The bible never says being gay is a sin, it only condemns gang rape of men women and children (and attempted rape of the 2 angels Lot let in his house, sodom and gomorah) as well as idolatry (using sexual acts as worship and idolizing statues of men and women), and male prostitution in temple (leviticus.) Leviticus does not pertain to us, it was written for the Levites, people who had fallen away from God and let sin rule their hearts. The word homosexual was created in the 19th century.
God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy.
Changing societies do not dictate God's standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination.
Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not “go with the flow.”
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Now in my state one that is gay in marriage or civil union cannot be denied medical insurance at their job. To me that is discrimination. If my cousin who is not gay wants medical insurance for their partner it is denied. See that is an issue. BTW thanks for the friendly debate. I still thinking about the movie. It was deep and would recommend others to see Inception.
@RepresentingTruth I've seen Inception. That said, well, I highly doubt that they'd deny heterosexual couples in a marriage or civil partners medical insurance. I'm pretty sure that would count as discrimination against married people.
@RepresentingTruth 1: Judges aren't religious figures, and them performing marriages makes marriage not sacred.
2: You know district court judges can change laws, right? And that that one judge DID change that law, right?
4: Many people still don't accept interracial marriage even though it's legal. So why would you be forced to accept gay marriage if you weren't forced to accept interracial marriage?
@BENY0HAMA 1) Judges aren't religious but Rom. 13 says he is a minister of God for God and render to Caesar the things that are Caesar. 2) I am not sure what you point is sorry. 4. There now are hate crimes and that is the force acceptance. I will see you latter. Taking son to see Inception.
2: The point is that the law you cited is no longer on the books in such a way that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. So your answer is invalid.
4: Hate crimes prevent people from hurting others based on their skin colour, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. You can "not accept" someone without hurting them. Do you seriously want the freedom to assault gay people?
@BENY0HAMA Just watch Inception with my son. Good movie. "he defense of marriage act defines a marriage between a man and a woman. So it is not just a religious thing but a federal law." The decision is not final unless the Supreme Court says so.
Final question. To say that I am opposing my views on others consider this. Gay marriage will force people to accept their perversion. Do not believe me. Try a job situation or refusing to film a gay event and watch how much harms the gays will do.
I do not hate gays but I do hate the forced acceptance of it.
2: The part that defines marriage as between a man and woman was deemed unconstitutional and struck down in July of this year. So, you can't fall back on that.
3: How is something that is actually proven to be life threatening comparable to gay marriage?
4: Interracial marriage being legal didn't force people to accept it. Anyway, you didn't answer my question.
Question 3. Some churches will not allow medical help. Should I agree with that or oppose it? BTW even if I oppose it they are doing it so what is your point. Jehovah Witnesses do not take blood transfusions. Tell me is that right?
Question 2 Yes I would. The defense of marriage act defines a marriage between a man and a woman. So it is not just a religious thing but a federal law.
Question 1 No need to. Rom chapter 13 teaches that governments are ordained by God and thus the laws do apply. In fact my father in law was an ordained minster but had to register with the state of CT.
As a conservative I really don't care about gays,I dont hate them and as a minority myself I would defend them in a fight,the marrige thing is a technocality for me ,live together adopt children have legal rights just don't call it marrige,if gay relationships are so great make up your own name,Question how often is the definition of a word completely changed? (marrige) lets call red blue and sky ground! what about poligamy??? can 10 people get married???
2. It's not about the church doing it. Most religious doctrines are against homosexuality. We just don't believe it should happen.
3. They can't claim to be exercising religious freedom if canonically, that is not a part of that religion. Governing religious organizations will disown their actions giving no credence to that claim.
1. The sanctity is not taken out by a theme or judge performed wedding. Those aren't things which are talked about in the bible. The holiness is not inherent in the ceremony, it's holy when a man and a woman come together in said ceremony. Judicial marriages are acceptable because suppose I don't have the time or money for a church wedding. Maybe I'm a missionary somewhere without a functioning church body.
HPV and anal cancer are dangerous. You state that those who practice anal sex have a greater chance of getting these. I don't know if that's correct, but let's assume it is.
Why is that an argument against same sex marriage? Anal sex can be dangerous, but will keeping them from getting married stop them from having anal sex?
No, it won't. If you don't let them get married, they'll still do it. So why is the marriage dangerous?
Your mastery of ad hominems and sarcasm is impressive.
"So why is the marriage dangerous?"
I'm not gonna support something that is clearly dangerous to one's health. Would you?
Of course they'd still be having sex outside of marriage, but that's beside the point. I'm just saying that if anal sex is indeed dangerous then I'm not gonna support gay marriage AND anal sex.
I'm know I'm not being politically correct here, but who cares.
"Your mastery of ad hominems and sarcasm is impressive."
It's not an ad hominem if its true. You either completely disregarded my points or didn't understand them. You obviously don't know what sarcasm means either.
How does anal sex make GAY MARRIAGE dangerous? Answer that. How does something that they'll do WHETHER THEY'RE MARRIED OR NOT make gay marriage dangerous?
You realize that men have anal sex with women too, right? Should we make regular marriage illegal as well?
"You obviously don't know what sarcasm means either."
What is this fox news? You gonna start questioning my morals and intelligence? Start framing questions to affect the outcome?
"How does anal sex make GAY MARRIAGE dangerous?"
Like I said, if (and this is a HUGE if) there's a connection between anal sex and HPV/cancer, then that would make gay marriage harmful for the PARTIES INVOLVED. And since HPV is highly contagious, one can argue that it's also dangerous to others as well.
In Denmark, a country with a long history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74, while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
I think anal sex is harmful whether in gay marriages or otherwise, as do smoking and alcohol consumption.
I can PM you the link to the above article if you want.
As a closing let me just state that I'm asking honest questions regarding homosexuality and gay marriage as a person who has been told that homosexual is forbidden and sinful all his life.
You can respond by being sarcastic, but that would be counter-productive don't you think?
"What is this fox news? You gonna start questioning my morals and intelligence? Start framing questions to affect the outcome?"
It seems you conceded the first part of the paragraph, so I won't bother with this rant.
If there is a connection between anal sex and HPV/cancer, that would also make regular marriage harmful for those who try anal sex. You can't refuse an idea because a single portion of it MAY be dangerous.
I concede that it takes a certain amount of maturity to engage in this sort of discussion without getting sidetracked. And honestly, you seem to lack that quality.
Yes straight couples practice anal sex too and assuming it's harmful, then they simply should stop doing it.
Ad-hominems don't constitute sidetracking? The hypocrisy speaks volumes of your character.
Regarding the dangers of anal sex, I agree. If it is found that it is dangerous, people should refrain from doing it. However, that is NOT an argument against gay marriage.
You seem to have a double standard bias here. If straight couples have anal sex, that's OK, it has nothing to do with marriage. But if gay people have anal sex, it's dangerous so gay marriage should be illegal.
We're all biased I suppose. Some a lot more than others. You seem to have this prejudice that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is automatically a bigot. Am I wrong?
I never said it's ok for straight couples to practice anal sex. Perhaps you should re read my posts?
