Discussion On Being Gay & Christian (Compiled)

[FirsTimer]

All right,  all right,   I might reconsider burning the creationists to death.  

 

I think you should die LOL. (edited version)

[Guest Guest]

Why should he die? reason?

[FirsTimer]

Why should he die? reason?

 

No reason, just die (edited version)

[Steve5380]

No reason, just die (edited version)

 

Occasionally something in us dies and something else gets reborn fresh.  If we are lucky, the house of cards full of old collections of dogmatic lunacies and fairy tales dies (falls in), and then our freedom and peace are reborn.

[FirsTimer]

Occasionally something in us dies and something else gets reborn fresh.  If we are lucky, the house of cards full of old collections of dogmatic lunacies and fairy tales dies (falls in), and then our freedom and peace are reborn.

 

How to get lucky?

[nicenewyorker]

God created man named Adam and another man who love Adam. The End.  Hence, no contradictions in being Christian & Gay, no need to chose one or the other

Edited November 1, 2013 by nicenewyorker

[Guest Guest]

u see, they interpret the bible according how they fancy. No objectivity at all. God created a man to love adam? 

[Guest Raiden Alpha]

God is real but religions are man made.

I am sad for people who cannot find god on their own.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Raiden Alpha

[EasleyLim]

God is real but religions are man made.

I am sad for people who cannot find god on their own.

 

So that's where you got your high horse from.

[sliceboy]

God is real but religions are man made.

I am sad for people who cannot find god on their own.

 

Please define "God" and explain how you found "God" on your own.

[sliceboy]

How to get lucky?

 

I suggest that you get lucky by reading the Christian Bible and know more about your religion.

 

Here are some strange stories in the Bible.

http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com

[Guest Passingthru]

Since we've veered into religiosity, creationism, finding God ...etc, IMO, it's very simple:

1.  Evolution happens but not across species.  Eg, a wolf can evolve into various types of dogs (hard to imagine that a chihuahua had a wolf as an ancestor but it does) but a worm cannot evolve into a cow.

2.  The universe and all its organisms work too perfectly and relationally to one another to have happened by accident.  No truly scientific mind should claim otherwise.

 

3.  You either believe there's a cosmic engineer who created it all or superior extra terrestrials who 'seeded' the planet through extremely advanced technology.  Either belief requires a leap of faith.
 

4.  Atheism, environmentalism, political correctness, darwinism, LBGT along with a whole host of other "isms" and groups have in themselves become religions in various states/levels of organisation complete with beliefs, dogma, idols, leaders, literature...etc.  If you think you're a free thinker or without a religion, better think twice.

 

5.  The passions and frustrations driving you to feel how you do are the same passions and frustrations driving others in like manner.  If you find this hard to understand, then it's best you refrain from trying to because you simply don't have what it takes.  So make it simple on yourself and others.

[Guest ykpolf]

The world cannot be created by creator(s). This is too much of a fairy tale. If you think something is true, you tend to behave in ways in accordance with your beliefs subconsciously. Self fulfilling prophecy. Many people don't involve in a particular religion, they still find happiness. Do not be threatened like in hard-selling promotion. You will not go to hell if you are not into this religion. If you do bad, and in this religion, you will still face dire consequences. Put an end to evangelism. Do good and be wise.

[Guest guest]

Every one equal, whether str8 or gay. Idea about gay bad - this is outdated religious misinformation

[EasleyLim]

Since we've veered into religiosity, creationism, finding God ...etc, IMO, it's very simple:

1.  Evolution happens but not across species.  Eg, a wolf can evolve into various types of dogs (hard to imagine that a chihuahua had a wolf as an ancestor but it does) but a worm cannot evolve into a cow.

2.  The universe and all its organisms work too perfectly and relationally to one another to have happened by accident.  No truly scientific mind should claim otherwise.

 

3.  You either believe there's a cosmic engineer who created it all or superior extra terrestrials who 'seeded' the planet through extremely advanced technology.  Either belief requires a leap of faith.

 

4.  Atheism, environmentalism, political correctness, darwinism, LBGT along with a whole host of other "isms" and groups have in themselves become religions in various states/levels of organisation complete with beliefs, dogma, idols, leaders, literature...etc.  If you think you're a free thinker or without a religion, better think twice.

 

5.  The passions and frustrations driving you to feel how you do are the same passions and frustrations driving others in like manner.  If you find this hard to understand, then it's best you refrain from trying to because you simply don't have what it takes.  So make it simple on yourself and others.

 

1) Umm, true. But I don't see the point you're trying to establish here. Are you saying that cross species metamorphosis is impossible therefore there must be an intelligent designer or something..?

 

2) I feel that the people who says things like what you've said, " things works so perfectly together must have a designer!", don't really seem to understand evolution. To view evolution as having a pre-determined "next step" or end goal is looking from the wrong side of the evolution when there is, in fact, no such thing as an end goal... except to increase the chances survival. Organisms that are better able to live and reproduce in their particular environments survive and breed. Organisms that are poorly suited to their environments die out. Sea anemones and clown fishes have a symbiotic r/s not because they are a match made in heaven but because the clown fish adapted to environment. The clown fishes that developed immunity to the stinging sea anemones live to breed more and pass down their mutation and those that don't simply dies out. Evolution makes no predictions of conditions not yet present. It only rewards behaviours and adaptations that increase survivability in the organism's current environment. 

