My arguments against religion arent 'ad hominems' Im addressing the beliefs. OT and NT contradict, Judaism and Christianity contradict. Religious belief has the intellectual credibility and evidential base as belief in fairies. My position is not 'groundless' - all based on rational analysis.
wordkeeper, it seems you have further delusions regarding Judaism and Christianity. Laws in the Torah are contradicted in the NT.
Why does belief in God increase with age? Are you appealing to an argumentum ad populum?
You really need to stop committing fallacies at every turn.
If you want to be seen as rational, then come up with a coherent position. Think about the issues. Think about the evidence. Go and read about other religions - you're just cherrypicking.
Well, I see your point puppydog88. In a way, I agree. However, before we start modifying the powers of the government to benefit gays, we should be modifying it for the betterment of all of us first.... starting with their damn "inheritance tax". If a wealthy relative dies, and bequeaths their (already-taxed) fortune to you, the government feels they have some obligation to tax (again) a big chunk out of that fortune for their greedy selves! Correcting the criminality of our government is first.
Why in the hell does Communisim always come up when attacking someone? I am a christian and I personally believe what the bible teaches about Homosexuality. However on the social side of it, I think that gays and lesbians should have equal rights under the law. I think that they should be able to have civil unions that are equal to those of marriage. If your not gay and then what difference does it make if others are??
I don't have to think anything I know what the bible says about homosexuality. I am talking about from a social stand point. I understand that not everyone believes as we do but the government should not stop gays from being able to leave children or property to whom they chose.
I don't get it. If God created everything then He created Satan, sin, and homosexuality. Did He create it all just to hate? I thought the Judeo-Christian God loved everything. God is love and Satan is hate, right? Religion doesn't make sense to me.
I agree fags can't preach. But God doesn't hate the sinner. He loves the sinner. God hates the sin.
Your right, fagotry is sin, I'll give you that. But homosexuals can be Christian. They can be Christian if they struggle and fight against their sinful nature (homosexuality).
But no fag is a Christian if they embrace their sin. This preacher surely endorses homosexuality; he embraces what God has made clear is evil.
This preacher, along with other false Christians, will not be with God.
I agree, wordkeeper - to a point. Surprisingly enough, God does hate some people. He says clearly, "Jacob I love, but Esau I have hated." Psalms 50 says "But to the wicked God says...Now consider this you who forget God, les I tear you inpieces and there be none to deliver." Psalm 5 says, "The boastful shall not stand in your sight; you hate all workers of iniquity."
Yes - God is love. But God is also wrath and he does sometimes hate the sin AND the sinner.
I can see your interpretation with the verses you provided. But your interpretations are very literal.
See, if I have both a feasible printer and a defected printer, I would probably use the same wording. I like printer (A) but I hate printer (B). Or I hate all busted printers.
However, its not the printer I technically hate. Its the fact it doesnt work as its supposed to. Same with Gods hate for people who dont behave as theyre supposed to.
I agree. I don't think God hates anybody for no reason. It is the sin he hates and that is what is at the root of it all. Even so, at the core of that, I believe, is love. Because sin separates us from God, damns us, and causes us to live cursed, miserable lives - and ultimately is the cause of all pain and suffering in the world. God's love for us and His desire for us to have good things ("I know the thoughts I have towards you...") is the reason he hates sin, and sometimes sinners.
"Gods hate for people who don't behave as they're supposed to."
Societies have laws about what behaviour is allowed and what will be punished. And these change over time.
And different Christian denominations have different views on all sorts of issues, including abortion and homosexuality. So clearly there are different views on what 'God' hates. Maybe there are different 'gods', or a 'god' with multiple personalities, or one that is malevolent, or - here's a novel idea, no 'God'.
"differing opinions from what Scripture makes absolutely clear are not Christians at all."
That's interesting, because another youtuber was emphatic that a Christian was simply defined as a believer in the Apostolic Creed. So as Scripture supports slavery, and women being ruled by their husbands, should "Christians" be required to do so?
There are 100s of rules in the Bible (Judaism recognises 613 in the OT). Do Christians follow all or pick and choose? Which are the true churches?
Look man, it's not about what the youtuber or any impersonating Christian says. It's about what the Bible says. The Bible is the Christian manual. Those who say things that are not congruent to what the Scriptures have said (and said clearly) are not acting according to the Bible, but according to themselves.
And look up some info about the Levitical Code and the difference between the Old and New Covenant. You will find answers there.
"not about what the youtuber or any impersonating Christian says"
And that's what they say about you - so how am I to judge?
"It's about what the Bible says."
Is it? But you contradict yourself by saying "difference between the Old and New Covenant." So clearly there is no absolute law. Am I then to take it that Judaism and Christianity have different gods? Because I thought that 'god' was meant to be unchanging, and have absolute morals and laws.
That's what who says about me? Christianity is the faith of the Bible. You judge based on what the Bible says, not what people say.
"So clearly there is no absolute law"
Dbes02, are you 'absolutely' sure?
The nature of the OT and NT are the same, even though there are transitions, but in no way contradictory. For example, many would say that a wave and a particle are completely opposite things. But then again, ironically, "light" refutes that idea, for it is by nature both a wave and particle.
Well it keeps changing, and continually improving in Australia. If you want to hold up what the writers of the Bible put down as law you're going to need to create your own state. Western democratic, pluralistic societies aren't going back there.
wordkeeper, you have difficulty understanding simple statements. Societal laws apply to the society, at the time. And they change, e.g. homosexual acts were once illegal in Australia, and now they're not. Theres no absolute set of societal laws. And no absolute 'moral law'. The concept of 'sin' has no place in a nomocracy. There's no empirical evidence for any of the gods made up by various human group, only evidence against the claims. The concept of sin is irrelevant.
dbes02, you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. If "societal laws apply only to society", how do you think the societal laws set in Australia are on the same par as God's laws set on humanity?
You've disgraced your credibility when you said "there is no evidence for God; only evidence against Him". That is not a scholarly statement, along with your unfounded opinions of there being no sin or absolute moral laws. Your arrogant willingness to bank on those ideas is an intellectual sham.
Im making perfect sense. There are different sets of laws. What are gods laws for humanity? Even if I accept the premise that theres a god (which has no evidence): There are 1000s, 100s of systems. There are even different laws in the OT and NT. So I go with the evidence. A perfectly rational and credible approach. All religious belief is delusional.
What are the laws of humanity? Let's start with the 10 Commandments.
And if you were better versed on theology, you would understand the difference between the OT and NT laws.
You go with evidence? Nonsense. You go with naturalism. We both make interpretations from the same scientific evidence. It's not about the evidence. It's about our interpretations of it. You should have gotten that by now.
And you still haven't answered my question: Are you absolutely sure there's no absolute truth?
10 Commandments? There are 613 commandments in the Torah. Just ignore some of them?
Naturalism is a philosophical position. Scientific evidence supports naturalism very well. Pushes back the boundaries of ignorance - 'god' is the name of our ignorance, an irrelevant , useless concept that has not been shown to explain anything. Just a cop out.
So now you've changed your question from absolute laws to absolute truth? But my original point was about morality - no objective morality.
I've already explained the difference between the OT and NT laws. If you want to regurgitate your sewer of incredible denial by asking the same questions, go ahead.
If you think scientific evidence proves naturalism, you clearly don't even know what naturalism is.
Rejecting being accountable to a higher authority for your love affair with sin is the real cop out.
I said absolute moral truth instead of absolute moral laws? Oh my goodness! I can't believe I went completely off topic! AAHH!
You said "absolute law", then "absolute truth" I don't want to answer the wrong one of your stupid questions. Now absolute moral laws? You appear very confused about your position. You certainly haven't provided any evidence for it. No, there's no absolute moral law. There are 1000s of gods and religions with contradictory rules. Religions are born, evolve, die. The text of the Bible clearly evolved, laws changed, moralities changed. 100s of Christian denominations with different moralities.
I haven't provided any evidence for absolute morality? And where is your grand stack of evidence?
Oh that's right. Since people believe in many moralities, there is no absolute morality.
But I believe the opposite. The fact every human and civilization would, at all, adhere to a moral code is the evidence for the universality of morality. I therefore conclude, that there are absolutes!
What good would free will be if the laws of morality couldn't be broken like the laws of nature?
I dont deny that evolution has produced in humans a moral sense - emotional experience of right and wrong. But clearly the moral codes of different societies differ. A moral sense is not the same as a morality. To say that different codes are evidence for universal morality is a contradiction. Humans have a language instinct, and there are lots of languages. How would that be evidence for an absolute language?
How could morality come from evolution? Why do you think Richard Dawkins calls his book "The Selfish Gene"? It's because our genes, he claims, are programmed to survive for the one purpose of replicating it's genes into the next generation.
But that doesn't explain morality. The impulses of nature are of selfishness, but the impulse of morality is selflessness.
And how do you compare languages to morality? Because you think their both instinctive? As I said before, morality transcends nature.
Selfishness does not exclude cooperation. The psychic rewards in compassion, nurturing and altruism are just that, psychic rewards, which reinforce the behavior.
Morality transcends nature is a meaningless statement. What is natural behavior? What is morality?
So are you admitting that there is no selflessness, and that everything you do (no matter how altruistic it may appear) is really done for a selfish reason? Principally, there is nothing morally good in selfishness.
Maybe now it's clear why supposedly "good works" (without faith) don't buy people into Heaven.
And what do you mean by psychic reward? You think people are only moral because they get rewarded? That's selfishness, not selflessness, and therefore not legitimate morality.
And Ill say again: there is no credible evidence for any god concept, only evidence against. All the concepts of gods are unsubstantiated plucked out of thin air. No evidence for fairies either. Or 10-headed monsters, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Santa Claus. All in the same bin.
And no absolute moral laws either. You may want to point them out. You could count evolved instincts as objective in a way, and human moral sense. But exactly what is considered right/wrong varies.
How is there evidence against God? HOW?? Please tell me because I have never ever ever understood this line of idiotic reasoning. How, as a scientific naturalist (meaning that this world is all there is, and that science only studies this world) could you ever prove atheism?
If science only studies this world, how is science supposed to prove, or possess any evidence against, anything beyond the natural world?!
