When atheists go too far

Ghost Buster

Cú Giobach wrote: »

All those atheists having discussions on a discussion forum, bastards. :mad:

They make me sick. Putting Nothings on walls in schools and hospitals and observing Christmas and Easter and Thursday and having sex outside marriage.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::eek::mad::mad::eek:

Asry

Ellis Dee wrote: »

As I see it, the personal beliefs that people hold do not harm anyone. However, when they try to push those beliefs on others, they become a boring nuisance at best and at worst they (not the personal beliefs as such, but the persons trying to force others to live in accordance with them) can indeed become harmful. There are many ways to oppose them, but I find that making fun of them is better than a lot of other ways. However, making fun of absurd people or those who publicly profess absurd views and thereby invite ridicule is hardly "attacking" them.:rolleyes:

Yeah, but athiests try to shove things down religious people's throats too. I'm Roman Catholic, and I've had had rough time of it fending off people making snide comments or getting angry and saying I'm stupid or uneducated etc. I would be the last person who'd get up on the soapbox and preach at you. I mean, you don't believe it, that's fine by me, you know? So it's important to remember that it goes both ways.

Asry

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

sensibleken

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

how drunk were you and what were you doing?

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry malty just to take you up on your sig if I may

"Scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."- Colin Patterson.

It has rarley been skepticisim that has been exposed to the most ridicule. The discoverers of a lot of major scientific milestones were ridiculed themselves by the mainstream science.

This relates back to my stance that a scientist should take the position "we simply dont know".

If I may so "we simply don't know" isn't really a useful stance. Let's ask the question "Why is the sky blue?" Now obviously using your system of thought we have to say that the colour is unknown. Which is true as we can't know with certainty what actual colour the sky is, or even if there is such a thing as colour. However, where does such a trail of thought actually get us? Have we learned anything about the sky? Or have we just stumbled upon a system where we can basically chicken out at any minute and go "Well, we can't know for sure" if we think something is going beyond our comfort zone? The more scientific based question would however be "Is the sky blue?"

The approach taking in the modern day scientific method is one based on sceptisim it's kind of built off falsification, but not wholly. There is probably (again, we probably cannot know for certain) only one way to be right and a near infinite number of ways to be wrong. So rationally speaking, we are more likely to always be wrong than right. This, however, is different to the "we don't know", in that we now aim to be less wrong than we were previously. Take the simple example of Einstein his explanation of Gravity is less wrong than Newton's who's in turn was less wrong than those who postulated before him. In all cases though we are seeing tangible progress between the scientific models and we are eliminating false ones. Now I'm sure you'll agree the more false claims we eliminate the closer we come to finding the actual accurate claim. It is in this sense that science is a process of constant refinement, filtering out more and more falsities. As you've probable realised by now this leads to realisation that we're probably never going to be fully right and crucially we must never assume we are right. So scientifically speaking the claim the earth is smaller than the sun is never going to be proven correct. Who know's there may be some as yet undiscovered phenomenon that warps the sizes of bodies? Einstein probably explained science the best in his famous quote "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can be prove me wrong."

With regards to the those were ridiculed, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who referenced themselves as some kind of Galileo throughout history are total quacks and contributed absolutely nothing! And for what it's worth Newton was a total quack who spent over 90% of life dabbling into the occult. He probably wouldn't have published anything on calculus, optics or mechanics if wasn't for the influence of others. Even then, his crowning life achievement according to himself was that he had remained celibate. There have been people who won Nobel prizes who have held the most bizarrely twisted views e.g Kary Mullis. Just because someone has discovered something or contributed to a field doesn't mean their opinion is going to be valid. (Especially if it's an opinion in a completely different field.) Likewise the same applies to those who discover or contribute nothing. This is why if someone just quotes a scientist or string of scientists (the quotewall) as a way of arguing their viewpoint I usually just ignore their post. Personal opinions ultimately have no bearing on reality.