 

3) I don't believe in either, tbh. Both sounds equally far-fetched.

 

3) The things you've mentioned are not religion in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, it's very religious-like but it's not a religion. Maybe the world you're looking for fanaticism? 

 

4) Oh, I understand where religious people are coming from. I mean, this IS a thread to discuss religion, no? If one doesn't want to talk about religion then one shouldn't look at the thread. Nobody in this thread should post with the idea of converting each other and at the end of the day, there should not be hard feelings towards one like one would expect from a proper and civilized discussion.

Edited November 5, 2013 by EasleyLim

[Guest Passingthru]

 

1) Umm, true. But I don't see the point you're trying to establish here. Are you saying that cross species metamorphosis is impossible therefore there must be an intelligent designer or something..?

-  I'm saying the theory of evolution with regards to how life was established and organisms becoming so diverse (reptilians, mammalians, fish...etc) carries the same theoritical and fantastical weightage and biasness as the theory of creationism.  Both are theories but unfortunately, from what I can see, evolution in the sense I mentioned is seen by many as scientific and credible.  If this isn't religious fervour, then I don't know what to call it but it sure isn't scientific.  Between the two, I choose to believe in an intelligent designer as it makes more sense to me.

 

2) I feel that the people who says things like what you've said, " things works so perfectly together must have a designer!", don't really seem to understand evolution. To view evolution as having a pre-determined "next step" or end goal is looking from the wrong side of the evolution when there is, in fact, no such thing as an end goal... except to increase the chances survival. Organisms that are better able to live and reproduce in their particular environments survive and breed. Organisms that are poorly suited to their environments die out. Sea anemones and clown fishes have a symbiotic r/s not because they are a match made in heaven but because the clown fish adapted to environment. The clown fishes that developed immunity to the stinging sea anemones live to breed more and pass down their mutation and those that don't simply dies out. Evolution makes no predictions of conditions not yet present. It only rewards behaviours and adaptations that increase survivability in the organism's current environment. 

-  The end goal, ie, life and how it works, was already established as the various species and organisms were created/engineered.  What happens thereafter is evolution.  The question is how was life established in the first place.  By accident?  Sorry but the accident theory is simply unscientific.

 

3) I don't believe in either, tbh. Both sounds equally far-fetched.

-  Between the 2 'evils' of creationism and evolution/big bang/whatever, I'd place my bet on the former be it a cosmic engineer or advanced extra terrestrials.  To me, engineering makes more scientific sense.

 

3) The things you've mentioned are not religion in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, it's very religious-like but it's not a religion. Maybe the world you're looking for fanaticism? 

-  No, it isn't fanaticism although it could well be for some, especially after seeing some of the responses in this thread.  Call it an "anchor" or even a "security blanket" but behaviour and defensiveness shaped by it, to me, is religiousity.  The difference just lies on where they stand on the scale of religiousity.  Just like there are those who are righteously wrong, there are those who are religiously anti religion.  Ditto those who are very proud of their humility.  Do you see the irony I'm trying explain?

 

4) Oh, I understand where religious people are coming from. I mean, this IS a thread to discuss religion, no? If one doesn't want to talk about religion then one shouldn't look at the thread. Nobody in this thread should post with the idea of converting each other and at the end of the day, there should not be hard feelings towards one like one would expect from a proper and civilized discussion.

-  The problem as always is that it never remains a discussion because of people's religiousity, fervour, defensiveness and baggage.  These inevitably prevent proper reading, comprehension and questioning which in turn prevents discourse.

LOL, what synchronicity - the security check was PAPAL!

[Gray]

LOL, what synchronicity - the security check was PAPAL!

 

I was really trying to refrain from posting in this thread because I find that there really is no use in this debate. People will believe whatever they want to, no matter the facts.

 

However I just couldn't resist for this post.

 

 

I'm saying the theory of evolution with regards to how life was established and organisms becoming so diverse (reptilians, mammalians, fish...etc) carries the same theoritical and fantastical weightage and biasness as the theory of creationism.  Both are theories but unfortunately, from what I can see, evolution in the sense I mentioned is seen by many as scientific and credible.  If this isn't religious fervour, then I don't know what to call it but it sure isn't scientific.  Between the two, I choose to believe in an intelligent designer as it makes more sense to me.

 

Evolution is not a THEORY but a proven FACT. I suggest you should read up on evolution before you associate facts of reality with creationism. They are nothing alike. If it sounds fantastical to you, it probably means that you lack research on this subject and you lack knowledge of the scientific way. Because a theory in scientific terms does not mean a guess, or a hunch.

 

When scientists use the word "theory", it's a well substantiated, well supported, well documented explanation for our observations. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

 

What does this mean? This means that evolution/darwinism is well supported with evidence and in fact is still readily observable in modern times (Natural selection, mutation, etc). Compared to creationism, which has no concrete evidence whatsoever.... I dunno about you, but these 2 "theories" are a far cry apart from each other.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

 

Anyway I just couldn't resist doing your research for you. Evolution theory is the basis of medical and biotechnology in modern times. Without the darwin theory, MANY innovations, discoveries and inventions in modern medicine, agriculture, etc, would not exist.

