Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
walnutcowboy

Argue

Recommended Posts

You make valid points. However, the Bible is recorded in the way God intended.

 

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

The problem is not one fraud but one of interpretation and cherry picking. 

Yeah, this is the main problem....lot of interpretations......religious book should be more clear, otherwise you can see what happen....in all the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make valid points. However, the Bible is recorded in the way God intended.

 

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

The problem is not one fraud but one of interpretation and cherry picking. 

 

See. See. I know that the bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible.

 

Lol. Another knee slapper from the master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is loving someone of the same gender a sin?!  Hahahaha, silly.

 

Because there is right love and wrong love. There is natural and un-natural.

 

Romans 1:26-27

New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is loving someone of the same gender a sin?!  Hahahaha, silly.

 

At the moment marriage to the same gender is becoming a huge issue in the House of Parliament (UK). To legislate and amend in order to fit the needs of a few is costing time and money of the tax payers. I reckon there're more important issues than gay marriage to be given priority. What a backward step, considering there is a legitimate partnership law in place, that regulate couples living together of the same sex, already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See. See. I know that the bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible.

 

Lol. Another knee slapper from the master.

 

The Master is God, and God's word is the Bible.

 

Obviously you don't believe that, which is your right.... However, your mockery and scoffing at what billions of people do believe only goes to highlight your ignorance.

 

Job 17:2  Are not mockers with me? And does not my eye dwel upon their provocation?

 

Psalms 35:16  With ungodly mockers at feasts they gnashed at me with their teeth.

 

2 Peter 3:3  Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is from the Your Country thread. I've placed a copy here, as it is probably more appropriate in this thread. To see it's origin, click the following link...

 

 

 

 

Republicans give completely mixed messages. On one hand, they claim to be the religious party, toting the Bible and supposedly taking the moral high ground. On the other hand, they support gun rights & big business while failing to support social programs (which stance would Christ have taken?). Republicans also state that they are for smaller government, while at the same time they attempt to dictate their own (phony) morals to everyone. I don't see any Republicans making Government any smaller, do you? They (say they) believe that by giving the rich every break in the book that somehow, the money will filter down to the poor. That is B.S. and they know it. The rich get rich on the backs of others and they don't stay rich by giving those lower on the food chain any more than they have to. In fact, they get richer by finding ways to spend less money. This often means automating, outsourcing, laying people off and generally cutting back spending. They have a lot of people fooled even though all we have to do is look at their track record of failure. Whenever the Republicans come out of office, there's cleaning up & fixing that needs to be done. Actually, they haven't failed. They have succeeded, because their actual goal is different from we've been told.

 

As far as Obama being afraid to hurt the feeling of Muslims... Have you fallen for the lie that all Muslims are the extremists that certain parties have made them out to be? Again, the Christian way is to love thy neighbor and to try an understand him/her... Something the GOP doesn't understand. War never leads to peace. Only diplomacy can accomplish that. Besides, most Muslims know more about the Bible than almost any Christian I've ever met. God didn't create countries, men did. The sooner we become one Earth rather than criticizing and waging war on our neighbors, the better off we'll be. But even going by your train of thought... Under whose watch was Bin-Laden brought down? It wasn't Bush, who had almost eight years to do so. It was Obama, who got him within a couple of years after taking office. It's almost as if George W. wasn't really after him. Then again, the Bin-Ladens are friends & business associates of the Bush family. Go figure.

 

And no, we do not have God's blessing or protection. According to the Bible, the governmental system that currently presides over the Earth is Satan's system. God has no part of it whatsoever and is certainly not blessing or protecting those who make it up. Whether God protects individuals is another topic, but as a country participating in Satan's governmental system, we do not have any blessing or protection. Any politician who claims to be a servant of God either has no clue what the Bible says (making him/her unqualified to make such a statement) or is flat out lying. You can decide which is worse for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @ ANOMALY, 

Thank you for forwarding your message to here, where (if it belongs ANYWHERE) it belongs.

 

 Our founding fathers (and mothers) NEVER expected our country to only have 2 (main) candidates 

That is one of the/our first mistakes.

 

 I will be the first to agree that the republicans send mixed messages.

But I would rather have a mixed message than a clear one that goes against (most) everything I believe in !

 

 The right to bear arms is/has been a law since the beginning of our country. Are you saying that we as FREE PEOPLE should no longer have that right?

No matter how strict gun control laws are, there will ALWAYS be  illegal guns.

 

 I haven't heard that republicans want "smaller government".

I do know "THEY" want less government INVOLVEMENT.

 JESUS was/is NOT a GOVERNMENT.

Christ had the right idea !

As a PERSON he fed the people (granted, he did it through miracles).

We the people should be helping our fellow persons.

WE can do a better job (with No red tape) than ANY government's involvement can ever do.

JESUS told his churches to help the needy.

JESUS told US to help the needy.

As far as I recall, Nowhere does JESUS tell/ask the government to help.  

 

 You make a good point in saying the rich want to STAY rich.

But lets pretend I'm a yacht builder.

I sell yachts for $100,000.