In regular marriages, it's relatively easy to avoid anal sex while in gay marriages it's significantly more difficult. I'm not saying gay marriage should be illegal but I do think it should be evaluated objectively/fairly.
if gays marry who will be the one cooking and cleaning? How will they decide? Who will leave their socks on the floor and come up with excuses for not wanting sex? It sounds too confusing. It should be illegal.
well, why would you like your kind so much?--it's like marching in a gay parade. Of course you are gay. That's OK, I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. Also, why else would you be atheist?
At least you finally stopped swearing. At least you know that I am right. You can never influence others to your point of view by using four letter words. Only atheists do that.
atheism asserts God does not exist which is knowledge, because you know God does not exist. An agnostic asserts that you cannot know if God exists which is lack of knowledge.
an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. It's a simple definition. Everybody who reads this post knows what it mean but you. Why can't you just look it up.
from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
yes, and to deny the Gods is to assert that God does not exist. When an atheist says they know there is no God they are speaking from a claimed knowledge. When an agnostic claims they don't know, they are speaking from lack of knowledge and admit they just don't know. A theist believes in the existence of a God or Gods. It makes no claim as to which specific religion should be followed.
Greywyn7, it's amazing that you accuse me (or any person who believes in God) of irrational thinking when you invent your own meaning of words. You call yourself an atheist and you don't even know what it means. You don't help yourself any when you deny a definition that is easily verifiable. It's like trying to convince us that 1 + 1 = 3. Even Superiorcarbonl1L2L3 gave you a clear definition and even the origin of the word. What more could you want? You just cannot admit you are wrong.
whatever you label Superiorcarbon is irrelevant to what we are discussing. If you don't say that God doesn't exist then you are an agnostic. Atheists say that God does not exist. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.
I tried to post a link to the definition from a dictionary website but it won't let me post websites. Just look it up. It's just a definition, how can it be so difficult for you.
Denying the existence of God is atheism but your statement "based on lack of evidence" is not part of the definition. Before debating a topic we have to first define our positions. So far it looks like you are an agnostic.
Whether someone says that they believe god doesn't exist, or whether they merely don't believe the claims of theists, they are without god. Therefore they are BOTH atheists.
I'm not saying your god doesn't exist. I'm merely stating that there's no evidence for it's existence, so it merits no belief from me.
I am without god (atheist), but I don't KNOW there isn't one (agnostic).
OK, so you are agnostic. You don't want to admit that but that is the truth. An atheist asserts there is not God and agnostic claims to not know. It sounds like you are being wishy washy in your claim of what you believe so you have less to defend. You either believe God does not exist, or you just don't know. Which one is it, it cannot be both.
The origin and order of the universe, human interaction, morality, animals, insects, plants etc. all are necessary for our survival. Many books have been written on this. Ask yourself why does it even rain? Something so simple and yet so necessary. If I find a watch on the moon I can assume that somebody made it. I don't need an answer as to who made the person who made it, I just know somebody created it. Why not with the universe?
what if the opposing plane that wasn't caused by anything and doesn't exist began to exist then stopped existing and then used the dia-opposing plane to rid itself ot the evidence. See, I can sound just like you, it's easy. You have the nerve to call people who believe in God those who live in a fairytale land when obviously that is where you live. Look, you either believe in God or you don't, or you are not sure. It can only be one of the three. If you are not sure, you are agnostic.
This is the problem I have with some of you religious folk. You already think you know everything. You'll never change your mind, even when shown evidence that you're wrong.
All it takes to show that I am right is to go look up the definitions of both terms. But you don't want to. Because you already think you know. THAT is the definition of delusion.
BTW your first sentence made no sense, whatsoever.
just tell me what you believe. You cannot have all three beliefs---you do believe in God, don't believe in God, or not sure. One of those is true. Stop saying that everything is true for you. So your "opposing plane" had no cause either. I don't think there is a single scientist anywhere in the entire world who thinks we always existed. In fact, mathematically, it can be proven that there was a beginning. If there was an infinite past then we could not exist today.
we could not exist because if you go back to infinite time past you keep going because infinity does not exist (not a real number). So, infinite past to today is infinity therefore we could not exist because infinity does not exist. Proof there was a begining. It is believed time and space had a beginning with the big bang because the universe if flying outward and accelerating. They can extrapolate backward to give an estimated time when things began.
I would presume it doesn't exist because there is no consensus of anyone anywhere that has even tried to prove its veracity and the concept is obviously ridiculous. Is there life on other planets? Maybe? Life on Mars, no. Life on Venus, Mercury or Pluto probably not. Life on Earth, definitely. See the difference? How can I prove that you exist? Evidence. You either believe something or not otherwise you are unsure. Not a difficult concept. You cannot be sure and unsure at the sametime,
Say you catch two people committing a crime. One blames the other, and one says nothing. Are you going to believe the snitch? Probably not. He offers no evidence for his claims, and what he describes sounds completely ridiculous. But do you KNOW he's wrong?
Now, believing the claims of the snitch would make you a 'theist'. What if you don't believe? Whether you cite lack of evidence, or KNOW he's lying, you'd be an 'atheist'.
that's ridiculous. If the snitch give me good evidence like a recording, a picture, a fingerprint then I may believe him (theist). If he doesn't give evidence then I wouldn't know (agnostic) if he says conflicting information then I would not believe him (atheist). What is your point? You keep repeating yourself. Get to the point why you don't believe in God.
Someone who has never thought of the god idea is an atheist. Someone who rejects god based on lack of evidence is an atheist. Someone who believes 'god does not exist' is an atheist. You commit a false dichotomy by only assuming 3 choices when in fact both atheism and theism are general terms.
If someone told me they believed in unicorns, I wouldn't tell them they didn't exist, but I won't believe them.
Someone who has never thought of the god idea is an atheist. Someone who rejects god based on lack of evidence is an atheist. Someone who believes 'god does not exist' is an atheist. You commit a false dichotomy by only assuming 3 choices when in fact both atheism and theism are general terms.
If someone told me they believed in unicorns, I wouldn't tell them they didn't exist, but I won't believe them.
"Look, you either believe in God or you don't....If you are not sure, you are agnostic."
hmmm, only 3 choices, eh? i would consider myself an agnostic atheist, but since i'm not 100% sure of the existance of a deity, in the strictest sense, you are right; i'm agnostic. however, i'm agnostic to any god the same way you are agnostic to the celestial teapot. you don't know for sure if it exists or not, but still can be pretty sure that no such thing exists.
well, the fact that you don't want to discuss your so called "disbelief" is telling. Ok so you define it differently than the rest of the world, so what. I'm still waiting for your reasons for not believing in God. That "opposing plane" "never created.." bla bla bla is meaningless. You don't even know what it means. To argue something you must know what you are talking about. Simple debate rules. I guess I could debate any topic by using the same "opposing plane" nonsense.
why is there a God? Because of the opposing plane. Why is there no God? Because of the "opposing plane". Why are burgers delicious? Because of the opposing plane. Why an I afraid of heights? Because of the opposing plane. Why can't you take a statin with grapefruit juice? Because of the opposing plane. Get my point? Same argument for everything, makes the same amount of sense..
that's your response? That's the best you can do to quote some Dougleas Evertt guy? Was the quote about you or about me? Is it that difficult to come up with your own ideas?
