>tfw he asks you to take off your crucifix during sex because looking at it makes him feel "uncomfortable"
I'm sorry but I'd be uncomfortable too when I was fucking someone and I'd have to look at a guy nailed to a cross all the time.
Some people just ain't into that kind of thing ok?
>>6424773
His loss. There's something hot about fucking a guy wearing a cross.
>>6424786
It just sucks that the ultimate symbol of love and peace would make anyone uncomfortable.
>>6424773
Grown men with imaginary friends make me pretty uncomfortable.
>>6424816
>the ultimate symbol of love and peace
That's a penis.
>>6424824
When are they going to start providing fedoras a living wage so you people can stop tipping them?
>>6424824
Thanks for the input reddit
>>6424800
This.
>>6424824
I agree. I support freedom of religion (as well as freedom from religion), but there is no denying that believing in a god is insanity.
>>6424968
Explain to me exactly how it is a mental illness, in actual terms Captain Reddit. Show me where and how it is classified as such.
>>6424968
Can you explain how being homosexual is not a metal illness?
Protip you can't
Christians:1
You: 0
>>6424968
>atheists believe over 80% of humanity is mentally ill
>think of themselves as the chosen few who know the Truth
>grow beards and wear funny hats
>deny being religious
>>6425059
To be fair a significant amount of the human population lives in trash.
Not really a worthy example.
I'd only take the numbers of the civilised west if I were in your position.
And stop with that meme.
>>6425120
If you really want to be "fair", maybe stop suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must necessarily be crazy.
>>6425171
I'm not suggesting any of that.
I'm just saying using savage barbarians living in filth isn't gonna do your argument any good.
It'd be like me arguing for human intelligence and using Africa's sub zero IQ as evidence.
>>6425239
Shall we review the track record of atheist countries again then?
>>6425317
Sure.
Just give me the list of countries where atheists are the majority.
>hook up with super hot older guy a couple of times
>really into him and he seems really into me too
>could have something nice going here
>he asks if I have any plans the next Sunday
>tell him I have church activities throughout the day
>he looks taken aback
>ask if he'd like to come with me to the service
>he politely declines, suggesting maybe another time
>I'm all excited now that the topic of my faith has finally been broached
>can't help asking him what he knows of Christ's message and if he's read the Bible at all
>he's respectfully demure in his answers
>notice the familiar panic in his eyes
>he quickly excuses himself and leaves, telling me he'll give me a call
>never hear from him again
I always manage to sperg out and scare people away, especially if I really like them. I can't help it. I just love Jesus. ;_;
>>6426642
Because he thought you prayed the gay away.
>>6424773
I'd probably be alright with someone that's religious as long as they basically kept it to themselves. I don't think I'd care about stuff like a cross necklace. But if they tried converting me then yeah, that would be a dealbreaker.
>>6426642
>can't help asking him what he knows of Christ's message and if he's read the Bible at all
literally why especially after they declined to go to church with you
>>6426642
he was probably beaten by his christian father or something
>>6426642
Why do christfags not realize how creepy they sound?
>>6424816
>ultimate symbol of love and peace
It's a capital punishment device. Like an electric chair or a guillotine.
>>6426642
Because he realized that you were insane.
Sorry to not soften the blow, but that's the main reason. I don't mean to offend, I just want to answer your question in the most truthful way possible.
>>6427734
I just realized there wasn't a question. :/
>>6424816
It's a symbol that means
>I'm insecure
>I'm a creepy religious weirdo
>I'm holier than thou
>I'm a bigot
>>6427395
You know that through the suffering Christ endured every single one of us can live forever, right? It should elicit the deepest joy, not fear.
>>6427794
I don't know that.
>>6427794
People actually believe this
>>6427769
I'm genuinely sorry if this is the impression Christians have left with you, anon. I acknowledge that we've had (and continue to have) some very serious problems (not least of which false preachers spreading hate in the name of God) and we have much to still rectify. All of your criticisms are perfectly valid. I hope that we can reach out to the gay community and prove to you all that God loves homosexuals just as much as His other children and that He wants you to inherit His Kingdom. You've been left out in the cold for so long and need to be welcomed back inside.
As a gay man myself, I can appreciate your bitterness, but I can also tell you that it's not worth holding on to. If you can forgive us our sins, you can find your own forgiven too.
>>6424800
This desu
It's real hot
I'm not even religious
It probably has something to do with my *slight* corruption fetish
>>6427794
The thing is though that we could already live forever, he just gave us the opportunity to live forever with God's approval instead of rotting in Hell for eternity because we wore mixed fabrics and took too many steps on Sunday(Actually I think it was Saturday back then but whatever).
Jesus is basically the older brother who sticks up for you so you can earn back the approval of the abusive father who disowned you for whatever reason.
>>6424800
>>6424773
>LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME! LOOK GUYS IM A CHRISTIAN ISN'T THAT NEAT?!
sinners
>>6427133
>It does not cause any distress to me so how is it an illness .
You're sexing man holes which doesn't do anything. Your distress is irrelevant; some psychopaths do not feel distress when they disembowel a person they killed, this doesn't mean it's good.
>ywn fuck a jewish guy while he wears his little jewhat
Take the pain away please god
>>6428268
Sodomy is sin, not mental illness, anon. There's a difference.
![australia-aborigines-460[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XhBBrOJ.jpg "australia-aborigines-460[1].jpg")
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22
Abomination
b
o
>christian fags
just as bad as muzzie fags desu fampai
>>6428336
I... disagree.... faggot
>>6426642
Creep.
>>6428365
You're right muzzies are worse. But it's like shit vs. diarrhea.
>>6424773
>getting fucked by a qt with a huge fucking cock
>he's literally fucking the precum out of me as I ride him and he presses my hips down onto his
>whimper that I'm gonna cum
>starts thrusting even harder so that he's practically bouncing me on his horse cock
>I cum all over him
>on his cross
>ofug
>he doesn't seem to mind and keeps fucking my brains out until he pumps me full of cum
>slide off and snuggle
>"hey... I'm really sorry that I got cum on your cross" (he was telling me how his late grandma had given it to him)
>he laughs it off "It's cool anon"
>"what would Jesus say?!"
>"...Yuuuuuum!"
and that's why it's fun to wear a cross when you're fucking
>>6424773
>tfw he asks you to take off your crucifix during sex because looking at it makes him feel "uncomfortable"
Oh Jesus you just know you're in for some post coitus sanctimonious self loathing.
If I were still a Christian I'd be able to do more than offer a few semi-sincere deistic platitudes and and suggest we go to a Unitarian Universalist church for a Christian perspective that won't try to shame a guy just for sleeping with other guys.
Fucking religious gays that can't get over their homophobic imaginary friend's disapproval are the worst.
>>6424816
Even as a Christian that symbol grossed me out, and not just because I thought it was idolatrous.
When it's a cross sans Jesus you're wearing a brutal execution device, like wearing a mini noose around your neck. Then when it has Jesus on it the cross is a tortured to death naked corpse that's nailed to a chunk of wood, then worshiped because muh John 3:16.
>>6425059
Religion is not a mental illness. That's like calling being a Trekkie, pothead or a football fan mental illnesses.
It's just a handful of naive ideas, a couple traditions, lots of contradictions, and some inane touchy feelies I don't care for that people take way too seriously.
Religion is a hobby at best, and a vice at worst.
>>6428449
>When it's a cross sans Jesus you're wearing a brutal execution device
>I don't understand that objects can have different meanings as symbols to people who were brought up in different cultures
>>6428449
What happened, anon? Why did you lose your faith?
>>6424773
It literally says that you're an abomination in the bible.
The lengths people will go to delude themselves into believing there is life after death.
>>6428410
That's hot
>>6428517
That was edited in during the middle ages though, unless you count Leviticus, which is not taken seriously by anyone still alive today.
The one Leviticus verse that condemns gay men is the ONLY ONE that is still followed. The rest are all ignored because they're fucking psychotic bullshit.
>>6428517
Yes, I'm sure you've actually read the Bible.
Why not google some passages and post them here without any context? That never gets old.
>>6428485
I'm aware it's all subjective.
If you enjoy a thing I do not enjoy (like Rom Coms and Country Music), then great. Just don't get upset when someone doesn't enjoy a thing you enjoy, or sees a few things differently.
>>6428496
>short tl;dr version,
read the bible, realized my church/community didn't like me for my heinous gayness, then went soft deist until the arguments from design I had for a deity became less convincing/were refuted. After an extended existentialist panic I eventually went apatheist atheist.
>long tl;dr version
Read 1984 (loved it) then I read the Bible (didn't love it) with something close to a higher criticism method. Lost faith in biblical claims, but I decided that the church's morality and especially my community was far better than the book we all claimed to follow, yet most of them never read.
Child abuse scandals, like "fuck we're going bankrupt" bad, church higher ups chose cronyism and tried to hamper investigations instead of helping victims I knew. Lost faith in biblical claims, and the church's moral superiority. Decided they were just people and that God was with the community I was a part of, and the church management hiding child rapists was something we had to overcome and correct as a community.
Prop 8 happens as I am coming to terms with being gay, and my church community's youth group is all about pushing traditional family rhetoric alongside canards about how people like me aren't just sodomites, but dangerous pedophiles. At that point the bible was bogus, the church was corrupt, the community that just wanted to ignore rampant child abuse decided making gays hated and feared was far more important.
Quit the community, and decided my god was enough for me. Kept an open mind, and decided I'd find my own way. Turns out my mind was too open to keep my deistic deity alive.
>tfw you get in trouble at work for drawing pentagrams writing hail satan on people's receipts
>>6428299
>2016
>being racist
pls go and stay go
>TFW chaser.
>TFW met current lady friend in a /pol/ bait thread saying we need Jesus.
>TFW we hit it off because we’re both Catholic and want a bunch of kids.
>TFW no cognitive dissonance.