 

Really, stop using the word scientific because it is really evident that you know little of the scientific method. True that the idea of intelligent design might sound logical to some, but the scientific way requires not only logic but most importantly also EVIDENCE. And numerous testing of the theory and cross referencing. The Big Bang can be recreated today (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/8675126/Spectacular-images-from-Big-Bang-recreation.html). Can intelligent design be concretely proven and recreated?

 

And I also disagree with you implying that atheism is a religion in of itself. I'm an atheist, but if Jesus comes down to earth and screams I am God!! and does all kinds of godly things, then I might be inclined to rethink my perception of christianity. With in depth analysis of the observations and evidence obtained from the event of course. Because that's the way atheists work. We need evidence to be convinced. If evidence is shown to be true, then I would gladly relinquish my atheist status and admit readily that there is a god. But up till today, zero nil nada concrete evidence.

 

 

-  The end goal, ie, life and how it works, was already established as the various species and organisms were created/engineered.  What happens thereafter is evolution.  The question is how was life established in the first place.  By accident?  Sorry but the accident theory is simply unscientific.

 

-  Between the 2 'evils' of creationism and evolution/big bang/whatever, I'd place my bet on the former be it a cosmic engineer or advanced extra terrestrials.  To me, engineering makes more scientific sense.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gray

[EasleyLim]

1  I'm saying the theory of evolution with regards to how life was established and organisms becoming so diverse (reptilians, mammalians, fish...etc) carries the same theoretical and fantastical weightage and biases as the theory of creationism.  Both are theories but unfortunately, from what I can see, evolution in the sense I mentioned is seen by many as scientific and credible.  If this isn't religious fervour, then I don't know what to call it but it sure isn't scientific.  Between the two, I choose to believe in an intelligent designer as it makes more sense to me.

2  The end goal, ie, life and how it works, was already established as the various species and organisms were created/engineered.  What happens thereafter is evolution.  The question is how was life established in the first place.  By accident?  Sorry but the accident theory is simply unscientific.

 

3 Between the 2 'evils' of creationism and evolution/big bang/whatever, I'd place my bet on the former be it a cosmic engineer or advanced extra terrestrials.  To me, engineering makes more scientific sense.

 

1) I don't think you understand what theories means in science. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena... basically what Gray said.

 

To call the science a religion is to broaden the definition of religion so much that it becomes meaningless. Science is a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. Religion -- whatever it is -- is certainly not "testable," nor is it "open to rejection or confirmation." In their methodologies science and religion are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. Please don't mistaken the two.

 

But one thing I would like to clarify is the definition of Theory and Fact.

In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change. A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. In this case, evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory because it is already so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially, hence the religious-like fervor when someone claims it's untrue or anything in that similar vein. Any scientific mind worth their weight in gold would have no trouble accepting changes to a theory should new and compelling evidence that goes against the current line of thought appears. 

 

2) Your logic doesn't make sense. If the end goal was already established then there wouldn't be any need for evolution because the intelligent designer would have created them perfectly to begin with. There wouldn't be any need for animals to adapt to a new environment and there will only be one species. But yet, we see many cases where the animals that move to a different place with different conditions change with natural selection and adaptation to their environment and a new species is formed. A good example are the Darwin finches, who had the same origin, but lived on different isles and have different beaks and are biologically different species. 

 

3) You just committed an either-or fallacy, or the fallacy of false alternatives. If A is false, B must be true. Oh? Why? Shouldn't B stand on its own regardless of A? So even if evolutionary theory turns out to be completely wrong and the whole thing was a big mistake, that does not mean that, ergo, creationism is right. There may be alternatives C, D, and E we have yet to consider. There is, however, a true dichotomy in the case of natural v. supernatural explanations, i'll give you that. Either life was created and changed by natural means or it did not. Scientists assume natural causation, and evolutionists debate the various natural causal agents involved and not whether it happened by natural or supernatural means. 

 

As for the origins of life, biochemists do have a very rational and scientific explanation for the evolution from inorganic to organic compounds, the creation of amino acids and the construction of protein chains, the first crude cells, and so on. While these theories are by no means robust and still subject to lively scientific debate, there is a reasonable explanation for how you get from the Big Bang to the Big Brain in the known universe. Evolution is not equipped to answer certain "ultimate" type questions, such as: "what was there before the beginning of the universe?" or "Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang?" or "What is the purpose of life?". These are philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones, and therefore are not part of science. So yes, you are right to say evolution doesn't explain the meaning or purpose of life because that's not the focus of evolutionary studies. 

Edited November 5, 2013 by EasleyLim

[Guest Passingthru]

I'll let this speak for me:  http://rcg.org/books/effai.html

[sliceboy]

I'll let this speak for me:  http://rcg.org/books/effai.html

 

To learn evolution, go to sources about evolution, e.g.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu

 

NUS teaches evolution. Approved by MOE.

http://evolution.science.nus.edu.sg

 

I won't let Christianity or other religions speak for me about evolution.

 

Are you a Christian? How do you reconcile Christianity and homosexuality?

Edited November 5, 2013 by sliceboy

[Gray]

Aiya really la guys, let's just think about this in a very reasonable and rational manner.