"An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist."
the wikipedia quote you are referring to is not a formal definition and was written by an atheist. All of the quotes were from atheist sources. People who write for wikipedia are just lay people. I'm sure you knew that.
since you guys will never admit to how to label your belief correctly just tell me why you do not beleive in God. If in fact you really do not believe. If you are not sure then tell me why you are not sure. If you don't want to discuss it but prefer to debate a definition that's OK, I'll just leave. It gets tiring to go back and forth on a definition. Nothing gets acomplished that way.
what do you mean by "actively"? Anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist is correct. By "actively" you mean someone who does or does not go to church? Many times I have not gone to church but I believe in God very strongly. Define "actively".
People are not born with a belief in god, the same way people are not born with belief in unicorns. One must make a consistent, active proposal of belief in order to be a theist. Someone who says, 'eh, I don't know' is not making an active proposal, and is therefore not a theist, and is therefore an atheist.
This is why those you would label as 'agnostics' are actually atheists, or both.
I've explained the lack of mutual exclusivity between the words.
people are born with a belief in God. That's why free countries are more likely to believe in God. Secular countires like China, and North Korea don't allow religious belief. Many Muslim countries don't allow Chrisitan belief. So it's man who tries to stop people from believing in God. The more people try to stop the belief the more it flourishes. Evolutionists have tried to stop religious thought for years and it hasn't worked. Here where I am from they stopped teaching it in schools.
1) People are not born with a belief in god. People 'think' and wonder if there is something out there'. If people have an inherent belief in god they have an inherent belief in aliens as well.
2) China and North Korea aren't secular, they are dictatorships. Dictatorships don't like competition.
3) Evolutionist is a misnomer, you are an idiot.
4) Separation of church and state has been part of our country long before evolution was taught. Once again, you're an idiot.
Religion is competition for dictators. The goal of dictatorship is to raise its leader to divine status. You can't do that when religion is practiced freely.
Secularism- The assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
Says nothing of hindering religious practice.
I'm angry because I 'know' you're right? I'm not angry. I'm actually quite sad. You're probably the most deluded moron I've ever met, more so than Valu777.
yes, I agree. Since you decided not to discuss your so-called unlbelief in God I must come to the conclusion that you have no reason. Talking with atheists strenghthens my faith even more. I have never seen a Christian lose a debate with an atheist. Kurt Cameron though is a lousy debator.
Christians can't lose arguments because they don't argue on logical grounds. Same with Muslims, Hindus, and anyone who believes in fairy tales. All they need to say is 'the lord works in mysterious ways'. BOOM! You can't beat that; even though it's a shitty argument.
And it's actually Kirk Cameron. Your utter lack of relevant subject knowledge is oh so stereotypical.
Greywyn7--what are you talking about? All you can say is something about an opposing plane that you don't even understand. That's all you can think of.
i'm not sure about the existance of god because i cannot be sure of anything that my senses do not detect.
the god i'm refering to is not a personal god tho. when it comes to the god that answers prayer, and the god that has a purpose for each individual, i am atheist. i know this probably doesn't fit into your definition, but it's how i feel.
OK that's a reasonable answer. So maybe there was a creator or designer of the universe but it's not really involved with individuals lives. Prayer, for example, doesn't appear to work. Do I have it correct that this is pretty much how you feel? The technical definition then would would make you a theist not atheist. Whether He is involved in your life or not assuming you believe in God you are still a thiest.
I am responding to CanyoneroTimbo by the way, I don't think its too constructive to just focus on a defintion. It's much more important to know where you stand on the issue in order to discuss it.
"So maybe there was a creator or designer of the universe but it's not really involved with individuals lives.....Do I have it correct that this is pretty much how you feel?"
that is correct. except that i wouldn't call it a creator or a designer. more of an initial cause that started natural processes. a designer infers intelligence, which i reject.
also, i wouldn't say "it's not really involved with individuals lives", i would say it's not involved with individuals lives at all.
well, i would have to use my imagination to answer that. so your guess is as good as mine. all i can say is that it's something we don't understand yet.
"What do you think was the initial cause?"
the big bang. to me, that is the best explanation.
"Do you at least agree that something caused the big bang to happen?"
i cannot agree since there is no observable data to indicate anything before the big bang. but i don't dismiss that there could have been a cause that wasn't part of a natural process. i just think it's unlikely. like i said, it's something we don't understand yet. it's something that we may not be able to understand.
i agree that time and space had a beginning, but only after the big bang.
i agree, anybody that claims to know god's will is arrogant. their idea of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is based on sin and repentence. i completely reject that concept(eternal reward or punishment). i believe morality is not based on guilt and shame.
i believe spiritual experiences do happen and might even be a worth while goal throughout your entire life. observing beauty in nature, having sex, witnessing child birth...these are all things things that i consider spiritual(of course, there are many more examples). just because we experience a genuine feeling of awe doesn't mean we can attribute it to any god.
i believe religions pervert this spiriutual experience.
if you cite arrogance on the side of unbelievers as the main reason you believe they are wrong, that does not invalidate any point they make. either do conspiracy theories. only better explanations with supporting evidence can do that.
what was it that convinced you of god? i'm interested in knowing, because i gave god my best shot, and nothing was ever revealed to me. my faith was utterly destroyed by reality.
just admit you are wrong and move on with the discussion. It's OK to make a mistake, it's not a big deal. I won't think you are not intelligent because you messed up on a definition.
Assuming that wikipedia is right (and that is quite an assumption) given that gay marriage isn't legal in most of the world, do you think that it's gay marriage that causes this? And even so, does that make the marriage itself harmful?
Agreed, wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources.
Frankly, I'm not really sure whether or not gay marriage should be opposed. I just think that from a medical perspective, anal sex is unhealthy. Probably almost as harmful as smoking or drinking (they both can cause cancer).
So is gay marriage harmful? IMO yes it is. But if all the parties involved are willing to risk it, then that's their choice I suppose.
That is no guarentee that the relationship between those two things is causual and not a mere coincidence or the result of an associated, unobserved third factor. And wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gay people and I don't necessarily oppose gay marriage. But I do think that their lifestyle is unhealthy, and at the end of the day that's what matters the most. Well to me at least.
The wiki entry that I quoted (gay men are more susceptible to anal is cancer) is from the entry 'anal cancer' and not gay marriage. So I wasn't trying to prove that gay marriage (as I understand it) causes anal cancer or that it's inherently harmful.
If you cannot back it up, why did you say 'I'm not so sure about that' after referencing a line from the video about gay marriage harming no one in the 1st comment? Furthermore, what is your source for your 'anal sex however, is a different story' claim? Any studies from the Journal of Oncology, and, if so, post the link.
Um.... What part of 'I'm not so sure' don't you understand?
To me the issue of gay marriage is new and complex, and should NOT be met with total conviction. In other words, I'm ready to discuss the possibility that gay marriage is harmless in all aspects including health.
Regarding anal sex, I don't know how it is in the US, but it's common knowledge in my country that anal sex is closely linked to Human Papiloma Virus and anal cancer.
If you claim I'm wrong, that and anal sex is perfectly healthy and natural, then the burden of proof is on you my friend.
The ball is in your court so to speak. Since you made an affirmative statement (such as A causes B), you should have studies or evidence of that with sources authoritative on such matters.
