Staredit Network

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood what you said. Anyways, I think it was Twain who said, "you go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company."

Geez where did All this religious stuff about your sexuality come from??

The topic naturally went this way, and that's fine IMO. That's just how discussions go sometimes. That's why I haven't told them to stop and talk about what the original post was about. ;p

This is true. If you repent, and then continue (this is in my religion BTW) then not only do you get the original sin, you also ass the new sin too it, makeing it worse..... But you can always repents. If you actualy feel sorry (and if there is a god, he will know if you mean it or not) you can get rid of all of them and be perfect... untill you sin again.



Its comendable that you wanna rape alittle child......... thats sick. Even if you dont do it.




We realy dont know of anything like that....




That sounds alot like Mormonism.... 0.o

No, it's commendable that you don't act on the desires. If I, for instance, had the urge to commit murder, but I didn't do it, would it be my fault for the desires? In fact, I should be respected for not acting upon those urges.



That's what I was aiming for. I was trying to touch upon a variety of possibilities. My point was that no one knows what religion is correct and even if any religion is correct. No one can say for certain that their religion (or lack thereof) is correct.

Well that still makes you mentally different in the head. Having thoughts of these would eventually build up and it might happen.

Yes, they do have different mental attributes, and yes, it could happen, but it isn't a sin for them to have the desires. Like it or not, you really cannot control desires. Yes, you can ignore them, but you can't really control it.

But even though, it can lead to those urges. People who think about those things end up actually doing the actions. People who think about it a lot has something wrong with their head so they are most likely to go on with the action.

I thought I made it clear enough, but maybe not. I'll see if I can make it easier to understand.

Okay. You say that a homosexual cannot be a christian, because homosexuality is unnatural. So I'm comparing playing StarCraft to being homosexual. Note that this is just an example, a number of other things would work but I just thought StarCraft was a good example considering that it is simple and well known to everyone on this forum.

Homosexuality: Has existed for at least as long as human history. Homosexual intercourse makes use of equipment that has existed for at least as long as human history. Has been observed in many animal species. Estimates indicate that some 7% of people throughout are homosexual.
StarCraft: Has existed for only eight years. StarCraft makes use of equipment that has existed for no more than a few decades. Has not been observed in any species aside from humans. Less than 1% of people throughout history have played StarCraft.

Taking these kinds of facts into consideration, it seems logically impossible that homosexuality is less natural than playing StarCraft. So, if it is more natural, as all human knowledge seems to indicate, then how can you consider yourself a christian when you play StarCraft (an unnatural activity) on a regular basis? Since you are arguing the point, apparently you understand what it is you're arguing about, so you must have some way of solving this problem. I'm interested in hearing this solution.

Well, more strictly, we can only accuse him of assuming it if he fails to provide any actual evidence for it. So far he has not, but that isn't to say he might in the future. It might be better to reserve judgement in this case, for the sake of proper debate.

Maybe it just makes a really good target, something to rally people against.

No, but if the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of homosexuality being based in genetics, what are we supposed to go with? We might be wrong, sure, but until the evidence suggests that homosexuality is a choice, there is no logical reason to take up that position. The argument 'Science isn't always right.' does not in itself disprove anything science has shown, all it does is cast a little doubt over it.

No. The people will go on being just as homosexual, they just won't engage in homosexual activity. You must understand that homosexuality is a psychological state only, and nothing you physically do affects your sexual orientation.

I understand that. However, it seems that would suggest that you can repent for homosexuality, just as you can for any other sin, and be forgiven. From what I can see, EcHo seems to be suggesting that this is not the case.

Okay, this makes a little more sense.

Me included, I guess. The nice thing is, it won't have been my fault.

Think about it. I am a rational person, or as rational as I can force myself to be at any rate. I have looked at a lot of evidence, and have come to the logical conclusion that God, or at the very least the christian God, does not exist. If God does exist, and is as powerful as the Bible indicates he is, he could easily have changed the evidence so that I would believe in him. Being omniscient, he is well aware of this. He chose not to do it, knowing that as a logical person I would then decide that atheism made the most sense. Therefore it is God's fault that I am an atheist. Yes, I know, you're about to type 'but you could have turned away from logic and towards God'. Well...possibly. But it certainly would have been extremely hard on me to do something I am so innately against. And think about it, which is a more unreasonable request: Me requiring that the evidence be changed, or God requiring that I completely abandon logic? The answer to that should be obvious even to a christian.