YOU CAN'T!
The only way to hold this view is by faith! Quit being so misleading.
It's not about proof, it's about rationality. What hypothesis/position is supported by the evidence, or logic, or whatever. The genius of science is the success in explaining the world. It works. And if someone wants to claim supernatural entities messing around with the world something beyond the natural world, then they need to show evidence and a coherent explanation for how these entities work. Please show evidence for disembodied intelligence or fairies or whatever it is you claim.
After how much you've been rambling about 'proof' this and 'evidence' that, now you're saying "It's not about proof, it's about rationality".
WOW. Slowly but surely, he's beginning to see the light! -as I've already said: "It's not about the evidence. It's about our interpretations of it."
And yeah, the rest of your comment is a waist of opinion. You just dodged the fact that scientific naturalism is limited in explaining anything beyond the natural world. Show me evidence there is no God.
Your analogy of the Torah and the Gospels with light as wave and particle is nonsense. Different scriptures, different religions, and (if you stick to your absolute laws position) different 'gods'. If you posit a perfect anthropomorphic god, and one that messes around with the world, that is part of the physical world in some way, then the existence of this god is a question within the realms of scientific investigation.
Quit saying my analogy is nonsense. Show me HOW it's nonsense. Now that's an argument.
A "perfect anthropomorphic" anything is an oxymoron. People aren't perfect, which is why man's way to God is unreliable. That's why we have hundreds of gods. But Christianity is unique for it is God's way to man. Only then could anything absolute be possible.
But God is a spirit, so you can't use physical science to study the metaphysical. Why can't you understand these distinctly different institutions?
Science relies on assumptions, not faith - assumptions of such a broad type that normal human beings also accept them every day. For example, science assumes realism, the philosophical conception that the physical world is not an illusion. But every religious person makes exactly the same assumption every time they get up in the morning, work, play, etc. To compare this to the sort of faith that is required to believe in a big guy in the sky is an intellectual sham.
"Science relies on assumptions, not faith?" LOL. I wonder if I should accuse you of changing the topic because I used the word "truth" instead of "law".
FACT: Science rests on assumptions like "methodological materialism", but that is not "philosophical materialism", which you seem to be confusing.
How is assuming God's existence any different than any other assumption that we make? To assume implies to have faith, because the reason we assume is because we are not sure! Read David Hume!
The supposed attributes of this god can be considered, and treated as testable hypothesis, using logic and other tools of reason. People believe in gods? So? Thats your argument? But everyone used to think that the Earth was stationary. And people believe in alien abductions and astrology. People believe in quite contradictory gods. Most people dont even believe in the multiple gods of Christianity.
How can the attributes of a spirit be testable? Spirits are metaphysical, just like the tools of reason.
Everyone used to think that Earth was stationary because that's what logic told us! If the earth was stationary, we can expect not to be blown off it; if we dropped a rock, it should land directly beneath our hand; modern meteorologists still use terms like "sunrise" and "sunset" even though we know the sun doesn't move, etc. Again, it is man's interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
A stationary earth and a moving earth are not based on the same evidence. People out of ignorance thought that earthquakes were an act of "god". But they didn't have the evidence of tectonic plates. People thought the sky was a firmament before telescopes they didn' have access to the evidence. Youre claim that its all about using the same evidence - is further nonsense.
But many religious claims are testable and have been falsified. I havent said there is no god. Various concepts of god have been refuted through self-contradiction, including the omni-everything god of classical theism. Its about rationality. And the fact that so many claims about gods have been shown to be nonsense, while the genius of science has actually worked makes it the rational choice.
Religious claims that have been falsified is not evidence against God, if that's what you're saying.
And if it's about rationality, let's talk about rationality. But once I do, you'll say "It's about the evidence." So if I start to address the evidence, you just jump back to "It's about rationality." -sigh-
wordkeeper "Religious claims that have been falsified " is evidence against the claims. And if those claims apply to a concept of god, down the drain goes that god .
You set a strawman in setting up evidence vs rationality. Yet another sign of your incoherence. Reason and evidence lead to a rational position. Address the evidence by all means.
If a hypothesis keeps failing, if i's held on to while being refuted time and time again, it's irrational. Parmenides realised over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. A concept of an all-powerful all-loving creator in the face of childhood cancer and mass deaths in tsunamis is a contradiction. Such a concept doesn't exist other than as an idea.
In other words, "how can an all-loving, all-powerful God allow evil in the world?" Is that what you're calling the contradiction?
So, you would prefer that God revoke us of free will so we defaultly never sin?; That He should prevent or compensate for every single thing that man does wrong 100% of the time?; And that He judge and destroy everyone who does evil (which ultimately would mean the death of us all).
Besides, if there is no God, by what standard do you determine something to be evil?
You don't believe in fairies? How can you prove beyond all possibility that there are no fairies? So how have you come to the momentous conclusion that there are no fairies? As I said, the key is rationality. Hypotheses have to be disciplined by properly rational grounds for them. Being ratio-nal: a proportioning of the hypothesis to the grounds for advancing it. Taking in the strength of the evidence. For fairies, demons and gods? None.
You don't believe in God? How can you prove beyond all possibility, or come to the momentous conclusion, that there is no God?
The fact the controlled behavior of matter for its obedience to laws tells me that the "strength of the evidence" concludes the created signature of a law-giver or super-rational being (God).
The irony that we should have brains that transcend Darwinism by apprehending these discoveries tells me that the teleological fingerprints we find in nature are from God.
The common claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he/she/it is perfectly just, he/she/it makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he/she/it is perfectly merciful, he/she/it lets everyone off. But he/she/it can' do both. So the notion of such a supreme being is internally inconsistent.
You havent addressed the contradiction of merciful and just. Now you bring in a "law" requiring death because all people are evil? Where do babies who die of congenital problems get the chance to be "evil"? And this appeal to having to "believe Christ" is a cherry picking fallacy. Other religions have other beliefs, and many people don't have any beliefs. You still havent even provided credible evidence for this "god". Only an argument from ignorance. Better go on another education break.
What are these "teleological fingerprints" ? Where's the evidence it's teleological. If it's because of this "god", then you have a circular argument. Useless.
And when positing an intelligent designer your "super-rational... law-giver" please show how this super-intelligence didnt need designing. Otherwise you're being inconsistent.
Youre analogy of two sets of books with light is nonsense. The two sets of books exist as separate entities. Light as wave/particle is the same light.
How is "providence" anymore circular to explain the universe's teleology than assuming "coincidence"? "No God" would also be a circular argument.
Ranging from the origin of information in our genes to the list of fine-tuning characteristics of the known world that allow intelligent life on this planet, is enough satisfying evidence for me.
And if God means "the Creator of everything", how can "Who created God?" be a logical question?
Good. So you are using observations of the universe to form hypotheses. Maybe youll make a good scientist. But show how things were "tuned", show how information in our genes was caused. Don't just give an argument from ignorance. In Aristotle's time it would have been "of course lightning is caused by the gods, how else could it be?" We can see that life evolved from simple to complex. That intelligence evolved over enormous amounts of time.
Show how things were tuned? Show where genetic information comes from? I think the better question is "Can they be proven?"
I'm not saying let's stop science because God is our answer. Maybe there is a way to explain how God did it! But just as my conclusion will always rest with God, yours will rest with Chance. And I don't see how you are foolish enough to think that science can falsify either assumption.
"Maybe there is a way to explain how God did it! But just as my conclusion will always rest with God"
So your grounds for resting with 'God' is an argument from ignorance. When you come back showing how it works, then you will be getting somehwere. Otherwise you may as well claim blue-eyed monsters from Pluto. Theology's all about make-believe anyway.
But the success of science is in providing explanation. Not foolishness - all about rationality.
So if there's a need for intelligent design to account for intelligent life, then how come this intelligent designer doesnt need a designer? You need to show the process that's how science works. You need to show how 'god' didnt need creating not just claim it.
Enough with the "Who created God?" argument. It's so infantile. I already addressed it.
"I need to show the process because that's how science works?"
Dude. Here's what you don't understand: That's NOT How Science Works!
Science doesn't prove anything beyond the natural. I don't see that as evidence there is nothing supernatural, but somehow to you it does. When you realize how science works, along with its limitations, you'll understand.
Well, maybe it is infantile - the God of the Bible is an incoherent, self-contradictory concept and hence doesn't exist. We know who created the concept of God - humans.
Science is indeed about natural explanations - and it works brilliantly.
The problem for you is that the concept of the Biblical God very much includes testable claims about the natural - and fails.
Then show how this intelligent designer has anything to do with the god of the Bible. If you're using scientific evidence, please refute the overwhelming evidence that rubbishes Genesis 1-11 and how it makes nonsense of the biblical god. This so called intelligence that cant get the basics right in his first book.
Let's for a second assume that the designer is a material agent. Richard Dawkins believes if that be the case, intelligent design theory could be a legitimate scientific practice.
However for me, I personally believe that the designer is an immaterial agent. I don't see how that should suddenly warrant the theory illegitimate, because it really doesn't.
It's actually not difficult at all to see that what is really going on here is a battle between two opposing ideologies of man.
If the 'designer' is an immaterial agent, then how does it impact on a material world? You haven't got anywhere - just going around in circles.
You call it opposing ideologies of man. But is geology an ideology? Is physics an ideology?
But the real issue of ideologies comes in when comparing the positions of different religions. So be a good boy and go off and argue your childish, superstitious claims with all the other deluded. Then when you sort it out, come back and challenge science.
"And you'll say again: there is only evidence against God?"
What, you think because you say it again makes it true? lol. Your evidence for God's non-existence is because faeries and Santa don't exist? lol.
I don't believe in faeries or Santa either, but that doesn't deny the evidence of a Creator. Nobody I know just starts believing in faeries and Santa in their older age. But people, from every age and background, have been shown to believe in God. I want your explanation for that phenomenon.
You have a lot of trouble reading and understanding actual words. I havent used the word proof" - science SUPPORTS naturalism. Science has a broad assumption realism, the philosophical conception that the physical world is not an illusion. (That's how we live our day to day lives!) And science actually goes and provides explanations about things going on. So please show evidence for something beyond the physical world.