Between materials, labor, and sales, I spend $50,000.

Which means for every yacht I build I keep $50,000. 

 Now lets pretend the Democratic president wants to tax me 50% (or fill in the blank with your own %) of what I make.

If I want to keep making a profit of 50% (and who wouldn't?) what can I do?

1) I can charge 50% +/- more and HOPE the rich people will continue to by my yachts (though SOME will no longer be able to spend THAT much more. Those that DO continue to buy my yachts want to stay as rich as "THEY" are, so however "THEY" make their money, "THEY" will have to raise the rates of whatever they do/make. 

2) I can buy cheaper materials and/or outsource the work elsewhere, now the LOCAL workers for making the materials, and for installing the parts are out of work. And I have to reduce my sales team since I'm not selling as many yachts.

 The moral of the story is: The more the rich have to pay, the more WE have to pay.

 

 I have not fallen for the lie that all Muslims are extremists. I am saying that Obama is AFRAID to hurt the feelings of ANY Muslims, while MY freedom of being a JESUS FREAK is slipping away on almost daily.

 

 I'm sure you are aware that the BIBLE (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) talks about "one Earth"?

In the BIBLE it's called "one world government" and as the BIBLE states that when THAT happens it will be the end days !

It will NOT be a place you want to be

 

 As far as bin-laden goes, Neither the Bush's nor Obama had ANYTHING to do with catching him. It was soldiers that brought him down. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say here: clutching at straws it seems. The yachts example does not make it right in the process of production per se. It's the banks to be taken responsable for what is happening in the global economy. The rich are becoming richer and the divide is even greater now. Capitalism is winning in any kind of governament you vote. That is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I agree that the banks are very much at fault, BUT 

Who bailed out the banks? And lets "us" lose everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question:  Is there really anyone specific to blame?  Or is this a typical snowball effect of many things converging together?

 

For me personally, the day whoever decided that God was not worth being a part of our country was the beginning of the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A simple answer: The fig guy (you know, Newton) said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It is not the action, but the reaction, that I complain about.

 

BUT YES, the first action WAS taking GOD out of the picture !! 

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A simple answer: The fig guy (you know, Newton) said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It is not the action, but the reaction, that I complain about.

 

BUT YES, the first action WAS taking GOD out of the picture !! 

 

At the second coming of Christ God will be back in the picture.... Bad news for bankers, politicians, homosexuals and law breakers (Ten Commandments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4ofN, on 08 May 2013 - 1:01 PM, said:snapback.png

 


See. See. I know that the bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible.

 

Lol. Another knee slapper from the master.

 

 

The Master is God, and God's word is the Bible.

 

Obviously you don't believe that, which is your right.... However, your mockery and scoffing at what billions of people do believe only goes to highlight your ignorance.

 

Job 17:2  Are not mockers with me? And does not my eye dwel upon their provocation?

 

Psalms 35:16  With ungodly mockers at feasts they gnashed at me with their teeth.

 

2 Peter 3:3  Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts.

 

 

Please note that there was nothing in my post that scoffs at what "billions of people do believe".

 

My post was merely pointing out a logical fallacy. Specifically, the fact that the bible contains statements implying that it is the word of god is not in itself proof that the bible is indeed the word of god.

 

I am not trying to belittle your bible, and in fact I am not even saying that the bible is not necessarily the word of god. However if I were to write "this sentance was written by Queen Elizabeth", on a peice of paper and then I was to show that to you as proof that it was actually written by Queen Elizabeth, you would rightly tell me that that would "highlight my ignorance" (and gee, thanks for that!).

 

Similarily, all you can really do about the bible is to say that you believe it to be true and therefore you believe it to be the word of god (or visa versa).

 

I, on the other hand, do not accept it to be true and so quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 does not convince me and I doubt that it had the desired effect of bolstering your arguement against MJistheBOMB.

 

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:icon_rolleyes: If you are an atheist why do you care?. Beside I am confident that miss MJistheBOMB doesn't feel any desired bolstered effect by anyone here.

She appears to be very self-assured herself in what she believes and she has made her point clearly. Unlike your post that doesn't make any sense to me at all. A kind of wanting to state something and at the same time wanted to state nothing of interest reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda get what the poster is saying.  If you want to prove the existence of God or His Laws and you quote Bible verses, they mean nothing to someone who doesn't subscribe to the belief that the Bible is the Infallible, Inspired Word of God. 

 

Other than that, I have no clue what the rest of the post is suppose to be...sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An atheist cares because you are using your bible quotes to discriminate against on how somebody lives their life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is right love and wrong love. There is natural and un-natural.

 

Romans 1:26-27

New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

How is it wrong though?  And I don't mean the "because the Bible says so" excuse.  I mean why does the Bible say it's "shameful"?  What makes it shameful?  Also, it's love, so it's already natural.  There is a difference between love and lust.  Love is a beautiful thing, and knows no genders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, there's some pretty serious discussions going on here... 

 

As much as I try to avoid political or religious topics on the internet, because let's face it, it's like tossing a can of gasoline around a fire, I'll chime in here. 