Cis gays you have my sympathies. I don’t know what the right path is for you but God bless you all.
>>6428038
I'll forgive religious people when they stop being religious.
How do you reconcile your religion with it treating y'all as below humans? I don't think I could ever be part of an organization that doesn't see me as person
>>6426642
He dodged a bullet
>>6428563
How is it not taken serious by anyone alive when it's the main quite they use to hate on us. You're being really delusional here
>>6428986
Oy vey
I got banned for that post
Im such a bad goy
>>6428125
Except they're the same person. Jesus is the schizophrenic dad who expects you to be grateful when he slightly relaxes the absurd rules that he made in the first place, and also he thinks of himself as the victim all the time and expects you to love and serve him unconditionally even though he's kind of a dick.
inb4 arguments about how the trinity works. I get enough of that shit when I argue with my friends about how Trill work. What matters is that all three are in eternal, unchanging agreement about everything.
>>6428652
>If you enjoy a thing I do not enjoy (like Rom Coms and Country Music), then great. Just don't get upset when someone doesn't enjoy a thing you enjoy, or sees a few things differently.
Most religious people claim that they can tolerate difference, but try putting them to the test some time. Violate someone else's dietary laws right in front of them while making loud enjoyment sounds, or wear a bunch of Satanic shit around them, or ask your Jehovah's Witness friend to come along to do some "community service" without telling them it's giving blood. They're a lot less tolerant than they say.
And who can blame them? They don't believe that their actions are a matter of taste. They believe that their way is the only correct way to live. If they really believed that tolerance was correct, it would follow that they accept that their beliefs are factually wrong, because their beliefs include the proposition that those beliefs are the best.
>>6424773
>gay
>christian
pick one
>>6426642
What mental gymnastics have you gone through to justify actively practicing homosexuality as a Christian?
>>6428449
>brutal execution device
Stop painting a picture of Christianity as some macabre, pain-loving religion because of that. The cross has never been used symbolically for that reason, it's a historical practice rooted in how the early Christians would use the cross to mock the romans for thinking that killing their leader was any kind of blow to them, when it's exactly what we needed/wanted. It's to mock any kind of authoritative, governing body for thinking that they can trump Christianity or the Church, when that's simply not the case. The cross reminds us that death isn't the final frontier and that we ought not cling to life and think we're defeated in any way when some random human has killed us or subdued us in any way. Jesus is stronger than that.
>naive ideas.. lots of contradictions
I wonder if you could substantiate that, atheists generally can't so it's okay if you don't respond
>>6428652
>I read the Bible (didn't love it)
I think you've misunderstood the Bible and Christianity in general. It's not there for you to feel good about yourself and to have good feelings and feeling comfortable with what you believe. It's about setting high standards to you and it's about changing the very core of your being. No sane person thinks this is feels-goody when they read the Bible and think about these things. You plainly expected the wrong thing if you thought you'll happily and nicely fit into Christianity without any self-sacrifice.
>>6428563
>That was edited in during the middle ages..
Citation?
Stop trying to justify your sin while keeping attached to Christianity. Make up your mind. The crazy mental gymnastics and dissonance is shocking.
>>6429970
>let's outright mocking people and their beliefs/traditions/morality just for the sake of getting a reaction out of them to show their lack of general tolerance!
You do realize any responses would probably be emotional? if you did these things for other purposes than mocking others, I bet most religious people who see themselves as tolerant wouldn't care. Mocking them about it is totally different. You would react the same if people got uppity with you about your faggotry or other life-style choices you've made.
Generally, you're all talking shit about people taking this one specific thing on faith (that God exists), while failing to realize you yourself take things by faith every day. You're only shocked at this one thing because it actually requires changing your life for the better. That's difficult.
>be Catholic
>12 years of Catholic education
>start hooking up with older guy
>his partner, a Catholic priest, died about a year ago
>he has picture of him in his bedroom
>every time I go over there I get fucked under the disapproving gaze of a Catholic priest
>>6430110
>testing someone's claims of tolerance is wrong because religious people really are tolerant, but only when their tolerance isn't tested or observed in any way
This kind of reasoning is how religion got so wacky in the first place.
>you yourself take things by faith every day
[citation needed]
>>6430236
>This kind of reasoning is how religion got so wacky in the first place.
Way to misrepresent what I said. When you outright try to provoke people by doing something they find morally wrong, for the sole and only purpose of getting a rise out of them, it's natural that they will have an emotional response to being mocked and belittled. This has 0 (zero) to do with any kind of tolerance.
Also good job pointing out how I am wrong.
>[citation needed]
That you're not being lied to when your boyfriend tells you he doesn't have aids. Abstract concepts like love. Your preferred political ideology. Historical events/people. Common scientific theories generally proven to be true, blindly accepted by the common man who hasn't any scientific degree which he can use to verify the facts himself. Objective morality.
Say what you want about my specific cases, but we all know that you're not some superhuman who only knows that which you can verify to be true using objective evidence. We all accept the truth of things which we cannot objectively prove to be true. If you're going to try and say you're an agnostic in all these matters I mentioned and related issues, then you're bullshitting.
>>6430266
>Common scientific theories generally proven to be true, blindly accepted by the common man who hasn't any scientific degree which he can use to verify the facts himself.
Not him, but do you have any examples of that?
>>6430119
That poor priest. He had to settle for fucking a man roughly his own age and able to speak up for himself instead of those sweet young boys that he could have cowed into silence.
>>6430346
I'm fucking a "retired" priest. "Retired" because he was outed and forced to retire. Not only is sex good but it's like a counseling session every time we're together.
>>6430266
So people are excused from being tolerant when they're feeling emotions? How convenient for them. Can I use emotions as an excuse, too?
Also, be careful of the hole you're digging for yourself when you talk about faith. You're treating it as bad but necessary, when believing in the supernatural is completely unnecessary compared with all the probable-but-not-completely-provable facts of science and everyday life. If you really think that faith is merely a necessary evil, you should be a skeptic and try to have only the necessary minimum amount and not the tiniest bit more.
>>6430361
They do that? I thought they shielded their own people from suffering any kind of consequences, and the worst punishment a priest will ever get is being transferred to a different parish where he can do the same shit all over again.
>>6430342
well, most people generally accept that evolution is a fact because it's a very accessible theory to accept that seems plausible and can explain many of the things we see in our lives and in our surroundings. I would wager that most people haven't actually researched the evidence of evolution and would be able to defend it in any debate proper, making it an acceptance based on faith. There's nothing wrong with this at all.
>>6430374
>You're treating it as bad but necessary
I don't believe I am. I am just stating things as they are. Personally, embracing the fact that our lives cannot be ruled entirely by objectivity and rationality opens up a whole new world for me to explore and embrace, accepting things like objective morality, love and other amazing things, amazing but not proven by scientific measures. What I'm saying is, you cannot base your entire life off of only what can be scientifically proven, since there's a whole realm of subjects that cannot, by definition, be proven by science, yet are things that we know through experience and common sense to be true. Scientism, naturalism and all those other despicable heresies are not just untrue, but makes for a bad life. That's primarily why I speak out against it. We must avoid these things if we wish to be happy. If you wish to be 100% logically driven, accepting only things that are based in facts, we're limiting ourselves and shutting ourself off to amazing things like love. We'd be embracing ideologies that would impact our happiness, those being nihilism and moral subjectivism, to name a few. Be "logically" consistent and see what life it breeds. Open yourself up to what is evidently true (that God exists and that love is a very real thing permeating everything) and live an amazing life.
Sorry if this is a little hard to understand, this is some abstract stuff which I normally don't talk about. I hope it makes sense.
>>6430413
Fucking butchered that post by not splitting it up in paragraphs, it's cool
>>6430374
>believing in the supernatural is completely unnecessary compared with all the probable-but-not-completely-provable facts of science and everyday life
If the supernatural (God in this case) is true, then it's a matter of life and death as to whether we believe in it or not. It's not simply a thing we have to disregard, when it's very much likely it is as it is.
I think God is "the probable-but-not-completely-provable facts of science and everyday life" which is why I'm advocating for Him and using all these comparisons. There's virtually no difference.
>>6430413
You're committing a perfect world fallacy. Just because there are things that cannot be determined through logic or evidence alone, that doesn't mean we should just abandon logic and evidence. They're the most powerful tools we have for determining whether our thoughts have any kind of correspondence with reality or whether they're total bullshit.
>>6424773
>wanting to wear your crucifix during sex
>>6430434
>Pascal's Wager
shiggydiggy
You're treating the existence and nonexistence of the Christian God as comparatively likely because they're the only two options you're considering. Not only are they not the only two options (consider all the other religions, living and dead, that you're not afraid of even though they make similar promises/threats about the afterlife) but they're nowhere near equally likely. Assuming our experiences are even a little reliable and we're not just brains in jars being lied to by demons, the existence of the supernatural is so unlikely that it's not worth considering, several orders of magnitude more unlikely than winning the lottery or being hit by a meteor the next time you go outside.
>>6430531
>that doesn't mean we should just abandon logic and evidence
I never said this once, though.
>>6430539
I'm not saying you should have faith because there's a chance you can go to hell. I am saying you should genuinely be open to the idea of religion and consider it the plausible idea that it is, rather than simply closing off on it.
I'm talking about the existance vs nonexistance of the Christian God because I'm a Christian myself and that's where the discussion in the thread is. I also think those are the two options that are most logical or likely to be true.
>the existence of the supernatural is so unlikely that it's not worth considering
Can you substantiate this?
>>6430543
Except you are. You're using a variant of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria argument, the idea that science and religion are completely separate subjects and that religion is okay because it never makes any claims about the material world. Except that religion absolutely does make claims about the material world, and lots of them. Your deity allegedly interacts with people, and anything that interacts with the observable universe is part of it. Once you start making claims about supernatural forces that can affect people's lives in any way at all, even just their feelings and behavior, you're making a faith-based claim in a field that's under the purview of science.
