Ask a Christian a Question

P3RFECT
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Christian a Question

Hello, I'm new here and i didn't feel like going to every thread and responding so i hope all of you get all the atheists and non atheists in here to have our discussion. Questions about Christianity. Now go tell everybody.

Also, please do one question at a time.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote:

moonhawk wrote:

 

I think that you are right in saying that morals "shouldn't be legislated." That goes for mine, yours, or theirs. I understand not having my morals being forced down the throats of homosexuals, but do they not understand forcing theirs down my throat is just as bad? Apparently not. Laws should be done only to the extent that they protect life and property, that's it! If they go beyond that, they are trying to legislate morals.

Im confused by this as im not sure what you mean. It sounds like you understand not having your morals being forced down their throats but you don't want theirs. What are they doing to shove it down your throat? Because they are open about it? They are trying to get equal rights. Seems fair to me.

Quote:


And the link notwithstanding, it does seem unnatural to me in the sense that for 2 guys the plumbing is all wrong. Any plumber can tell you, you shouldn't have incoming going into the outflow. This would also hold true for a man and woman engaging in anal sex by the way.

This is a matter of preference. Personally I would not want to watch two guys either or know the stories, but this only affects my personal preference, not having to do with my feelings towards the people. As far as plumbing, its not like a men and women hold themselves only to the "missionary" position only, so this doesn't really work.

Quote:

 

From a medical standpoint the way I understand it , one possible cause of HIV/AIDS is by the mixed presence of feces and semen in the bloodstream. The best way to create this mixture is by having anal sex.

I have never heard this, so if you have a scientific source for this, let me know as last I remember HIV is a virus and has nothing to do with feces or semen other than being modes of transmission.

Quote:

 

Biologically speaking it is a non-survuval trait because a homosexual act by itself won't perpetuate the species. And artificial insemenation falls into the unnatural category so that doesn't change the non-survivability of the trait.

This is irrelevant. There are plenty of non-survival traits that occur in humans, none of which matter in the real sense of things. Doesn't change anything unless you have an aversion to non-survival traits in general in which case goose bumps should scare you.

Quote:

 

Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

You are right in the sense that its your right, but is it right to vote against something that has 0 effect on you, simply because basically you are simply not attracted to the same sex. Using that logic, if there was a vote ever to ban religion (which of course at this time wouldn't pass anyways but still, point stays the same) I would vote against it because when we start banning things it never stops. We lose rights, even tho I want religion gone, I would not want to vote to ban it.


I am too tired to respond to the rest of it as my original focus was on the same-sex rights rather then the rest. Again I am still not real satisfied as again it seems like your answer is somewhere along the lines of "Since im not gay, and it does not seem natural to me, then ill vote against it." I would be curious of anymore insight from yourself or others.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
And Largo, I realize the

And Largo, I realize the duck and run coment was a joke, I was just saying that this was by observation from outside.  I would like to hear a comment from someone who may be on the other side (gay or lesbian) and let me know their opinion on what is being discussed.


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking

Free Thinking wrote:

moonhawk wrote:

And the link notwithstanding, it does seem unnatural to me in the sense that for 2 guys the plumbing is all wrong. Any plumber can tell you, you shouldn't have incoming going into the outflow. This would also hold true for a man and woman engaging in anal sex by the way.

Okay, I am really confused. Ummm... vagina... in or out? in goes the peni, out comes a baby.... what about when I'm menstruatiing? blood comes out... but semen goes in..

The vagina is a special case because the cervix is a rudimentary valve and at times (during pregnancy) can close off the inflow.

Free Thinking wrote:

moonhawk wrote:

I am a firm believer in adoption, having an adopted daughter. If her mother, a cocaine addict, had aborted her, I couldn't see that pretty smile every night when I get home from work. That is why I am against abortion.

Damn fine reason for being anti-abortion. I bet it is indeed a beauitful smile! Smiling

If I go into parenting... I think that's what I will do too. Adopt.

moonhawk wrote:

Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

This perplexes me. You are entitled to yor opinion but why should you get to vote on someone else's decision?

Not voting on their decision. If they want to make that decision, I ain't gonna stop them. What I'm saying is if they ask me my opinion either directly or by ballot question, then I would tell them I believe it is wrong. However if the ballot asked, not for my opinion, but something along the lines of "Should homosexual (GLBT) couples be allowed to form domestic partnerships in order to have the same benifits as a married couple?" my answer would be yeah, let them.

I mean they can already designate heirs, beneficiaries, powers of attorney for guardianshiop or health matters, etc. But, it requires lots of work, reams of paper, and can lead to massive lawyer time. A domestic partner program could be setup to automatically do all those things just like a marraige already does. This I got no problem with. 

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Maragon

Maragon wrote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Why did God supposedly create us without our consent?