 

I don't judge anyone for their religious beliefs, you can believe what you want. As long as it makes sense to you, enriches your life, and benefits you enough to make it worth while, that's awesome - go nuts. That same belief spills over into politics and relationships too. I agree with Monique, it's hard for me to use the principles that are in the Bible in my life, because I have no idea if the message has been warped over the thousands of years it's been in print. If you want to live by it's principles, go right ahead, but religion is a personal choice and so is love. Honestly, if you love someone and want to be with them, the details of what gender they are don't matter. 

 

You can think that homosexuality is right or wrong, but if it makes that person happy then what is the problem? This is a different age than when the Bible was written, things have changed; and I personally believe that if God is truly loving, understanding, and perfect like the Bible claims, then He will judge a persons sin and purity by what is in their heart, how they treat other people, and the good they have brought to the world - not by who they have chosen to share their bed with.

Edited by CaitAmber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Let me start out by saying (again) that we have, in our family circle, several CLOSE family members that are homosexuals.

WE do not judge them, we HAVE told them what the BIBLE says (or they already knew).

WE love them dearly, but hate their sin, they know this and we are ALL still family.

 That being said, you/we either believe in the BIBLE or you don't !

You/we can't pick and choose SOME parts and not others.

GOD is a truly loving, understanding, and is PERFECT, and being PERFECT, HE can not allow sin into in Heaven.

This is why had JESUS died for YOUR/MY sins. so you/we could be counted as pure and be allowed into Heaven.

 If you choose to believe the BIBLE, then you have to believe what it takes to get into Heaven (hint:JOHN 14:6).  

 I am wondering since the BIBLE was written, WHAT has changed?

Murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, beastailty  etc. are running rampant today as it was in Biblical times !

There were non-belivers persecuting  CHRISTians back then as well as now.

SO WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE ?? 

OBTY WE ALL SIN and fall short of the Glory of GOD.

I AM NOT sinless, I just try to sin less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no homosexual gene. Homosexuality is a choice.

 

OMG ...yeah right so now following your line of thought I should now go and pick up girls.... anyone....because I can choose.... So I can choose or Sheldon attracts me  or Amy .... one day I want a Tall Dark and in a week I want a beautiful waitress, please... 

 

quote: Despite the general consensus in the scientific community that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal expressions of sexuality, some political and religious organizations are trying to change sexual orientation through therapy, aggressively promoting this attitude of society. Such actions are much more harmful because they present a false belief that homosexuality is a mental illness, often finding that the lack of change in sexual orientation is a moral failure.

"
- The American Psychological Association

 

quote: For one of the arguments that homosexuality is genetic, put forward the universality of its incidence in different cultures. According to researchers at the University of Illinois for human sexual orientation corresponds to at least a few unrelated genes scattered across different chromosomes. The researchers compared the chromosomes of 456 individuals from 146 families in which two or more brothers were gay. We have found several fragments of DNA that in some homosexual brothers and sisters were identical. More than 60% of the brothers found the same areas of DNA on three chromosomes - 7th, 8th and 10 [87]. However, the study Mustanskiego in 2005 showed the probability of impact interactions more genes from different regions of the chromosome (7q36, 8p12 and 10q26) [88]. There are also other studies showing the influence of genetic factors on the development of sexual orientation [89] [90] and other biological factors [91] [92].

Put forward the hypothesis that sexual orientation determined in the brain. There are studies that suggested such that the third nucleus of the hypothalamus INH3 gays is much smaller than in heterosexual men [93]. The difference is too cerebral anterior commissure: gay men it is about 18% larger than in heterosexual women and 35% higher than in heterosexual men [94].
 

Source Wikipedia.

 

And now you can pour your arguments. I just expressed my opinion. I'm not going to participate in this discussion.

 

Edited by silverangel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for ..."there's some pretty serious discussions going on here..." I agree there is. And thanks for the support because this is a difficult issue to be discussed

 

But...what causes a person to be homophobic? Is it perhaps to be a narrow minded person or what? I've heard on the phone people calling the radio on air and saying all sort of things and upsetting too about gay people.

 

I also know for real that some neighbours attacked a decent couple telling them openly to be a lesbian wife and a gay husband...

as if it was their own business...

 

Honestly myself don't give a toss of what kind sexual tendency is around since I don't think is my business to poke my nose in their affairs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also support for homosexuality within evolutionary theory.

 

The following is about work done by Andrea Camperio Ciani and others at the University of Padova in Italy


Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.

"This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way — that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other."

The researchers detail their findings in the June 18 issue of the journal PLoS ONE.

If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.

But if the same genes create both homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women, then any losses in offspring that come about from the males would be made up for by the females of the family.

 

So homosexuality might not be the choice that some people would like to beleive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An atheist cares because you are using your bible quotes to discriminate against on how somebody lives their life.

 

I did not pay attention to the "YOU" used here. Sorry to object this. Personally never used any Bible quotes myself. Perhaps you are referring to Catweazle or Walnutcowboy and also Sherminator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.