The anal sex has been documented in the ancient world and has been a part of many human cultures. Furthermore, heterosexual marriage has been shown to be detrimental to women's cardiac health. Besides, what of the lesbian? They are less likely to get HIV and other STDs sexually.
@altosax1st: Good point , but being a part of human culture doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Look at tobacco and alcohol, they've been a part of our culture since way back when, and they're just as unhealthy then as they are today.
Regarding lesbians you're right, I can't think of any logical reason to stop them from forming a partnership in marriage.
Heterosexual marriage is detrimental to women's cardiac health? For real?
You have stated that the issue of such relationships is new, but other societies like the Ming Chinese and Greco-Romans had such relationships.
According to an study by a UC pysch professor, arousal (i.e not the sexual kind) that arises from arguements detrimentally affects women (and men, but to a much lesser extent). Should we take away their freedom to marry the individual they love.
Besides, many things from using the computer to eating a chip can be unhealthy, but we as a group decide that people as partially rational creatures can make that decision themselves.
As for your objection that anal sex is bad for people, I have yet to see any studies that establish that it is causal relationshp between cancer and anal sex. Secondly, anal sex does not neccesarily equate gay marriage. Heterosexual couples could also engage in such an activity as well.
The bible never says being gay is a sin, it only condemns gang rape of men women and children (and attempted rape of the 2 angels Lot let in his house, sodom and gomorah) as well as idolatry (using sexual acts as worship and idolizing statues of men and women), and male prostitution in temple (leviticus.) Leviticus does not pertain to us, it was written for the Levites, people who had fallen away from God and let sin rule their hearts. The word homosexual was created in the 19th century.
smurfboywv 5 months ago
God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy.
Changing societies do not dictate God's standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination.
Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not “go with the flow.”
darkaus32 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
darkaus32 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
darkaus32 7 months ago
THIS SUCKS DICK
spencor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Travel around the world with an Latino women rockmycity.info
surangagayan99 11 months ago
Now in my state one that is gay in marriage or civil union cannot be denied medical insurance at their job. To me that is discrimination. If my cousin who is not gay wants medical insurance for their partner it is denied. See that is an issue. BTW thanks for the friendly debate. I still thinking about the movie. It was deep and would recommend others to see Inception.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth I've seen Inception. That said, well, I highly doubt that they'd deny heterosexual couples in a marriage or civil partners medical insurance. I'm pretty sure that would count as discrimination against married people.
BENY0HAMA 1 year ago
@BENY0HAMA I mention that since people that I have worked for have brought that up.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
Question 4 Gay marriage forces society to accept something that I and others do not.
That is all off to bed and good night.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth 1: Judges aren't religious figures, and them performing marriages makes marriage not sacred.
2: You know district court judges can change laws, right? And that that one judge DID change that law, right?
4: Many people still don't accept interracial marriage even though it's legal. So why would you be forced to accept gay marriage if you weren't forced to accept interracial marriage?
BENY0HAMA 1 year ago
@BENY0HAMA 1) Judges aren't religious but Rom. 13 says he is a minister of God for God and render to Caesar the things that are Caesar. 2) I am not sure what you point is sorry. 4. There now are hate crimes and that is the force acceptance. I will see you latter. Taking son to see Inception.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth 1: Interesting way around that.
2: The point is that the law you cited is no longer on the books in such a way that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. So your answer is invalid.
4: Hate crimes prevent people from hurting others based on their skin colour, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. You can "not accept" someone without hurting them. Do you seriously want the freedom to assault gay people?
BENY0HAMA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENY0HAMA Just watch Inception with my son. Good movie. "he defense of marriage act defines a marriage between a man and a woman. So it is not just a religious thing but a federal law." The decision is not final unless the Supreme Court says so.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
Final question. To say that I am opposing my views on others consider this. Gay marriage will force people to accept their perversion. Do not believe me. Try a job situation or refusing to film a gay event and watch how much harms the gays will do.
I do not hate gays but I do hate the forced acceptance of it.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Good to see a reply.
1: So judges are religious figures then?
2: The part that defines marriage as between a man and woman was deemed unconstitutional and struck down in July of this year. So, you can't fall back on that.
3: How is something that is actually proven to be life threatening comparable to gay marriage?
4: Interracial marriage being legal didn't force people to accept it. Anyway, you didn't answer my question.
BENY0HAMA 1 year ago
@BENY0HAMA 1) I never said judges are religious figures you did. God just ordains them as part of law and order.
2) That was one judge not the supreme court. BTW he is gay
3) 2% of the US pop. in gay and is responsible for 50% or more of all new AIDS cases. See cdc.gov stats
The four I need to watch the video again to remember what you said
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
Question 3. Some churches will not allow medical help. Should I agree with that or oppose it? BTW even if I oppose it they are doing it so what is your point. Jehovah Witnesses do not take blood transfusions. Tell me is that right?
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
Question 2 Yes I would. The defense of marriage act defines a marriage between a man and a woman. So it is not just a religious thing but a federal law.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
Question 1 No need to. Rom chapter 13 teaches that governments are ordained by God and thus the laws do apply. In fact my father in law was an ordained minster but had to register with the state of CT.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
As a conservative I really don't care about gays,I dont hate them and as a minority myself I would defend them in a fight,the marrige thing is a technocality for me ,live together adopt children have legal rights just don't call it marrige,if gay relationships are so great make up your own name,Question how often is the definition of a word completely changed? (marrige) lets call red blue and sky ground! what about poligamy??? can 10 people get married???
davetileguy 2 years ago
you couldn't have been more dishonest. You are truly a conservative!
yubarraboo 1 year ago
wait, if it's about protecting the sanctity of marriage, shouldn't they all be fighting to ban divorce?
Skeezyhouse 2 years ago
This is an awesome video! I wanna share this with my mom and see what she thinks... should be interesting.
autumnzephyr 2 years ago
Anyway, go look up the article on atheism on Wikipedia. Obviously you haven't yet.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
2. It's not about the church doing it. Most religious doctrines are against homosexuality. We just don't believe it should happen.
3. They can't claim to be exercising religious freedom if canonically, that is not a part of that religion. Governing religious organizations will disown their actions giving no credence to that claim.
Thebboss 2 years ago
1. The sanctity is not taken out by a theme or judge performed wedding. Those aren't things which are talked about in the bible. The holiness is not inherent in the ceremony, it's holy when a man and a woman come together in said ceremony. Judicial marriages are acceptable because suppose I don't have the time or money for a church wedding. Maybe I'm a missionary somewhere without a functioning church body.
Thebboss 2 years ago
"You seem to be against gay marriage because it's "dangerous".
If it's harmful then I'm against it. But this is just an assumption, so correct me if I'm wrong.
"..is linked to HPV and cancer."
Are you saying that it's not?
"will preventing homosexuals from getting married prevent them from having **** ***?"
Nope. Your point?
I'm not a bigot. I'm trying my best to be open-minded here, but you gotta bring something to the table.
Revalga 2 years ago
You have no comprehension skill, whatsoever.
HPV and anal cancer are dangerous. You state that those who practice anal sex have a greater chance of getting these. I don't know if that's correct, but let's assume it is.
Why is that an argument against same sex marriage? Anal sex can be dangerous, but will keeping them from getting married stop them from having anal sex?
No, it won't. If you don't let them get married, they'll still do it. So why is the marriage dangerous?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"You have no comprehension skill, whatsoever."