The quotation in my sig is in memory of a victim of creationism. It's quite a long story but basically he was blatantly misrepresented for years by creationists. The sad thing is even having passed away they still today dishonestly distort his views. Visit the boards.ie multiple creationist threads and you'll see his viewpoints being dishonestly misrepresented. Mr Patterson had doubts about the fossil record interpretation. Creationists completely misrepresented these views to the extent that often times mainstream scientists ended up thinking Patterson held those creationist described 'false' views. Yet despite the uproar, furore and sometimes ridicule he persisted in being skeptical about evolution. Regardless of the opinions of others it is the scientists duty to be open to the idea that they could be wrong (they most likely are) and regardless of how often your views are misrepresented you still have to maintain skepticism* towards your discipline. In Patterson's case this lead to expending a great deal of energy dealing with utter dishonesty and quackery antics by religious fundamentalists. That's why I quoted the guy, he was for ,lack of a better term, a patriot for science. In light of creationists constantly misrepresenting his views and trying to portray him as somehow validating their arguments he kept questioning evolution regardless.
.

Tl;dr Skepticism is based on the principle that the vast majority of truth claims are going to be false. You are far more likely to arrive at the truth when you assume all claims to be false and eliminate them one by one; each time getting closer and closer to the truth. Also, we should remain skeptical about whether such a truth actually exists in the first place.
Newton proud celibate.
Colin Patterson rocked!


*I could probably go on for another page explaining how certain things that the media commonly refers to as sceptics or scepticism isn't really scepticism but that's probably not for this thread. Pseudo Skepticism and denialism is a pretty big problem we face today especially with the internet making it much easier to disseminate bullsh1t and credulity.

Asry

sensibleken wrote: »

how drunk were you and what were you doing?

hahaha I wasn't doing anything, I swear! I'm assuming I was pretty drunk though because I tend to be in that state quite a lot somehow :rolleyes::D

KeithAFC

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

philologos

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said its good that some people are combatting the more damaging aspects of religion but I dont think theres a place in society for attacking people who hold personal beliefs who dont harm others.

Of course this is the ideal. However, personally I really have no issue with people criticising or slating individuals for holding to particular systems of thought. Is it civil? No. Is it respectable? No. Will people continue to do so? Yes.

People have the liberty to say what they will. How they should use that liberty ethically is another issue.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

Welcome back, it's nice to see your usual well thought out, thought provoking and intelligent insights again.

Ellis Dee

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

I think your real problem is not with atheists, but with those of your acquaintances who are definitely uncool - to the point of extreme jerkofferdom.

How do you know those people are atheists? One sounds like a bossy, bullying type, the other a moron who, to use a Midlands saying, is like a jackass's tool - a big man when he's out.:eek:

Those are isolated examples of people who just don't know how to behave. They are only looking for someone to pick on and an excuse to do it. In your case it was religious pamphlets and some kind of medal that set you apart. If you were gay, or wearing something unusual, that would have been their angle of attack. The atheism was probably plucked out of the air and in reality they will go with the flow, get married in church, send their sprogs to a Catholic school, and so on.:rolleyes:

Bear in mind, however, that these are one-off eejits. They do not have powerful organisations behind them. They do not have representatives who will do their best to harness the laws of the land to make people act according to the dictates of their religion (well, actually, non-philosophy).

People who are genuinely atheist because they have thought about it do not feel the need to proselytise, although some may have become hyper-allergic to what they see as religion coming at them from the woodwork. That's hardly such a totally far-fetched idea in Ireland, is it?

DoubleBogey

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

Asry

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.
.

Do you know they were an atheist or just a non catholic?

MagicMarker

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

Mmmm, stake.

keano_afc

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

That you Kim Jong-il?

old hippy

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

I wouldn't go that far. Perhaps a period of rest in a psychiatric ward where they can receive the relevant care and counselling.

Asry

KeithAFC wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW that he doesn't. That's also funny.

optogirl

Asry wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW that he doesn't. That's also funny.