 

A: you have your religious stories which sound very nice and lovely and tells you with 100% absolute certainty about certain facts of life, BUT has a zero track record of anything proven and whose concepts are backdated and absolutely inapplicable to modern life.

 

compared to:

 

B: you have your scientific explanations that are not 100% perfect and doesn't give you the delusion that it knows absolutely everything 100%, BUT has a steady proven track record of being correct and whose facts, laws and theories are used and applied in our lives everyday ranging from all kinds of technology especially medicine.

 

Which would sound more credible to a logical person with a "scientific" mind and a "scientific" way of thinking? One with absolutely zero track record of being proven which requires absolute faith to follow, but sounds nice and lovely OR the one which doesn't sound too nice but has a steady track record of being correct?

 

I know which one I would take my sources from.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gray

[Guest Passingthru]

 

Are you a Christian? How do you reconcile Christianity and homosexuality?

Yes, I am a follower of Christ.

 

There is nothing to reconcile because I believe the Lord created me the way I am and in His infinite wisdom has a plan for me.  Life's a journey and that plan unfolds for me as I walk along.  While I can't speak for other Christians, I'm personally not a practising homosexual despite my being one.  I don't attend church as churches, IMO, are mostly just religious clubs and as with all clubs, there are the "house rules".  Said rules are based on whatever traditions and biblical interpretations that particular church adheres to and is usually what's causing so much contention.  Churches are communities which can either make you or break you.  Why subject yourself to such unnecessary exposure? No church, no problem.  In any case, church attendance eventually becomes a religious ritual done out of habit and/or emotional blackmail.  Not very spiritual, IMO.  But to each his own.  As for me, I take care of my relationship with the Creator and am, as a result, experiencing His love and compassion all the time.  There have been and are periods of testing (non sexual, if you're wondering) but as always, His grace is sufficient for me.  What about lust..etc?  Everyone falls short that way.  Bottom line is, I'm basically contented and at peace.

As I've always maintained, there are many types of homos.  If you're biologically one, there's nothing you can do about it.  If psychologically or spiritually induced, then seek help.  How does one know what type one is and what help to seek?  Well, that's your journey.  I don't have the answer.  I just know mine.

[Guest guest]

How do u know god created you? Just because u think so? Just because later generation of followers wrote it down? Just because people say so? Who created god? And if god created the world, it could also be other god of other cultures? If god is loving, why are some people "created" to suffer so much? Can't be his plan for some people to lead miserable lives. Our thoughts and believes change when we grow older and when we are exposed to more cultures and see more things in the world. During christ time people think world is flat, but we all know it is not flat.

[Guest Passingthru]

"How do u know god created you? Just because u think so?"

-  My beliefs are a leap of faith as already explained.  You don't have to share the same.  It's called choice and free will.

"Just because later generation of followers wrote it down?"

-  Centuries later, people will be saying the same things about what people today write down.  Time is funny that way.

"Just because people say so? Who created god? And if god created the world, it could also be other god of other cultures?"
-  As far as I'm concerned, I make up my own mind just like you do yours.  God is the creator, not the created.  It's the same God no matter the culture or religion.

"If god is loving, why are some people "created" to suffer so much?"
-  If parents are loving, why do they want to bring children into this world to face all sorts of challenges?

"Can't be his plan for some people to lead miserable lives."
-  If I knew His precise plans, I wouldn't need HIm.  I'd already be Him.

"Our thoughts and believes change when we grow older and when we are exposed to more cultures and see more things in the world."
-  It is precisely the passage of time, age and exposure which strengthens my faith in God.

"During christ time people think world is flat, but we all know it is not flat."
-  Likewise, during this time people think that the concept of a creator is fantasy but who knows, in the future, people will understand otherwise.

I liken such questioning to the simple analogy of the child taken on a journey.  He keeps on asking the driver "Are we there yet?" and no matter the answer, be it a plain "no" or a more elaborate explanation, the child will mostly never be satisfied and will continue asking.  Decide for yourself if you're being taken for a ride or simply enjoy the journey.

 

[sliceboy]

You are a homosexual and you read & participate on blowingwind.org, a website about many homosexual topics - this makes you a practising homosexual. Does this comply with your interpretation of the Bible? Just kidding.

 

I attended Christian-mission primary & secondary schools and I was indoctrinated into Christianity in a very filtered or censored way; every thing seemed logical. Over the years into adulthood, the more that I read the Bible uncensored, the less I believe, and Christianity became more metaphorical than literal truths, mainly because of the lack of historical or scientific evidence for many important things like the existence of Jesus and proof of resurrection. Plus the many crazy stories. Nevermind the anti-gay passages. Thanks to the Internet, I found online forums of ex-Christians, ex-Muslims and atheists.

 

Today, I am an atheist. I prefer to believe in truth based on evidence and not blind faith. I'll believe in the supernatural if there is sufficient evidence.

 

Yes, I am a follower of Christ.