You want science to stay on its side of the fence, but you won't stay on yours.
>>6430554
>those are the two options that are most logical or likely to be true.
So the other world religions with hundreds of millions of adherents just aren't likely at all? How is their faith any different from yours?
>inb4 special pleading
>>6430560
.. Yeah, I have taken, on faith, that God exists and works through our lives. I've never said otherwise or tried to disguise it any way, I've only tried to emphasize the importance of faith. I've never said that God doesn't work within the material world, as-well. I've never said that this belief (note that word) is scientifically proven or whatever.
This is literally a non-argument. You need to come up with something better than that.
>>6430589
If he works within the material world, we can test him. Failure to do so is fideism.
>>6430588
>So the other world religions with hundreds of millions of adherents just aren't likely at all?
The traditional Christian view, that I agree with, is that humans are a religious being that knows God on an intuitive level when they haven't heard of Jesus or his Church. This means every religion has a sliver of truth, but not the whole truth. Christianity encompasses the whole truth, not counting all the different protestant sects.
>How is their faith any different from yours?
My faith has a well-established, philosophical and theological tradition of explaining God to the extent that He can be explained.
My faith has multiple historical events that support the Jesus being God narrative.
Other religions, such as Islam, either aren't as likely to be true and can, in some regards, be rationally dismantled. An example within Islam is the claim that Jesus was never crucified, but raised into heaven. We have historical proofs that Jesus was infact crucified, pretty much all historical scholars dealing with Jesus and the Bible agree on that historical fact. This is just touching on one of the flaws Islam has.
>hurr provide proofs that every. single. religion. is more worng than yours!
no thanks buddy, I've yet seen any arguments that are as good as the ones Christianity propagates. Until then, I shall remain a Christian.
>>6430598
>we can test him
No, we can't. There's literally no reason we can, continually, prove that there's a being outside our world. He can have operated within our world in a tangible way (through Jesus), although that doesn't require that we can prove him somehow still, it makes no sense.
Furthermore, God operates in our world in a non-tangible way. You're operating on a different definition of God than Christians are if you believe God cannot work within this world without any physical traces.
>>6430617
>We have historical proofs that Jesus was infact crucified
No, we really don't. The only accounts of the historical Jesus are from Christians. No secular sources commented on him one way or another until well after his death when his religion was already widespread.
Come on, man; you're making us look bad.
>>6430626
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_Jesus
Educate yourself. You have no reason to disregard Christian accounts as necessarily wrong. You have no reason to disregard the Gospels as historically inaccurate. There's no reason that we cannot accept historical references to him well outside of his death, given that Tacitus (one example) had access to Roman journals and record-keeping.¨
>you're making us look bad
You don't know basic apologetics. Don't talk about Christianity publicly until you can actually defend your faith.
>>6430625
But if he interacts with our world, he is part of it. He has effects that could be measured if people weren't afraid of what they'd find.
>God cannot work within this world without any physical traces.
I guess this one is filed under the philosophical question of whether an omnipotent being can have contradictory properties, like making a rock so big he can't move it. "working within this world" and "leaving physical traces" are one and the same.
>>6430641
Those are the claims themselves (and, in Tacitus' case, study of the claims themselves,) not evidence for the claims. You can see how some sources are so biased that they can't be taken seriously.
Which Gospels we count as canonical were decided much later, and with no small amount of politics involved. And even those four disagree with each other and suffer from some weird omissions in light of the others.
It's called faith for a reason.
>>6430388
Not this one. I think they thought he was close enough to retire so why not? I also think that he was reprimanded once but continued his gay ways.
>>6430642
>But if he interacts with our world, he is part of it.
If God exists and created this world, he must necessarily have been outside this world, since he cannot precede himself. He must have existed before the existance of this world.
>.. the philosophical question of whether an omnipotent being can have contradictory properties
Why is it hard to imagine that God works invisibly if that is what he desires? What leads you to think God is limited in that manner? Please explain that because I don't understand. If God created this world and is outside this world, then it's very easy for me to imagine him working in a manner that is undetectable to us humans who are limited in every sense compared to God. It's not hard for me to imagine that God could hide things from our own senses.
>>6430664
>Those are the claims themselves...
You do realize that contemporary accounts of historical events are the primary source historicians use to make a case? You do realize that it's the best way to know the past? You do realize they have merit in and of themselves? You do realize you need to come up with arguments as to why we shouldn't trust these accounts?
>sources are so biased
You need to come up with arguments as to why they're biased.
>Which Gospels we count as canonical were decided much later, and with no small amount of politics involved.
I, as most Christians, don't believe the Church can be incorrect on these matters, so it's a moot point to bring up, if you're trying to argue that the Gospels chosen are possibly incorrect due to "politics". If you deny the Gospels authencity, you're not a Christian. Also, the Gospels are 4 different accounts of the same thing. It's expected that some things will be omitted, since we don't have reason to believe the 4 evangelists were always together and experienced the same thing. I don't believe there are contradictions, though, could you point them out?
>It's called faith for a reason.
I really hope you're not the Christian person I responded to before. You need to realize that reason is an integral part of faith, and to dismiss it is a grave error.
What denomination are you?
>mfw not from a Christian country
>mfw never met many Christians who openly discuss their faith
>mfw the most interesting conversation I've ever eavesdropped on about Christianity is on a Vietnamese imageboard for sodomy and scissoring
>>6430777
>>6430777
Sounds like a prime opportunity to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth that Jesus wants you to be, if you aren't already. I'm in the same situation as you. I'm a danish Catholic.
I can't believe there are actually people who think they can be gay and christian.
>>6430673
If we can't sense something, even indirectly, we can't notice it and it may as well not exist, as any claims about it are completely unfounded. If we *can* sense something, we can test our assumptions about it, and it is in effect part of the material universe, i.e. the complete set of things interacting with each other that includes us. God could be one of those things or another, but not both.
>>6430726
>everything is unbiased and completely accurate unless we can prove otherwise
Is that how you believe humans work? Because if so I know a Nigerian prince who has an amazing offer for you.
>the church cannot be incorrect
You're a fucking Papist, aren't you?
Friendly reminder the injunction against homosex was written in afterwards by a bunch of bureaucratic fucks with no heavenly mandate right next to the section about how to "correctly" practice slavery.
>>6430838
>as any claims about it are completely unfounded
.. No because most religions (Christianity included) believe God has either manifested on Earth or has contacted people and given them revelations, or both.
Furthermore, there are ways to know God logically without some kind of scientific analysis. There are plenty, old, dusty cosmological arguments that points to God existance. I'm not going to advocate those since they're thousands of years old arguments and we'd contribute nothing new to it.
You seem to forget that God had manifested on this Earth, and is also outside this world. Through Jesus he is within this world. Jesus is now in Heaven, so outside this world. There's no reason to believe God cannot, then, potentially be both within this world and detectable, but also outside of this world and undetectable like Christians believe.
Also, you shouldn't assume something doesn't exist just because we cannot continually, physically record it's existance. That's illogical.
>>6430854
>Is that how you believe humans work?
In the manner you strawmanned what I said? Nope.
>You're a fucking Papist, aren't you?
I don't see much fruit in arguing with strange sectarians.
>>6424816
>ultimate symbol of love and peace
>literally used as a torture device and by the kkk to scare blacks
You Christians and your religion sure are weird.
>>6429949
Oh, right. I forgot Jesus and God being different people is the Mormon variation rather than the norm.
>>6430913
This should help. the Father and the Son are not the same, but they are both God.
>>6424773
>sex before marriage
Going to hell, faggot.
>>6428308
>2016
>being a jew
Nah.
>>6430863
>Also, you shouldn't assume something doesn't exist just because we cannot continually, physically record it's existance
Most people assume it doesn't exist because all accounts of its existence are unreliable and biased at best, and flat out contradictory at worst. The fact that most people who are certain of God's existence will also tell you that they had doubts for a long time and had to build up their faith before they received confirmation is also a huge red flag. It's very easy to distort your memories and perception to fit a certain narrative if you put enough work in it. Objectivity is not possible when it comes to religion, and that's why there cannot be any credible proof for or against.
>>6430951
>people had doubts when they built faith
>this somehow makes Christianity less credible
I don't think you understand what faith is. Faith is not the same as intellectually accepting that God exists. Faith is an emotional and intuitive way of knowing God, entwined yet seperate from intellectually accepting that God exists. Faith can only be built through action and living as God wants you to. God then gives you faith (if you are part of his elect) after a while of doing this. Some recieve it earlier and easier than others. Some lose it.
>Objectivity is not possible when it comes to religion, and that's why there cannot be any credible proof for or against.
That's true to a degree, and I affirmed this when I say that being religious is a jump of faith. The relevant question is if making that jump is a logical choice or not. I've not set out to objectively prove God exists, only give advice and reasons as to why believing in God isn't as irrational as people like to shill it as being.
>>6430969
The problem with faith of that style is that its very possible that the process of building faith is really just a process of deluding yourself.
If you believe strongly enough, your mind will create confirmation of your belief from nothing. This is a widely accepted fact.
The fact that no evidence of God exists unless the witness has faith could mean two things then.
Either God does not exist at all and all his believers are deluding themselves.
Or God is intentionally giving this impression to scare off skeptics (an idea which runs contrary to the church's teachings that God loves all his children and accepts all people into his faith)
>>6431059
And faith takes people in different, mutually exclusive directions. And not just in the sense of different religions or sects, but in the sense of incompatible disagreements about every issue. I was lucky enough to come from a pretty liberal family who go to a church that matches their politics. I know firsthand that not all religious people are against homosexuality, but I also know that a ton of them are, and that's odd. Millions of people earnestly seek guidance from a higher power, just as sincerely as you or my parents or anyone else who's prayed, and the conclusion they reach is utterly morally repugnant. That's what made me conclude that God doesn't actually interact with people.
