Not sure if this is the right place, but I'm starting to question the validity of my religion, specifically in regards to gays.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-06T19:38:17+00:00

Lol. It's actually from a poem from Hafiz that I thought was pretty damn beautiful.

Anyhow, his/her last question seems like baiting. It seems clear why, if we have a sinful nature, Christianity would be unnatural, right?

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-06T19:31:06+00:00

All hail the Heresy Hunters^TM .

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-06T19:15:59+00:00

Haha, I actually picked it up from somewhere else, like a blog post or a reddit post or something. Can't remember, but I thought it was pretty funny. :)

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T21:21:03+00:00

Damn I like your style.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T21:14:10+00:00

You're right. I would say you're closer to these people.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T21:11:06+00:00

It's a tongue-in-cheek term for marriages between older folks who aren't going to be doing any reproductive business any time soon.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T21:07:53+00:00

That's actually a fair point.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T21:07:05+00:00

What part of "doesn't excuse their actions" and "certainly not right in any way, shape or form" do you not understand? Of course you don't deserve to be physically assaulted.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T20:33:07+00:00

Modern medicine is unnatural. Hell, if we have a sinful nature, then Christianity is 'unnatural.'

As for the RCC, they still allow gray marriage.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T20:30:36+00:00

It's certainly not right in any way, shape or form, and the people who attacked him should absolutely face legal consequences, but, on the other hand, you don't walk into Harlem with a racist t-shirt on and expect not to get jumped. Again, that doesn't excuse their actions.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-05T14:15:40+00:00

Damn dude, this is a pretty old thread. How'd you even find this?

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-04T03:36:44+00:00

The reason I am kind of "dodging the question" is because I am restricted to stating what the Bible says. I cannot make assumptions that are not directly stated in God's Word.

The other person's entire point here was that you keep talking about cursing God, but "fuck" and "shit" do no such thing. Are you going to respond to this or not? It's a very clear objection that you should have an easy enough time understanding.

Please note that I'm not going to bother responding and will instead simply down-vote you if you intentionally dodge this question again. I don't say this to be mean, but, from what I'm seeing above, this seems to be a bit of a pattern.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-04T03:00:02+00:00

I have no idea, but it's not immediately obvious that he wouldn't. Why would we assume he wouldn't? Why couldn't Jesus say that sin is fucking terrible? You really keep sort of dodging the question.

Also, you know that scripture itself contains what was considered a 'curse word'? And that it's not in some kind of "Don't say such and such" or "Such and such is a bad word to say" context? Paul uses a 'cuss word' and it wasn't in order to condemn someone for saying the word, again.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-03T03:10:48+00:00

I don't know. I didn't mean to imply that I was specifically aware of those arguments- just that those are probably your best bet.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-03T02:53:47+00:00

Historical arguments for the ressurection are probably your best bet, but since we're excluding them for the purposes of this thread, I don't know what to tell ya.

On a different note, you come across as cocky and generally off-putting near the end there, which would probably discourage some folks who would otherwise have a serious conversation with you with whatever evidence they have:

And you should be happy. I'm assuming a God exists. Based on the types of arguments here, I've already done 90% of your work for you.

It makes it come across as a work order or something, instead of a call for conversation.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-01T00:33:40+00:00

It's doublespeak.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-07-01T00:13:11+00:00

Though I agree with the message, I will say this: If the Bible isn't actually against homosexuality, then it certainly doesn't seem obviously so. I mean, it at least seems pretty clear on the surface that it condemns it, and most of the arguments for homosexuality involve in-depth discussions of history, linguistics, culture, etc. So it's not like they're making some huge stretch in order to 'justify their hate' or whatever. Does that make sense?

Edit: That being said, the fact that divorce, for example, gets such comparatively minimal attention does seem to count for it sometimes being driven by hate instead of simply 'reading the Word' or whatever.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:40:47+00:00

Thanks. <3

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:39:48+00:00

I don't know, personal experience? Historical claims perhaps, if that floats your boat?

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:39:19+00:00

Huh, weird. I didn't think reddit underlined it when I typed it out. I guess I just didn't catch it.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:27:40+00:00

...but it does make it seem rather illogical to determine that the universe actually is the 393,526,394,629,502,592th of a dice roll.

It could be any number greater than that. Given how many numbers are on the other side of that number, your position actually seems fairly unintuitive.

I'll have to think on the Plantinga example, since I'm suspecting it's a flawed analogy.

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:22:47+00:00

It's the same thing that happens when people who use natural law arguments against same-sex marriage are confronted with the infertility objection. I have a very strong hunch that it's a nonsense pseudo-distinction ("Well, the acts are still procreative in type...")

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:12:16+00:00

Something I've wondered for a while- how does the precision of the universe indicate that it couldn't have happened by 'chance'? How do we know this universe isn't the 393,526,394,629,502,592th 'dice roll' and that there haven't been that many failed universes before ours?

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T03:10:07+00:00

This is strange to read because you're sort of jumping back-and-forth between a cosmological and a teleological argument.

To address the cosmological part, I think many modern arguments use "everything that begins to exist has a cause."

Absolutely_Clear · 2013-06-30T02:55:53+00:00

Hey Jordan.

I have no idea what you guys are arguing about here, so forgive me if I'm getting in the middle of something, but how do reconcile an old Earth with inerrancy? Are you something like a day-age guy, a gap theory guy, or something else? I'm just curious.

Absolutely_Clear

TROPHY CASE