And what are you implying about "support" if not the potentiality of naturalism being more "provable"?
Naturalism is a philosophy equivalent to atheism for its rejection of anything supernatural, and I declare to you now, science gives no such support for any philosophical conclusion!
Science is what we base our inferences off of, but science is silent on the matter of anything transcendental to nature. You are STILL confusing "methodological materialism" for "philosophical materialism".
Of course science supports naturalism. That's it's whole basis - naturalistic explanations, and it's VERY successful. A naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon certainly doesn't support supernaturalism.
You conveniently forget that religions, for centuries, have claimed all sorts of things about the world which have been debunked. Naturalism simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe.
Naturalism: the unprovable assumption that the material world is all there is.
Supernaturalism: the unprovable assumption that the material world is not all there is.
Where does supernaturalism deny the existence or study of the material world? IT DOESN'T. It simply says there is more out there!
This is why, if science only studies the natural world, science does not and cannot support, favor, debunk, conclude, establish, or prove naturalism anymore than it can supernaturalism!
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena. (Fairies are also supernatural entities postulated to account for phenomena.) Let's take earthquakes, volcanoes, disease all can be explained in purely natural terms. As St Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature. Even Plato realized that to say "God did it" is not to explain anything, but an excuse for not having an explanation.
Chance is also a theoretical entity that is postulated by atheists to explain various phenomena.
Once again, you are confusing your terms. Of course, volcanoes, diseases and whatnot can be explained in "natural" terms, but that does not mean "NATURALISTIC" terms. You keep confusing methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Dude! How many times must we go over this??
And I know saying "God made that earthquake happen" can be an excuse materially, but not philosophically.
Then show that "god made the earthquake happen". Don't just say it. Show that it is more credible than belief in fairies.
Methodological naturalism must be adopted for conducting science as science is all about looking at natural causes for natural events. A tacit adoption of naturalism which keeps religious scientists from throwing tantrums, and to cover up their hypocrisy. But naturalism is a philosophy that science effectively created theres no confusion.
Before I could show you that "God made it happen," I'd have to show you God first right? But because I can't prove God any better than disprove Him, how is asking "prove to me God did it" a proposition not devoid of complete stupidity?
I don't know what you're going on about materialism. There are two forms of it: methodology and philosophy. They are distinctly different so what's the problem?
"because I can't prove God any better than disprove Him, how is asking "prove to me God did it" a proposition not devoid of complete stupidity"
Another of your false dilemmas. Once again, claims about the Biblical god can indeed be tested. So if you want to look 'stupid' then keep on with your profoundly false claims.
So what if there are different forms of naturalism? You know I'm talking about a naturalistic world .
And don't confuse naturalism with materialism - there are differences.
There are all sorts of testable claims: the universe was made in 6 days, there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, the earth is immoving, humans were created a few thousand years ago, prayer works. All shown to be contradicted. So science clearly has a role. If there is a natural explanation, there is no need for supernatural make-believe. It's irrelevant. There are models for the origin of the physical universe based on the laws of physics - they don't violate the laws.
All shown to be contradicted? Contradicted by what absolute standard other than interpretation?
"If there is a natural explanation, there is no need for supernatural make-believe?"
And again, (you mean "naturalistic", not natural), science's role never concludes naturalism any more than it can supernaturalism.
And where did these physical laws come from? Are you saying models like the steady state theory (stating the universe is eternal) don't violate these laws?
Epistemology teaches that the key is rationality - proportioning a hypothesis to the grounds for holding it. Credibility and evidence. All the evidence we have supports naturalism. Its not my fault if people want to make up fanciful ideas. The basis of science is to find naturalistic causes for natural events. And it has been very successful - compared with religious beliefs which have been spectacular failures. Science by definition supports naturalism.
Ok, ill give you proof. Because there is a debate on the existance of god. If god was real, there would be proof and there woulndt be any question of it.
Saying the evidence supports naturalism is not the same as saying theres no God. But the evidence does contradict the Biblical God. Remember, it;'s about rationality.
So I ask again, do the findings of science support naturalism or supernaturalism? How would justify saying they support neither? Science can assume methodological naturalism. And it may have found nothing. But unfortunately for you its been very successful.
Contradicted by what absolute standard other than interpretation?
Rationality. Of course science is entwined with naturalism - and it provides evidence to support it.
The plausible model? The inflationary big bang offers a plausible, natural scenario for the uncaused origin and evolution of the universe, including the formation of order and structure -- without the violation of any laws of physics. By means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum.
If it is rational to believe that God doesn't exist, then it is in no way less rational to believe that He does.
Science is not entwined with naturalism? You need a worldview class. Pronto.
Uncaused? Did you say uncaused? Honestly man. Like wow. And you think you're scientific? You're a disgrace to science and philosophy, and I know a few atheists who wouldn't mind telling you how serious wrong you are on these subjects.
wordkeeper, you may continue to take your irrational stance regarding supernatural entities running the world. You may continue to use circular arguments to support your claims about god. And you can provide ludicrously false analogies between OT/NT and wave/particle nature of light. Light is light, and the OT is not the NT.
Science will be continue to explain the world. Children will continue to enjoy fairy tales - and will be forced by their parents to believe the religious versions.
I'm not condoning or condemning homosexuality, I'm just making sure you know that your views aren't the only ones with rationalisation behind them, and may not be the views of God.
Apparantly Wordkeepers translation of what is "obvious" is the defining factor for everyone else.
Homosexualtiy is not obvious, because half of the Bible says God is a god of grace and love.
It makes little sense, and is NOT obvious.
The terms in the NT that are often applied to homosexuals are vague, and often refer to sex for the sake of worshipping other gods where the people involved DON'T WANT to get married.
Cola, don't flatter me. I am not God. I only sound like Him because I am repeating what He has said in His Word.
I don't know what u mean by saying "homosexuality is not obvious", but it is obviously wrong. God's love is a non sequitur to the immorality of homosexuality.
As for the NT, look up 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27. If you read these verses with eyes that are looking for the "obvious" interpretation, I think Occam's Razor would confess that the NT is clear about this subject.
If murder was mentioned only once in the Bible, would it then no longer be "obvious"? I don't think frequency has anything to do with whether something is morally wrong.
Jesus never mentioned anything about zoophilia, so should we assume He was neutral? At that time, the people didn't need immense instruction on the gay subject because it was culturally understood to be wrong without question.
If you want your kids to do something, do you expect them to obey the first time, or the 78th time?
Now you're changing your standards of frequency to standards of corresponding verses.
The fact is, if the Bible says it's wrong (no matter how many times it does) it is wrong.
Doesn't your middle paragraph contradict itself?
How is zoophilia different? Both bestiality and homosexuality are choices. People may have an inclined disposition to particular weakness from our sinful nature like greed, pride, and lying, but that doesn't sanction their practices.
So, are you saying because God's grace extends to the homosexual, homosexuality might not be a sin?
Cola, I am really trying not to sound rude, but wow.
God's grace extends to every sinner! But I have no idea how you make that mean there is no sin! The reason for grace is BECAUSE of sin!!
Can murder not be considered a sin because God grace extends to the murderer? The fact is, grace is for each and every person who is honestly penitent with God. Read the prerequisites in Psalm 51:17.
You are confusing Israelite laws with sins. There is a clear difference between the Levitical Code of the Jewish culture in the days of the Old Testament and the vice of homosexuality that has been repeatedly forbidden in both testaments.
It doesn't matter how many times it's condemned. What matters is if it is condemned or not.
You're trying to impugn the verses of Scripture that incontrovertibly edict homosexuality as an abomination by saying that there are more important sins to be worrying about.
Take it as you will Cola. You've heard the Truth. Don't filter God's Word of things you don't like for things that you do, or else (as St. Augustine put it) "...it's not the Gospels you believe, but yourself."
Do not get upset because I spoke the truth about how many "Christians" react to gays but react totally different when it comes to other issues that are clearly mentioned in the Bible in the 10 commandments like fornication and adultery. What I spoke it absolutely correct. You and people like you are straight come from straight from the pit of evil. Stop cherry picking bible verses to use against a group that you dislike. If adulterers and fornicators can be Christian why can't gays?
U have a point (i.e. that heterosexual Christians like myself shouldn't condone one sin & condemn another) but u put it across in the wrong manner! Far too often are homosexuals condemned & adulterers & fornicators accepted! ALL wrongdoers need to repent inorder to enter heaven (repentance may not come overnight but may be a long process of turning around from embracing a sinful life to abhoring it). I myself as everyother person seeking to be more like Jesus need to die DAILY to sin. God Bless!
Adulterers, fornicators, (these first 2 categories of people who keep out probably 98%of the human population)false prophets, and those who curse their parents, will not enter god's kingdom. How many of you were virgins on your wedding night? How many of you have cheated on your husband or wife? With a divorce rate of 50% in the US, it seems that most are not living according to God's word. Stop singling out one group (gays) and condemning them, but never condenming others.
I believe that it is a sin to be a homosexual. But I also believe that if he all the sudden went staight that he wouldn't go to heaven then either. Because he didn't except Jesus as his savior. We have this mindset that if we can just stop them from being gay they'll be alright. That's not true. It's just getting a stronghold out of the way that is keeping him from God. Don't get me wrong I DO NOT believe homosexuality is right at all under any circumstances. It's just like lying.
well first of all fag is biblical it is a stick that god will use to kindle hell fire with..hence fag..i am mature you prick..gay means happy, not a fruit cake that is horny over another mans private parts!!
actually not true. thats like saying there's no such thing as a lying christian. do we all still lie occasionally? of course. believe me i do not agree with homosexuality but i do believe that God does not agree with the spirit of homosexuality, not the person who has that spirit on them. Jesus can still save you if you have emotional imbalances. you just have to admit that its wrong, believe its wrong and eventually get delivered from it.
oh man what bible do you read,my bible tells me my wrongs and though i still struggle with my issues i still recognise its wrong,i wont try and sweet talk my way round it, i have to confess and repent everyday,God does love you but recognise the spiritual battle not only you are in, but the rest of the world, we are all being decieved,the word says so,the road to destruction is wide and many enter thru it but the road to the father is narrow and few find it.think about it why would god say that
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:(G) neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
ArsenBoi89, You're more on the mark than you might realize. 'The World and sadly some who call themselves christians', feel that 'things' like this are alright in the sight of God/Jesus, but when the Word says 'NO' then that's what it means and God/Jesus aren't changing it for anyone. Yes, perhaps we do need a revival, but most of all we need to stop taking God's Word and twisting it into what 'we' want it to be, rather than what "He" says it is and that's that. Pray for ALL of them they need it
NO such thing in the kingdom of God as a gay preacher, no matter what mankind says. God is concerned about us, but it's His Word or hell. I pray that they seek the 'true and living God and His Son Jesus Christ', because the Bible says no effeminate will inherit the kingdom of God. This man and his 'followers' need much prayer, we'd ALL better get right with God/Jesus via 'they're Word' or we're ALL going to perish. Seek the Lord while He may yet be found.