>>6430969
>Faith is given by God and a way of knowing God
So every form of strong belief that disagrees with yours is not really given by God and is therefore not real faith? What a useful private definition.
>if you are part of his elect
Frozen Chosen plz go
>>6431059
>The fact that no evidence of God exists unless the witness has faith could mean two things then.
You lost me here.
Are you implying that the very existance of evidence is contingent on someone having faith or not? I really don't think that is the case.
The first option you provide is essentially God doesn't exist.
The second option you provide is a seemingly random belief in how God operates which has no root in scripture or tradition. You're making it appear as if these are the only 2 necessary conclusions, but that isn't the case.
>an idea which runs contrary to the church's teachings... and accepts all people into his faith
This isn't Church teaching. Church teaching is that some people have faith, whereas others don't. God doesn't draw in or invite everybody, it's up to divine will as to whether someone has been pre-elected to have faith or not. This predestination is completely unrelated on any characteristic of the person. God enables us to have faith and then the choice occurs. I think your arguments are just rooted in poor knowledge of Church teaching and scripture. This is the traditional understanding of things which Aquinas have supported, but I think there's a certain amount of wriggleroom in the Church, I think this sums up the issue well. Under this view, God has no need to "scare off sceptics" and he wouldn't.
>>6431111
Way to drop into a conversation and not read any prior posts concerning the issue. Let me hold your hand and help you out, since you haven't done this yourself.
>>6430617
Read this, and if you want to know more on the subject of others faiths within the Christian worldview, read the first few chapters of the Roman Catholic Church's Catechism.
Also,
>God must not interact with people because I don't want to sacrifice my own lifestyle
You're essentially saying that you choose not to believe in God because you'd rather live any way you want. You apply your own morality above God's and think, in some way, that your own, sinful morality is better than He who defines morality and who is perfect goodness and love.
Do you realize how silly that conclusion is?
>>6431175
Okay, suppose that I decide to distrust my own sense of right and wrong and adopt someone else's. Whose? Yours is not the only one with philosophy and rhetoric made in its defense; they all do. To pick the best one, I'd have to evaluate them, and the only way I have to evaluate things is with a sense of values. Meta-ethics is ethics.
>>6431204
You should choose the ethics that God has laid down for us through the life of Jesus, since it's the only way to attain eternal salvation and entwine ourselves with God and his will, beginning already on Earth.
Don't follow what other people set down, follow what God has set down. I'm balking up because you seem to exclude the existance of God because you find it difficult to embrace His system of ethics. It should be the other way around - you accept his existance and then necessarily accept his ethics. Anything else is literally just windowshopping for the ethical system and lifestyle which is closest to the one you live now. That's not what God wants for us.
>>6427395
>electric chair or a guillotine.
I read that as electric guitar, and thought that was the most metal way to die ever.
>>6427794
>It should elicit the deepest joy, not fear.
I'm sorry but the idea that someone had to bear the most horrible pain in the world just for a bunch of ungrateful bastards doesn't exactly fill me with joy.
>>6431219
You speak of your interpretation of God as though it's the only one. Your argument only has weight if someone already accepts the points you're trying to prove. In other words, you're begging the question.
>>6431159
>Are you implying that the very existance of evidence is contingent on someone having faith or not
Not implying. Stating.
There is not a single shred of evidence that exists regardless of faith. Any and all indication of God's existence requires that the viewer have faith in God's existence already and interpret the situation to fit their belief.
If this were any subject other than religion, it would be instantly condemned as complete bullshit for only the most gullible and idiotic individuals.
The only explanation for an omnipotent being to give off this impression is because he does it intentionally, and the only reason to do it intentionally is to dissuade potential converts and breed prejudice against believers, because that's the only thing it does.
If you're going to argue that this is in fact the case and that God is justified in this, I'm going to argue that that kind of behavior makes God an evil and abusive piece of shit, so even if he does exist he does not deserve worship or acknowledgement on any level.
>>6431231
And he didn't even have to. It's a hack he devised to circumvent rules he wrote in the first place. It was just a bit of histrionics to make the least weak and least needy being imaginable look like the "real victim."
>>6431239
Like when the abusive father starts crying and drinking and sobbing about the time he almost got sent to Vietnam.
>>6431233
>ask a Christian, expecting a Jewish/Muslim/Whatever response
I'm giving you my side of things, I'm not arguing for the existance of other interpretations because I don't believe they're true. If you didn't want a Christian answer, don't ask a Christian, You're bringing up a seperate issue. Either way, my answer applies to any creator-deity god.
>>6431237
>God is evil
God cannot, by definition, be evil. He's perfect, and all moral acts are measured against his nature. If he does things that you would consider evil, you either 1: don't understand his motive, or 2: are simply wrong. God cannot be evil, were he to instantly kill 1 million infants right this instant. That act would, necessarily, be objectively perfect as a result from the perfect and inerrant nature of God.
You cannot argue this point.
>>6431257
Kind of. It's common for abusers to gaslight their victims and make them confused about who the real victim is. The way to figure it out is to ask who has the power. To quote Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility. It follows that we have no responsibility toward the all-powerful and it is impossible to commit a crime against it. Responsibility only goes downward from the more to the less powerful. This is why harming the weak is wrong but breaking arbitrary rules made by the strong is not.
>>6431259
>God cannot, by definition, be evil. He's perfect, and all moral acts are measured against his nature. If he does things that you would consider evil, you either 1: don't understand his motive, or 2: are simply wrong. God cannot be evil, were he to instantly kill 1 million infants right this instant. That act would, necessarily, be objectively perfect as a result from the perfect and inerrant nature of God.
>You cannot argue this point.
And that's exactly what an abusive father would say to convince his wife and children that he is not being abusive.
In fact, that's exactly what abusive governments have said to convince their populace they weren't being abusive, and it worked for a really long time and that period of time is know as the dark ages as a result of how horrible it made the world. It wasn't until Christianity's stranglehold over the earth started to loosen that things brightened up and the world improved. Christianity has a very long track record of spreading misery, suffering and evil to everything it touches.
>>6431259
>Divine Command Theory
I'm pretty sure that not even other Papists accept that.
>>6429970
While I agree in part, I still know plenty that are tolerant.
>>6430105
>Stop painting a picture of Christianity as some macabre, pain-loving religion because of that.
No, because to me that symbol paints your religion as macabre.
I only say that because of how many Christians gush about John 3:16 then ramble about Jesus going through so much for them personally.
It's also hard for me to take your interpretation of that symbol of anti-authority seriously when you're worshiping the ultimate authority, and there's passages like "render unto Caesar what is Caesars/follow every ordinance of man/etc." I guess you're just supposed to content yourself with something close to an "Ohhh you just you wait Mr. Roman, you'll get yours when you're dead" whenever whatever Rome is to you today does something you don't like.
But even more than the Jesus torture porn for Christians by Christians (eg.pic related), most Christians I know use that symbol to guilt trip themselves with a symbol of how much suffering Jesus went through for their personal sins.
>I wonder if you could substantiate that, atheists generally can't so it's okay if you don't respond
Alright the one I remember from the OT is if people can see God. I think it's
Exodus 33:11 / Exodus 33:20.
Then there's the one from the NT that my fellow Christians would cite whenever I tried to complain about Christians sodomy bans/writing gay marriage out of the law.
Acts 5:29 in response to Matt 22:21.
I could just google a list of contradictions too if you want.
>I think you've misunderstood the Bible and Christianity in general
Of course you tell yourself that.
I understood the bible as a collection of mythology, and a means to get people to stop questioning the possibility that Christianity/Judaism/etc might be wrong.
>You plainly expected the wrong th[-]hout any self-sacrifice.
I won't argue with you there. I never expected I'd have to sacrifice so many of my critical thinking faculties before reading it.
>>6431274
Except the cases you mentioned are, infact, not in actuality perfect. God is NECESSARILY perfect by his nature. He doesn't pretend to be, He doesn't lie about being so. He IS perfect, making any action he does perfect.
What Christians do is seperate from what God does. Christians accept that people are generally fallen, morally fucked up shitheads. We all agree that the Church has done wrong things in the past - but to say that Christianity has been a powerhub of suffering-distribution is ridiculous, the Church was the only organization giving a fuck about the poor pre-1800 or around there, the Church was the only science hub medieval times and back, the Church is one of the largest charity organization in the world, if not the largest.
>>6431278
This is simply accepting the Christian definition of God as being perfectly good morally. If he is perfectly good by nature, it's illogical to think he's capable of doing morally wrong acts.
>>6431280
'Face to face' is a figure of speech like we use it today. It doesn't literally mean the very face of God. When we would die if we saw the face of God, it's meant to represent how if we were to see the eternal glory that God is, we would die since we wouldn't at all be prepared to face him - to see God after we have died and have been perfected (in some extent) is to see God in his glory. We will have been made ready for this through purgatory.
God spoke to Moses using burning bushes and other such mediums.
This interpretation is possible if we keep in mind that God has no physical attributes, that is he has no face. His face represents his eternal glory.
The new testament quotes you gave us are completely unrelated - one deals with worshipping God rather than men and the other deals with following the law. How are these related? Please expand if you want me to respond.
>hurr christianity is dumb, no critical thinking, Christianity is mythology
See pic related and try again.
>>6431347
It's odd to me that you think a perfect being capable of infinite foresight would create people with the knowledge that they were going to sin simply by their own nature and that seems perfectly okay.
The fact of the matter is, the bible is just old stories from previous religions that existed before the god yahweh was not simply a god of storms and war.
There may be a creator or a force that led to our being here, but the christian god is almost certainly not it.
>>6431466
>It's odd to me that you think a perfect being capable of infinite foresight would create people with the knowledge that they were going to sin simply by their own nature and that seems perfectly okay.
People have free will to do as they please. God wants them to repent, but he will not force them either, since he knows that free will is ultimately better than simply puppeting them.