 

There is nothing to reconcile because I believe the Lord created me the way I am and in His infinite wisdom has a plan for me.  Life's a journey and that plan unfolds for me as I walk along.  While I can't speak for other Christians, I'm personally not a practising homosexual despite my being one.  I don't attend church as churches, IMO, are mostly just religious clubs and as with all clubs, there are the "house rules".  Said rules are based on whatever traditions and biblical interpretations that particular church adheres to and is usually what's causing so much contention.  Churches are communities which can either make you or break you.  Why subject yourself to such unnecessary exposure? No church, no problem.  In any case, church attendance eventually becomes a religious ritual done out of habit and/or emotional blackmail.  Not very spiritual, IMO.  But to each his own.  As for me, I take care of my relationship with the Creator and am, as a result, experiencing His love and compassion all the time.  There have been and are periods of testing (non sexual, if you're wondering) but as always, His grace is sufficient for me.  What about lust..etc?  Everyone falls short that way.  Bottom line is, I'm basically contented and at peace.

As I've always maintained, there are many types of homos.  If you're biologically one, there's nothing you can do about it.  If psychologically or spiritually induced, then seek help.  How does one know what type one is and what help to seek?  Well, that's your journey.  I don't have the answer.  I just know mine.

[muddywill]

This afternoon, I was walking across a parking lot when this ignorant black woman said to her friend, " the second coming is coming! Yeah, i believe it. It will probably come in the next 15 years...."

I dunno. Whenever I hear about theories regarding The end of the world, I just roll my eyes. Even as a Christian, whenever someone makes such blank statements, I usually dismiss them as being foolish and uninformed. why do people always say something along the lines of "the world is coming to an end,!" whenever they see something they do not like?

A part of me even doesn't even necessarily believe that any of the events as described in the book of revelations will ever be realized. Does anyone share similar sentiments/struggles on this topic?

[sliceboy]

You should have asked her for the source of the prediction.

 

Some Christians believe that societal acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of the end times.

 

Dooms day ideology is a dangerous part of Christianity. Often, those who make such predictions often sound stupid, e.g. American Christian radio host Harold Camping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_21st,_2011_doomsday_prediction

 

Here is a list of failed end-of-world predictions from 0030 to 1920 AD.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

 

 

 

This afternoon, I was walking across a parking lot when this ignorant black woman said to her friend, " the second coming is coming! Yeah, i believe it. It will probably come in the next 15 years...."

I dunno. Whenever I hear about theories regarding The end of the world, I just roll my eyes. Even as a Christian, whenever someone makes such blank statements, I usually dismiss them as being foolish and uninformed. why do people always say something along the lines of "the world is coming to an end,!" whenever they see something they do not like?

A part of me even doesn't even necessarily believe that any of the events as described in the book of revelations will ever be realized. Does anyone share similar sentiments/struggles on this topic?

[Guest Guest]

 

"If god is loving, why are some people "created" to suffer so much?"

-  If parents are loving, why do they want to bring children into this world to face all sorts of challenges?

This does not make any sense at all. This reply totally does not answer the question at all and the logic is grotesquely absurb. God is supposed to be almighty (as postulated by belivers), but parents are not almighty. God is postulated to be the creator but parents obviously do not have control over the quality of their offsprings, they have to accept whatever condition of their children. 

"Can't be his plan for some people to lead miserable lives."

-  If I knew His precise plans, I wouldn't need HIm.  I'd already be Him.

If we do not know his plans, then why should we be worshipping him blindly? And because some of his creations suffers miserable lives, there is totally no basis to conclude that he is loves us and he is loving. 

"During christ time people think world is flat, but we all know it is not flat."

-  Likewise, during this time people think that the concept of a creator is fantasy but who knows, in the future, people will understand otherwise.

This will not happen. People of present and future generations are more discerning and in this information age, with internet and media, people start to question and think. People these days are different from people from the past. No more "don't ask so much, just believe and do what u are told". Even SAF is different nowadays as compared to the past, no more "just obey and shut up.".

I liken such questioning to the simple analogy of the child taken on a journey.  He keeps on asking the driver "Are we there yet?" and no matter the answer, be it a plain "no" or a more elaborate explanation, the child will mostly never be satisfied and will continue asking.  Decide for yourself if you're being taken for a ride or simply enjoy the journey.

If a child questions, it is within expectations. This means the child has reasonable intellect. If the child does not question and just simply "enjoy the journey" quietly, then we should worry for this child and he could be possibly intellectually disabled

[Guest Passingthru]

 

 

"If god is loving, why are some people "created" to suffer so much?"

-  If parents are loving, why do they want to bring children into this world to face all sorts of challenges?

This does not make any sense at all. This reply totally does not answer the question at all and the logic is grotesquely absurb. God is supposed to be almighty (as postulated by belivers), but parents are not almighty. God is postulated to be the creator but parents obviously do not have control over the quality of their offsprings, they have to accept whatever condition of their children. 

"Can't be his plan for some people to lead miserable lives."

-  If I knew His precise plans, I wouldn't need HIm.  I'd already be Him.

If we do not know his plans, then why should we be worshipping him blindly? And because some of his creations suffers miserable lives, there is totally no basis to conclude that he is loves us and he is loving. 

"During christ time people think world is flat, but we all know it is not flat."

-  Likewise, during this time people think that the concept of a creator is fantasy but who knows, in the future, people will understand otherwise.