Um..that was Keith AFC's point. note the sentence '
I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not'

Asry

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you know they were an atheist or just a non catholic?

Oh, an atheist. It's OK, like. I mean. I get it. She was angry because of experiences she'd had with the Church, like she doesn't like nun or whatever, and so she reacts with anger against people who espouse those beliefs, regardless of whether the person was being aggressive about it or not. People's reactions are always determined by their experiences, aren't they? I mean, if your mom shouts at you, it's likely she's having a bad day, she's not really anger.

Asry

optogirl wrote: »

Um..that was Keith AFC's point. note the sentence '
I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not'

Yeah, I saw that. I didn't mean my reply as a ripost, just as a general observation. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding or offence caused

ITguy2

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

But you have to admit religion is kind of humorous, it's humorous in it's innocence for some of us in the way that adults view children awaiting santa claus on christmas eve, or leaving carrots out for Rudolph.

Asry

ITguy2 wrote: »

But you have to admit religion is kind of humorous, it's humorous in it's innocence for some of us in the way that adults view children awaiting santa claus on christmas eve, or leaving carrots out for Rudolph.

But are you agreeing then that just because you hold that opinion that that gives you the right to put other people down?

ITguy2

fedor.2. wrote: »

He'll be sorry when he's in hell

Ah yes - hell, the magical kingdom where “souls” are punished infinitely for finite crimes. But not just (supposedly) punished in the lock-them-up-behind-bars sense, but burned alive and tortured for eternity. No offense, but do some of you people really believe that crap the church has been peddling? Where is the logic in burning somebody alive forever, regardless of what (supposed) "sins" they commited on earth? This god has some serious issues it would seem.

Asry

ITguy2 wrote: »

Ah yes - hell, the magical kingdom where “souls” are punished infinitely for finite crimes. But not just (supposedly) punished in the lock-them-up-behind-bars sense, but burned alive and tortured for eternity. No offense, but do some of you people really believe that crap the church has been peddling? Where is the logic in burning somebody alive forever, regardless of what (supposed) "sins" they commited on earth? This god has some serious issues it would seem.

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

You do realise it won't change his accurate portrayal of Christian beliefs?

Turtwig

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

Well depending on who you ask you'll get a different reason for why, a different explanation of hell and a different answer to the question of what happens to babies who die.
It's all so bloody confusing.

Asry

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You do realise it won't change his accurate portrayal of Christian beliefs?

Whose? Malty's?

Asry

Malty_T wrote: »

Well depending on who you ask you'll get a different reason for why, a different explanation of hell and a different answer to the question of what happens to babies who die.
It's all so bloody confusing.

Eugh, I know. It's confusing. Even in the RCC it's confusing. There's stuff that's doctrine, like definitive answers, and then just speculative theology, like the idea of limbo.

In fairness, I'm a member of the RCC at the moment but I disagree with a lot of things, and was going to renounce it but they've removed the loophole that lets you request it! So I'm baptised and confirmed, which means I cannot ever leave! Sure I can walk away and stop practicing but in the back of my head I'll always just be a failed Catholic.

But the stuff I believe in include God, Intelligent Design, some form of afterlife, as in heaven and hell, but I'm really not sure what form they'd take. Emmm. Jesus. The Resurrection. But like. I dunno. I go to mass and all. I'm going to world youth day in August. But I'm also a bit of a feminist and LGBT. You know? So yeah, I believe the stuff, but I don't think you have to be a d*ck about it.

ITguy2

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah.

Right, so we are supposedly god's children aren't we? Let's say if a child somewhere called Joe or Mary done something bold, maybe even smashed all the windows in their parents house with rocks. How would you feel if the punishment for those children (even though they had done great damage) was to have their hands chained to the back of a fireplace, and to have their hand burnt for 10 minutes?

That is a pretty sick thought isn't it? And yet you have many christian loonies who believe that their loving god punishes many, if not most of his children in a place called hell where they are burnt and tortured for eternity.