>There may be a creator or a force that led to our being here, but the christian god is almost certainly not it.
Nice opinion bro
>>6431347
Practically speaking, the church had a time and a place. It did provide social services (to those whose beliefs were correct or as weapons of cultural imperialism) and it dutifully preserved some of the knowledge that it didn't destroy when it helped create the Dark Ages. But if you're arguing for it on those grounds, you must concede that other institutions that do the same things better are better. Science, preservation of knowledge, and a social safety net all work much better when divorced from religion.
>>6431475
>the Dark Ages meme
The dark ages were caused by the decline of the Roman Empire. This was mostly due to barbarian aggression from Central Europe and also just a general decline of economics and shitty administration work on the part of the government.
>other institutions that do the same things better are better
Charity is doing good - it's not a contest about whoever is doing it 'better' (whatever that means) is the best, meaning that the Church must be worse off. There can be reasons such as subversion within the Church, lack of funding and other reasons that can make the Church lag behind - the point is that the Church uses the resources to the extent that it can to provide services and help people That's what matters- efforts and not results. The Church strives to get the best results possible with the resources that are available.
>Science, preservation of knowledge... are better when divorced from religion
Can you substantiate that? Statistics of some kind would be nice.
>>6431347
>He IS perfect
And yet the only source we have on that is God himself, who is not a reliable source on such a subject.
>>6431547
it's operating on the assumption that God does exist, we can then extrapolate and come up with some attributes he must necessarily have. Perfection is one. Omnipotence is another. Omniscience. Christians don't only get their information about God through what's explicitly written in the Bible, or more specifically any dialogue line by God.
>>6426642
>>can't help asking him what he knows of Christ's message and if he's read the Bible at all
This is surely bait.
>>6431551
>we can then extrapolate and come up with some attributes he must necessarily have.
This always struck me as bizarre.
Then again my view of a God takes a more 'outside' approach than most.
>>6430105
The Bible specifically states that practicing homosexuals are capable of inheriting the Kingdom of God.
>>6431474
You are under them impression free will exists. If god knows what choices we make, we never had free will. If he doesn't, then he isn't all knowing. If he isn't all knowing, he isn't perfect. Beyond that, humans don't have free will. We are slaves to our nature and conditions we were born with. If humans were created sinful, that's not the fault of humans. God asks humans to beg for a problem he caused an knew he would cause.
>>6431551
God is not necessarily perfect, omnipotent or omniscient though. He only needs to be powerful and knowledgeable enough to have created the universe and made all his interactions with the earth. None of those require perfection, omniscience of omnipotence.
We have no accounts of God's nature other than his own and those of his unswervingly loyal servants. There are no unbiased sources.
>>6431582
>If god knows what choices we make, we never had free will.
You could argue it's a matter of perspective.
>>6431584
I can believe in a god like this, but my question is always going to be, what created god? Christians usually say that the universe couldn't have come from nothing, but never explain how god could exist without a creator when he is supposed to be greater than the universe.
>>6431574
No, it specifically states that practicing homosexuals are incapable of such a thing (1 Corinthians 6:9) but we don't need to look at the Bible specifically to know homosexuality in practice is a grave sin, we need only look at sacred tradition which has upheld it as immoral.
>>6431584
Way to bring up ancient arguments that have been argued over and over for thousands of years. Since you're just gonna drop in a meme argument, I'll exchange with a meme article
http://carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
>>6431584
Look the response to the 'argument' up here ^. This has been discussed many times. I'll just shortly summarize.
God created all things that exist besides God. This entails he has perfect power to manipulate what he has created since he is pure spirit and not bound by any physical body - we know that through his will alone he can create worlds. There is no being greater than God. So by our standards, God is omnipotent. He's the most powerful being that can exist, logically. We cannot imagine a being stronger than God, since that being would have to be necessarily created by God and God cannot create that which is stronger than he, since that being would be bound by the laws of physics, which God put in place and can change as he wills.
>>6431511
Except it doesn't. Its intentions are good from its own point of view, of course, but that doesn't mean anything. It wastes a lot of time and resources ding things that are only helpful from their point of view, like fighting gay marriage, religious diversity, and birth control, not to mention all the empty ceremony and clergy who live without working by providing imaginary services. It is indeed competing with other possible ways to use what it wastes.
>>6431638
>I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
>Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
>Luke 17:34-5
>>6431600
The Mormon answer is that God is just one of the many children of a God that came before him, and that one day all faithful Mormons will be Gods of their own worlds. (Which makes sense right up until you remember the bit that Jesus came up with that plan before God made the earth, which would mean God was the first to ever do the whole "send them to earth to test their virtue, then make the virtuous ones gods" strategy, which raises all sorts of questions. It's always possible that God disapproved of his dad's approach and wanted to ask his children for their input instead though.)
I wouldn't be able to tell you what other flavors of Abrahamic religion believe though. I think that was one of the holes in the gospel Joseph Smith complained about and specifically wanted to fill, since that was his motivation when he went out and prayed and had the first vision or whatever they call it.
I remember more of this shit than I thought. I'm kind of surprised actually.
>>6431655
>gay marriage, religious diversity...
because the Church sees these as moral evils - are you complaining that they strive to do what they see as perfectly, morally good?
>>6431664
Let's look at the context:
>Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] [e]
37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”
This has nothing to do with homosexuality.
>>6431638
Just because it's an ancient argument doesn't mean it's not valid. In fact it actually adds to the validity of the argument since if it has gone unaddressed for so long then there's obviously some truth to it.
Besides, just because God is the most powerful being does not mean he is all powerful. There is no cosmological imperative for an omnipotent being to exist. Just because you created something and lord over it as the most powerful entity in it does not mean that you are free of limitations and capable of doing anything and everything.
There's not even a guarantee that God is the most powerful being or that he created the universe or even is. What if he's some freaky alien psychic entity that stumbled across humanity and decided to fuck with them for shits and giggles?
What if he's watching this conversation RIGHT NOW laughing his figurative ass off at how stupid and gullible our pathetic is?
What if the ancient aliens guy was right all along and we just dismissed him because his hair is fucking ridiculous?
>>6431708
>if it has gone unaddressed for so long
It hasn't. Plenty of theologians have addressed (and refuted) this issue. An accessible and modern theologian would be William Lane Craig. Dig through the church fathers and they've probably refuted it before.
>hurr aliens
they wouldn't by definition be any kind of God, since God, in the context we're talking about, is the perfect creator of the universe. It's a ridiculous theory and you're not helping your case by spouting stuff like that, sorry to say m8.
As for his omnipotence, I've already addressed that in other posts.
>>6431638
I acknowledge that homosexuality constitutes sinful behavior, but I've always understood it to be no worse than drunkenness or gluttony. An alcoholic often cannot help repeatedly lapsing back into his vice - would he be barred from Heaven for doing so, even while having accepted Christ?
>>6431725
>hurr aliens
It's called a joke you asswipe. A joke at your expense too since you apparently can't even refute something as utterly ridiculous and unfounded as that.
Come to think of it though, there really is no proof that God isn't real and actually just some lying alien making up bullshit about how powerful he is. It's every bit as plausible as any mainstream religion is. Possibly more so in some cases.
>>6431738
breaking any law is equally bad (James 2:10). If there is talk of addiction, the guilt of the sin is reduced. One still has to repent of the behavior and confess the sin to recieve forgiveness. If someone who has sinned didn't have access to confession prior to his death, he can still be forgiven if he repents perfectly for his sins, so it's not totally rigid.
The importance is in realizing it is a sin and then actively working on repenting from it and getting away from it.
>>6431756
y-yeah I was just pretending to be stupid!
I did refute it by saying such an alien couldn't, logically, be God. Since you're just taking the piss, i'll just go ahead and hide your future posts from now on.
Thank you for contributing.
>>6431725
It hasn't been refuted. God knows ahead of time when he created humanity what every han was going to do, he set them up for failure. The fact of the matter is, if i have knowledge of something and i know what is going to happen if i do that something, i am responsible for what happens because my input caused it. I knew in advance what would happen if i did something and by doing it, i am responsible for the outcome. If what i did influenced another person, they weren't exercising free will, i caused their behavior because i knew that they would do what they were going to do based on my input.
>>6431738
Depends on your flavor of Christianity. Most would say no, he rots in Hell.
It's funny because Islam would give him a pass if he genuinely tried his best and his intentions were pure at the time of his death. They actually have a saying about that.
>>6431773
If you couldn't tell he was joking, you might be retarded.
>>6431773
>I did refute it by saying such an alien couldn't, logically, be God
That doesn't refute it though. He wouldn't be God, and there would be no God because God was just some avatar invented by a douchebag alien.
God is required to exist exactly to your definition in all possible realities and imaginary realities.
>>6431780
Funny that people can believe in a hell as being possible from a merciful god.
>>6431796
Maybe he's only merciful in comparison to Sithrak. It's not hard to be merciful in comparison to the god that hates you unconditionally.
>>6431773
Woops, forgot the greentext in the second reply
>>6431777
Your writing is incomprehensible. Maybe take some lessons on writing clearly and work a bit on your grammar and I may be able to respond.
>>6431780
>most would say no
That's incorrect. If that person repents for his sin, the 3 major denominations all agree that he may be forgiven.
The whole point of Christianity is not to avoid sinning at all costs (although you should), but about getting back on the horse when you have sinned, because you WILL sin. That's the point of us being fallen.
>>6431793
Because I'm not necessarily talking about the Bible-specific God, but the God which is defined as the creator of the universe - logically, he MUST have created the universe. Aliens don't apply here, since we're not talking about the God that was revealed to us through Abraham and Jesus.
>>6431808
That was just teen poetry.
>>6431811
Apologies, i'll rewrite my thoughts.
If god has knowledge of a person's actions in advance, by creating them, he is responsible for their actions.
