there was no god that u prayed for). So one thing that always bugs me is why do atheists not just live like hell if they know there going to just be dirt and memories of other ppl? What keeps there morality? how do they keep a state of mental stability thinking that this is there only one life? Personaly I think that u can only do good to yourself mentally if u have a religion cause (mabye its just me but) wouldnt u feel alot better if u thought that the life u live is only the begining and upon death u could spend an eternity w\god in non stop happyness.

Why live in a lie?

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

It's not a stupid thing to say and I think it's entirely accurate. Because you refuse to see or consider you are unable or unwilling to see. Look at RobG having to repeat the concept of Grace. Most often Atheists think it's fear of Hell that makes a Christian follow the path they choose. Nothing could be further from the truth. That you cannot see that means that you are unable to do so or refuse to do so.

You know, I BELIEVE (being a little politically-correct here) that pratically everything that any organism does, is in self-interest. In reality, there exists no such thing as 'charity', people give money to make themselfs feel good, not to 'help' other people. Obviously a simple and blunt example, but that's what it boils down to.

You can throw as many abstract terms (grace, forgiveness, compassion) into the equation as you'd like, it always comes down to selfishness. The London bombins last week for example. Having a 2 minute silence is I think utterly hypocritical. Nobody really 'cares' about the people whom have been bombed, let alone do they even KNOW them, or know how any of their faces. It's just a mass-scaled event to let people feel good about themselfs, for keeping their mouths shut for 2 mins, idiocy...

Don't get me wrong here, I found it highly tragic what has happened last week, but if I were to say I was personally influenced in ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER, I would be blatantly lying.

[o_binarylife]

Just thought I'd keep up with the oddness talked about regarding Christianity. Seriously guys, I've probably reiterated grace about four times already, when are you going to get it in your heads? Christianity isn't a threat of hell, it's a simple statement of it, no matter how good/bad you try to be, no one is good enough to get to heaven. That's why Jesus came to pay for the things we did wrong (reasonably accurately described by BinaryLife as "doing anything against the Bible"), because we a) can't live perfectly and b) even if we only did good things from now til we die that still wouldn't make up for the stuff we'd done in the past.

This represents your problem in the discussion we're having. I read what you typed, and understand it. The problem is, I don't beleive that anything the bible says is fact. If the bible is not true, which I believe, then Hell does not exist and the references the bibles makes to it are in fact threats. Under the beliefe that the bible is all factual, then Hell does exists and the bible warns us of it.

You're trying to convince me that the bible is truth by quoting the bible. That's like me telling you that my imaginary friend Mike is real, and you have to believe me, because he said so. What you actualy need to do here, is look inside your heart. You need to research other religions for a while. Look at them with an unbiased eye. Then examine the arguments that more articulate individuals than myself have made against religeon. If at that point you can't admit that we've got a point, that you could be wrong then there is simply no hope. I'm not saying you'll think we're right. I'm simply saying that you need to open your mind a little and the rest will come.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

This represents your problem in the discussion we're having. I read what you typed, and understand it. The problem is, I don't beleive that anything the bible says is fact. If the bible is not true, which I believe, then Hell does not exist and the references the bibles makes to it are in fact threats. Under the beliefe that the bible is all factual, then Hell does exists and the bible warns us of it.

You're trying to convince me that the bible is truth by quoting the bible. That's like me telling you that my imaginary friend Mike is real, and you have to believe me, because he said so. What you actualy need to do here, is look inside your heart. You need to research other religions for a while. Look at them with an unbiased eye. Then examine the arguments that more articulate individuals than myself have made against religeon. If at that point you can't admit that we've got a point, that you could be wrong then there is simply no hope. I'm not saying you'll think we're right. I'm simply saying that you need to open your mind a little and the rest will come.

You cannot assume that if you feed in the same input the same conclusion will be reached. With people there are all manner of variances that occur. Different childhood experiences and influences. There are commonalities of experience among Christians but the relationship with God is different and unique to each person. The feel of that contact and that touch is unique for everyone.

Your statements assume that your audience has not researched other religions. That is not true in my case. I read in some depth on a few. Christianity rang true to me.


Travis, I won't deny that there is a benefit to me in the volunteer work and donating I do. I feel better doing it. Personally I think it feels better to be involved and to be trying to make a difference rather than sitting on the sidelines casting aspursions at those who do. As Christians there are many things we're called to do. Most of them do not involve money.

To not be touched personally by what happened in London makes you incomplete. That is, if I am understanding your statement. Personally, I was naseated. The Brits are tough people and I feel certain they will rise to the challenge. As with the Japanese realizing they awakened a sleeping Giant in WW2...it may be these events and more to come that may spell the downfall for those who would kill the innocent in the name of their twisted ideas.