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4 NIV
he mentions "she knew who she was..." unfortunately she doesn't know her true identity if she's considering herself a christian and practicing homosexuality...not only does the Bible EXPLICITLY say don't be gay in the first covenant...but it's repeated again in the 2nd covenant...it's unbelievable how people decide to look over the verses that we don't wanna be held accountable for...it's ridiculous...
COMEDIAN PREACHERS, I just love them. Hell, they DON'T even have to preach the BIBLE and LEAVE JESUS out and they'll still will make you FEEL SAVE after the Sunday service. Who needs FIRE & BRIME STONE when you can laugh yourself the HELL out of PURGATORY. It's ALL ABOUT LOVE baby cakes, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE~
"Typical" stereotype of my nation, 2! I was just wanting 2 know if U knew of anything ELSE in the Christian Scriptures 2 justify YOUR claims.When Christianity split off from Judaism (which doesn't have a DAMN THING 2 do with a non-existent USA at the time), there was a SERIOUS difference in how the Old Testament Law was going 2 B applied (or NOT!) in many different aspects within CHRISTIAN communities.This has been an issue between Christians and Jews ever since that time. Plain historic fact.
Yes, and all Protestants were going straight to Hell, too, at one time. Many Catholics still think we ARE. Oh well. :( (BTW, they believe they have STRONG Scriptural support for that belief, too).
This man is in big trouble if he is gay. He needs to repent and turn away from that evil spirit of homosexuality!!! If any don't agree, you better get to reading God's Word.
Homosexuality is a natural, CARNAL action. Christians are not called to a "natural" life. Christians are called to walk in the Spirit NOT the flesh.
Jesus said "Why callest me Lord and doest not what I say?"
Speaking of Jesus, can we confine him by culture? Do we limit his role in our lives by the culture we live in? Not the mighty God that I serve. If you obey the God I serve, he will pull down EVERY stronghold of sin in your life.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. But you did manage to avoid my own quote from the scriptures.
What you are now saying is that if you follow Jesus then sodomy is not a sin because you are "in the faith".
That sounds like bending the rules to me. If you "follow" a particular faith then you just can't go off and live by your own rules caliming repentence will save you.
Thou shalt not kill as in thou shalt not kill another man. Man is above the animals as they were put into subjection. If you read Genesis you will see that animals were put on this earth for us to harvest. They are a source of food- Jesus ate them too. Context, context, context.
Yes, the scripture you quoted was clear. Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. What comment must I make? I saw no need to add anything.
True repentence is a turn from sin, not just asking for forgiveness.
You cantradict yourself. Yesterday Homosexuality was a "natural carnal action". Today it is a sin and abomination?
You support the "Gay Preacher" above?!! How can you? He has not repented and turned from sin? He wants to make his sinning ligitimate!!
This issue will fracture the christian faith and be the demise of it. The bible is being twisted and interpreted to suit any minority who wants make a stand.
So let them worship the Gay Jesus.
meak911 1 year ago
even if there is a god or gods why the fuck should anyone worship or listen to them
pitchblacksuperdarkh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy doesn't even look normal to me! Gay people generally look abnormal..!
weslee02 2 years ago
this is not true.. what the HELL are you talking about?
timmy7611 2 years ago
Its my opinion.. so its true to me.
weslee02 2 years ago
what do you mean they look ABNORMAL!? Gay people look just like regular people because they ARE people
timmy7611 2 years ago
My arguments against religion arent 'ad hominems' Im addressing the beliefs. OT and NT contradict, Judaism and Christianity contradict. Religious belief has the intellectual credibility and evidential base as belief in fairies. My position is not 'groundless' - all based on rational analysis.
dbes02 3 years ago
The OT and Judaism don't contradict with the NT and Christianity.
And I don't think you answered why older people believe in God than in fairies.
Judging by your willingness to confuse the differences between methodology and philosophy, your self-description as "rational" is simply fraudulent.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
wordkeeper, it seems you have further delusions regarding Judaism and Christianity. Laws in the Torah are contradicted in the NT.
Why does belief in God increase with age? Are you appealing to an argumentum ad populum?
You really need to stop committing fallacies at every turn.
If you want to be seen as rational, then come up with a coherent position. Think about the issues. Think about the evidence. Go and read about other religions - you're just cherrypicking.
dbes02 2 years ago
gay pple suck
koolerdanu 3 years ago
Well, I see your point puppydog88. In a way, I agree. However, before we start modifying the powers of the government to benefit gays, we should be modifying it for the betterment of all of us first.... starting with their damn "inheritance tax". If a wealthy relative dies, and bequeaths their (already-taxed) fortune to you, the government feels they have some obligation to tax (again) a big chunk out of that fortune for their greedy selves! Correcting the criminality of our government is first.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
The Gay Lesbian agenda is anti-life, anti-family and pro-Communism.
AcePilot101 3 years ago
Why in the hell does Communisim always come up when attacking someone? I am a christian and I personally believe what the bible teaches about Homosexuality. However on the social side of it, I think that gays and lesbians should have equal rights under the law. I think that they should be able to have civil unions that are equal to those of marriage. If your not gay and then what difference does it make if others are??
puppydog88 3 years ago
puppydog88, what do you think the Bible says about homosexuality? Do the Scriptures condone it? Or condemn it?
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I don't have to think anything I know what the bible says about homosexuality. I am talking about from a social stand point. I understand that not everyone believes as we do but the government should not stop gays from being able to leave children or property to whom they chose.
puppydog88 3 years ago
fags can't preach, they can't even be christians..god hates fags.
1Lawman104 3 years ago
i thought god loves people
dryinalaska 3 years ago 2
of course he does, but he hates sin..and fagotry is sin.
1Lawman104 3 years ago
I don't get it. If God created everything then He created Satan, sin, and homosexuality. Did He create it all just to hate? I thought the Judeo-Christian God loved everything. God is love and Satan is hate, right? Religion doesn't make sense to me.
CheshiCatSmile 3 years ago
god made good and created evil, the choice that we make is what makes us unique..you can make a fire..but you create smoke..
1Lawman104 3 years ago
I agree fags can't preach. But God doesn't hate the sinner. He loves the sinner. God hates the sin.
Your right, fagotry is sin, I'll give you that. But homosexuals can be Christian. They can be Christian if they struggle and fight against their sinful nature (homosexuality).
But no fag is a Christian if they embrace their sin. This preacher surely endorses homosexuality; he embraces what God has made clear is evil.
This preacher, along with other false Christians, will not be with God.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I agree, wordkeeper - to a point. Surprisingly enough, God does hate some people. He says clearly, "Jacob I love, but Esau I have hated." Psalms 50 says "But to the wicked God says...Now consider this you who forget God, les I tear you inpieces and there be none to deliver." Psalm 5 says, "The boastful shall not stand in your sight; you hate all workers of iniquity."
Yes - God is love. But God is also wrath and he does sometimes hate the sin AND the sinner.
carolineislands 3 years ago
Still, salvation is always available for those who turn to Jesus Christ and turn away from their sin and walk in His Word.
carolineislands 3 years ago
Thanks for the response Caroline.
I can see your interpretation with the verses you provided. But your interpretations are very literal.
See, if I have both a feasible printer and a defected printer, I would probably use the same wording. I like printer (A) but I hate printer (B). Or I hate all busted printers.
However, its not the printer I technically hate. Its the fact it doesnt work as its supposed to. Same with Gods hate for people who dont behave as theyre supposed to.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I agree. I don't think God hates anybody for no reason. It is the sin he hates and that is what is at the root of it all. Even so, at the core of that, I believe, is love. Because sin separates us from God, damns us, and causes us to live cursed, miserable lives - and ultimately is the cause of all pain and suffering in the world. God's love for us and His desire for us to have good things ("I know the thoughts I have towards you...") is the reason he hates sin, and sometimes sinners.
:o)
carolineislands 3 years ago
And you're right - I do tend to interpret in the literal sense.
Thanks again for your wise thoughts.
carolineislands 3 years ago
"Gods hate for people who don't behave as they're supposed to."
Societies have laws about what behaviour is allowed and what will be punished. And these change over time.
And different Christian denominations have different views on all sorts of issues, including abortion and homosexuality. So clearly there are different views on what 'God' hates. Maybe there are different 'gods', or a 'god' with multiple personalities, or one that is malevolent, or - here's a novel idea, no 'God'.
dbes02 3 years ago
No. Christians have a unified stance on abortion and homosexuality: it's wrong.
It's simple really. The "Christians" who have differing opinions from what Scripture makes absolutely clear are not Christians at all.
Ta-dah.
By the way, "No God" is not a novel idea. It's been around for awhile.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
"differing opinions from what Scripture makes absolutely clear are not Christians at all."
That's interesting, because another youtuber was emphatic that a Christian was simply defined as a believer in the Apostolic Creed. So as Scripture supports slavery, and women being ruled by their husbands, should "Christians" be required to do so?
There are 100s of rules in the Bible (Judaism recognises 613 in the OT). Do Christians follow all or pick and choose? Which are the true churches?
dbes02 3 years ago
"That's interesting, because another youtuber..."