Suppose I say a joke to someone. And i knew that because i told them that joke, they were going to shoot themselves then I am both responsible for their action and I didn't let them act on their own free will. I knew their choice ahead of time and my action caused their choice. They couldn't have chosen another path because of my intervention.
>>6431811
But there's no guarantee that the universe was created by anything, or even a single thing. Even if it was created by a single entity there's no guarantee that that entity cares about or even knows about earth and humanity. Maybe it died. Maybe it's too busy micromanaging some farflung galaxy and hasn't even glanced in the direction of the Milky Way for several millenia. Maybe it follows a strict code of noninterference. Maybe it fucking loves earth but just spends all its time projecting a human avatar and roleplaying daily life, and right now it's uploading a picture of its new sonic OC to deviantart.
Disregard that, I just reread your post and realized you said we're NOT talking about the God of Abraham. That's who I have been talking about this whole time and I assumed you were too. I'm only keeping the previous paragraph in my post because I like the mental image of the universe's creator being a humanaboo that makes sonic OCs.
>>6431861
>accidentally press enter once instead of twice
>render the entire post illegible
Disregard that, I just reread your post and realized you said we're NOT talking about the God of Abraham. That's who I have been talking about this whole time and I assumed you were too. I'm only keeping the previous paragraph in my post because I like the mental image of the universe's creator being a humanaboo that makes sonic OCs.
>>6431861
Ah, seems like a common misunderstanding then.
I think I'm done being on this board. Thanks everybody who contributed for the discussions and have a good night/day
>>6431811
Why must god have created the universe? A person could easily worship a being that was responsible for it's creation even if they knew it didn't create everything that exists. It would be easy to call that a god, or a god to them at least.
>>6431773
I feel that homosexuality ought to be regarded as an addiction in the same way as alcoholism. For those of us with the proclivity for it, certain acts can have the effect of a drug. I've tried the celibacy route several times, but I've never lasted very long. It's a case of the heart being willing, but the body being too weak. It's something I've accepted I cannot change (at least not until I'm older and my libido starts to wane), but it is something I am absolutely repentant of, even while in the throes of it. I don't think it's fair to say that I am not a Christian on account of this.
Of course, only God knows whether my repentance is genuine and only He can judge me for it.
>>6431638
There are a lot of leaps of logic there that have never really been justified, though not for lack of trying. Even assuming that whatever caused us is intelligent, which isn't necessarily so, why is it necessary for it to be unique? If one being can be an uncaused cause of something, so can another. If it's true that not everything needs a cause, which seems likely, then it follows that you don't need to explain the cause of everything, and indeed that would be impossible. There could be a bunch of gods, each equal and independent from the others, with nothing necessarily in common except their lack of a cause. And it also doesn't follow that a god must be all-powerful or "perfect," which is such a vague concept in the first place as to be meaningless. A lot of people define perfection or goodness as being like God and God as being the most good and perfect, which is clearly circular logic.
Can't we just have one thread to discuss our faith without being flooded with hateful atheists? Why are you unable to leave us in peace or at least be respectful?
>>6433377
This thread really wasn't set up just for a general religion thread
>>6433377
Eh your older generation did it first, so now you're reaping what they sowed.
>>6429536
God still loves you and we will pray for your injured soul, sinner anon.
>>6433541
>>6429536
Now you see how sanctimonious religious people sound, because you guys just basically said the same thing to each other. You only have any business forgiving people when you are actually the injured party. Forgiving from the sidelines is annoying at best and an act of aggression at worst. Christians like to pretend that they're injured by everyone who does something they don't like, claiming that everything they disapprove of is a crime against God - or, in more practical terms, a crime against the church hierarchy. When they say that they'll "pray for you," or offer forgiveness for something that was only wrong in their imagination, they're really telling you "Our power structure claims authority over you, and we will continue actively trying to enforce that authority until you capitulate." They're demonstrating their lack of tolerance and their belief that they have the right to be involved in everyone else's business whether they're wanted or not.
Just stopping by to say you guys confuse me on a deep level. The code you ascribe to damns you for the second most central behavior of your life. One is material and palpable, the other unsupported by any argument. It just seems a weird choice stemming out of the typical gay self-hate. But my fedora's been tipped forever, so take it with a grain of salt.
Read The Comedy recently and almost started thinking ''Oh, this Christianity business might not be half bad in principle'' but then this thread reminded me. Thanks 4chan.
>Mental Gymnastics General: The Thread
>>6433377
This is THE website where every single idea or concept is attacked and shit on, so you're not an exception.
>>6428038
>Hey man like just totally forget the thousands of years of persecution and oppression. Like forgive and forget right? That's what Jesus would do. Don't you wanna be like Jesus? Just forget it shhhh just forget everything that's it
No. You're the lesser evil in the death cult triumvirate sure but that doesn't give you a pass.
>>6433377
Do you seriously not grasp the concept of what-goes-around-comes-around? You don't get to enjoy being all powerful for so long and condemning untold millions to torture and death and then expect to be treated so sweetly by those who are like the people your church has massacred over the centuries.
I hate you. Not anywhere near as much as I hate Muslims but I still fucking hate you.
I was at a Pride event today as part of a gay Christian contingent and it was basically like this thread. Our fellow homosexuals (who we were there to support and witness to) sneered and jeered at us, ripped up our pamphlets, and called us self-hating faggots. When we tried approaching the Christian groups that were there to protest, we were told that we weren't real Christians and that we would burn with the rest if we refused to give up our sodomy.
There is so much hatred and misunderstanding on both sides. I can't think of a group that is more persecuted in our society than gay Christians.
>>6440923
you should try to read your post from an outsider perspecive. you should easily see how much your position smell of pure delusion.
i had pretty delusional belief in my life for quite some time; the right way to face them is to detach yourself emotionally and try to look at it with a critic and objective eye.
The accusations of "self-hatred" used to seriously upset me, but now they just make me laugh. I only really started to love myself after finding my faith.
Atheists have no clue.
>>6440923
It clearly states in the bible that sodomites burn in hell, this is traditional Christianity, if any christian tells you otherwise they arent a real christian, they are a secular progressive.
Christians follow the bible not liberalism.
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, all forbid homosexuality.
>>6429970
Most leftist people claim that they can tolerate difference, but try putting them to the test some time. Tell them you wish to REMOVE KEBAB while making loud goat-fucking noises, or wave a confederate flag around them, or tell them you give to charity as you hand a homeless black man fried chicken and Kool-aid. They're a lot less tolerant than they say.
And who can blame them? They don't believe that their actions are a matter of taste. They believe that their way is the only correct way to live. If they really believed that tolerance was correct, it would follow that they accept that their beliefs are factually wrong, because their beliefs include the proposition that those beliefs are the best.
>ftfy
>>6428038
I forgive Christians, I realise they're not all nasty people and that there are indeed Christians. It still doesn't make me believe that there's a God, though.
>>6440923
It's almost as though having contradictory beliefs has consequences in the real world
>>6440923
>I can't think of a group that is more persecuted in our society than gay Christians.
how about tranny christians?
>>6443307
>stop liking what I don't like
You have to be 18+ to post on this site, m8
Human soul has innate divine knowledgement
It senses when one is doing right or wrong (if one isn't too perverted yet) so the person requesting the removal of your crucifix either knows what he's doing is unnatural, aberrant or it's his wicked soul making him feel against the Truth
So, seeing that it seems to be a christain or two in here, here is something I have always wanted to know, is the bible all gods words? Or not? How do you know witch rules to live by, or do you just pick and choose as you go along to what fits you the most?
>>6443366
Are you suggesting that anal sex is unnatural?
>>6443417
the bible is a series of stories and jesus's teachings.
Jesus never actually said anything about gay people, the fire and brimstone parts of the bible are in the old testament.
The fire and brimstone parts of the new testament are at the end in revelations.
I was baptized in the catholic church, i did my communion and went to sunday school.
And like any good catholic, i became an atheist.
But as i have gotten older i have been more open to spirituality rather than organized religion.
God could be real, who knows, but books are certainly written by men.
>>6443417
Christians generally rely on the infallible traditions as set down by the Church. There are some sectarians like protestants, gnostics, mormons arguably which do pick and choose and do silly things.
Yes, the Bible is the word of God, documented by people. It's all infallible, although there can be human errors in the historical bits and whatnot. There's no error in dogma, though.
I strongly recommend reading up on the concept of ceremonial vs civil vs moral laws to understand how the laws work within a biblical frame.
>>6443450
That poster directed his question towards Christians. Jesus never saying something directly towards gays specifically (he did cover it when he spoke of sexual immorality) is a non-argument. The ban is found multiple other places in the Bible and also in tradition.
>>6443572
>mixed fabrics
>I strongly recommend reading up on the concept of ceremonial vs civil vs moral laws to understand how the laws work within a biblical frame.
Jesus alleviated all ceremonial laws (such as mixing fabrics), but kept in place the moral laws (such as sexual immorality and murdering).
There's an obvious and clear distinction. Read up on the various laws within Christianity to know this.
>>6443578
>Read up on the various laws within Christianity to know this
Seems like a hassel.
If I read something Id like to feel better afterwards, not feel worse for being a faggot.
>>6443597
>has an issue with christianity
>expects to be spoonfed the answer
>doesn't want to look up the concepts when provided with it
>doesn't want to challenge their own worldview, basically living in a hugbox
stop shilling against Christianity if you can't bother even learning the very basics of it.
>>6443578
Is it not weird that laws against mixed fabrics ever existed in the first place? You can't just ignore everything that came before Jesus because it was allegedly the product of the same unchanging deity. All the divinely mandated genocide and slavery, that was a thing. You can't just say that it's not like that anymore, because why would you trust someone who was EVER like that?
Also, the invented distinction between ceremonial and moral laws is blatantly just there to allow Christfags to pick and choose the parts they like.
>>6443606
>doesn't want to challenge their own worldview, basically living in a hugbox
what?