I'm glad I'm an atheist, becuase the thought of been religious and been held mentally captive throughout my life to the ****ing lunatic christians read about in the bible sends shivers down my spine far more than any supposed devil or demons ever could.

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Intelligent Design

Just out of curiosity where did you learn to believe in Intelligent Design? School? Parents? Friends?

ID isn't all that common in Europe, not even in the Vatican. The official RCC stance is Evolution occurred but was guided (known as the Watchmaker Theory).

Don't mean to sound intrusive, it's just a rare belief now-a-days (outside of some US States of course).

dvpower

Asry wrote: »

But the stuff I believe in include God, Intelligent Design, some form of afterlife, as in heaven and hell, but I'm really not sure what form they'd take. Emmm. Jesus. The Resurrection. But like. I dunno. I go to mass and all. I'm going to world youth day in August. But I'm also a bit of a feminist and LGBT. You know? So yeah, I believe the stuff, but I don't think you have to be a d*ck about it.

Doesn't the RCC preach that practicing LGBT people are going to go to hell? How do you reconcile this with your membership of that organisation?

Turtwig

I think we need to be very careful here. Intelligent Design is one of those awkward labels that creationists have hijacked in order to spread their ideology. Evolution doesn't rule out an Intelligent Design, in fact it says nothing about the designer or lack of one; it merely explains how organisms changed over time. The brilliance of ID Theory proposed by creationists is that even though it is peddling pseudoscientific bullsh1t it has an appeal to anyone who believes in a intelligent designer. Te majority of those people are unable to distinguish between a theory which is basically a facade to shoehorn the bible and religious faith into science classrooms and one which is actually the scientific theory agreed with by muslim, christian, jewish and atheist scholars alike.

So to clarify, the idea of Intelligent or an intelligent designer is fine, that's a personal belief. Where it enters the hazardous to humanity territory is when it comes to the insistence that there exists a religion known as evolutionism. "Evolutionists", once you hear that term, just run away. The person is talking through their arse.

philologos

ITguy2 wrote: »

That is a pretty sick thought isn't it? And yet you have many christian loonies who believe that their loving god punishes many, if not most of his children in a place called hell where they are burnt and tortured for eternity.

I'm glad I'm an atheist, becuase the thought of been religious and been held mentally captive throughout my life to the ****ing lunatic christians read about in the bible sends shivers down my spine far more than any supposed devil or demons ever could.

We are God's children by adoption through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29, John 1:12). Otherwise we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) meaning that we are liable to God's judgement. That's on a Biblical level.

That's mainline Christian belief. As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want atheists to go to hell. What has been said is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Most Christians would long for others to know about Christ.

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not. I could decide to reject Christianity, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to God for what He has done for me so I won't.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want atheists to go to hell.

Atheists who are dead. They no longer have an opportunity for redemption. God wants them to go to hell, no?

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

We are the Napkin's children by adoption through faith in Meals (Napkin quadrant 3: 26-29 cm). Otherwise we are children of Fodder (Napkin Quadrant 2:3 cm) meaning that we are liable to the Napkins judgement. That's on a dining level.

That's mainline Napkin belief. As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want non napkin believers to turn to fodderl. What has been said is that the Napkin is the only way to nourishment. Most Napkin followers would long for others to know about the Napkin.

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not. I could decide to reject the Napkin, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to the Napkin for what He has done for me so I won't.

Reductio ad absurdum

ITguy2

philologos wrote: »

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not.

But is the threat of hell looming over one's head not a form of mental captivity? It seems to me to be a form of an iron grip on peoples mental functioning. The fear of hell is instilled in many people and they base many of their actions and beliefs in life on this basis.

I could decide to reject Christianity, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to God for what He has done for me so I won't.

