Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Lentern]

When I said "Baseless claims", I should have said "Basele ss claim". This claim, which forms the basis of all religions, is that there is a God. Even if you accept the existence of Jesus (which I do) and all his itty bitty miracles (which I don't), there will forever be a LEAP of faith (for what is faith without that leap?) in going from there to believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being.

Yea of faith don't say "I have this theory, much provided evidence supports this theory, if any evidence against this theory comes about, then I will change this theory". Instead, you say "I have this fact, everything agrees with this fact, there will never be anything to disagree with this fact. Full stop fuck off".

The church used to argue(alongside many prominent scientists of the era mind you) that the sun was moving not the earth, from where they stood it steadilly made its way across the sky each day. In light of conclusive evidence to the contrary we have adopted a different view on such matters. We still on occasions like this one however will indulge ourselves by saying fuck off.

 

[kami]

I am going to take this thread to Kmart for a refund. It's not functioning properly!

Question! Does the bible have a specific clause prohibiting one man from giving fellatio (or even analingus) or handjobs to another man????

 

[Tully B.]

The church used to argue(alongside many prominent scientists of the era mind you) that the sun was moving not the earth, from where they stood it steadilly made its way across the sky each day. In light of conclusive evidence to the contrary we have adopted a different view on such matters. We still on occasions like this one however will indulge ourselves by saying fuck off.

"This one" being what, the existence of God? Well duh you're going to tell us to fuck off. Quite fervently so. That will not, however, quench my thirst for knowledge on this topic. This may seem arrogant, but I simply cannot understand why people believe in God. I have Christian friends who say they find it impossible to understand how people can't believe in their God. This just serves to confuse me further.

 

[Tully B.]

I am going to take this thread to Kmart for a refund. It's not functioning properly!

Question! Does the bible have a specific clause prohibiting one man from giving fellatio (or even analingus) or handjobs to another man????

I am unaware of any prohibition with regards to the topic of homsexual handjobs and fellatio.

Someone tell the man, he seems quite anxious to find out. I count 4 question marks at the end of his inquiry.

 

[kami]

I am unaware of any prohibition with regards to the topic of homsexual handjobs and fellatio.

Someone tell the man, he seems quite anxious to find out. I count 4 question marks at the end of his inquiry.

It's a question mark for every man in my room atm, eagerly awaiting the answer to this question.

 

[Tully B.]

It's a question mark for every man in my room atm, eagerly awaiting the answer to this question.

Hahaha
*Awkward silence*
Hahahahahahaha
*More Awkward silence*
Ha.

 

[Lentern]

"This one" being what, the existence of God? Well duh you're going to tell us to fuck off. Quite fervently so. That will not, however, quench my thirst for knowledge on this topic. This may seem arrogant, but I simply cannot understand why people believe in God. I have Christian friends who say they find it impossible to understand how people can't believe in their God. This just serves to confuse me further.

This one being when I respond to souless jackals clutching at straws in an attempt to drag our institution down. You cannot understand how because you don't want to. In giving us free will God gave every person to put themselves outside of the church and in doing so you ofcourse can not come to terms with the mystery of our faith. He is not some magician who will try and shock you into believing, if you don't want it you will not experience it.

 

[blue_chameleon]

him.

In the bible Jesus appears and performs miracles. He gives people conspicuous evidence of his existence. Why does this perfect god have so much trouble accepting that people find it hard to believe in him without any evidence. Surely he could give us a little more to go by than a poorly translated, ambiguous, self contradictory, 2000 year old text.

What evidence are we seeking here?

 

[Lentern]

Hahahaha. I love the way you christfags define "free will."

You are free to choose to reject god, however if you choose to reject him, you will suffer immense agony for all eternity.

Its like pointing a gun to your head and saying give me your wallet, then claiming you gave me the wallet by free choice.

There is something sick and vindictive about a god who demand we believe in him without evidence, then punishes us if we don't believe in him.

In the bible Jesus appears and performs miracles. He gives people conspicuous evidence of his existence. Why does this perfect god have so much trouble accepting that people find it hard to believe in him without any evidence. Surely he could give us a little more to go by than a poorly translated, ambiguous, self contradictory, 2000 year old text.

Once again you people attempts to smear and defame this great institution this time by branding the views of some as the views of all. Along with a great number of men and women who have pledged our lives to christ I don't believe everyone else is going to hell, I don't believe all gays are going to hell and I don't believe that the Vatican is allways right.

But even if it were the view of every single catholic it stacks up quite nicely against the athiestic idea that beyond your seventy year stint on earth there is nothing else. The meaningless, pointless nihilistic view on life is far more callous and unfeeling then the idea that the creator expects allegiance in return for...everything. Please sleep very easilly tonight with the knowlege that if you should die before you wake you might as well never have existed at all.