Look man, it's not about what the youtuber or any impersonating Christian says. It's about what the Bible says. The Bible is the Christian manual. Those who say things that are not congruent to what the Scriptures have said (and said clearly) are not acting according to the Bible, but according to themselves.
And look up some info about the Levitical Code and the difference between the Old and New Covenant. You will find answers there.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
"not about what the youtuber or any impersonating Christian says"
And that's what they say about you - so how am I to judge?
"It's about what the Bible says."
Is it? But you contradict yourself by saying "difference between the Old and New Covenant." So clearly there is no absolute law. Am I then to take it that Judaism and Christianity have different gods? Because I thought that 'god' was meant to be unchanging, and have absolute morals and laws.
And Christianity supports slavery.
dbes02 3 years ago
That's what who says about me? Christianity is the faith of the Bible. You judge based on what the Bible says, not what people say.
"So clearly there is no absolute law"
Dbes02, are you 'absolutely' sure?
The nature of the OT and NT are the same, even though there are transitions, but in no way contradictory. For example, many would say that a wave and a particle are completely opposite things. But then again, ironically, "light" refutes that idea, for it is by nature both a wave and particle.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
Am I absolutely sure there's no absolute law?
Well it keeps changing, and continually improving in Australia. If you want to hold up what the writers of the Bible put down as law you're going to need to create your own state. Western democratic, pluralistic societies aren't going back there.
dbes02 3 years ago
Yes, are you absolutely sure there are no absolute laws? It's a yes or no question.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
wordkeeper, you have difficulty understanding simple statements. Societal laws apply to the society, at the time. And they change, e.g. homosexual acts were once illegal in Australia, and now they're not. Theres no absolute set of societal laws. And no absolute 'moral law'. The concept of 'sin' has no place in a nomocracy. There's no empirical evidence for any of the gods made up by various human group, only evidence against the claims. The concept of sin is irrelevant.
dbes02 3 years ago
dbes02, you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. If "societal laws apply only to society", how do you think the societal laws set in Australia are on the same par as God's laws set on humanity?
You've disgraced your credibility when you said "there is no evidence for God; only evidence against Him". That is not a scholarly statement, along with your unfounded opinions of there being no sin or absolute moral laws. Your arrogant willingness to bank on those ideas is an intellectual sham.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
Im making perfect sense. There are different sets of laws. What are gods laws for humanity? Even if I accept the premise that theres a god (which has no evidence): There are 1000s, 100s of systems. There are even different laws in the OT and NT. So I go with the evidence. A perfectly rational and credible approach. All religious belief is delusional.
dbes02 3 years ago
What are the laws of humanity? Let's start with the 10 Commandments.
And if you were better versed on theology, you would understand the difference between the OT and NT laws.
You go with evidence? Nonsense. You go with naturalism. We both make interpretations from the same scientific evidence. It's not about the evidence. It's about our interpretations of it. You should have gotten that by now.
And you still haven't answered my question: Are you absolutely sure there's no absolute truth?
wordkeeper 3 years ago
10 Commandments? There are 613 commandments in the Torah. Just ignore some of them?
Naturalism is a philosophical position. Scientific evidence supports naturalism very well. Pushes back the boundaries of ignorance - 'god' is the name of our ignorance, an irrelevant , useless concept that has not been shown to explain anything. Just a cop out.
So now you've changed your question from absolute laws to absolute truth? But my original point was about morality - no objective morality.
dbes02 3 years ago
I've already explained the difference between the OT and NT laws. If you want to regurgitate your sewer of incredible denial by asking the same questions, go ahead.
If you think scientific evidence proves naturalism, you clearly don't even know what naturalism is.
Rejecting being accountable to a higher authority for your love affair with sin is the real cop out.
I said absolute moral truth instead of absolute moral laws? Oh my goodness! I can't believe I went completely off topic! AAHH!
wordkeeper 3 years ago
You said "absolute law", then "absolute truth" I don't want to answer the wrong one of your stupid questions. Now absolute moral laws? You appear very confused about your position. You certainly haven't provided any evidence for it. No, there's no absolute moral law. There are 1000s of gods and religions with contradictory rules. Religions are born, evolve, die. The text of the Bible clearly evolved, laws changed, moralities changed. 100s of Christian denominations with different moralities.
dbes02 3 years ago
I haven't provided any evidence for absolute morality? And where is your grand stack of evidence?
Oh that's right. Since people believe in many moralities, there is no absolute morality.
But I believe the opposite. The fact every human and civilization would, at all, adhere to a moral code is the evidence for the universality of morality. I therefore conclude, that there are absolutes!
What good would free will be if the laws of morality couldn't be broken like the laws of nature?
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I dont deny that evolution has produced in humans a moral sense - emotional experience of right and wrong. But clearly the moral codes of different societies differ. A moral sense is not the same as a morality. To say that different codes are evidence for universal morality is a contradiction. Humans have a language instinct, and there are lots of languages. How would that be evidence for an absolute language?
dbes02 3 years ago
How could morality come from evolution? Why do you think Richard Dawkins calls his book "The Selfish Gene"? It's because our genes, he claims, are programmed to survive for the one purpose of replicating it's genes into the next generation.
But that doesn't explain morality. The impulses of nature are of selfishness, but the impulse of morality is selflessness.
And how do you compare languages to morality? Because you think their both instinctive? As I said before, morality transcends nature.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
Wordkeeper
Selfishness does not exclude cooperation. The psychic rewards in compassion, nurturing and altruism are just that, psychic rewards, which reinforce the behavior.
Morality transcends nature is a meaningless statement. What is natural behavior? What is morality?
fauxmboy 2 years ago
So are you admitting that there is no selflessness, and that everything you do (no matter how altruistic it may appear) is really done for a selfish reason? Principally, there is nothing morally good in selfishness.
Maybe now it's clear why supposedly "good works" (without faith) don't buy people into Heaven.
And what do you mean by psychic reward? You think people are only moral because they get rewarded? That's selfishness, not selflessness, and therefore not legitimate morality.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
And Ill say again: there is no credible evidence for any god concept, only evidence against. All the concepts of gods are unsubstantiated plucked out of thin air. No evidence for fairies either. Or 10-headed monsters, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Santa Claus. All in the same bin.
And no absolute moral laws either. You may want to point them out. You could count evolved instincts as objective in a way, and human moral sense. But exactly what is considered right/wrong varies.
dbes02 3 years ago
How is there evidence against God? HOW?? Please tell me because I have never ever ever understood this line of idiotic reasoning. How, as a scientific naturalist (meaning that this world is all there is, and that science only studies this world) could you ever prove atheism?
If science only studies this world, how is science supposed to prove, or possess any evidence against, anything beyond the natural world?!
YOU CAN'T!
The only way to hold this view is by faith! Quit being so misleading.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
It's not about proof, it's about rationality. What hypothesis/position is supported by the evidence, or logic, or whatever. The genius of science is the success in explaining the world. It works. And if someone wants to claim supernatural entities messing around with the world something beyond the natural world, then they need to show evidence and a coherent explanation for how these entities work. Please show evidence for disembodied intelligence or fairies or whatever it is you claim.
dbes02 3 years ago
After how much you've been rambling about 'proof' this and 'evidence' that, now you're saying "It's not about proof, it's about rationality".
WOW. Slowly but surely, he's beginning to see the light! -as I've already said: "It's not about the evidence. It's about our interpretations of it."
And yeah, the rest of your comment is a waist of opinion. You just dodged the fact that scientific naturalism is limited in explaining anything beyond the natural world. Show me evidence there is no God.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
Your analogy of the Torah and the Gospels with light as wave and particle is nonsense. Different scriptures, different religions, and (if you stick to your absolute laws position) different 'gods'. If you posit a perfect anthropomorphic god, and one that messes around with the world, that is part of the physical world in some way, then the existence of this god is a question within the realms of scientific investigation.
dbes02 3 years ago
Quit saying my analogy is nonsense. Show me HOW it's nonsense. Now that's an argument.
A "perfect anthropomorphic" anything is an oxymoron. People aren't perfect, which is why man's way to God is unreliable. That's why we have hundreds of gods. But Christianity is unique for it is God's way to man. Only then could anything absolute be possible.
But God is a spirit, so you can't use physical science to study the metaphysical. Why can't you understand these distinctly different institutions?
wordkeeper 3 years ago
Science relies on assumptions, not faith - assumptions of such a broad type that normal human beings also accept them every day. For example, science assumes realism, the philosophical conception that the physical world is not an illusion. But every religious person makes exactly the same assumption every time they get up in the morning, work, play, etc. To compare this to the sort of faith that is required to believe in a big guy in the sky is an intellectual sham.
dbes02 3 years ago
"Science relies on assumptions, not faith?" LOL. I wonder if I should accuse you of changing the topic because I used the word "truth" instead of "law".
FACT: Science rests on assumptions like "methodological materialism", but that is not "philosophical materialism", which you seem to be confusing.
How is assuming God's existence any different than any other assumption that we make? To assume implies to have faith, because the reason we assume is because we are not sure! Read David Hume!
wordkeeper 3 years ago
The supposed attributes of this god can be considered, and treated as testable hypothesis, using logic and other tools of reason. People believe in gods? So? Thats your argument? But everyone used to think that the Earth was stationary. And people believe in alien abductions and astrology. People believe in quite contradictory gods. Most people dont even believe in the multiple gods of Christianity.
dbes02 3 years ago
How can the attributes of a spirit be testable? Spirits are metaphysical, just like the tools of reason.
Everyone used to think that Earth was stationary because that's what logic told us! If the earth was stationary, we can expect not to be blown off it; if we dropped a rock, it should land directly beneath our hand; modern meteorologists still use terms like "sunrise" and "sunset" even though we know the sun doesn't move, etc. Again, it is man's interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
A stationary earth and a moving earth are not based on the same evidence. People out of ignorance thought that earthquakes were an act of "god". But they didn't have the evidence of tectonic plates. People thought the sky was a firmament before telescopes they didn' have access to the evidence. Youre claim that its all about using the same evidence - is further nonsense.
dbes02 3 years ago
Of course a stationary and moving earth are not based on the same evidence. But you were talking about LOGIC.
As Alister McGrath put it, "you seem to think a scientific description is an anti-religious argument." Quite an amateur perspective Dbes02.