I don't remember being asked whether I want to exist or not, because certainly the answer would have been "no".

 

One more question: ok, God created us without our consent. Why is he threatening us with Hell now? How can you be considered "good" if you punish someone for something he didn't want to be part of in the first place?

 

 

This is brilliant.

Can I use this idea?

 

Why do horse breeders selectively choose their stock? God can do whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Too bad if it offends our sense of justice. 


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote:moonhawk

Gizmo wrote:

moonhawk wrote:
I think that you are right in saying that morals "shouldn't be legislated." That goes for mine, yours, or theirs. I understand not having my morals being forced down the throats of homosexuals, but do they not understand forcing theirs down my throat is just as bad? Apparently not. Laws should be done only to the extent that they protect life and property, that's it! If they go beyond that, they are trying to legislate morals.

Im confused by this as im not sure what you mean. It sounds like you understand not having your morals being forced down their throats but you don't want theirs. What are they doing to shove it down your throat? Because they are open about it? They are trying to get equal rights. Seems fair to me.

When they try to force churches or the Boy Scouts to hire homosexuals, that is 'shoving it down our throats.' This they should not be able to do. A landlord or business should not be able to refuse them just because they are 'gay' anymore than they should refuse blacks, hispanics, Wiccans, athiests or anyone else. A religious based charity, club, or non-profit, on the other hand, should not be forced to go against their beliefs.

Gizmo wrote:

moonhawk wrote:
From a medical standpoint the way I understand it, one possible cause of HIV/AIDS is by the mixed presence of feces and semen in the bloodstream. The best way to create this mixture is by having anal sex.

I have never heard this, so if you have a scientific source for this, let me know as last I remember HIV is a virus and has nothing to do with feces or semen other than being modes of transmission.

I should have said AIDS not HIV/AIDS. I seem to recall reaading about this as a possible way for getting AIDS before they discovered the HIV virus. And a guy I know works at CDC and told me at one time that the HIV-->AIDS connection hadn't been conclusivly proven. I'll do some more checking and get back to you on this.

Gizmo wrote:

moonhawk wrote:
Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

You are right in the sense that its your right, but is it right to vote against something that has 0 effect on you, simply because basically you are simply not attracted to the same sex. Using that logic, if there was a vote ever to ban religion (which of course at this time wouldn't pass anyways but still, point stays the same) I would vote against it because when we start banning things it never stops. We lose rights, even tho I want religion gone, I would not want to vote to ban it.

No, I agree there are way too many bans in place. I, like you, would not vote to ban homosexuality. Number one it wouldn't stop it anyway, so why waste the time and effort. Number two who am I to say how someone else should feel or not feel?

What I was trying to convey is that if they ask my opinion, I'll tell them I believe it is wrong. But if they ask me should they be treated equally to myself and other citizens, then my answer is "Damn right they should!"

Gizmo wrote:
I am too tired to respond to the rest of it as my original focus was on the same-sex rights rather then the rest. Again I am still not real satisfied as again it seems like your answer is somewhere along the lines of "Since im not gay, and it does not seem natural to me, then ill vote against it." I would be curious of anymore insight from yourself or others.

Hope this post helps clear up matters.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Why do

wavefreak wrote:

Why do horse breeders selectively choose their stock? God can do whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Too bad if it offends our sense of justice. 

Because, when you get right down to it, might makes right, doesn't it? Justice, your sense of it or mine, is irrelevant. The theist argument often comes down to just that. When Job cried out to his god and said "why have you done all this to me?"(obviously, I'm paraphrasing here) the Cosmic Bully's answer was, "shut the fuck up, you worm.  I made you. I made the whole universe. And I can do whatever I want."
You really should at least try to use a rational argument, rather than a resort to power. But, I suppose, when power is all you have . . .


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Largo wrote: wavefreak

Largo wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

Why do horse breeders selectively choose their stock? God can do whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Too bad if it offends our sense of justice.

Because, when you get right down to it, might makes right, doesn't it? Justice, your sense of it or mine, is irrelevant. The theist argument often comes down to just that. When Job cried out to his god and said "why have you done all this to me?"(obviously, I'm paraphrasing here) the Cosmic Bully's answer was, "shut the fuck up, you worm. I made you. I made the whole universe. And I can do whatever I want."
You really should at least try to use a rational argument, rather than a resort to power. But, I suppose, when power is all you have . . .

 

I suppose when I am being tongue in cheek I'll need to put up an "incoming snide remark" tag.


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: According to what?

Quote:
According to what? By what independent criterion/criteria do we establish that "god is love", or what true/false religion is?

Through reason and through the message.

Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

Member of WELS


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote:

moonhawk wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

moonhawk wrote:

And the link notwithstanding, it does seem unnatural to me in the sense that for 2 guys the plumbing is all wrong. Any plumber can tell you, you shouldn't have incoming going into the outflow. This would also hold true for a man and woman engaging in anal sex by the way.