Your mastery of ad hominems and sarcasm is impressive.
"So why is the marriage dangerous?"
I'm not gonna support something that is clearly dangerous to one's health. Would you?
Of course they'd still be having sex outside of marriage, but that's beside the point. I'm just saying that if anal sex is indeed dangerous then I'm not gonna support gay marriage AND anal sex.
I'm know I'm not being politically correct here, but who cares.
Revalga 2 years ago
"Your mastery of ad hominems and sarcasm is impressive."
It's not an ad hominem if its true. You either completely disregarded my points or didn't understand them. You obviously don't know what sarcasm means either.
How does anal sex make GAY MARRIAGE dangerous? Answer that. How does something that they'll do WHETHER THEY'RE MARRIED OR NOT make gay marriage dangerous?
You realize that men have anal sex with women too, right? Should we make regular marriage illegal as well?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"You obviously don't know what sarcasm means either."
What is this fox news? You gonna start questioning my morals and intelligence? Start framing questions to affect the outcome?
"How does anal sex make GAY MARRIAGE dangerous?"
Like I said, if (and this is a HUGE if) there's a connection between anal sex and HPV/cancer, then that would make gay marriage harmful for the PARTIES INVOLVED. And since HPV is highly contagious, one can argue that it's also dangerous to others as well.
Revalga 2 years ago
In Denmark, a country with a long history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74, while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
I think anal sex is harmful whether in gay marriages or otherwise, as do smoking and alcohol consumption.
I can PM you the link to the above article if you want.
Revalga 2 years ago
As a closing let me just state that I'm asking honest questions regarding homosexuality and gay marriage as a person who has been told that homosexual is forbidden and sinful all his life.
You can respond by being sarcastic, but that would be counter-productive don't you think?
Revalga 2 years ago
Once again, you seem to not know what sarcasm means.
I've yet to be sarcastic in any of my responses.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
So if they didn't get married, they would stop having anal sex, and as such live longer?
Think about what you're saying. They'll do it no matter what. Legalizing it will change nothing.
No need to PM me the link, I'll take your word for it.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"What is this fox news? You gonna start questioning my morals and intelligence? Start framing questions to affect the outcome?"
It seems you conceded the first part of the paragraph, so I won't bother with this rant.
If there is a connection between anal sex and HPV/cancer, that would also make regular marriage harmful for those who try anal sex. You can't refuse an idea because a single portion of it MAY be dangerous.
I'll repeat. STRAIGHT COUPLES have anal sex too.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I concede that it takes a certain amount of maturity to engage in this sort of discussion without getting sidetracked. And honestly, you seem to lack that quality.
Yes straight couples practice anal sex too and assuming it's harmful, then they simply should stop doing it.
Revalga 2 years ago
Ad-hominems don't constitute sidetracking? The hypocrisy speaks volumes of your character.
Regarding the dangers of anal sex, I agree. If it is found that it is dangerous, people should refrain from doing it. However, that is NOT an argument against gay marriage.
You seem to have a double standard bias here. If straight couples have anal sex, that's OK, it has nothing to do with marriage. But if gay people have anal sex, it's dangerous so gay marriage should be illegal.
Am I wrong?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
We're all biased I suppose. Some a lot more than others. You seem to have this prejudice that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is automatically a bigot. Am I wrong?
I never said it's ok for straight couples to practice anal sex. Perhaps you should re read my posts?
In regular marriages, it's relatively easy to avoid anal sex while in gay marriages it's significantly more difficult. I'm not saying gay marriage should be illegal but I do think it should be evaluated objectively/fairly.
Revalga 2 years ago
Yes, you're wrong. I never said you were a bigot, and you should stop putting words in my mouth.
I also never said that you said it was OK for straight couples to have anal sex.
All I'm saying is you should apply the same standards to straight marriage as you do to gay marriage.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
if gays marry who will be the one cooking and cleaning? How will they decide? Who will leave their socks on the floor and come up with excuses for not wanting sex? It sounds too confusing. It should be illegal.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I'm sure you're joking, but just in case...
Your argument basically amounts to, "I don't understand how gays would live their life, so it should be illegal".
Pretty stupid in my opinion.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
you're probably gay but hey that's OK. Do you move your butt when you walk? I bet your hair is perfect.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
So, not only do you call me a homosexual without justification, you attribute it to rejection of fairy tales.
What a fucking moron.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
well, why would you like your kind so much?--it's like marching in a gay parade. Of course you are gay. That's OK, I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. Also, why else would you be atheist?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
also, you are also atheist because you swear a lot. No morales at all.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Alright, you're obviously a troll. That, or you're severely mentally handicapped.
I won't feed you further response.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
At least you finally stopped swearing. At least you know that I am right. You can never influence others to your point of view by using four letter words. Only atheists do that.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
No, you're not right, you're a generalizing moron.
And there I go, responding again.
Tell me; do you KNOW god exists?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
yes I do. Do you know that God doesn't exist?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Nope.
I just don't believe you because you offer nothing but your biased opinion.
No more than I would believe a Muslim who says Allah is god, or a Hindu who says Shiva is god.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
so you're agnostic.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I'm both.
Atheism is belief, agnosticism is knowledge.
You're a theist. I'm not, because I'm not religious, therefore I'm an atheist.
However, I don't KNOW if I'm right or wrong. In that respect, I'm agnostic.
So I'm an agnostic atheist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
no, atheism is knowledge. Agnosticsm is lack of knowledge. You have it backwards.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
No, I don't.
Theism is belief in god.
Atheism is without belief in god.
Agnosticism is lack of knowledge.
Gnosticism is knowledge.
I am an agnostic atheist because, while I hold no belief in a god, I don't KNOW.
You claim to know a god exists. That makes you a gnostic theist. A position which I personally find ridiculous.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
atheism asserts God does not exist which is knowledge, because you know God does not exist. An agnostic asserts that you cannot know if God exists which is lack of knowledge.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Wrong.
Theism means belief in god. The prefix 'a' denotes 'not' or 'without'.
So atheism means, 'without belief in god'. This is not the same thing as saying god doesn't exist.
Do yourself a favor and go look up the definition of both atheism and agnosticism. And don't say you already have, because you obviously have not.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. It's a simple definition. Everybody who reads this post knows what it mean but you. Why can't you just look it up.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
atheist
from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
yes, and to deny the Gods is to assert that God does not exist. When an atheist says they know there is no God they are speaking from a claimed knowledge. When an agnostic claims they don't know, they are speaking from lack of knowledge and admit they just don't know. A theist believes in the existence of a God or Gods. It makes no claim as to which specific religion should be followed.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
No, it's not.
The method in which you come to your conclusion is clearly fallacious. Find a method which follows logically and maybe I'll accept it.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Greywyn7, it's amazing that you accuse me (or any person who believes in God) of irrational thinking when you invent your own meaning of words. You call yourself an atheist and you don't even know what it means. You don't help yourself any when you deny a definition that is easily verifiable. It's like trying to convince us that 1 + 1 = 3. Even Superiorcarbonl1L2L3 gave you a clear definition and even the origin of the word. What more could you want? You just cannot admit you are wrong.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
First off, Superiorcarbon is a closet racist who thinks all white people have sex with horses.