So people discovered plate tectonics, made telescopes, and have better access to the evidence of how God makes this world work.
This isn't evidence against God. You said it yourself from St. Augustine: "It is contrary to our knowledge of nature."
wordkeeper 2 years ago
But many religious claims are testable and have been falsified. I havent said there is no god. Various concepts of god have been refuted through self-contradiction, including the omni-everything god of classical theism. Its about rationality. And the fact that so many claims about gods have been shown to be nonsense, while the genius of science has actually worked makes it the rational choice.
dbes02 2 years ago
Religious claims that have been falsified is not evidence against God, if that's what you're saying.
And if it's about rationality, let's talk about rationality. But once I do, you'll say "It's about the evidence." So if I start to address the evidence, you just jump back to "It's about rationality." -sigh-
wordkeeper 2 years ago
wordkeeper "Religious claims that have been falsified " is evidence against the claims. And if those claims apply to a concept of god, down the drain goes that god .
You set a strawman in setting up evidence vs rationality. Yet another sign of your incoherence. Reason and evidence lead to a rational position. Address the evidence by all means.
dbes02 2 years ago
If a hypothesis keeps failing, if i's held on to while being refuted time and time again, it's irrational. Parmenides realised over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. A concept of an all-powerful all-loving creator in the face of childhood cancer and mass deaths in tsunamis is a contradiction. Such a concept doesn't exist other than as an idea.
dbes02 3 years ago
whatever
deepeeeh 2 years ago
"whatever" what?
dbes02 2 years ago
I dunno
deepeeeh 2 years ago
In other words, "how can an all-loving, all-powerful God allow evil in the world?" Is that what you're calling the contradiction?
So, you would prefer that God revoke us of free will so we defaultly never sin?; That He should prevent or compensate for every single thing that man does wrong 100% of the time?; And that He judge and destroy everyone who does evil (which ultimately would mean the death of us all).
Besides, if there is no God, by what standard do you determine something to be evil?
wordkeeper 2 years ago
You don't believe in fairies? How can you prove beyond all possibility that there are no fairies? So how have you come to the momentous conclusion that there are no fairies? As I said, the key is rationality. Hypotheses have to be disciplined by properly rational grounds for them. Being ratio-nal: a proportioning of the hypothesis to the grounds for advancing it. Taking in the strength of the evidence. For fairies, demons and gods? None.
dbes02 3 years ago
You don't believe in God? How can you prove beyond all possibility, or come to the momentous conclusion, that there is no God?
The fact the controlled behavior of matter for its obedience to laws tells me that the "strength of the evidence" concludes the created signature of a law-giver or super-rational being (God).
The irony that we should have brains that transcend Darwinism by apprehending these discoveries tells me that the teleological fingerprints we find in nature are from God.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
The common claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he/she/it is perfectly just, he/she/it makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he/she/it is perfectly merciful, he/she/it lets everyone off. But he/she/it can' do both. So the notion of such a supreme being is internally inconsistent.
dbes02 3 years ago
Sorry I haven't responded in a week. I've been busy getting an education. I'd suggest you get one too.
God's attributes of mercy and justice would only be inconsistent if he allowed His mercy to break his own laws. But He doesn't.
The law requires that all people die, because all people are evil and fall short of the glory of God.
But God sacrificed Himself in order to appease His own law!
Only those who believe Christ to be their Savior will be purified before God. No inconsistency there.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
You havent addressed the contradiction of merciful and just. Now you bring in a "law" requiring death because all people are evil? Where do babies who die of congenital problems get the chance to be "evil"? And this appeal to having to "believe Christ" is a cherry picking fallacy. Other religions have other beliefs, and many people don't have any beliefs. You still havent even provided credible evidence for this "god". Only an argument from ignorance. Better go on another education break.
dbes02 2 years ago
Comment removed
wordkeeper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Um, I haven't addressed the contradiction? I've already answered, and am not repeating myself.
"Many people don't have beliefs?" Dude, you must be one heck of a novice intellectual to believe that load.
You would continue to say I haven't credible evidence for God even if all the evidence were staring you in the face.
Your arguments are from denial!
wordkeeper 2 years ago
What are these "teleological fingerprints" ? Where's the evidence it's teleological. If it's because of this "god", then you have a circular argument. Useless.
And when positing an intelligent designer your "super-rational... law-giver" please show how this super-intelligence didnt need designing. Otherwise you're being inconsistent.
Youre analogy of two sets of books with light is nonsense. The two sets of books exist as separate entities. Light as wave/particle is the same light.
dbes02 3 years ago
How is "providence" anymore circular to explain the universe's teleology than assuming "coincidence"? "No God" would also be a circular argument.
Ranging from the origin of information in our genes to the list of fine-tuning characteristics of the known world that allow intelligent life on this planet, is enough satisfying evidence for me.
And if God means "the Creator of everything", how can "Who created God?" be a logical question?
There is no other. That's why He's called God.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
Good. So you are using observations of the universe to form hypotheses. Maybe youll make a good scientist. But show how things were "tuned", show how information in our genes was caused. Don't just give an argument from ignorance. In Aristotle's time it would have been "of course lightning is caused by the gods, how else could it be?" We can see that life evolved from simple to complex. That intelligence evolved over enormous amounts of time.
dbes02 2 years ago
Show how things were tuned? Show where genetic information comes from? I think the better question is "Can they be proven?"
I'm not saying let's stop science because God is our answer. Maybe there is a way to explain how God did it! But just as my conclusion will always rest with God, yours will rest with Chance. And I don't see how you are foolish enough to think that science can falsify either assumption.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
"Maybe there is a way to explain how God did it! But just as my conclusion will always rest with God"
So your grounds for resting with 'God' is an argument from ignorance. When you come back showing how it works, then you will be getting somehwere. Otherwise you may as well claim blue-eyed monsters from Pluto. Theology's all about make-believe anyway.
But the success of science is in providing explanation. Not foolishness - all about rationality.
A naturalistic world is not simply about chance.
dbes02 2 years ago
So if there's a need for intelligent design to account for intelligent life, then how come this intelligent designer doesnt need a designer? You need to show the process that's how science works. You need to show how 'god' didnt need creating not just claim it.
dbes02 2 years ago
Enough with the "Who created God?" argument. It's so infantile. I already addressed it.
"I need to show the process because that's how science works?"
Dude. Here's what you don't understand: That's NOT How Science Works!
Science doesn't prove anything beyond the natural. I don't see that as evidence there is nothing supernatural, but somehow to you it does. When you realize how science works, along with its limitations, you'll understand.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
"Who created God" is infantile?
Well, maybe it is infantile - the God of the Bible is an incoherent, self-contradictory concept and hence doesn't exist. We know who created the concept of God - humans.
Science is indeed about natural explanations - and it works brilliantly.
The problem for you is that the concept of the Biblical God very much includes testable claims about the natural - and fails.
dbes02 2 years ago
Then show how this intelligent designer has anything to do with the god of the Bible. If you're using scientific evidence, please refute the overwhelming evidence that rubbishes Genesis 1-11 and how it makes nonsense of the biblical god. This so called intelligence that cant get the basics right in his first book.
dbes02 2 years ago
Let's for a second assume that the designer is a material agent. Richard Dawkins believes if that be the case, intelligent design theory could be a legitimate scientific practice.
However for me, I personally believe that the designer is an immaterial agent. I don't see how that should suddenly warrant the theory illegitimate, because it really doesn't.
It's actually not difficult at all to see that what is really going on here is a battle between two opposing ideologies of man.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
If the 'designer' is an immaterial agent, then how does it impact on a material world? You haven't got anywhere - just going around in circles.
You call it opposing ideologies of man. But is geology an ideology? Is physics an ideology?
But the real issue of ideologies comes in when comparing the positions of different religions. So be a good boy and go off and argue your childish, superstitious claims with all the other deluded. Then when you sort it out, come back and challenge science.
dbes02 2 years ago
"And you'll say again: there is only evidence against God?"
What, you think because you say it again makes it true? lol. Your evidence for God's non-existence is because faeries and Santa don't exist? lol.
I don't believe in faeries or Santa either, but that doesn't deny the evidence of a Creator. Nobody I know just starts believing in faeries and Santa in their older age. But people, from every age and background, have been shown to believe in God. I want your explanation for that phenomenon.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
You have a lot of trouble reading and understanding actual words. I havent used the word proof" - science SUPPORTS naturalism. Science has a broad assumption realism, the philosophical conception that the physical world is not an illusion. (That's how we live our day to day lives!) And science actually goes and provides explanations about things going on. So please show evidence for something beyond the physical world.
dbes02 3 years ago
And what are you implying about "support" if not the potentiality of naturalism being more "provable"?
Naturalism is a philosophy equivalent to atheism for its rejection of anything supernatural, and I declare to you now, science gives no such support for any philosophical conclusion!
Science is what we base our inferences off of, but science is silent on the matter of anything transcendental to nature. You are STILL confusing "methodological materialism" for "philosophical materialism".
wordkeeper 3 years ago
Of course science supports naturalism. That's it's whole basis - naturalistic explanations, and it's VERY successful. A naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon certainly doesn't support supernaturalism.
You conveniently forget that religions, for centuries, have claimed all sorts of things about the world which have been debunked. Naturalism simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe.
dbes02 3 years ago
Naturalism: the unprovable assumption that the material world is all there is.
Supernaturalism: the unprovable assumption that the material world is not all there is.
Where does supernaturalism deny the existence or study of the material world? IT DOESN'T. It simply says there is more out there!
This is why, if science only studies the natural world, science does not and cannot support, favor, debunk, conclude, establish, or prove naturalism anymore than it can supernaturalism!
wordkeeper 2 years ago
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena. (Fairies are also supernatural entities postulated to account for phenomena.) Let's take earthquakes, volcanoes, disease all can be explained in purely natural terms. As St Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature. Even Plato realized that to say "God did it" is not to explain anything, but an excuse for not having an explanation.
dbes02 3 years ago
Chance is also a theoretical entity that is postulated by atheists to explain various phenomena.