Okay, I am really confused. Ummm... vagina... in or out? in goes the peni, out comes a baby.... what about when I'm menstruatiing? blood comes out... but semen goes in..

The vagina is a special case because the cervix is a rudimentary valve and at times (during pregnancy) can close off the inflow.

huh? What about the throat? in goes food, out comes puke. There is also valve there, isn't there? isn't gagging a kind of closing off the inflow?

moonhawk wrote:

Free Thinking wrote:

moonhawk wrote:

I am a firm believer in adoption, having an adopted daughter. If her mother, a cocaine addict, had aborted her, I couldn't see that pretty smile every night when I get home from work. That is why I am against abortion.

Damn fine reason for being anti-abortion. I bet it is indeed a beauitful smile! Smiling

If I go into parenting... I think that's what I will do too. Adopt.

moonhawk wrote:

Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

This perplexes me. You are entitled to yor opinion but why should you get to vote on someone else's decision?

Not voting on their decision. If they want to make that decision, I ain't gonna stop them. What I'm saying is if they ask me my opinion either directly or by ballot question, then I would tell them I believe it is wrong. However if the ballot asked, not for my opinion, but something along the lines of "Should homosexual (GLBT) couples be allowed to form domestic partnerships in order to have the same benifits as a married couple?" my answer would be yeah, let them.

I mean they can already designate heirs, beneficiaries, powers of attorney for guardianshiop or health matters, etc. But, it requires lots of work, reams of paper, and can lead to massive lawyer time. A domestic partner program could be setup to automatically do all those things just like a marraige already does. This I got no problem with.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with gay marriage and thanks but no thanks, I don't want/care about your opinions on the matter. Your opinion is irrelevant because who a person wishes to marry has nothing to do with you.  My opinions are also irrelvant in this matter because it is a decision that has nothing to do with me.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:I suppose

wavefreak wrote:

I suppose when I am being tongue in cheek I'll need to put up an "incoming snide remark" tag.


Maybe so, because your name has the word "theist" under it. I expected from that that when you made a remark like "Why do horse breeders selectively choose their stock? God can do whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Too bad if it offends our sense of justice." you were probably being serious. I do have a sense of irony, but you were a little too realistic in that quote.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Maragon

wavefreak wrote:
Maragon wrote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Why did God supposedly create us without our consent?

I don't remember being asked whether I want to exist or not, because certainly the answer would have been "no".

 

One more question: ok, God created us without our consent. Why is he threatening us with Hell now? How can you be considered "good" if you punish someone for something he didn't want to be part of in the first place?

 

 

This is brilliant.

Can I use this idea?

 

Why do horse breeders selectively choose their stock? God can do whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Too bad if it offends our sense of justice. 

And why the hell would you want to follow someone who does whatever the fuck they want in contradiction with our sense of justice? How do you know it's even god you're following? Maybe satan is responsible for the bible. It would certainly make more sense.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
I agree, private groups

I agree, private groups such not have gay or any other groups forced down their throats.  The issue I have with that aspect in relation to the Boy Scouts is they tend to get government money and support in some cases which should not be allowed due to their banning of homosexuals.

 And let me know about the AIDS thing if you find where you read that.  The big issue is when asked in an election, it should in my opnion not be based on opinion.  It should be based on whats right.  Obviously it can be easily argued that what is right to one is not to another, but if asked that people should be treated fair you yourself say Yes (and I suspect most would) however would vote against it when it comes down to it.  

Thanks for your replies.   


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
1.How can God be jealous if

1.How can God be jealous if he is the only one?

 

2. How can we be his children if Jesus is his only son?

 

3. Why would an all knowing God create Satan?

 

4. Why can't God move chariots of iron (judges 1:19)

 

5. If he's all knowing how can he change his mind? ("God repented&quotEye-wink 


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote:1.How can

Dave_G wrote:

1.How can God be jealous if he is the only one?

 

2. How can we be his children if Jesus is his only son?

 

3. Why would an all knowing God create Satan?

 

4. Why can't God move chariots of iron (judges 1:19)

 

5. If he's all knowing how can he change his mind? ("God repented&quotEye-wink 

These are excellent questions. May I borrow them? Add to them:6. If god created evil, then isn't his/her/it's power the only arbiter of what IS good or evil?
7. If jealousy is considered a weakness in humans, why does god admit to it, much less announce it proudly in himself?
8. How does an immortal being become mortal, die, then become immortal again?
9. Why did Jesus, who, by the story of the woman he saved from stoning, must have been literate, himself write not a single word of the most important message ever imparted to mankind?10. Why, if the golden rule is of god, did he allow a heathen Chinese to enunciate it five hundred years before he supposedly came to earth as Jesus?