>has an issue with christianity
not rly, you do your thang and Il do mine.
>expects to be spoonfed the answer
Yea kinda? I mean, why would I look into something that doesnt want anything to do with me.
That would be like trying to join the KKK when youre black, or some other equally ridiculous anolagy
>>6443637
>existed in the first place
If you had read the Bible, you would know God put these laws in place for 2 reasons, one was to set Israel above the pagans living around them, drastically changing their daily culture and lives so that they can ready themselves for the Messiah. The other reason is hygienic reasons. There are many theological implications and subleties in these, but those are the gist of the reason.
>All the divinely mandated genocide
Read some Origen and realize that the Old Testament is heavily allegorical and also written by a barbaric tribe people for a barbaric tribe people - what better way is there than to depict God as someone helping them in their conquests?
Also, genocide isn't morally wrong when commanded by a morally perfect being. God, being perfect, told them to, making it a morally perfect act.
>the invented distinction
It was invented by Jesus Christ and Paul, read the Gospels and the Epistles and see them make the distinguishing themselves. Then read infallible church dogma learning the very same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0
>>6443660
>what?
You said you didn't want to read up on things because you'd feel bad over your homosexuality.
>why would I look into something..
That's not what it's about. You cannot expect people will spoonfeed you things and invest no effort into learning yourself. Stop acting like a child.
>>6443663
You're on the wrong horn of the Euthyphro dilemma over there. A morally perfect being would just not command genocide because that would be wrong. Someone who commands genocide and claims that it's right because they say so is no better than a run-of-the-mill warlord, which at its heart is what the Abrahamic God is. And because the foundation is so rotten, nothing built on top of it can be taken seriously.
>>6443690
>A morally perfect being would just not command genocide because that would be wrong
God is perfect at his nature, so it's illogical that he's capable of doing things that are immoral. It's that simple. He created the world, his nature is what defines what is immoral or not. There's no morality independant of God.
What basis do you have to judge an act as immoral? Why is it immoral? Why do you think your own morality would trump that of the perfect being who defines morality?
There's no dilemma
>>6443715
There is a dilemma, and you've clearly chosen the side where God is a mad dictator who makes up arbitrary moral commands and expects them to have weight even though they are not necessary, for he could have made them otherwise.
>>6443784
I would appreciate you actually respond to my points instead of reinforcing your own (wrong) idea of things, until then I will just hide your posts.
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>6424800
YEAH!!!
This one gets it!
I want him to watch!
I want to fuck in a church just to make sure!
>>6443790
>any argument I disagree with is not an argument
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the classic Christian tactic of trying to get your way by redefining your terms as the need arises.
I didn't even make this debate up. Philosophers continue to take various sides on it. You can't just claim that it doesn't exist, as it has more evidence than your god does.
>>6443715
Beacuse morrality cant be explained without a god? right? right?...
>>6443816
That's not what I was shilling.
Naturalists have come up with explanations, giving ideas of natural social codes which was put in place to create a peaceful society of humans. These ideas aren't exactly incompatible with Christianity, since the classical, Christian belief is that all humans have an innate idea of God and has His commands written on the heart, giving everybody moral responsibillity, even if they have never heard of Jesus. This, then, translates into action and morality crops up (more or less the same) in every civilization.
The point is, blanket-stating that certain acts are immoral have no logical basis if there aren't any objective morality. They would just be social codes. I could just go ahead and nuke the entire of Africa. Whether you believe this act would be immoral or moral, it would just be the opinions of your own, and I don't see why your opinions should weigh more than mine.
Ultimately, subjective morality is really just utilitarian social codes which we have no reason not to disregard if we don't desire to partake in the given society.
>>6443715
This would have weight if it were clear what exactly God's actions were. But as you can see, there's a lot of argument over how to interpret various accounts of them.
God is consistent. He doesn't change over time. So if there's an account of him that portrays him as flighty, like forbidding something at one time and permitting it on another, or asking someone to kill a child just as a silly trick to see if he would do it, it's safe to say that it is not a reliable account. It's not rejecting God, just some of us fallible humans who talk about God.
>>6443906
I mean, yeah, cursory reading could lead to people thinking this way, but it reminds me of the 'there's a time for everything passage'.
The Old Testament was chiefly about setting the scene for the coming of Jesus Christ. This required taking the promised lands to make the enviorenment in which he would come and save us all.
>there's lots of argument over how to interpret various accounts of them.
Which is why we should thank God for leaving a Church to infallibly guide us and point out what is correct.
>permitting something at one time and permitting it on another
I already responded to this. I can also say that God allowed certain things like divorce pre-Jesus, since the hearts of jews were hardened. God was lenient in this case, and wanted them to continue securing the promised lands He had promised them where they to continue obeying His will.
>kill a child just as a silly trick
It's a story about totally placing your faith in God who is perfect, not questioning He who is eternal perfection, which is a silly thing to be doing. It's a reminder to put God over all else, sacrificing what must be sacrificed to pick up the cross. It's about setting a rolemodel for us, propping up a person of who's faith we should emulate to the best of our abillities. Abraham (along with Mary) are often pointed to when the subject of faith in God is brought up.
We should all stop reading the biblical texts in such a literal manner when that's not how the authors intended, how God intents, how the Church intents. If someone criticizes all of Christianity due to this wrong reading of the Bible, then they're not actually criticizing Christianity, but only a straw-man of it, and you're not helping your case.
>>6443888
> I could just go ahead and nuke the entire of Africa
Well isnt that why society then steps in and punishes you for it?
Isnt it what the majority thinks is moral that determines what is and isnt moral?
I just dont see where a god would need to fit into this to make it work, call me retarded if you like but I just dont get it.
>>6443970
>Isnt it what the majority thinks is moral that determines what is and isnt moral?
It would just be the opinions of that collective of people. Some countries, collectively (generally) think shariah law is deplorable, whereas other countries see it as necessary for any civilization. There's a clear difference in morality there, it's not set in stone.
As for punishments, it's not really about morality then, but just this utilitarian idea of how to run a society that is for the interest of all who participate. Someone can disregard that society and have moral opinions of their own, which would be just as valid as all those people still choosing to live in that society.
Or, alternatively, God created us and raping children etc. IS morally wrong regardless of our opinions about it.
>>6444011
Then if god created us eatch with the same morality, then why does it fluctuate so much depending on where you are in the world?
Like sharia law for example, why would houndres of milions of people think that is acceptable, if god created us with the same basis for morality would all of the world be against it?
Wouldnt another alternative be, that what we consider moral, is just a product of our evolution , not just ours but with all species, over houndres of thousands of years to best fit the survival of our species.
>>6444089
It's not going to be a carbon perfect copy, but there are general traits such as compassion, helping out one another. Shariah law is one attempt to reach this, at it's base, which the muslims believe to be correct since it's divinely mandated. They believe it's morally correct, so they act it out. This shows that they have the same, human instinct or desire to do what is morally right. They wish to worship God, even if it's a flawed view of God that they have.
You could also say they've built up their entire society on a sin, and as such have become actively immoral. I still think, regardless of this, they know general morality, that they should love one another. They just don't have the practice of doing so right, since other religions have poisoned that practice.
>is just a product of our evolution
This isn't incompatible with Christianity either. The Vatican supports evolution as a theory, and most Christians hold a very reasonable view that God oversaw evolution and guided us to where we are at now, giving us a soul which infused us with our moral beliefs in our hearts once we advanced to the 'human' stage. As to when exactly that is, it would be Adam and Eve. Biologically? Dunno desu.
>>6444153
>it's a flawed view of God that they have.
How can you be so sure that the view they have is the flawed one, and not just the other way around?
My guess would be that you where thought to belive in god A and not god B, but if you where thought about god B you would say the same thing about god A... if that makes sense?
>The Vatican supports evolution as a theory
I highly doubt that, tho most of the time when people say the word "theory" they just think its a guess or something like it, tho in the scientific community a theory is as close to the throuth as something can get.
>>6444209
>How can you be so sure the view they have is the flawed one
this is basically just whether God exists or not and a whole diffferent discussion than the one we're having right now, I have gone over these reasons if you scroll up and read prior posts I've made >>6430617 etc.
>I highly doubt that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution
and just read that whole article and maybe go through the sources if you're interested in more about this subject. Christianity is NOT anti-thetical to science, in fact it supports science and the Church has done so since forever and will continue to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
In fact, particularly in the medieval church, God was viewed as a great mathematician when He created the world, inspiring art such as pic related. The sciences were viewed as a way of gaining a deeper insight into His creation, and so pursued fervently subjects like mathematics, logic, theology and just general natural sciences.
>>6444286
Forgot the pic
>>6444286
>supports science and the Church has done so since forever
So when the heliocentric solar system was proposed, there where no threats made against that person from the church? Or is this just a myth?
There always seems to be, atleast from american, in the meidia where science and religion seem to clash, take for example if evolution should be thought in schools or not.
And i´ve also seen alot of pastors preach against it, though they might be from another part of christianity? like the ones the belive that the earth is 6000 or so years old?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Sure you cant denie, that the christian faith has done things within science, but that was during a time where all the scholars or a large chunk of them where practicing christiang. But now, with the understanding we have of the world, it seems more and more people, primarily scientist seems to not partake in any religion at all.
I hope this is somewhat coherent.
>>6444286
Are you the same Catholic anon from earlier? Your posts make for some comfy reading. It's a welcome break from the usual fedoras we get around here.
What brings you to this board?
>>6444367
>there where no threats made against that person from the church?
I am going to assume you're referring to the Galileo incident. It's not as simplistic as most people think, it's a great deal of politics, offense and faulty science on the part of Galileo at the time, but the outcome to us now appear to be true, incidentally, making the outcome of the situation seem worse than it really was. Here's an article about the issue:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
>it seems more and more people, primarily scientist seems to not partake in any religion at all..