This will not happen. People of present and future generations are more discerning and in this information age, with internet and media, people start to question and think. People these days are different from people from the past. No more "don't ask so much, just believe and do what u are told". Even SAF is different nowadays as compared to the past, no more "just obey and shut up.".

I liken such questioning to the simple analogy of the child taken on a journey.  He keeps on asking the driver "Are we there yet?" and no matter the answer, be it a plain "no" or a more elaborate explanation, the child will mostly never be satisfied and will continue asking.  Decide for yourself if you're being taken for a ride or simply enjoy the journey.

If a child questions, it is within expectations. This means the child has reasonable intellect. If the child does not question and just simply "enjoy the journey" quietly, then we should worry for this child and he could be possibly intellectually disabled

 

1st paragraph:  ...parents obviously do not have control over the quality of their offsprings, they have to accept whatever condition of their children.....

                         You have gone off tangent.  The point I was trying to make is that what drives parents to have children despite the fact that these children will go "through the wringer" over their lifetime on earth.  Surely loving parents know better and wouldn't want that, right?  But they still go ahead anyway.  The answer to this question gives us a glimpse into why a creator creates.  By no means is the mystery solved but at least we have a tiny understanding.  If this is disatisfactory, then I'm afraid I've nothing more to offer.

2nd paragraph:  Children don't know their parents plans but they still look up to them, right?  They place their confidence in the only people they know and who loves them despite the less than ideal conditions, environment and circumstances they face.  Likewise, I worship God through thick and thin, ups and downs.

3rd paragraph:  It is precisely with ICT and other technololgy, that it will happen even faster.   Eg, until the advent of IVF and cloning, the immaculate conception was derided as a laughable fairy tale.  Since then, people have seen the possibility of complex organisms reproducing asexually through engineering.  Likewise, people will get to the bottom of biblical "fairy tales" and other mysteries quicker than ever.  What people then do with the evidence is a whole other matter.  No one is blocking information and discernment, certanly not me.

4th paragraph:  Therefore, the child should use his "reasonable intellect" to understand that he is getting there and use his energy instead, to enjoy the ride or take an interest in what the driver is doing and how he's doing it.   The child's "reasonable intellect" knows that no amount of asking will shorten the journey but he keeps on asking anyway.  Why?  Because he's actually not interested in the answer.  He simply wants to have the last word and wants instant gratification.  Nothing else will satisfy, neither milestones nor graphics of the journey or the fact that they are increasingly nearer to their destination with every passing moment.

[Guest Victor]

1st paragraph: ...parents obviously do not have control over the quality of their offsprings, they have to accept whatever condition of their children.....

You have gone off tangent. The point I was trying to make is that what drives parents to have children despite the fact that these children will go "through the wringer" over their lifetime on earth. Surely loving parents know better and wouldn't want that, right? But they still go ahead anyway. The answer to this question gives us a glimpse into why a creator creates. By no means is the mystery solved but at least we have a tiny understanding. If this is disatisfactory, then I'm afraid I've nothing more to offer.

2nd paragraph: Children don't know their parents plans but they still look up to them, right? They place their confidence in the only people they know and who loves them despite the less than ideal conditions, environment and circumstances they face. Likewise, I worship God through thick and thin, ups and downs.

3rd paragraph: It is precisely with ICT and other technololgy, that it will happen even faster. Eg, until the advent of IVF and cloning, the immaculate conception was derided as a laughable fairy tale. Since then, people have seen the possibility of complex organisms reproducing asexually through engineering. Likewise, people will get to the bottom of biblical "fairy tales" and other mysteries quicker than ever. What people then do with the evidence is a whole other matter. No one is blocking information and discernment, certanly not me.

4th paragraph: Therefore, the child should use his "reasonable intellect" to understand that he is getting there and use his energy instead, to enjoy the ride or take an interest in what the driver is doing and how he's doing it. The child's "reasonable intellect" knows that no amount of asking will shorten the journey but he keeps on asking anyway. Why? Because he's actually not interested in the answer. He simply wants to have the last word and wants instant gratification. Nothing else will satisfy, neither milestones nor graphics of the journey or the fact that they are increasingly nearer to their destination with every passing moment.

Sorry Passingthru

I respect your religion and you. However, your explanations are not impressionable.

[EasleyLim]

If the immaculate conception can be recreated by science, wouldn't that destroy the divinity or miraculous property of the act? Wouldn't that remove the only thing seperating the supernatural claim the church has from the sciences? If anything, I would be less inclined to believe in a supreme being if science can rreplicate his supposed miracle.

[sliceboy]

Would non-practising homosexuals have created online forums like blowingwind.org?

[Guest Passingthru]

 

If the immaculate conception can be recreated by science, wouldn't that destroy the divinity or miraculous property of the act?

There is a saying that miracles are but undiscovered technology.  When undiscovered, miracles are derided for their so-called impossibility.  Once discovered, familliarity breeds contempt.  Between a rock and a hard place.

The way I see it, science plays catch up to the Bible.

[Guest Passingthru]

Would non-practising homosexuals have created online forums like blowingwind.org?

Highly unlikely.  Ditto a food critic setting up a food business.

[sliceboy]

There is a saying that miracles are but undiscovered technology.  When undiscovered, miracles are derided for their so-called impossibility.  Once discovered, familliarity breeds contempt.  Between a rock and a hard place.