Secondly, he was right. Like I said, atheist means 'without god'. Theist means 'with god'.
Denying the existence of a god, based on a lack of evidence, is a perfectly valid position, and THAT is the definition of atheism.
I don't say that god doesn't exist (that is the agnostic part), I simply don't find any credible reason to believe it (that is the atheist part).
Greywyn7 2 years ago
whatever you label Superiorcarbon is irrelevant to what we are discussing. If you don't say that God doesn't exist then you are an agnostic. Atheists say that God does not exist. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I tried to post a link to the definition from a dictionary website but it won't let me post websites. Just look it up. It's just a definition, how can it be so difficult for you.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Go read the Wikipedia article for atheism. It describes how atheism and agnosticism answer different questions and are not mutually exclusive.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Denying the existence of God is atheism but your statement "based on lack of evidence" is not part of the definition. Before debating a topic we have to first define our positions. So far it looks like you are an agnostic.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
How dense are you?
Atheism- without god.
Whether someone says that they believe god doesn't exist, or whether they merely don't believe the claims of theists, they are without god. Therefore they are BOTH atheists.
I'm not saying your god doesn't exist. I'm merely stating that there's no evidence for it's existence, so it merits no belief from me.
I am without god (atheist), but I don't KNOW there isn't one (agnostic).
Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist.
How can it be so hard for YOU?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
OK, so you are agnostic. You don't want to admit that but that is the truth. An atheist asserts there is not God and agnostic claims to not know. It sounds like you are being wishy washy in your claim of what you believe so you have less to defend. You either believe God does not exist, or you just don't know. Which one is it, it cannot be both.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Your density knows no bounds.
Since you'd rather argue from ignorance than actually look up the definitions, I'll post them here.
Gnostic- Knowledge
Theism- Belief in god.
A gnostic theist KNOWS god exists. An agnostic theist BELIEVES god exists. A gnostic atheist KNOWS god doesn't exist.
What do you think an agnostic atheist is? Someone who either BELIEVES god doesn't exist or DENIES the claims of theists.
I don't know that I'm right, but I don't believe in your gods. Therefore, atheist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
My reason for being an atheist doesn't have to be part of the definition. Just like your reason for being a theist isn't part of it's definition.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I assume you are an agnostic because you feel you don't have reason to believe in Gods existence.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
The origin and order of the universe, human interaction, morality, animals, insects, plants etc. all are necessary for our survival. Many books have been written on this. Ask yourself why does it even rain? Something so simple and yet so necessary. If I find a watch on the moon I can assume that somebody made it. I don't need an answer as to who made the person who made it, I just know somebody created it. Why not with the universe?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Because you're both applying terms that are inapplicable and jumping to conclusions.
What if the 'big bang' took place only by reaction with an opposing plane of existence in which causation has no meaning?
There are infinite possibilities, you just assume it was god.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
what if the opposing plane that wasn't caused by anything and doesn't exist began to exist then stopped existing and then used the dia-opposing plane to rid itself ot the evidence. See, I can sound just like you, it's easy. You have the nerve to call people who believe in God those who live in a fairytale land when obviously that is where you live. Look, you either believe in God or you don't, or you are not sure. It can only be one of the three. If you are not sure, you are agnostic.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
This is the problem I have with some of you religious folk. You already think you know everything. You'll never change your mind, even when shown evidence that you're wrong.
All it takes to show that I am right is to go look up the definitions of both terms. But you don't want to. Because you already think you know. THAT is the definition of delusion.
BTW your first sentence made no sense, whatsoever.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
just tell me what you believe. You cannot have all three beliefs---you do believe in God, don't believe in God, or not sure. One of those is true. Stop saying that everything is true for you. So your "opposing plane" had no cause either. I don't think there is a single scientist anywhere in the entire world who thinks we always existed. In fact, mathematically, it can be proven that there was a beginning. If there was an infinite past then we could not exist today.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
we could not exist because if you go back to infinite time past you keep going because infinity does not exist (not a real number). So, infinite past to today is infinity therefore we could not exist because infinity does not exist. Proof there was a begining. It is believed time and space had a beginning with the big bang because the universe if flying outward and accelerating. They can extrapolate backward to give an estimated time when things began.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Once again, I'm not saying the universe is infinite.
I was speaking of the opposing plane where both time and causation have no meaning. Something we can't comprehend.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
If I told you there was a infinitesimal magical teapot orbiting Saturn, would you believe me?
If not, can you definitively prove it doesn't exist?
Obviously you would find the idea ridiculous, but you wouldn't presume that it doesn't exist, because you can't prove it doesn't exist.
THAT is agnostic atheism.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I would presume it doesn't exist because there is no consensus of anyone anywhere that has even tried to prove its veracity and the concept is obviously ridiculous. Is there life on other planets? Maybe? Life on Mars, no. Life on Venus, Mercury or Pluto probably not. Life on Earth, definitely. See the difference? How can I prove that you exist? Evidence. You either believe something or not otherwise you are unsure. Not a difficult concept. You cannot be sure and unsure at the sametime,
heymanhmm 2 years ago
You didn't answer the question.
You would presume it doesn't exist. That is a logical conclusion. But do you KNOW it doesn't exist?
Disregarding something on lack of evidence does not constitute active disbelief.
By the way, the atheists isn't 'sure' there is no god; at least agnostic atheists, which probably make up more than 99% of the atheist population.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Here's an analogy;
Say you catch two people committing a crime. One blames the other, and one says nothing. Are you going to believe the snitch? Probably not. He offers no evidence for his claims, and what he describes sounds completely ridiculous. But do you KNOW he's wrong?
Now, believing the claims of the snitch would make you a 'theist'. What if you don't believe? Whether you cite lack of evidence, or KNOW he's lying, you'd be an 'atheist'.
Anything that's not a theist is an atheist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
that's ridiculous. If the snitch give me good evidence like a recording, a picture, a fingerprint then I may believe him (theist). If he doesn't give evidence then I wouldn't know (agnostic) if he says conflicting information then I would not believe him (atheist). What is your point? You keep repeating yourself. Get to the point why you don't believe in God.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
We're speaking in terms where the snitch tells you to take his word on faith; else it wouldn't be a valid analogy, would it? =)
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Theist - One who holds a belief in god.
Atheist- One who does not hold a belief in god.
Someone who has never thought of the god idea is an atheist. Someone who rejects god based on lack of evidence is an atheist. Someone who believes 'god does not exist' is an atheist. You commit a false dichotomy by only assuming 3 choices when in fact both atheism and theism are general terms.
If someone told me they believed in unicorns, I wouldn't tell them they didn't exist, but I won't believe them.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Theist - One who holds a belief in god.
Atheist- One who does not hold a belief in god.
Someone who has never thought of the god idea is an atheist. Someone who rejects god based on lack of evidence is an atheist. Someone who believes 'god does not exist' is an atheist. You commit a false dichotomy by only assuming 3 choices when in fact both atheism and theism are general terms.
If someone told me they believed in unicorns, I wouldn't tell them they didn't exist, but I won't believe them.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Oh, there was no infinite past, and you attribute this lack of infinite past to a plane where time means nothing?