 

[Iron]

Hahahaha. I love the way you christfags define "free will."

You are free to choose to reject god, however if you choose to reject him, you will suffer immense agony for all eternity.

Its like pointing a gun to your head and saying give me your wallet, then claiming you gave me the wallet by free choice.

There is something sick and vindictive about a god who demand we believe in him without evidence, then punishes us if we don't believe in him.

In the bible Jesus appears and performs miracles. He gives people conspicuous evidence of his existence. Why does this perfect god have so much trouble accepting that people find it hard to believe in him without any evidence. Surely he could give us a little more to go by than a poorly translated, ambiguous, self contradictory, 2000 year old text.

Jesus was seriously doubted, even by the disciples, until His resurrection. The same people who witnessed His miracles later bayed for his blood and denied that they knew Him. Those who didnt do this were still gutted by witnessing the crucifixion; they believed that all they had witnessed and believed had come to a disastrous end - that death and evil had prevailed.

Your doubts are not unlike those of Thomas. He was through with his faith after the crucifixion and refused to believe those who later claimed to have witnessed the resurrection. But Christ appeared to him and allowed him to examine the physical proof - adding that "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". It was at this point, the Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit filled the disciples and the whole world, giving everyone who sought or seeks it a burning confidence in their faith, the moral law and the divine plan for our lives on earth.

But your comments don’t even apply to Catholicism. If an agnostic remains in friendship with God and doesn’t seek to violate the moral law carved into his conscience, his soul will reach a state of purgatory upon earthly death. In this state, he is offered the certainty of the Light, but denied a closer relationship for some period. This produces an agony which gradually purges him of his earthly sins.

 

[Lentern]

Just because we might not want something to be true, doesn't make it any less likely to be true.

Your emotionally loaded claims that the atheist view is "meaningless, pointless and nihilistic" proves nothing.

You still have no evidence that there is a god.

I may wish there was a Father Christmas, or Leprechauns that would grant me wishes. That it may be nice if they were true, doesn't make these claims any more likely to be true.



I don't know what will happen if I die. Neither do you. We have no way of knowing.

You wouldn't write an essay for university and make claims you couldn't back up with evidence.

You wouldn't trust a doctor who claimed you had a particular disease and needed a complex operation, but couldn't explain why.

How can you expect us to believe in a god without evidence?

Why is it that after singing the tune that this God we speak of is pretty harsh and unreasonable did you suddenly decided to switch to the more traditional tune of "you accept things without proof, what kind of fool would do that?"

Sadly you don't improve, understanding the workings of a god type figure as we're refering to would essentially be understanding the be all and end all. And you want to equate it to writing an essay or peforming surgery? If you don't want to believe that is fine, it is none of my business. But the arrogant attacks on the church when the prefered theory of the athiests is even more paradoxical is hypocrisy of the highest order. Particularly when what we offer is hope and meaning whilst what you bring is despair and apathy.

 

[Lentern]

Jesus was seriously doubted, even by the disciples, until His resurrection. The same people who witnessed His miracles later bayed for his blood and denied that they knew Him. Those who didnt do this were still gutted by witnessing the crucifixion; they believed that all they had witnessed and believed had come to a disastrous end - that death and evil had prevailed.

Your doubts are not unlike those of Thomas. He was through with his faith after the crucifixion and refused to believe those who later claimed to have witnessed the resurrection. But Christ appeared to him and allowed him to examine the physical proof - adding that "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". It was at this point, the Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit filled the disciples and the whole world, giving everyone who sought or seeks it a burning confidence in their faith, the moral law and the divine plan for our lives on earth.

But your comments don’t even apply to Catholicism. If an agnostic remains in friendship with God and doesn’t seek to violate the moral law carved into his conscience, his soul will reach a state of purgatory upon earthly death. In this state, he is offered the certainty of the Light, but denied a closer relationship for some period. This produces an agony which gradually purges him of his earthly sins.

I object to you talking about what happened after the crucifixion on the grounds of Marks gospel in its original form differs greatly from the others and has no mention of Thomas' doubt.

 

[Lentern]

I stand by what I said. But you made a good point; not all Christians believe in hell and many of God's more harsh punishments. I moved on to critiquing what you actually said.



I never said we have to understand it all. I am merely saying there is no evidence a god exists at all.



Yes. Accepting religion requires me to make changes in my life, does it not? So why would I impose such changes upon myself, without some sort of evidence to compel me that these changes are justified.



Why?



As I said. It's irrelevant. Wanting something to be true does not make it any more likely to be true.