The way I see it, science plays catch up to the Bible.

 

The way I see it, science plays catch up to fiction.

[sliceboy]

Highly unlikely.  Ditto a food critic setting up a food business.

 

Ditto a virgin having oral sex.

[Guest Passingthru]

The way I see it, science plays catch up to fiction.

Hence the reason why the Bible will never be seen as serious and worthy no matter how well it gets positively proven because the basic disregard for it is already 'set in stone'.  The question is what is the real reason behind such decided contempt for it?  My guess is that the adamance against it is so deep and strong that even should the whole book be proven true and God himself appeared to seal the deal, it would still not be convincing enough.  There will be something to explain away the phenomena.  When one doesn't believe, then anything and everything else would be preferable and a relief.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry Passingthru

I respect your religion and you. However, your explanations are not impressionable.

That is the thing. Looks very lengthy but if u scrutinise carefully, the explanations are very lacking in reasoning and logic, and hardly convincing at all. They can argue and justify in any manner they fancy without any regard for logic or reasoning. There is no objectivity at all 

[Guest Passingthru]

Ditto a virgin having oral sex.

I get your intention/barb but I'm betting that the virgin is far likelier to be an expert at oral sex than a food critic would even remotely be at running a restaurant.

[Guest Passingthru]

That is the thing. Looks very lengthy but if u scrutinise carefully, the explanations are very lacking in reasoning and logic, and hardly convincing at all. They can argue and justify in any manner they fancy without any regard for logic or reasoning. There is no objectivity at all 

It works both ways.  From your point of view, it's illogical and unconvincing, and if I may read between the lines, the replier is 'slippery'.  From my point of view, it's simply the questioner's failure to understand and adamance in not wanting to and if I may further indulge in judgement, inflexible.  Conclusion:  no resolution, not even a middle ground.

Eg:  I can try to explain the possibility of 1 + 1 equalling 3 but that would be shot down as illogical since everyone knows that 1 + 1 = 2.  Then I go on and say that biologically, 1 + 1 can = 3 or even 4 and that 1 + 1 can even be 11 if you put the two ones physically together. That argument is then deemed as "not being objective".  The problem arises due to a refusal to attempt any understanding because the baggage of maths renders the questioner inflexible.

[sliceboy]

Christianity can lead a gay person to be a non-practising homosexual who is unlikely to create online forums like blowingwind.org. What if Christianity becomes the religion of the majority in Singapore?

[slut]

Highly unlikely.  Ditto a food critic setting up a food business.

 

 

Ditto a virgin having oral sex.

 

 

I get your intention/barb but I'm betting that the virgin is far likelier to be an expert at oral sex than a food critic would even remotely be at running a restaurant.

 

 

It works both ways.  From your point of view, it's illogical and unconvincing, and if I may read between the lines, the replier is 'slippery'.  From my point of view, it's simply the questioner's failure to understand and adamance in not wanting to and if I may further indulge in judgement, inflexible.  Conclusion:  no resolution, not even a middle ground.

Eg:  I can try to explain the possibility of 1 + 1 equalling 3 but that would be shot down as illogical since everyone knows that 1 + 1 = 2.  Then I go on and say that biologically, 1 + 1 can = 3 or even 4 and that 1 + 1 can even be 11 if you put the two ones physically together. That argument is then deemed as "not being objective".  The problem arises due to a refusal to attempt any understanding because the baggage of maths renders the questioner inflexible.

 

It isnt the 'baggage of math' that renders the questioner inflexible so much as the operation '+' is limited to the function that it carries, ie to add. You can create another operation Q such that 1Q1=11 and 1Q6=16, but you may not under any circumstance  use '+' to mean the same since an operation can carry out only one function. If someone were to accept your argument that 1+1=11 then that person isnt being objective, they're just being plain ridiculous.

 

Religion, on the other hand, does not carry the same burden since there isn't a universal proof for or against the purpose of its existence and so someone might reasonably be deemed unobjective should they refuse to accept an argument for religion (since any such refusal is made without the basis of proof for their case). However, if you carry out this mode of thinking to its end, you'll note that there is neither objectivity in the belief of religion nor the non-belief of religion, so that may not be used as a criticism against non-believers in any case, much less a criticism for anyone who refuses to accept religion on the sole (and flimsy) basis of your case.

 

Lastly, I'm Christian.

Edited November 6, 2013 by slut

[Steve5380]

The world cannot be created by creator(s). This is too much of a fairy tale. If you think something is true, you tend to behave in ways in accordance with your beliefs subconsciously. Self fulfilling prophecy. Many people don't involve in a particular religion, they still find happiness. Do not be threatened like in hard-selling promotion. You will not go to hell if you are not into this religion. If you do bad, and in this religion, you will still face dire consequences. Put an end to evangelism. Do good and be wise.

Very true.

 

I might add that while most theologies or other explanations of the origins of the universe that are honestly conceived have a non-zero probability to be true,  none has even a remote chance of being proven.  So, why worry?   A righteous agnostic can turn away from all the religious noise and live a happy, successful life.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

"How do u know god created you? Just because u think so?"

-  My beliefs are a leap of faith as already explained.  You don't have to share the same.  It's called choice and free will.