You just disproved your own god.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"Look, you either believe in God or you don't....If you are not sure, you are agnostic."
hmmm, only 3 choices, eh? i would consider myself an agnostic atheist, but since i'm not 100% sure of the existance of a deity, in the strictest sense, you are right; i'm agnostic. however, i'm agnostic to any god the same way you are agnostic to the celestial teapot. you don't know for sure if it exists or not, but still can be pretty sure that no such thing exists.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
OK good. At least you admit your belief. That's a start.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I told you my belief in one of my first posts. You probably weren't listening to reason (and still aren't).
Greywyn7 2 years ago
What's funny is that, even giving the words and roots 'atheist' is derived from, he still is unwilling to see reason.
I guess there's a reason he's a theist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
well, the fact that you don't want to discuss your so called "disbelief" is telling. Ok so you define it differently than the rest of the world, so what. I'm still waiting for your reasons for not believing in God. That "opposing plane" "never created.." bla bla bla is meaningless. You don't even know what it means. To argue something you must know what you are talking about. Simple debate rules. I guess I could debate any topic by using the same "opposing plane" nonsense.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I'll look back and count how many times I've explained it already.
...
4 times. I've explained 4 times and you're still asking.
2) The opposing plane argument makes perfect sense. Based off your rebuttals you just don't understand it.
Those who do not make attempts to learn will never learn anything.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
why is there a God? Because of the opposing plane. Why is there no God? Because of the "opposing plane". Why are burgers delicious? Because of the opposing plane. Why an I afraid of heights? Because of the opposing plane. Why can't you take a statin with grapefruit juice? Because of the opposing plane. Get my point? Same argument for everything, makes the same amount of sense..
heymanhmm 2 years ago
OBVIOUSLY you had no idea what I was talking about.
There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.
-Douglas Evertt
Greywyn7 2 years ago
that's your response? That's the best you can do to quote some Dougleas Evertt guy? Was the quote about you or about me? Is it that difficult to come up with your own ideas?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Because it fits my mindset perfectly.
Why do you use humanities method of mathematics? Can't you think of your own way to do it?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
with math I can explain it--one apple plus two apples equals 3 apples. You have no logic, your thoughts are random.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
You seem to be the only person I've ever encountered who can't understand what I say.
Do you have a problem, or does everyone else?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
quick wiki quote:
"An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist."
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
the wikipedia quote you are referring to is not a formal definition and was written by an atheist. All of the quotes were from atheist sources. People who write for wikipedia are just lay people. I'm sure you knew that.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
a = without
theist = belief in god
atheist = without belief in god.
There is no bias there; that is what the words mean. You are delusional buddy.
Are you saying that the Greeks were all biased atheists? You know 'atheos' was a derogative term, right?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
ya, i knew the description wasn't an official definition, but it does accurately describe the way i view my beliefs. after all, i am a layman.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
since you guys will never admit to how to label your belief correctly just tell me why you do not beleive in God. If in fact you really do not believe. If you are not sure then tell me why you are not sure. If you don't want to discuss it but prefer to debate a definition that's OK, I'll just leave. It gets tiring to go back and forth on a definition. Nothing gets acomplished that way.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Same reason you don't believe in leperchauns, or fairies, or unicorns, or hobgoblins, dragons, or transdimensional sentient teapots.
And 'belief' in something is a positive assertion. If you don't make that assertion, you don't believe it.
Anyone who does not actively believe in a god is an atheist, both by definition and popular use.
Your opinion won't change that.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
what do you mean by "actively"? Anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist is correct. By "actively" you mean someone who does or does not go to church? Many times I have not gone to church but I believe in God very strongly. Define "actively".
heymanhmm 2 years ago
One who says nothing is an atheist.
People are not born with a belief in god, the same way people are not born with belief in unicorns. One must make a consistent, active proposal of belief in order to be a theist. Someone who says, 'eh, I don't know' is not making an active proposal, and is therefore not a theist, and is therefore an atheist.
This is why those you would label as 'agnostics' are actually atheists, or both.
I've explained the lack of mutual exclusivity between the words.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
people are born with a belief in God. That's why free countries are more likely to believe in God. Secular countires like China, and North Korea don't allow religious belief. Many Muslim countries don't allow Chrisitan belief. So it's man who tries to stop people from believing in God. The more people try to stop the belief the more it flourishes. Evolutionists have tried to stop religious thought for years and it hasn't worked. Here where I am from they stopped teaching it in schools.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
1) People are not born with a belief in god. People 'think' and wonder if there is something out there'. If people have an inherent belief in god they have an inherent belief in aliens as well.
2) China and North Korea aren't secular, they are dictatorships. Dictatorships don't like competition.
3) Evolutionist is a misnomer, you are an idiot.
4) Separation of church and state has been part of our country long before evolution was taught. Once again, you're an idiot.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
why don't you look up secular. "Don't like competition" so what? Who cares what the reason is my point is that they are forced to not be religous.
I suspect you are so angry because you know I am right. You probably don't believe in God because you feel guilty for being gay.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Religion is competition for dictators. The goal of dictatorship is to raise its leader to divine status. You can't do that when religion is practiced freely.
Secularism- The assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
Says nothing of hindering religious practice.
I'm angry because I 'know' you're right? I'm not angry. I'm actually quite sad. You're probably the most deluded moron I've ever met, more so than Valu777.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I know how much you love quotes, so I found you another one.
'Arrogance diminishes wisdom'
Greywyn7 2 years ago
does that quote refer to you or me?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Whoever refuses to look up the definition, instead arguing from opinion.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
why do you think you are arrogant?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Haha, I KNEW you were going to do that.
Stupidity knows no bounds.
Here's another quote, quote lover;
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
-Abraham Lincoln
Greywyn7 2 years ago
yes, I agree. Since you decided not to discuss your so-called unlbelief in God I must come to the conclusion that you have no reason. Talking with atheists strenghthens my faith even more. I have never seen a Christian lose a debate with an atheist. Kurt Cameron though is a lousy debator.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I've discussed it 4 times now. You're either:
a) Too lazy, or
b) Too stupid to find the comments.
Christians can't lose arguments because they don't argue on logical grounds. Same with Muslims, Hindus, and anyone who believes in fairy tales. All they need to say is 'the lord works in mysterious ways'. BOOM! You can't beat that; even though it's a shitty argument.
And it's actually Kirk Cameron. Your utter lack of relevant subject knowledge is oh so stereotypical.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Greywyn7--what are you talking about? All you can say is something about an opposing plane that you don't even understand. That's all you can think of.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Lack of understanding does not diminish an arguments validity.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
i'm not sure about the existance of god because i cannot be sure of anything that my senses do not detect.
the god i'm refering to is not a personal god tho. when it comes to the god that answers prayer, and the god that has a purpose for each individual, i am atheist. i know this probably doesn't fit into your definition, but it's how i feel.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
OK that's a reasonable answer. So maybe there was a creator or designer of the universe but it's not really involved with individuals lives. Prayer, for example, doesn't appear to work. Do I have it correct that this is pretty much how you feel? The technical definition then would would make you a theist not atheist. Whether He is involved in your life or not assuming you believe in God you are still a thiest.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
I am responding to CanyoneroTimbo by the way, I don't think its too constructive to just focus on a defintion. It's much more important to know where you stand on the issue in order to discuss it.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
"So maybe there was a creator or designer of the universe but it's not really involved with individuals lives.....Do I have it correct that this is pretty much how you feel?"
that is correct. except that i wouldn't call it a creator or a designer. more of an initial cause that started natural processes. a designer infers intelligence, which i reject.
also, i wouldn't say "it's not really involved with individuals lives", i would say it's not involved with individuals lives at all.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
what do you think caused the intiial cause? What do you think was the initial cause?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
"what do you think caused the intiial cause?"
well, i would have to use my imagination to answer that. so your guess is as good as mine. all i can say is that it's something we don't understand yet.