Once again, you are confusing your terms. Of course, volcanoes, diseases and whatnot can be explained in "natural" terms, but that does not mean "NATURALISTIC" terms. You keep confusing methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Dude! How many times must we go over this??
And I know saying "God made that earthquake happen" can be an excuse materially, but not philosophically.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
Then show that "god made the earthquake happen". Don't just say it. Show that it is more credible than belief in fairies.
Methodological naturalism must be adopted for conducting science as science is all about looking at natural causes for natural events. A tacit adoption of naturalism which keeps religious scientists from throwing tantrums, and to cover up their hypocrisy. But naturalism is a philosophy that science effectively created theres no confusion.
dbes02 2 years ago
Before I could show you that "God made it happen," I'd have to show you God first right? But because I can't prove God any better than disprove Him, how is asking "prove to me God did it" a proposition not devoid of complete stupidity?
I don't know what you're going on about materialism. There are two forms of it: methodology and philosophy. They are distinctly different so what's the problem?
Science didn't create naturalism. Epicurus, Democritus, Leucippus and Lucretius predate science.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
"because I can't prove God any better than disprove Him, how is asking "prove to me God did it" a proposition not devoid of complete stupidity"
Another of your false dilemmas. Once again, claims about the Biblical god can indeed be tested. So if you want to look 'stupid' then keep on with your profoundly false claims.
So what if there are different forms of naturalism? You know I'm talking about a naturalistic world .
And don't confuse naturalism with materialism - there are differences.
dbes02 2 years ago
There are all sorts of testable claims: the universe was made in 6 days, there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, the earth is immoving, humans were created a few thousand years ago, prayer works. All shown to be contradicted. So science clearly has a role. If there is a natural explanation, there is no need for supernatural make-believe. It's irrelevant. There are models for the origin of the physical universe based on the laws of physics - they don't violate the laws.
dbes02 3 years ago
All shown to be contradicted? Contradicted by what absolute standard other than interpretation?
"If there is a natural explanation, there is no need for supernatural make-believe?"
And again, (you mean "naturalistic", not natural), science's role never concludes naturalism any more than it can supernaturalism.
And where did these physical laws come from? Are you saying models like the steady state theory (stating the universe is eternal) don't violate these laws?
Interpretation of evidence.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
Epistemology teaches that the key is rationality - proportioning a hypothesis to the grounds for holding it. Credibility and evidence. All the evidence we have supports naturalism. Its not my fault if people want to make up fanciful ideas. The basis of science is to find naturalistic causes for natural events. And it has been very successful - compared with religious beliefs which have been spectacular failures. Science by definition supports naturalism.
dbes02 2 years ago
All the evidence supports naturalism?
Great! Show me the evidence that there's no God because that's precisely what you are saying.
How many times must we go over materialism? Again, and again, and again, and again, you allow the philosophy to eclipse the methodology.
Honestly, Dr. Eugenie Scott of NCSE gives lectures about their differences! Perhaps you should watch a couple.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
Ok, ill give you proof. Because there is a debate on the existance of god. If god was real, there would be proof and there woulndt be any question of it.
MrKevMan 2 years ago
Saying the evidence supports naturalism is not the same as saying theres no God. But the evidence does contradict the Biblical God. Remember, it;'s about rationality.
So I ask again, do the findings of science support naturalism or supernaturalism? How would justify saying they support neither? Science can assume methodological naturalism. And it may have found nothing. But unfortunately for you its been very successful.
dbes02 2 years ago
Contradicted by what absolute standard other than interpretation?
Rationality. Of course science is entwined with naturalism - and it provides evidence to support it.
The plausible model? The inflationary big bang offers a plausible, natural scenario for the uncaused origin and evolution of the universe, including the formation of order and structure -- without the violation of any laws of physics. By means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum.
dbes02 2 years ago
If it is rational to believe that God doesn't exist, then it is in no way less rational to believe that He does.
Science is not entwined with naturalism? You need a worldview class. Pronto.
Uncaused? Did you say uncaused? Honestly man. Like wow. And you think you're scientific? You're a disgrace to science and philosophy, and I know a few atheists who wouldn't mind telling you how serious wrong you are on these subjects.
wordkeeper 2 years ago
"If it is rational to believe that God doesn't exist, then it is in no way less rational to believe that He does."
It depends what 'God' you're talking about. if it's the god of classical theism - then it's irrational.
Yes uncaused. Taking the workings of quantum mechanics - indeterministic events. Uncaused.
And yes, science is entwined with naturalism. That's it's whole modus operandum. If you want to sink into ad hominem attacks, that's up to you.
dbes02 2 years ago
wordkeeper, you may continue to take your irrational stance regarding supernatural entities running the world. You may continue to use circular arguments to support your claims about god. And you can provide ludicrously false analogies between OT/NT and wave/particle nature of light. Light is light, and the OT is not the NT.
Science will be continue to explain the world. Children will continue to enjoy fairy tales - and will be forced by their parents to believe the religious versions.
dbes02 3 years ago
"irrational stance" / "circular arguments" / "ludicrously false analogies" / "fairytales enforced by parents"... wow dbes02. Nice list of ad hominems.
"Light is light, and the OT is not the NT".
You apparently don't get it. Infallibly, God's inspiration is seen in both OT and NT. Without contradiction, light is seen in both wave and particle.
The only thing ludicrous here dbes02 is your unwavering conviction in a series of completely groundless preachments against Christianity.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I'm not condoning or condemning homosexuality, I'm just making sure you know that your views aren't the only ones with rationalisation behind them, and may not be the views of God.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
Wordkeeper must be God.
Apparantly Wordkeepers translation of what is "obvious" is the defining factor for everyone else.
Homosexualtiy is not obvious, because half of the Bible says God is a god of grace and love.
It makes little sense, and is NOT obvious.
The terms in the NT that are often applied to homosexuals are vague, and often refer to sex for the sake of worshipping other gods where the people involved DON'T WANT to get married.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
Cola, don't flatter me. I am not God. I only sound like Him because I am repeating what He has said in His Word.
I don't know what u mean by saying "homosexuality is not obvious", but it is obviously wrong. God's love is a non sequitur to the immorality of homosexuality.
As for the NT, look up 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27. If you read these verses with eyes that are looking for the "obvious" interpretation, I think Occam's Razor would confess that the NT is clear about this subject.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I wouldn't say it's obviously wrong, it may possibly be wrong but not obviously.
Compare it with murder, how many times does god tell us to love others and not to murder? That is what we could call an obvious commandment.
Murder isn't a couple places in the NT, it's all over the NT. That's an obvious one.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
If murder was mentioned only once in the Bible, would it then no longer be "obvious"? I don't think frequency has anything to do with whether something is morally wrong.
Jesus never mentioned anything about zoophilia, so should we assume He was neutral? At that time, the people didn't need immense instruction on the gay subject because it was culturally understood to be wrong without question.
If you want your kids to do something, do you expect them to obey the first time, or the 78th time?
wordkeeper 3 years ago
If murder was only mentioned once in the Bible, it wouldn't be so obvious, unless we was to read all the scripture that tells us to love others.
That's when it becomes more obvious.
Keep in mind just because humans think it's right doesn't make it right, alot of homosexuals feel that what they're doing is fine, even by God.
Zoophilia is a completely different thing to homosexuality, it's a willing choice that the individual makes as an easy alternative to women or men.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
"it wouldn't be so obvious unless..."
Now you're changing your standards of frequency to standards of corresponding verses.
The fact is, if the Bible says it's wrong (no matter how many times it does) it is wrong.
Doesn't your middle paragraph contradict itself?
How is zoophilia different? Both bestiality and homosexuality are choices. People may have an inclined disposition to particular weakness from our sinful nature like greed, pride, and lying, but that doesn't sanction their practices.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
I'm saying homosexuality might not be a complete sin, if atall, because gods grace applies to many things.
God allows girls and boys to hold hands, hug and kiss outside marriage, why not so for homosexuals?
In the end, Gods grace does go far, but just because it goes far doesn't mean that homsoexuality is in gods will.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
So, are you saying because God's grace extends to the homosexual, homosexuality might not be a sin?
Cola, I am really trying not to sound rude, but wow.
God's grace extends to every sinner! But I have no idea how you make that mean there is no sin! The reason for grace is BECAUSE of sin!!
Can murder not be considered a sin because God grace extends to the murderer? The fact is, grace is for each and every person who is honestly penitent with God. Read the prerequisites in Psalm 51:17.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
lol, you are only slightly missing the point.
Gods grace and love extends to everyone, so he doesn't want us doing bad things to people (this is what makes murder a sin).
But his grace also has in many cases fulfilled laws or made them less persistant since Jesus' death.
Half the OT law doesn't count anymore, even the law of the sabbath day isn't as binding as it was before!
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
You are confusing Israelite laws with sins. There is a clear difference between the Levitical Code of the Jewish culture in the days of the Old Testament and the vice of homosexuality that has been repeatedly forbidden in both testaments.
wordkeeper 3 years ago
And that explains why both men and women are condemned in the OT for having sex with beasts
And it's also condemned more times than the one about a man laying with a man.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
It doesn't matter how many times it's condemned. What matters is if it is condemned or not.
You're trying to impugn the verses of Scripture that incontrovertibly edict homosexuality as an abomination by saying that there are more important sins to be worrying about.
Take it as you will Cola. You've heard the Truth. Don't filter God's Word of things you don't like for things that you do, or else (as St. Augustine put it) "...it's not the Gospels you believe, but yourself."
wordkeeper 3 years ago
SICK AND TWISTED
abcjesse123 3 years ago
This is disgusting.
zigzag1239 3 years ago
I totally agree, there's definately a need for more openly gay preachers in America, let's pray for a gay revival!
jamesbrownintown 3 years ago
lol wow. from reading my Bible, Homosexual Preacher sounds almost like an oxymoron to me. is this some kind of joke? lol
DanielTheri47 3 years ago
you are a sick person..thats like saying we need more earthquakes..