This is all even ignoring the argument on punishment ratios. God condemns us to Hell for eternity after some 80 years of sinning on Earth. This is such an extreme punishment it's almost impossible for us to imagine. Sort of like if someone playfully called you stupid, and you responded by tying them behind your car and dragging them along the road for several kilometers, then dipped them in acid feet first, and finally fed them into a turbofan engine- only far, far worse (infinity times worse, in fact). That a presumably benevolent deity would do such a thing defies all sense.

Exactly. The desires you can't really help, the actions you can. That's why we punish people for murder, but don't worry about such a thing as 1984's 'thoughtcrime'.

Starcraft still doesnt relate to homosexuality. Like you stated, starcraft existed for only 8 years while homosexuality existed for many years. There are no similarities. Even if 1% of the population played it, there are alot of homosexuals in the world, which is no where even close to population of starcraft. There are also many other games in which they have less than 1%, yet you compare it with a game. You cant compare homosexuality with a game. Orientation doesnt go with game genres.

You completely missed his point.



Hey! This is part of my logic! Stop stealing my thoughts, you thought thief! God seems to have a bit too much angst to be benevolent. It would be like me saying, "I'm going to ruin your life and kill your relatives and if you don't still believe I'm benevolent then I'm going to make you suffer for eternity." That doesn't seem benevolent. I also like the fact that he claims to give out free will, but tends to intervene far too much to give us complete free will. It's like me saying, "Well, if you do sin X, sin Y, or sin Z, I'm going to send you to hell forever, but feel free to do it anyways." That isn't free will.

I'm aware that StarCraft and homosexuality are not the same thing. That's part of my whole point. Sexual orientation may not go with computer games, true. But you didn't say sexual orientation. You said anything unnatural. And from what I can see, that most certainly includes playing StarCraft.

lol

Considering how many people play computers and such you cant really call Starcraft unnatural, and if you just repent and then commit a sin what was the whole point of even repenting? Thats a reason why homosexuals will probably usually go to hell if they are activly homosexual.

That is somewhat what im trying to say. PoSSeSSeDCoW, how about you explain what he is trying to say. All you're saying is "you missed his point".

I did, way back on something like page four after you initially commented on it. You must have missed it. Since you seem keen on ignoring things, I figured you might have simply ignored that as well. Here it is incase you don't feel like browsing through posts to find it.

Obviously. Thats like me saying that plastic and computers are related because they are both un-natural. That is clearly an obvious explaination.

7% of the world's population, or about 450 million, people are homosexual. The number of people who have played StarCraft is probably less than 100 million.

Well, maybe he would have, but I've already done it two or three times and you still haven't understood that, so maybe he thinks any effort on his part is a waste of time.

No, it is not. It is like you saying that, if plastic is unnatural, then surely computers also are considering that they are newer, fewer in number, harder to make, etc.

You must understand that you did not say 'people who do things related to homosexuality are not christians'. You said 'people who do unnatural things are not christians'. That means that anything unnatural fits your criteria; whether or not it is related to homosexuality is entirely irrelevant, provided the thing is still unnatural.

Lets not get carried away with the plastic. It was just an example to your statement. I also never said that people who do unnatural things arent christians. I said homosexuals arent christians. Maybe you should go back and read all my statements.

Actually, you did. Read this comment by you:



That seems to be pretty much exactly what you just said you didn't say.

And yet I explained it in a previous post. Search harder, I promise you that you will find it.

I have no idea what you are talking about there. What is the "it" you are referring to?

Real sorry, only read the first page. But this is probably pretty insightful anyway (maybe not).


Our society is teaching us to like younger and younger girls. Many models aren't even 18. Society teaches men to find women who are petite attractive (or smaller than themselves). In other words, women that men can dominate. I'm not saying pedofila is right, but they're just following the steps of what we teach. Why punish someone who can be cured? If it's all the same cost, it's meaningless to punish someone (unless as a detterant to other would-be criminals). I don't think people are born pedofiles, I think they're taught to be, thus, in it's own ironic way, they are victims.

Thats not much of a pedofilla. Girls mature faster than guys and I see girls ages 16+ dating people over 18 and under 25 normal. Anything over is just wrong

If mother nature was a guy. He would be charged with statutory rape.

I dont understand that. Maybe you can rephrase or explain?