"What do you think was the initial cause?"
the big bang. to me, that is the best explanation.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
the big bang makes sense to me too. Do you at least agree that something caused the big bang to happen? And, that time and space had a beginning?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
"Do you at least agree that something caused the big bang to happen?"
i cannot agree since there is no observable data to indicate anything before the big bang. but i don't dismiss that there could have been a cause that wasn't part of a natural process. i just think it's unlikely. like i said, it's something we don't understand yet. it's something that we may not be able to understand.
i agree that time and space had a beginning, but only after the big bang.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
much arrogance exists on both sides of the issue.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
actually, you are right. I especially think it's arrogant when Christians (or other religions) say who God will or will not allow into heaven.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
i agree, anybody that claims to know god's will is arrogant. their idea of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is based on sin and repentence. i completely reject that concept(eternal reward or punishment). i believe morality is not based on guilt and shame.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
these posts are acting weird. Some of them I posted didn't show up and now they look out of order for some reason.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
"It's experiences that do that."
yes, exactly.
i believe spiritual experiences do happen and might even be a worth while goal throughout your entire life. observing beauty in nature, having sex, witnessing child birth...these are all things things that i consider spiritual(of course, there are many more examples). just because we experience a genuine feeling of awe doesn't mean we can attribute it to any god.
i believe religions pervert this spiriutual experience.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Comment removed
heymanhmm 2 years ago
if you cite arrogance on the side of unbelievers as the main reason you believe they are wrong, that does not invalidate any point they make. either do conspiracy theories. only better explanations with supporting evidence can do that.
what was it that convinced you of god? i'm interested in knowing, because i gave god my best shot, and nothing was ever revealed to me. my faith was utterly destroyed by reality.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Someone who believes in an impersonal god is a deist, not a theist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Once again, go look up the Wikipedia article on atheism and how it ties to gnosticism, because you obviously have no clue what either term means.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
just admit you are wrong and move on with the discussion. It's OK to make a mistake, it's not a big deal. I won't think you are not intelligent because you messed up on a definition.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
He is wrong, and a loser, I provided the ETYMOLOGY FOR THE WORD atheist.
Latin Etymology dictionary. Etyomology means the origins of worlds.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
Actually, the way you defined it is the way I described it.
What a moron.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
why do you confuse belief in God with religion (Allah, Hindu, Jesus, etc.)?
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Greywyn7 can only offer personally opinion based on the need to be in contact to more informed people like yourself.
GREYWNY8 is confused.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
I just realized that you're atheist because you are gay. Now it makes sense.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
"Gay marriage, however, harms no one."
I'm not so sure bout that. According to wikipedia: Gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men.
Revalga 2 years ago
Assuming that wikipedia is right (and that is quite an assumption) given that gay marriage isn't legal in most of the world, do you think that it's gay marriage that causes this? And even so, does that make the marriage itself harmful?
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Agreed, wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources.
Frankly, I'm not really sure whether or not gay marriage should be opposed. I just think that from a medical perspective, anal sex is unhealthy. Probably almost as harmful as smoking or drinking (they both can cause cancer).
So is gay marriage harmful? IMO yes it is. But if all the parties involved are willing to risk it, then that's their choice I suppose.
Revalga 2 years ago
That is no guarentee that the relationship between those two things is causual and not a mere coincidence or the result of an associated, unobserved third factor. And wikipedia is not a reliable source.
altosax1st 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gay people and I don't necessarily oppose gay marriage. But I do think that their lifestyle is unhealthy, and at the end of the day that's what matters the most. Well to me at least.
Revalga 2 years ago
I did not ask that. I asked whether you could prove that there is a causual link between gay marriage and cancer
altosax1st 2 years ago
Then the answer is: No, I cannot.
The wiki entry that I quoted (gay men are more susceptible to anal is cancer) is from the entry 'anal cancer' and not gay marriage. So I wasn't trying to prove that gay marriage (as I understand it) causes anal cancer or that it's inherently harmful.
Anal sex however, is a different story.
Revalga 2 years ago
If you cannot back it up, why did you say 'I'm not so sure about that' after referencing a line from the video about gay marriage harming no one in the 1st comment? Furthermore, what is your source for your 'anal sex however, is a different story' claim? Any studies from the Journal of Oncology, and, if so, post the link.
altosax1st 2 years ago
Um.... What part of 'I'm not so sure' don't you understand?
To me the issue of gay marriage is new and complex, and should NOT be met with total conviction. In other words, I'm ready to discuss the possibility that gay marriage is harmless in all aspects including health.
I suggest you do the same.
Revalga 2 years ago
Regarding anal sex, I don't know how it is in the US, but it's common knowledge in my country that anal sex is closely linked to Human Papiloma Virus and anal cancer.
If you claim I'm wrong, that and anal sex is perfectly healthy and natural, then the burden of proof is on you my friend.
Revalga 2 years ago
The ball is in your court so to speak. Since you made an affirmative statement (such as A causes B), you should have studies or evidence of that with sources authoritative on such matters.
The anal sex has been documented in the ancient world and has been a part of many human cultures. Furthermore, heterosexual marriage has been shown to be detrimental to women's cardiac health. Besides, what of the lesbian? They are less likely to get HIV and other STDs sexually.
altosax1st 2 years ago
@altosax1st: Good point , but being a part of human culture doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Look at tobacco and alcohol, they've been a part of our culture since way back when, and they're just as unhealthy then as they are today.
Regarding lesbians you're right, I can't think of any logical reason to stop them from forming a partnership in marriage.
Heterosexual marriage is detrimental to women's cardiac health? For real?
Revalga 2 years ago
You have stated that the issue of such relationships is new, but other societies like the Ming Chinese and Greco-Romans had such relationships.
According to an study by a UC pysch professor, arousal (i.e not the sexual kind) that arises from arguements detrimentally affects women (and men, but to a much lesser extent). Should we take away their freedom to marry the individual they love.
altosax1st 2 years ago
Besides, many things from using the computer to eating a chip can be unhealthy, but we as a group decide that people as partially rational creatures can make that decision themselves.
As for your objection that anal sex is bad for people, I have yet to see any studies that establish that it is causal relationshp between cancer and anal sex. Secondly, anal sex does not neccesarily equate gay marriage. Heterosexual couples could also engage in such an activity as well.
altosax1st 2 years ago
I'm sure they'll stop having sex if you keep them from getting married.
/S
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Why is it so difficult to ask honest questions regarding homosexuality?
I guess your sarcasm proves something.
Revalga 2 years ago
You seem to be against gay marriage because it's "dangerous".
You seem to be under the impression that it's "dangerous" because anal sex is linked to HPV and cancer.
So, I ask again: will preventing homosexuals from getting married prevent them from having anal sex?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
That last comment is directed at Greywyn7.
Revalga 2 years ago