1Lawman104 3 years ago
Do not get upset because I spoke the truth about how many "Christians" react to gays but react totally different when it comes to other issues that are clearly mentioned in the Bible in the 10 commandments like fornication and adultery. What I spoke it absolutely correct. You and people like you are straight come from straight from the pit of evil. Stop cherry picking bible verses to use against a group that you dislike. If adulterers and fornicators can be Christian why can't gays?
vrj40 3 years ago
U have a point (i.e. that heterosexual Christians like myself shouldn't condone one sin & condemn another) but u put it across in the wrong manner! Far too often are homosexuals condemned & adulterers & fornicators accepted! ALL wrongdoers need to repent inorder to enter heaven (repentance may not come overnight but may be a long process of turning around from embracing a sinful life to abhoring it). I myself as everyother person seeking to be more like Jesus need to die DAILY to sin. God Bless!
YUOCOE 3 years ago
Adulterers, fornicators, (these first 2 categories of people who keep out probably 98%of the human population)false prophets, and those who curse their parents, will not enter god's kingdom. How many of you were virgins on your wedding night? How many of you have cheated on your husband or wife? With a divorce rate of 50% in the US, it seems that most are not living according to God's word. Stop singling out one group (gays) and condemning them, but never condenming others.
vrj40 3 years ago
you may be the wickedest of the wicked but if you repent and believe the Gospel you will be saved.
so you can't say someone will not enter Heaven,because who knows what God will do with them.
but, there's no such thing as a gay Christian or a carnal Christian.
Bogzy1989 3 years ago
homosexuals can't enter god's kingdom:
1.romans 1:23-27
2.leviticus 20:13.
if anyone say god except homosexuality give my scripture back up.i gave me you mines.
elohimthegods33 3 years ago
I believe that it is a sin to be a homosexual. But I also believe that if he all the sudden went staight that he wouldn't go to heaven then either. Because he didn't except Jesus as his savior. We have this mindset that if we can just stop them from being gay they'll be alright. That's not true. It's just getting a stronghold out of the way that is keeping him from God. Don't get me wrong I DO NOT believe homosexuality is right at all under any circumstances. It's just like lying.
sunnysnowday 3 years ago
funny...it's always about sex with gays..seems other relational features come a very far second place..just an observation.
cordlox 3 years ago
fags go to hell, no such thing as a gay christian..IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
1Lawman104 3 years ago
I like how you used the word 'fags'. Very mature.
Way to reach to the lost, broken, and sinful.
mas502arc 3 years ago
well first of all fag is biblical it is a stick that god will use to kindle hell fire with..hence fag..i am mature you prick..gay means happy, not a fruit cake that is horny over another mans private parts!!
1Lawman104 3 years ago
actually not true. thats like saying there's no such thing as a lying christian. do we all still lie occasionally? of course. believe me i do not agree with homosexuality but i do believe that God does not agree with the spirit of homosexuality, not the person who has that spirit on them. Jesus can still save you if you have emotional imbalances. you just have to admit that its wrong, believe its wrong and eventually get delivered from it.
DanielTheri47 3 years ago
oh man what bible do you read,my bible tells me my wrongs and though i still struggle with my issues i still recognise its wrong,i wont try and sweet talk my way round it, i have to confess and repent everyday,God does love you but recognise the spiritual battle not only you are in, but the rest of the world, we are all being decieved,the word says so,the road to destruction is wide and many enter thru it but the road to the father is narrow and few find it.think about it why would god say that
pjsmetal 3 years ago
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:(G) neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
dawoodsfinest 3 years ago
God will punish this man, and will be cast in the lake of fire along with the devil...
theres no such thing in the kingdom of our Lord!! The church nowadays has blasphemy written all over its face!!
Lets pray for the Revival of the house of the Lord!!
ArsenBoi89 3 years ago
ArsenBoi89, You're more on the mark than you might realize. 'The World and sadly some who call themselves christians', feel that 'things' like this are alright in the sight of God/Jesus, but when the Word says 'NO' then that's what it means and God/Jesus aren't changing it for anyone. Yes, perhaps we do need a revival, but most of all we need to stop taking God's Word and twisting it into what 'we' want it to be, rather than what "He" says it is and that's that. Pray for ALL of them they need it
jebeja 3 years ago
NO such thing in the kingdom of God as a gay preacher, no matter what mankind says. God is concerned about us, but it's His Word or hell. I pray that they seek the 'true and living God and His Son Jesus Christ', because the Bible says no effeminate will inherit the kingdom of God. This man and his 'followers' need much prayer, we'd ALL better get right with God/Jesus via 'they're Word' or we're ALL going to perish. Seek the Lord while He may yet be found.
jebeja 3 years ago 2
AMEN!
ArsenBoi89 3 years ago
Amen my friend! The Lords word is true!
doccaremel 3 years ago
good bless.
bonerfarthead 3 years ago
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4 NIV
33skcunac 3 years ago
Two words.....Last Days.
JMMCL16 3 years ago
amen to that
bigbadro 3 years ago
he mentions "she knew who she was..." unfortunately she doesn't know her true identity if she's considering herself a christian and practicing homosexuality...not only does the Bible EXPLICITLY say don't be gay in the first covenant...but it's repeated again in the 2nd covenant...it's unbelievable how people decide to look over the verses that we don't wanna be held accountable for...it's ridiculous...
gentleben1590 3 years ago
(Romans 1:26-27)
(Leviticus 18:33)
Pinkindian1 3 years ago
COMEDIAN PREACHERS, I just love them. Hell, they DON'T even have to preach the BIBLE and LEAVE JESUS out and they'll still will make you FEEL SAVE after the Sunday service. Who needs FIRE & BRIME STONE when you can laugh yourself the HELL out of PURGATORY. It's ALL ABOUT LOVE baby cakes, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE~
fotograh 3 years ago
Cмерть пiдорасам
mrtolik2 3 years ago
ty kto, chui v palto?
42rattelschneck42 3 years ago
я чё то непонял
або по англіські або по рускі або по україньскі
нехіра непоняв
или ты блин педик
mrtolik2 3 years ago
"Typical" stereotype of my nation, 2! I was just wanting 2 know if U knew of anything ELSE in the Christian Scriptures 2 justify YOUR claims.When Christianity split off from Judaism (which doesn't have a DAMN THING 2 do with a non-existent USA at the time), there was a SERIOUS difference in how the Old Testament Law was going 2 B applied (or NOT!) in many different aspects within CHRISTIAN communities.This has been an issue between Christians and Jews ever since that time. Plain historic fact.
bimboblacky 3 years ago
Yes, and all Protestants were going straight to Hell, too, at one time. Many Catholics still think we ARE. Oh well. :( (BTW, they believe they have STRONG Scriptural support for that belief, too).
bimboblacky 3 years ago
This man is in big trouble if he is gay. He needs to repent and turn away from that evil spirit of homosexuality!!! If any don't agree, you better get to reading God's Word.
pimptight75 3 years ago
I did. Then I came out of the closet
SBIMEZM86 3 years ago
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
DeniseLoveJESUS 3 years ago
i think religion is pointless with no point it at all except the point that itts pointless and i dont get why being gay is a sin lol
nametaken70 3 years ago
Luke 13:3: I tell you, Nay: but, except ye REPENT, ye shall all likewise PERISH.
Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination
Galatians 5:16: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
God calls us all to repentence, a life of holiness. Many will come to Him on the day of judgement and receive the following response:
Matthew 7:23: ..Depart from me, I knew you not ye that work iniquity.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
I think that because many religions still demonise the sexual act that perversion comes from this.
The act itself it a natural occurrence in most living things. Humans, cultures, religions, made sex a perversion.
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
Homosexuality is a natural, CARNAL action. Christians are not called to a "natural" life. Christians are called to walk in the Spirit NOT the flesh.
Jesus said "Why callest me Lord and doest not what I say?"
Speaking of Jesus, can we confine him by culture? Do we limit his role in our lives by the culture we live in? Not the mighty God that I serve. If you obey the God I serve, he will pull down EVERY stronghold of sin in your life.
For it is written, Be ye Holy
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
I love the way you guys can take anything. Anything at all and justify it by finding some obscure phrase in the scriptures.
But I quote to you: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable"?
Isn't that pretty clear??. Is to me.
what you're telling me is that all sin is OK as long you follow your god.
Sodomy being a "natural carnal act". Sorry mate. I have friends I love but I don't screw 'em.
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
If you truly follow Jesus then you will not live in sin. Try not to put words in my mouth.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. But you did manage to avoid my own quote from the scriptures.
What you are now saying is that if you follow Jesus then sodomy is not a sin because you are "in the faith".
That sounds like bending the rules to me. If you "follow" a particular faith then you just can't go off and live by your own rules caliming repentence will save you.
Thats called hypocracy mate.
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
I actually thought one of the ten commandments was "thou shalt not kill". But you state as one of your interests as hunting?
Can you please explain further?
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
Thou shalt not kill as in thou shalt not kill another man. Man is above the animals as they were put into subjection. If you read Genesis you will see that animals were put on this earth for us to harvest. They are a source of food- Jesus ate them too. Context, context, context.
Yes, the scripture you quoted was clear. Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. What comment must I make? I saw no need to add anything.
True repentence is a turn from sin, not just asking for forgiveness.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
You personally added the "another man bit" or interpreted it this way. I think it means indiscriminate killing of any creature.
OK so we hunt to harvest for food. Jesus did eat animals. But he didn't have a Mall either.
Do you hunt because you need to eat them? Or do you hunt for your own pleasure? ..... cont/
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
You think it means the killing of animals and humans?
Do you realize that plants also react to stimuli? Do you realize that plants are alive too and do feel pain?
Do I hunt for pleasure? I hunt because I love to be in the woods, deer are overpopulated in my state, and yes, I do like to harvest them.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
You cantradict yourself. Yesterday Homosexuality was a "natural carnal action". Today it is a sin and abomination?
You support the "Gay Preacher" above?!! How can you? He has not repented and turned from sin? He wants to make his sinning ligitimate!!
This issue will fracture the christian faith and be the demise of it. The bible is being twisted and interpreted to suit any minority who wants make a stand.
Cadrat2006 3 years ago
You misunderstand me.
A carnal, natural action is EVIL.
Carnality is EVIL. To be carnally minded is death.
Christians are NOT to be natural, but above sin.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago