Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you. Agreed, that is a problem often present in religious individuals, and most religions teach such.

You touch on one of the main reasons why people lose faith: "If there is such a loving God, why does He allow so much suffering in the world?"

Responses I've come across, one way or another...
1. Maybe it's time the Asker re-evaluate their idea of "God."
2. God is testing us.
3. "Why does He allow such suffering? We do we allow such suffering? After all, he gave us free choice." (this is George Burns' response to John Denver who asked this in "Oh, God".

A 3-year-old runs after his ball which bounces into the street. You stop him, and he gets angry because he can't get his ball. He doesn't understand the world the way adults do.

Similarly, when Bad Things happen we get scared/depressed/angry, we doubt God's existence rather than perhaps realizing that we understand less of God's World than a 3-year-old understands the adult world.

Another line of thinking...
God's ultimate creation is a being which can actively choose not to believe in the existence of its creator. How cool is that? And to make things really interesting, He threw in suffering and death, and for all we humans know, Satan and Hell.
What? We don't 'get it'? That's a reflection of us, not of God, arrogant little dots of flesh that we are.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
--Voltaire.

Just some thoughts.

We think that suffering and death as something BIG, but it's not. Those things are temporary.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

This is very simple and I am surprised you do not realise it.

it is because every time you try and point out an apparent moral flaw in a religion, that religion claims to have answers for it, such as the ones Debbiejo gives above, about sin, the need for suffering and evil being the fruit of man and not God etc.

Religion claims to have the answers to all doubts, so the only tactic those attacking it can use, without hitting such a simple brick wall, is to attack the validity of the religion itself. Cut through the crap and get to the point of the matter.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.




Honestly, religious beleifs would not be attacked if religion didn't have such a strong influence on politics and media.

When religious beleifs exist on a personal level, very few people bother to attack or critisize it. But when one's religious beliefs gains social power through politics or media, people who do not share those beleifs feel threatened.

They feel that thier lives, relationships, and dreams will be given a new obstacle with another's beleif taking dominance.

Religion wouldn't be attacked if the reasons it gives actually made sense.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.
It seems odd to me that people argue that God should stop all the evil. But when God 'smites' certain evil people (ie. Sodom) he gets called unloving and so on. This leaves only one option, infringing on free will, but most people do not want this. Therefore, they ask for solutions from God when they need to be the solution for themselves. God is not the problem. Mankind is.

My personal belief as to the items that bring me doubt is that I don't know the answer. Following this, a study into all possible sources of information on the subject, including science, religion and philosophy. After a thorough search I then consider the implications of all pertinent information, understanding where the facts point. Then, with religious issues, and often with any issue, (especially given my beliefs) I pray over the conclusion I have reached. I then have exhausted the tools at my disposal and can honestly state what I believe to be the answer or state a simple "I don't know."

Doubt is never a bad thing unless the individual becomes complacent in their doubt, thus the doubt leading to stagnation rather than growth and expanded understanding.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Religion wouldn't be attacked if the reasons it gives actually made sense.

I disagree.

Philosophy isn't attacked anywhere as much as religion is, even though philosophy tends to end up creating more questions than answers.

Philosophy, however, is not infringing on people's personal lives or rights. Religion is....always has been.

That's why people attack it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you.
I do as I say, I have a religion of anger, of hate, only loving to those that deserve it. And I define those that deserve it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It seems odd to me that people argue that God should stop all the evil. But when God 'smites' certain evil people (ie. Sodom) he gets called unloving and so on. This leaves only one option, infringing on free will, but most people do not want this. Therefore, they ask for solutions from God when they need to be the solution for themselves. God is not the problem. Mankind is.


Is killing someone the only way God can stop evil ? That's pretty pathetic and limitted for an all mighty God...

Reminds me of a comic book from DC/Vertigo entitled "The Spectre".


The Spectre will just sit and watch while evil is being done, but do nothing to prevent it. Once it already happened, he finds the perpetrator, tortures and kills him/her, and then declares justice.


He does NOT SAVE...he ONLY PUNISHES....

So is this how God is ? He will not interfere when a person aims to harm another person, just watch ? But once its already done, he THEN interferes by slaughtering the person who did the evil deed ?




They say there are two kinds of evil. Those who DO evil, and those who SEE EVIL being DONE and do NOTHING to prevent it.

Originally posted by Green Arrow
I do as I say, I have a religion of anger, of hate, only loving to those that deserve it. And I define those that deserve it.


That's pretty darn pathetic...

Originally posted by Green Arrow
I do as I say, I have a religion of anger, of hate, only loving to those that deserve it. And I define those that deserve it.

I am glad that you have stated truthfully. I respect that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am glad that you have stated truthfully. I respect that.


I don't...that's pathetic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't...that's pathetic.

I think we made some progress. If they can see how much hate is in their religion, maybe they will change it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is killing someone the only way God can stop evil ? That's pretty pathetic and limitted for an all mighty God...

Reminds me of a comic book from DC/Vertigo entitled "The Spectre".


The Spectre will just sit and watch while evil is being done, but do nothing to prevent it. Once it already happened, he finds the perpetrator, tortures and kills him/her, and then declares justice.


He does NOT SAVE...he ONLY PUNISHES....

So is this how God is ? He will not interfere when a person aims to harm another person, just watch ? But once its already done, he THEN interferes by slaughtering the person who did the evil deed ?




They say there are two kinds of evil. Those who DO evil, and those who SEE EVIL being DONE and do NOTHING to prevent it.
Well, you see, this argument doesn't work because God does save. However, certain people are so corrupt that they will not be saved. When God sees this corruption spreading he stamps it out. Killing was very justified at Sodom and Gomorrah. Not one good person was to be found in the cities, save Lot (and Lot wasn't all that good himself). Any other way would be infringing upon free will, something God does not do unless asked. However, Jesus is the new covenant, which is why I believe he no longer does this, kind of like the rainbow being the covenant of never destroying all mankind again.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think we made some progress. If they can see how much hate is in their religion, maybe they will change it.
There was a difference. His religion has hatred. I can't say the same for mine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, you see, this argument doesn't work because God does save. However, certain people are so corrupt that they will not be saved. When God sees this corruption spreading he stamps it out. Killing was very justified at Sodom and Gomorrah. Not one good person was to be found in the cities, save Lot (and Lot wasn't all that good himself). Any other way would be infringing upon free will, something God does not do unless asked. However, Jesus is the new covenant, which is why I believe he no longer does this, kind of like the rainbow being the covenant of never destroying all mankind again. Your omnipotent god seems to have limited options.

Killing others simply because you don't agree with the way they live is not justified.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, you see, this argument doesn't work because God does save. However, certain people are so corrupt that they will not be saved. When God sees this corruption spreading he stamps it out. Killing was very justified at Sodom and Gomorrah. Not one good person was to be found in the cities, save Lot (and Lot wasn't all that good himself). Any other way would be infringing upon free will, something God does not do unless asked. However, Jesus is the new covenant, which is why I believe he no longer does this, kind of like the rainbow being the covenant of never destroying all mankind again.

There was a difference. His religion has hatred. I can't say the same for mine.

What was his religion and how is it different from yours?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your omnipotent god seems to have limited options.

Killing others simply because you don't agree with the way they live is not justified.
According to you. But God is the justification for all things and therefore, whatever he does is justified. Omnipotent as in he knows all possible outcomes without infringing upon free will. I tend to believe that he chose the one that ended up being best.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was his religion and how is it different from yours?
Well, as you saw he claimed that we were lucky if we showed compassion. Kind of hard to being living by the Spirit when you say things like that. Maybe he's still learning, but perhaps he never will. Regardless, we are definitely not on the same page.

Originally posted by Nellinator
According to you. But God is the justification for all things and therefore, whatever he does is justified. Irrational and circular reasoning. "God is justified, just because." Nevertheless if one can use this to justify god performing what would be legally termed a hate crime; why is the same god restricted by free will of his or her creations?Originally posted by Nellinator
Omnipotent as in he knows all possible outcomes without infringing upon free will.^ What you describe here is a limited precognitive omniscence not really an omnipotence. Which you then contradict by implying an omnipotence to dictate the outcome of events:Originally posted by Nellinator
I tend to believe that he chose the one that ended up being best.Any preordained future cannot logically coincide with an omnipotent precognitive infallible god.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

Cause that is an idiotic point? I have better reasons for not believing that a God exists than that.

It could just be a God that wants us to have free will.
Or a God that doesn't care.
Or even an evil God that likes to screw with our minds.
The God Christians worship is actually the devil.

All those are possibilities that would explain it, reasonable ones. It's just not a strong argument for doubting God.

Originally posted by Nellinator
According to you. But God is the justification for all things and therefore, whatever he does is justified. Omnipotent as in he knows all possible outcomes without infringing upon free will. I tend to believe that he chose the one that ended up being best.


On what basis ?

Torture, murder, and control are somehow okay if God enacts those evils, but when we enact those evils it becomes wrong ?

Bullshit logic...

I would rather have dinner with the devil, then be tortured by God.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
On what basis ?

Torture, murder, and control are somehow okay if God enacts those evils, but when we enact those evils it becomes wrong ?

Bullshit logic...

I would rather have dinner with the devil, then be tortured by God.
God does not torture. Murder is quite different than the justice of God. Only God knows when sin is truly warranting death and what justice is deserving because only he can truly see the heart.

Originally posted by Nellinator
God does not torture.


Hell

God made it. Nice Try






Originally posted by Nellinator
Murder is quite different than the justice of God.



MASS MURDER then ?


1) First Born sons of Egypt, he killed innocent young boys
2) Sodom and Gomorrha- nuff said
3) 99 % of the Human Population during the Great flood





Originally posted by Nellinator
Only God knows when sin is truly warranting death and what justice is deserving because only he can truly see the heart.




The Heart is an organ filled with blood, veins and arteries. Emotions and desires exist in the Brain.

Nice Try

A worldwide flood would be far more than 99%. + animals. + plantlife. + microorganisms.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A worldwide flood would be far more than 99%. + animals. + plantlife. + microorganisms.


Well, consider that it was only Noah and his family, we can safely say almost 100 percent of the human populace was wiped out by God...

Nice Job God



You genocidal *******...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hell

God made it. Nice Try

MASS MURDER then ?


1) First Born sons of Egypt, he killed innocent young boys
2) Sodom and Gomorrha- nuff said
3) 99 % of the Human Population during the Great flood

The Heart is an organ filled with blood, veins and arteries. Emotions and desires exist in the Brain.

Nice Try
I already told you my view on hell. You even admitted that it was interesting and quite different than what you thought. It does not involve torture.

Sodom and Gomorrha - deserved (good people were spared)
Flood - deserved (good people were spared)
I sometimes struggle with the children of Egypt. I really don't have a good explanation for it. Sometimes I wonder though because I believe that all children go to heaven and that maybe it wasn't that bad if they were just called to paradise... I really don't know.

You know what I meant.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I already told you my view on hell. You even admitted that it was interesting and quite different than what you thought. It does not involve torture.

Sodom and Gomorrha - deserved (good people were spared)
Flood - deserved (good people were spared)
I sometimes struggle with the children of Egypt. I really don't have a good explanation for it. Sometimes I wonder though because I believe that all children go to heaven and that maybe it wasn't that bad if they were just called to paradise... I really don't know.

You know what I meant.



1) Your view on Hell is not the same as the literal passages the Bible describes. The Bible clearly states it is a place of eternal and unbearable suffering...

When i judge or critisize the concept of Biblical God, i do it based on the Bible's writings, not on your personal intepretation.

2) Sodom and Gomorrha....NO ONE deserves ahnialation. How do you KNOW good people were spared?

3) Flood...so EVERYONE except Noah and his family deserved to be drowned, including animals ? All the men, women, AND CHILDREN deserved to be executed ? Nice try, that's a crock of shit...

4) Sons of Egypt got you stumped ? God killed them....no justification for it. God is a hypocrit, because he broke his OWN commandment, and did it with SUCH STYLE......

5) You don't know, because there's NOTHING to know...it's all myth. After 18 years of being a studeous Christian, I can pretty much say that with confidense.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Your view on Hell is not the same as the literal passages the Bible describes. The Bible clearly states it is a place of eternal and unbearable suffering...

When i judge or critisize the concept of Biblical God, i do it based on the Bible's writings, not on your personal intepretation.

2) Sodom and Gomorrha....NO ONE deserves ahnialation. How do you KNOW good people were spared?

3) Flood...so EVERYONE except Noah and his family deserved to be drowned, including animals ? All the men, women, AND CHILDREN deserved to be executed ? Nice try, that's a crock of shit...

4) Sons of Egypt got you stumped ? God killed them....no justification for it. God is a hypocrit, because he broke his OWN commandment, and did it with SUCH STYLE......

5) You don't know, because there's NOTHING to know...it's all myth. After 18 years of being a studeous Christian, I can pretty much say that with confidense.
1) I used literal Biblical interpretations. Read it again please and you might see that.

2) I know that because the Lord said he would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrha for the sake of ten righteous men. Lot was the only righteous person found within the city so he was spared. The people in the city deserved annihilation because of their evil deeds.

3) Yes, everyone. The more I think about it, the more I think that children being killed only results in paradise for them.

4) Actually, not stumped. There was justification, to seperate the righteous from the non-believers for all to see. The commandents were not made so he didn't break anything.

5) But you can't say confidence... hehe I'm a grammar Nazi.

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) I used literal Biblical interpretations. Read it again please and you might see that.

2) I know that because the Lord said he would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrha for the sake of ten righteous men. Lot was the only righteous person found within the city so he was spared. The people in the city deserved annihilation because of their evil deeds.

3) Yes, everyone. The more I think about it, the more I think that children being killed only results in paradise for them.

4) Actually, not stumped. There was justification, to seperate the righteous from the non-believers for all to see. The commandents were not made so he didn't break anything.

5) But you can't say confidence... hehe I'm a grammar Nazi. The children go to paradise? Sorry but I call bullshit. The children's corpses should get washed away like all the other crap that wouldn't fit on the ark and then their "souls" ought go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

Really, the Bible would say otherwise.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Really, the Bible would say otherwise.


so killing babies is okay, as long as they go to Heaven...

So what's wrong with Abortion then ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
so killing babies is okay, as long as they go to Heaven...

So what's wrong with Abortion then ?
I don't recommend it, only God can determine it as the best possible solution. Also, the pain caused is not justified by us. Only God knows when the result is worth the pain.

In the context of this matter abortion would be wrong because of one of the three things left to use: faith, hope, and love.
I am talking about hope. Hope is a very inclusive word and includes hope for heaven and also for future generations.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't recommend it, only God can determine it as the best possible solution. Also, the pain caused is not justified by us. Only God knows when the result is worth the pain.


So God determines that those who do not beleive in Christ deserve eternal torment ?


Originally posted by Nellinator In the context of this matter abortion would be wrong because of one of the three things left to use: faith, hope, and love.
I am talking about hope. Hope is a very inclusive word and includes hope for heaven and also for future generations.


So babies who are aborted to straight to Hell ?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I already told you my view on hell. You even admitted that it was interesting and quite different than what you thought. It does not involve torture.

Sodom and Gomorrha - deserved (good people were spared)
Flood - deserved (good people were spared)
I sometimes struggle with the children of Egypt. I really don't have a good explanation for it. Sometimes I wonder though because I believe that all children go to heaven and that maybe it wasn't that bad if they were just called to paradise... I really don't know.

You know what I meant.

Again, you're kidding, right? Lets just concentrate on the flood.

You're telling me that EVERY animal except for two on the planet deserved to drown?

You're telling me that EVERY human except for Noah's family on the planet deserved to drown?

And then you "stuggle" with children? That was a poor rationalization. If murder was a free ticket to heaven, why doesn't God just murder everyone now and be done with it?

Maybe you could just accept the reliable explination that the bible is fictional and that it was written by people trying to create theocracy.

Originally posted by Alliance
Again, you're kidding, right? Lets just concentrate on the flood.

You're telling me that EVERY animal except for two on the planet deserved to drown?

You're telling me that EVERY human except for Noah's family on the planet deserved to drown?

And then you "stuggle" with children? That was a poor rationalization. If murder was a free ticket to heaven, why doesn't God just murder everyone now and be done with it?

Maybe you could just accept the reliable explination that the bible is fictional and that it was written by people trying to create theocracy.
Animals don't have souls so its not really a problem.

Yes. That is why only Noah's was saved. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Read what I said. Children that die go to heaven. However, God gives us as much choice as possible so murdering everyone wouldn't really do much for him.

Or not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Animals don't have souls so its not really a problem.

Yes. That is why only Noah's was saved. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Read what I said. Children that die go to heaven. However, God gives us as much choice as possible so murdering everyone wouldn't really do much for him.

Or not. Human egotism. Humans are animals.

An entire planet and only one family was "good"? Forgive me if I scoff.

All children that die go to heaven? Even children that don't believe in god and Jesus? Buddhist children go to Christian heaven? The Prussian Blue twins are going to Christian heaven?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Animals don't have souls so its not really a problem.
Really, I find that difficult to support. God didn't love his creation. Or man was the master of the earth? Why should we be good stewards if even God doesn't care?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes. That is why only Noah's was saved. I thought that was pretty obvious. "Obvious" huh? This is laughable. Even you could finde more an a family of people that you thought were good. Allegory didn't cross your mind?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Read what I said. Children that die go to heaven. However, God gives us as much choice as possible so murdering everyone wouldn't really do much for him. Thats why we send the children into Jeruselem to free it from the dirty Muslims. Oh wait, they were jsut sold into slavery.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or not. Yeah, sometimes logic just doesn't appeal does it?

Originally posted by Alliance
Really, I find that difficult to support. God didn't love his creation. Or man was the master of the earth? Why should we be good stewards if even God doesn't care?

"Obvious" huh? This is laughable. Even you could finde more an a family of people that you thought were good. Allegory didn't cross your mind?

Thats why we send the children into Jeruselem to free it from the dirty Muslims. Oh wait, they were jsut sold into slavery.

Yeah, sometimes logic just doesn't appeal does it?
Well, God saw that it was good. However, God preserved his creation. The animals that were destroyed are fairly inconsequential.

Allegory is a possibility I strongly consider in the story of Noah, however, we seemed to be discussing the literal story, so that is where I went.

Where was your logic? It was simply pointed statements of bias and contempt. Nice try though.

God killed life.

Why should we bother with the literal story if allegory is more factial, more logical, and preserves the likely intended consequences of the fable?

I'd sure love to provide it. I don't think you were intending illogical statements when you made them. Belief in a statement you make is implied unless you otherwise specify. Contemptuous. Hah. I have a problem with you and your logic, not your faith as a whole. I doubt you'd extend the same courtesy to atheism. You don't extend it to homosexuals. I wonder who else is cut out of your cirlce?

I was referring, of course, to your contempt towards me. My logic is fine because yours has never proved superior.

The fact that I have respectable and nonconfrontational relationships with every homosexual I have met face to face would show that I actually do extend courtesy of allowing others to make their own choices without my interference. In addition to that, the vast majority of my friends are not Christian so...

Originally posted by Nellinator
I was referring, of course, to your contempt towards me. My logic is fine because yours has never proved superior.

Oh really? I can same the same for you, but does that make me right? Because I usually assume people are nice and sane until they do something mean or crazy.

And you've certainly gotten your logic shot down on arguements like "praying can make you turn straight"

Originally posted by Nellinator
The fact that I have respectable and nonconfrontational relationships with every homosexual I have met face to face would show that I actually do extend courtesy of allowing others to make their own choices without my interference. In addition to that, the vast majority of my friends are not Christian so...

Really? I would not expec tthe first part at all. Do you tell them to go pray to become straight?

The vast majority of my friends aren't athiest....so?

Not sure exactly what you are talking about there.

Not really. It is possible. However, there are many factors involved in prayers not being answered. Many ex-gays I know have told me prayer was integral in their sexual reorientation.

Nope. Generally, we don't discuss it unless they bring it up. And even then I have never told them to try and change.

The fact that many of my friends are atheist should tell you that I'm not contemptuous towards atheism, or else I probably wouldn't be friends with them.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Animals don't have souls so its not really a problem.


Unjustified murder of animals is not really a problem?


Oh god....this is getting really ugly now. Your God is a god i refuse to worship.



Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes. That is why only Noah's was saved. I thought that was pretty obvious.


So out of millions of people, only one family was "good". Sounds more like a myth, and less like a reality.




Originally posted by Nellinator
Read what I said. Children that die go to heaven. However, God gives us as much choice as possible so murdering everyone wouldn't really do much for him.


So then Abortion is okay since we are sending children RIGHT back to Heaven....



Originally posted by Nellinator
Or not.

I think you need to re evaluate your religion, no offense Nell. I like you and all, but the logic on your part is getting more and more self contradicting.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not really. It is possible. However, there are many factors involved in prayers not being answered. Many ex-gays I know have told me prayer was integral in their sexual reorientation.
Yeah right. Ex-ex-gays are testimony against that. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay." Besides this whole argumetn is stupid, as striaght-gay is a dichotomy that in no way represents bisexuality, which would likely represent your "saved gays."

Originally posted by Nellinator
Nope. Generally, we don't discuss it unless they bring it up. And even then I have never told them to try and change.
Maybe you should express your opionons and see how they take to it. You might have a few less friends.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The fact that many of my friends are atheist should tell you that I'm not contemptuous towards atheism, or else I probably wouldn't be friends with them.

Not necessarily, it just means that there are more aspects to your defintion of friendship than faith. Im friends with a homophobe and I hate him for that, but hes still my friend because I think he has other redeeming qualities.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Unjustified murder of animals is not really a problem?
Oh god....this is getting really ugly now. Your God is a god i refuse to worship.

So out of millions of people, only one family was "good". Sounds more like a myth, and less like a reality.

So then Abortion is okay since we are sending children RIGHT back to Heaven....

I think you need to re evaluate your religion, no offense Nell. I like you and all, but the logic on your part is getting more and more self contradicting.
I have feeling God would spare the animals the pain of death because they weren't the problem, mankind was. God spared all the animal species, showing that he wasn't out to get the animals.

It would seem that way. If its true then the flood was justified. If its metaphorical then proves a point and you don't need to sweat.

Not really. I'm not contradicting myself. Plus I think you've probably felt that way since day one

I agree that you are indeed, contradictiong yourself.

If it was metaphorical, why did you spend all this time arguing as if it was not.

Why are you still arguing worthless points that evaporate with ametaphorical perspective (like all the animals dying). Another contradiction.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah right. Ex-ex-gays are testimony against that. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay." Besides this whole argumetn is stupid, as striaght-gay is a dichotomy that in no way represents bisexuality, which would likely represent your "saved gays."

Maybe you should express your opionons and see how they take to it. You might have a few less friends.

Not necessarily, it just means that there are more aspects to your defintion of friendship than faith. Im friends with a homophobe and I hate him for that, but hes still my friend because I think he has other redeeming qualities.
Ex-gays do not exist? Really, thats weird because I know some. They were once exclusively homosexual and now they are not. Some are married to women and very happy.

They know because it does occasionally come up. However, I'm not in their face about it. Why? I tell them how I feel and let them make their own decisions. There are no problems.

It should tell you that I am willing to accept them though. I'm not in contempt of everything they believe and can discuss their beliefs on either side of the argument. Since your question was whether or not I can extend the courtesy of respect, I have have answered it as yes.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I have feeling God would spare the animals the pain of death because they weren't the problem, mankind was. God spared all the animal species, showing that he wasn't out to get the animals.

1) You do NOT know that....the Bible does NOT clarify whether or not God spared the animals pain or suffering. It matters not. It's CLEAR that he STILL KILLED THEM

2) It doesn't matter if he "wasn't out to get the animals". HE STILL GOT THEM, and he killed millions of human beings as well.

3) You are DOING IT AGAIN....you are making BIBLICAL ASSUMPTIONS...projecting your own morality and perception of God onto the Bible, which DOES NOT support your version of God Or Hell....



Originally posted by Nellinator
It would seem that way. If its true then the flood was justified. If its metaphorical then proves a point and you don't need to sweat.

1)Mass Murder is never justifiable.

2) If that's metaphorical, then how do we know what's true and what's not ? How do we know what parts of the Bible are fact and fiction ?



Originally posted by Nellinator
Not really. I'm not contradicting myself. Plus I think you've probably felt that way since day one


Yes you are.

With every post you contradict yourself:


1) you claim to want to promote LOVE, yet you think it was okay that millions of people were murdered, and that innocent animals were wiped out...

2) You still see it as okay that God killed innocent baby boys in Egypt, even though if I or Alliance were to have killed male infants, you'd be on our asses like Uma from Kill Bill

3) You claim that the Bible is your basis of your Faith and that you remain true to its literal teachings, but then you VOLUNTARILY and intentionally project your own perceptions and morality onto the Bible, and try to pass it off as Biblical when the Bible DOES NOT support your personal intepretations.

1a) Yes, but do you really think animals were important in a situation like the corrupted earth before the flood?
2a) See 1a and 1b.
3a) My explanation of Hell was biblical. Show me otherwise if you can. I most of what I say with scripture, but I don't because I know you don't care for it. Would you like me to start doing that? I doubt it.

1b) God can justify the taking of life. Why? Because He created it. God knows what is the best possible scenario. God already knows everyone's eternal fate, so His taking of life is always inconsequential.
2b) Personally, I don't worry too much. I trust that God has made all information pertinent to our salvation abundantly clear.

1c) Millions of people that God knew needed to die. Obviously God knew that no good could come of their continued existance. (This sounds harsher than I intended or thinking it really is)
2c) That's because you do not know the future or the consequences of your actions like God does.
3c) Actually I don't claim to stick to literal teachings. Why? Because God never intended it that way. Many things are metaphors in the Bible, however, many are blatantly literal. It stick to these literal teachings, however, when metaphor arises, I recognize the need for interpretation. However, I know that the interpretation must be consistent with the literal parts of the Bible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ex-gays do not exist? Really, thats weird because I know some. They were once exclusively homosexual and now they are not. Some are married to women and very happy.

You miss my point. They are bisexuals who supress their homosexual urges because they are also attracted to women. Most bisexuals I know vary and move between homosexuality and heterosexuality. However, the urge never disappears.

Marriage is all to often used as a cover.

Ex-gays are either content bisexuals or ex-ex-gays in the making. Prayer does not pysically help either class.

Not necessarily true.

Thanks for the detail.

They are not all bisexuals suppress their urges.

Marriage is sometimes used as a cover, but not always.

You may not believe in prayer, but I definitely do.

You're saying prayer has physiological effects?

You can believe whatever you want, but you do so in ignorance of fact.

I find it very difficult to swallow the concept of absolute heterosexuality and homosexuality.

*Getting angry*


Now ones talking to me.






Oh, feeds the kitten now.............lol............god, it chews on me.

No more pot for the kitty.

Originally posted by Regret
My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists?

You gotta admit, that's a pretty good reason to attack the validity of the bible. It contradicts itself, that causes it to lose credibility.

True boo, it def do...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
True boo, it def do...

...that's a pretty good reason to attack the validity of the bible. It contradicts itself, that causes it to lose credibility.
IMO, it contradicts itself when it is interpreted along only one or two dimensions, especially when everything is taken literally. The Bible is a multi-faceted document rich in the sociology, psychology and emergent wisdoms of the times.

The Bible is also not a stand-in for empirical science. Might as well ask clergy to explain M-theory.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, it contradicts itself when it is interpreted along only one or two dimensions, especially when everything is taken literally. The Bible is a multi-faceted document rich in the sociology, psychology and emergent wisdoms of the times.


I'm all for biblical criticism.

You should be all for criticism in general.

Originally posted by Alliance
You should be all for criticism in general.

Yup, as long as it's open for debate.

Criticism all around.

Originally posted by Alliance
Criticism all around.

Can't let you drink alonedrunk