Well that is fair enough if you belief that for yourself. But ask yourself - what has he done for the world in general? Why the diseases, why the malnourished children around the planet, why the natural disasters such as the one that devastated Japan a while back? It seems to me that it is more believable to conceive that we are the products of random evolution and confined within the laws of physics, including at times when some of those laws harm us - than to believe there is a conscious entity overlooking our existence.

It is simply to unbelievable when looking at the state of the world to concede that there is a benevolent god. If you were master of some simulation or creation or your own - would you let it get to the state that much of the world is in today? Not very likely.

And last but not least, why do so many Christians believe that the universe is 6,000 years old when it has been clearly shown that it is somewhere around 13-14 billions year old, based on scientific evidence.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

No, it means that people are wrong for rejecting Him.

Why? Shouldn't we have the choice without the prospect of punishment?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not.

That's just the stockholm syndrome talking

philologos

ITguy2 wrote: »

But is the threat of hell looming over one's head not a form of mental captivity? It seems to me to be a form of an iron grip on peoples mental functioning. The fear of hell is instilled in many people and they base many of their actions and beliefs in life on this basis.

It isn't looming over my head as I've decided to follow Christ. Hell actually wasn't the major factor in deciding as to whether or not Christianity was true. Rather it was an assessment of who God was, who Jesus was and how the Biblical narrative held up to reality.

Romans 8:1 says that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. Meaning that those who have accepted Jesus and who aim to live each and every day as He did have no reason to fear hell.

As a Christian, hell doesn't play much of a part in my daily life. The love of God is the basis of my life and indeed finding out how He would like me to demonstrate that love to others. That's the core philosophy in my life.

ITguy2 wrote: »

Well that is fair enough if you belief that for yourself. But ask yourself - what has he done for the world in general? Why the diseases, why the malnourished children around the planet, why the natural disasters such as the one that devastated Japan a while back? It seems to me that it is more believable to conceive that we are the products of random evolution and confined within the laws of physics, including at times when some of those laws harm us - than to believe there is a conscious entity overlooking our existence.

It's not just "believing it for myself". I believe it is objectively true. It's simply not just something nice to believe.

As far as I see it without God we wouldn't be here. The greatest thing that God has done for us is demonstrate His mercy to us through Jesus. That becomes clearer the second one decides to follow Him. It isn't very clear until then.

I personally believe in biological evolution, but I don't believe that this could have happened of its own accord without a Creator.

ITguy2 wrote: »

It is simply to unbelievable when looking at the state of the world to concede that there is a benevolent god. If you were master of some simulation or creation or your own - would you let it get to the state that much of the world is in today? Not very likely.

The state the world is in today is largely reflective of the state that humanity is in today.

ITguy2 wrote: »

And last but not least, why do so many Christians believe that the universe is 6,000 years old when it has been clearly shown that it is somewhere around 13-14 billions year old, based on scientific evidence.

Ask a Young Earth Creationist. I'm not one of them. I think it is largely down to what is lost in the translation between the Hebrew and the English language. The word in the Ancient Hebrew of Genesis 1 for day (yom) is a word that can be used in broader contexts of time. Whereas in the English language day is much more defined than yom.

Edit:

dvpower wrote: »

Atheists who are dead. They no longer have an opportunity for redemption. God wants them to go to hell, no?

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

2 Peter 3:8-9 wrote:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

dvpower

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why? Shouldn't we have the choice without the prospect of punishment?

You DO have a choice - you can accept Jesus as your saviour and escape the punisment you richly deserve. Anyway, people who do wrong (failing to measure up to God's standard) deserve punishment <insert bible quote>.

philologos, you can take the rest of the day off - I'll take it from here.

Asry

dvpower wrote: »

Doesn't the RCC preach that practicing LGBT people are going to go to hell? How do you reconcile this with your membership of that organisation?

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here. The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

Seachmall wrote: »

Just out of curiosity where did you learn to believe in Intelligent Design? School? Parents? Friends?

ID isn't all that common in Europe, not even in the Vatican. The official RCC stance is Evolution occurred but was guided (known as the Watchmaker Theory).