Do you dispute this?

I said, quite clearly that if you don't want to believe its none of my business, my objection was with the attacks on the church and why is that you ask? Because the athiestic alternative is a paradox, the religous is logical. The religious accepts for the large part the universe is bound by fundamental laws of science but on occasions intervention from a higher power has taken place which accounts for events seemingly in stark contrast to the fundametal laws of science. The athiest version is that this science is infallible, if it does not fall within these laws it does not exist. Yet when it comes to matters of origin it seems that somehow out of nothing was born something.

 

[Lentern]

Science does not claim to be able to explain how the universe began (i.e. what caused the big bang).

The fact that science can not explain everything (nor does it claim it can) does not mean we need religion to fill the gaps.

The honest answer is simply that we don't know how the universe began.

There is not a shred of evidence a god created it, let alone that your god is responsible.

Yeah scientists do claim it actually. They might not have them yet but find me one that doesn't believe the answers live within the realms of science. Religion doesn't simply fill gaps as you so crudely put it. It is all encompassing, a catholic has no life meaning beyond being a servant of christ. As I said before god isn't some magician who will do some tricks to make you believe in him. You have a choice to embrace him or decline him. If you have declined him you can hardly expect to be able to experience faith. I can tell you though of my own experiences and that the strength, clarity and composure I can draw from prayer are extraordinary. You can think it psychcosymatic or what not, that's the beauty of it; God won't make you experience it if you don't want to.

 

[Graney]

tbh, lack of "evidence" is no excuse, he has given you all the evidence you need, if you are not satisifed with that then that is your problem

There is no reliable evidence for the existence of god. No, none.

If you're a christian, you should know evidence is neither existent, nor required. The abrahamic god makes a point of not providing evidence.

But zimmerman makes a fair point that the reluctance of god to provide any evidence is illogical and speaks poorly of his character.

 

[Iron]

Lol why is it illogical? Faith is hardly like his poor analogy of having a gun pointed to our head - faith is about Hope and Love, about the intangible and emotional. It is entirely logical that a divine being who respects our freedom would wait for us to find the evidence that underscores everything in our lives, rather than literally pointing a gun to our head.

 

[Graney]

I was thinking more of, why he would make appearances to all and sundry in one age, give them some solid irrefutable proof and be mysterious and absent in ours.

Not playing fair.

Why should he have provided the evidence he did, the son, the book, the miracles, to anyone, in any age? Why show anyone proof, ever, if it's all about faith? Why would he so disrespect the freedom of people in biblical times to find the "evidence that underscores everything in our lives"?

Why does he stop there? Why provide abundant evidence to some people, no evidence to others, and unreliable secondary evidence to us? It doesn't seem just or wise to distribute evidence so disproportionately and then to be judged on such injustice.

 

[Lentern]

Science is not a 'realm.' It is simply a method. A method of discovering facts based on rigorous observation and investigation of reality.

Science does not say that religion is wrong. Simply that there is no evidence that it is right.

There are infinite theories that could be submitted without evidence. Without evidence we have no way of rationally choosing between competing theories. So although religion can't be disproved, there is simply no reason to believe in it.



Well once again, to me, this god that demands I believe in him without evidence, sounds like a real sick narcissist. Especially since he could provide me with some evidence of his existence with the slightest of effort.

I don't see what is sick about letting people choose whether they want God to be part of their life or not. For a supposed freedom lover you seem to think God should be rather like a magical marionette.

 

[Iron]

I was thinking more of, why he would make appearances to all and sundry in one age, give them some solid irrefutable proof and be mysterious and absent in ours.

Not playing fair.

Why should he have provided the evidence he did, the son, the book, the miracles, to anyone, in any age? Why show anyone proof, ever, if it's all about faith? Why would he so disrespect the freedom of people in biblical times to find the "evidence that underscores everything in our lives"?

Why does he stop there? Why provide abundant evidence to some people, no evidence to others, and unreliable secondary evidence to us? It doesn't seem just or wise to distribute evidence so disproportionately and then to be judged on such injustice.

Well I suppose that we dont know how literally to take things like the jews were led by a pillar of flame to the promised land. But at any rate, you cant apply our standards of evidence to the standards they had in biblical times. Surely most everything was mysterious to them and something like the voice/wrath of God came as no great shock. As I was saying before, the same people who witnessed Jesus' miracles bayed for his blood or denied that they knew Him.

The power of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon the world shortly after the resurrection of Christ, is a very important factor in the confidence and certainty we have today. As God lit a bush for Moses, now all our souls are lit on fire with faith.

 

[mcflystargirl]

because God has revealed himself to us, well obviously not to you but to me an iron..