Our western societies is becoming more atheist, that's true. I'm not entirely sure scientists are particularly secularizing. It's important to understand that societies fluctate between being religious and secularizing. Oftentimes, a society starts out poor and strongly religious, becomes affluent, citizens become languid and get rid of religion, that society collapses for whatever reason and the cycle starts over. I think we're definitely become languid and have lost the sight of religion as of now.
I should also say that Christianity is becoming stronger in Africa and Asia. It's only going back in the western, rich countries, particularly the protestant countries. I think protestantism has helped the de-christinization of the west, too. Either way, it doesn't say anything about the quality or true-ness of Christianity.
>>6444394
I'm homosexual to a degree myself, so I can relate to these kinds of communities. I like browsing every once in a while, and when the discussion starts being about religion, I can get pretty passionate about it. I think there are many wrong ideas and beliefs about Christianity held by gay people particularly. I don't want christians to fall into wrong ideas and consequently sinful practices, so I'll weigh into any discussions about it when I can.
I'm glad you're reading my posts.
>>6444438
>http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
Doesnt it say in there that due to the way scripture was read (at the time?), was how Galeleos work was condemend or how you put it?
>>6444438
>I should also say that Christianity is becoming stronger in Africa and Asia.
All places where education isnt all that great, it seems to me atleast where the standard for education is high, so is the increas in athiest there, and I know saying that makes me sounds like a fat neckbeard tipping his fedora but thats just the way it kinda seems.
>>6444460
> I don't want christians to fall into wrong ideas and consequently sinful practices
like... being gay? But the new pope as said something good about gay people so.. maybe that doesnt apply anymore?
>>6444460
So are you completely chaste? Do you plan on marrying a woman?
>>6444530
>Doesnt it say in there that due to the way scripture was read
Yeah, but Galileo moved the debate into theology as well. I'll admit that he was mostly decried due to scriptural disagreements, but people were also just generally offended at this new idea and the manner whereby he was shilling it, using theology that has always been used to support the opposite idea.
>education
That's a very tricky subject and you'd have to go into statistics and cause/correlation etc. etc. to make any kind of substantial argument. It's true that more educated societies are less religious, but that could be due to many other reasons such as wealth. Many people are religious because it gives them a purpose in life, and I think many rich atheists have gotten that purpose satisfactorily through the freedom of pursuing whatever education/career they want, making them lack the desire of religion.
>like... being gay?
Homosexuality (as acts) has always been declared a sin, infallibly, and that cannot be changed. The pope has said we must care for and love gay people. This is the evident truth since the foundation of the Church, that we should love all, particularly the sinners and those who easily fall into sin. The pope has felt the need to reinforce this in a time when homosexuals have been shit on conistently by several Christian communities.
>>6444575
>So are you completely chaste?
No, I fall into this sin a lot as most other young men would. I'm trying to be.
>Do you plan on marrying a woman?
As of now, I feel called to a single life. I don't think I would be happy being married to a woman, so it's out of the picture for me. I know it has not always been so, so perhaps God will lead me to marriage later in life, I'll wait and see, but I'm staying alone as of now.
>>6444599
>due to scriptural disagreements
So wouldnt that mean that the religon stood in the way for scientific advance?
>Homosexuality (as acts) has always been declared a sin
Just seems strange that god would create some people as something they cannot do anything about, being created in his image and all wouldnt noone be gay then?
Maybe this is a bit of the topic we where talking about.
>>6444651
>So wouldnt that mean that the religon stood in the way for scientific advance?
Except it's arguable if you can even say that Galileo followed standard, scientific procedures at the time since he also used theological and scriptural arguments. I'm not gonna try to shill that the Church is perfect, but I think that incident particularly was more than just slamming down on heresies.
>being created in his image and all wouldnt noone be gay then?
We're created in His image and we were perfect prior the fall. Yet we fell, and now we're not anywhere near perfect. We're made in the image of God because he's raised us up above animals and we belong specially to Him. We're His and that's what it means to be made in the image of God. He would've preferred that we were content with this, but we're not perfect anymore.
It's a tricky subject to figure out perfectly what it means to be made in the image of God, some think it has to do with how we've gained a bunch of attributes that God has (humans being creative is a result from God being creative)
But we're pretty sure it doesn't mean sinless.
I want to suck a christian cock.
>>6444620
>No, I fall into this sin a lot as most other young men would. I'm trying to be.
I know that feel, man. I wish I had the self-discipline to beat this.
I've long since given up trying to fight it though. I wish you luck in your own efforts.
>>6444696
I guess, and the whole thing of him pissing of the pope wasnt that smart either.
>were perfect prior the fall. Yet we fell,
So.. when was this? Pre Neolithic? Because if the church follows evolution I dont rly know where we would be considered "perfect".
And I thought homosexuality has dated further back then the primitive hunter/gatherer sort of deal we had going on as early humans.
>>6444756
Giving up is exactly doing what the Devil wants you to do. Just remember that you do not have to deal with it alone, you can always ask for help in confession or just call for a meeting with your priest to discuss the issue. I think your priest would be able to relate given his own celibacy and give you some sound spiritual direction.
Or just go to /christian/ on cripplechan, the issue is usually brought up and discussed regularly.
>I wish you luck in your own efforts.
Thank you, and I'll pray for you.
>>6444782
>So.. when was this?
We don't know.
>And I thought homosexuality has dated further back
Even if this is the case, it's not the actual act that God concerns himself with - it's our heart. We do these things out of lust, out of accordance with God. Prior to the fall, we had none of these desires to sin, we didn't have any moral capacity and we did not know homosexuality is immoral. It's first when Adam and Eve decided to sin we gained this knowledge. As to whether we did any acts prior to this event that are considered sinful today, I don't know. Probably not. Prior to us gaining a soul (becoming humans with moral capacities), we were probably just beasts doing what beasts do. The main point is that our heart became controlled by sin after our Original Sin.
>>6444858
>it's not the actual act that God concerns himself with
So why will I go to hell for doing it now?
>>6444882
because your heart should strive to do what is good, not what you want to be doing yourself. We know now that these acts are wrong. We must then recognize this if we want to have any kind of relationship with God - sacrifice yourself just like Abraham did when he left his precious home to look for that promised land he was told of by God. You want to do these things out of a lust gained from our sinful nature. We need to conquer our sinful nature (to the extent that we can) rather than just accepting it and doing whatever we wish.
>>6444900
huh, I see.
Well Im off to sleep, take care.
You seem verry smart to be honest.
>>6444900
and also, thanks for the insight.
>>6444900
>because your heart should strive to do what is good
Then why do you strive to be worthless shit that deserves to die slowly alongside all of your kind, Christian?
>>6445068
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
>mfw being a straight male atheist reading this thread for the sheer amusement of OP's complete lunacy
>>6425370
North Korea, China, Soviet Union (when they were still around). And all these countries have committed terrible atrocities. Different anon btw
To the religious in this thread--watch Aron Ra on youtube. Mainly start with his Foundational Falshoods of Creationism series which you will see when you go to his channel. After that, watch his Irrefutable Proof of God series which you will see a very well known Christian activist have every argument made corrected. Btw, while it is probably meaningless to add, he lives in texas, quite possibly the most religious state in the US
>>6447981
>And all these countries have committed terrible atrocities.
Like a significant amount of other countries.
And when we look at living standards and health, only North korea is about as low as African countries (which have a very religious demographic), and that's only on certain issues.
Even funnier is that China might not even belong on that list, since according to the researchers of CFPS, only 6.3% of the Chinese are not religious in the sense of atheism; the others are not religious in the sense that they do not belong to an organised religion, while they pray to or worship gods and ancestors in the manner of the traditional popular religion.
Aside from that, going "muh atheist countries atrocities" was a pretty dumb knee jerk reaction anyway since it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
>tfw use scented lube during sex in the morning
>tfw friend is over later and you let out a silent fart
>mfw he asks if I smell that and says he smells something that smells good
>mfw I tell him I just farted
>mfw he said my fart smells good
>>6448312
>wat
>>6443955
>Which is why we should thank God for leaving a Church to infallibly guide us and point out what is correct.
You can keep saying that, but it's an unwarranted leap from believing that there's a God to a belief that these particular humans have been given special never-wrong powers with no evidence except their own word for it. You don't have access to that knowledge; none of us do. And the church's own history is strong evidence to the contrary.
>>6448649
I've been arguing out from a Christian perspective, that's the God I'm shilling, not any other.
>And the church's own history is strong evidence to the contrary.
Show me the incident(s) in question.
>>6424773
>mind if i have this pentagram necklace?
But no seriously
people were murdered on those things and you wear it like its a fashion statement to tell the world you're a tool
guys wearing any sort of short necklace during sex is always hot desu
whether it's a cross, dogtags, or even fucking seashells
>>6449335
I could pretty much pick a century, but there'd be no point to it. You'd just say I was wrong for criticizing it because you don't hold your church to standards; you redefine your standards based on what the church does.
>>6449465
You've misunderstood the doctrine of papal infallibillity. The Church has never claimed it cannot do wrong things or have atrocious popes. The doctrine says that any doctrine made by the Pope, spoken ex cathedra, in councils etc. cannot be wrong. If it's been declared canon law, then it's necessarily right. This has nothing to do with any of the morally wrong deeds the Church has done over the years.
It's also fun you didn't even mention one incident, when you say there are so many.
Not an argument I guess.
>>6424800
>PIERCE ME WITH YOUR ROMAN SWORD
>>6424954
There is nothing wrong with Reddit.
>>6443183
Racism actually hurts people though.
do people still beleive in god?
I thought that was some 90s shit that died when Creed came onto the scene
>>6424816
>ultimate symbol of love and peace
>a fucking cruel method of political execution in the roman times
Nope
>>6424773
Can i burn a church in front of you while bullying your boyfriend into sucking my pagan cock ?
When will this meme ever end?
>>6451164
>symbols never acquire new meaning