Don't mean to sound intrusive, it's just a rare belief now-a-days (outside of some US States of course).

Maybe I used the wrong term? Maybe I mean the Watchmaker Theory one. I'm just reading about that on wikipedia now. I just mean the idea that for everything to be so complex and perfect and in such delicate symbiosis...surely someone must have made it that way? The designer for the design?

Kind of like this as well -

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Maybe I used the wrong term? Maybe I mean the Watchmaker Theory one. I'm just reading about that on wikipedia now. I just mean the idea that for everything to be so complex and perfect and in such delicate symbiosis...surely someone must have made it that way? The designer for the design?

Ah right, that's fair enough. I thought you meant the neo-creationist thing.

Apologies.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Just a mention though, that's more a Deistic belief than a theistic one. The RCC is a theist organisation, definitely not a deist one.

sensibleken

Asry wrote: »

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here. The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

This is very sad. First of all you are not bound. just because some ouldfella poured water on your head when you were a baby and you said two responses when you were 12 does not mean you are bound by anything.

What part of the bible condems lesbians? It is only male homosexuality which is condemned. Stamping out a part of yourself is incredibly dangerous. Be celibate is fine but repression is dangerous

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

As far as I see it without God we wouldn't be here. The greatest thing that God has done for us is demonstrate His mercy to us through Jesus. That becomes clearer the second one decides to follow Him. It isn't very clear until then.

I personally believe in biological evolution, but I don't believe that this could have happened of its own accord without a Creator.

So the greatest thing he has done is deciding to not send us all to eternal torture (just send most of us).

philologos wrote: »

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

That's like holding a gun to someones head and saying "I don't want to kill you, I just want you to give me your money. If you don't give me your money I have no choice.."

The robber would still be taking the decision whether or not to shoot them.

dilbert2

http://www.inspiredinsanity.com.au/images/uploads/t-shirts/tees%20gooses/tmenjesuscoming2.JPG

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

Of course he desires it. He sends them there. He surely could choose not to (or at least put them out of their misey after a couple of billion of years).

Funny how a God that exists outside of time itself puts a deadline on forgivness but none on punishment.

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

Of course he desires it. He sends them there. He surely could choose not to (or at least put them out of their misey after a couple of billion of years).

He could also remove any temptations, or create people without temptation, but that's not as much fun.

optogirl

Asry wrote: »

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here.

So the only reason you are still a member of the church is because they wont let you leave officially?

The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

Asry - embrace whatever feelings you have - for a start, you are not alone. Repressing these parts of yourself which do no harm to others is dangerous. You say you already have problems with the church -why stay there just because you happened to be born into it? You now have free will and free choice. I am an atheist but I would hope that the god you believe in would not want you to be unhappy and deny who you are. If you believe he made you, he made you how you are.

Tehachapi

Albert Einstein wrote:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

-

Asry

optogirl wrote: »

So the only reason you are still a member of the church is because they wont let you leave officially?.

Yep that's one of the reasons, definitely. To leave though would mean an obliteration of a whole ideological viewpoint of the world, of what is right and wrong, and what I can expect for my life and my children (if I ever have any - unlikely!:D)

optogirl wrote: »

Asry - embrace whatever feelings you have - for a start, you are not alone. Repressing these parts of yourself which do no harm to others is dangerous. You say you already have problems with the church -why stay there just because you happened to be born into it? You now have free will and free choice. I am an atheist but I would hope that the god you believe in would not want you to be unhappy and deny who you are. If you believe he made you, he made you how you are.

That's one viewpoint, certainly. But you can't get away from the fact that the bible says, unequivocally, many times, that it is a sin and an abomination. No changing in religious denomination will change that. BUT, I don't know that for sure because all I know is what the RCC has taught me since infancy. I'd have to read about stuff really.

Asry

Tehachapi wrote: »

-

...that's just an elaboration of the quote I posted. What's your point?