"Just because later generation of followers wrote it down?"

-  Centuries later, people will be saying the same things about what people today write down.  Time is funny that way.

"Just because people say so? Who created god? And if god created the world, it could also be other god of other cultures?"

-  As far as I'm concerned, I make up my own mind just like you do yours.  God is the creator, not the created.  It's the same God no matter the culture or religion.

"If god is loving, why are some people "created" to suffer so much?"

-  If parents are loving, why do they want to bring children into this world to face all sorts of challenges?

"Can't be his plan for some people to lead miserable lives."

-  If I knew His precise plans, I wouldn't need HIm.  I'd already be Him.

"Our thoughts and believes change when we grow older and when we are exposed to more cultures and see more things in the world."

-  It is precisely the passage of time, age and exposure which strengthens my faith in God.

"During christ time people think world is flat, but we all know it is not flat."

-  Likewise, during this time people think that the concept of a creator is fantasy but who knows, in the future, people will understand otherwise.

I liken such questioning to the simple analogy of the child taken on a journey.  He keeps on asking the driver "Are we there yet?" and no matter the answer, be it a plain "no" or a more elaborate explanation, the child will mostly never be satisfied and will continue asking.  Decide for yourself if you're being taken for a ride or simply enjoy the journey.

 

Passingthru, you came into this discussion with a list of five items where you express your opinions.  This was very interesting.

 

Now that your opinions are challenged, you resort to the following answer: "My beliefs are a leap of faith as already explained.  You don't have to share the same.  It's called choice and free will."  If this is your conclusion of the conversation,  why you wanted to start it in the first place?

 

You want to be a passer-through all your life?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

Highly unlikely.  Ditto a food critic setting up a food business.

Passigthru,  your analogy is so bad that it is hilarious.   Non-practicing homosexuals would have never created this website nor would they have brought forward the LGTB cause.  But thanks to a minority of courageous homosexuals the reasons to be a non-practicing homosexual are rapidly disappearing. 

[Steve5380]

Christianity can lead a gay person to be a non-practising homosexual who is unlikely to create online forums like blowingwind.org. What if Christianity becomes the religion of the majority in Singapore?

 

In many predominantly Christian countries homosexuals are turning from non-practicing to practicing.   It is the chore of homosexuals to become 'practicing' and keep Christians from infringing on the rights of people.  A good example is the native country of Pope Francis,  Argentina,  where gay marriage is recognized and legal.  Similarly, in highly Catholic Mexico there are no rules against homosexuality, and gay sex is recognized in its capital Mexico City.  Similarly, in the predominantly Christian United States, homosexuality is perfectly legal and gay sex is increasingly recognized.

 

This acceptance will also happen in Singapore, even with a Christian majority,  as soon as Singapore gays become less afraid.  There are hardly enough jails in Singapore to imprison 3% or 5% of its population.

[Steve5380]

 

What if all the sanctimonious ladies who kiss the butts of the charismatic Christian preachers in Singapore get this photo,  with a warning that support for the homophobia of their churches will transform them slowly to look like this woman?

[Guest Passingthru]

................. Non-practicing homosexuals would have never created this website.......

Isn't that what I meant?

[Guest Passingthru]

Passingthru, you came into this discussion with a list of five items where you express your opinions.  This was very interesting.

 

Now that your opinions are challenged, you resort to the following answer: "My beliefs are a leap of faith as already explained.  You don't have to share the same.  It's called choice and free will."  If this is your conclusion of the conversation,  why you wanted to start it in the first place?

 

You want to be a passer-through all your life?

Forums are opened to opinions and I was giving mine.  My conclusions end with me.  They by no means end the conversation.  In fact, I see no end to such converstions except perhaps the ubiquitous "agree to disagree" which basically still leaves everyone hanging and back to square one.

 

Aren't we all passing through life?

[Guest Passingthru]

 

It isnt the 'baggage of math' that renders the questioner inflexible so much as the operation '+' is limited to the function that it carries, ie to add. You can create another operation Q such that 1Q1=11 and 1Q6=16, but you may not under any circumstance  use '+' to mean the same since an operation can carry out only one function. If someone were to accept your argument that 1+1=11 then that person isnt being objective, they're just being plain ridiculous.

-  This is what I mean by 'baggage'.  If this were a math test, I would never have argued that 1 + 1 can be anything but 2, math being an exact science.  However, we're not discussing math and my unfortunate use of the '+' sign rendered my example/analogy wayward.  Without the 'baggage', though, I believe it would be clear that I meant '+' in the context of Q, reproduction or physical assembling.

 

 

Religion, on the other hand, does not carry the same burden since there isn't a universal proof for or against the purpose of its existence and so someone might reasonably be deemed unobjective should they refuse to accept an argument for religion (since any such refusal is made without the basis of proof for their case). However, if you carry out this mode of thinking to its end, you'll note that there is neither objectivity in the belief of religion nor the non-belief of religion, so that may not be used as a criticism against non-believers in any case, much less a criticism for anyone who refuses to accept religion on the sole (and flimsy) basis of your case.

-  There is a difference between "critique" and "criticism".  If it wasn't clear before that I meant the former, then let it be clear now.

 

Lastly, I'm Christian

-  Praise the Lord!