Jump to content


Photo

Things That Don't Exist?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2016 - 01:59 AM

My dad used to say that a good idea becomes a bad idea when carried to a ridiculous extreme.

I think it's that way with the concept "group." The current idea is that we as individuals can belong to a group.  from just an informal organizational term  group has become an entity. To me that's where the idea group goes astray.

I was at the doctors office when my seat mate asked me what race I was? I informed him that I was a member of the human race--the only race I recognize. "No, I mean what ethnic group do you belong to?" I responded being a bit coy, "Well, you see, I don't believe you can own people. I was born and raised in America."

About that time he started becoming frustrated. He said he was Afro-American. He decided I was was white and then launched into a diatribe about how my ancestors had waylaid his ancestors and brought them over to America as slaves.

As a psychotherapist, I recognied his ploy. I see it all the time. My seat mate was a consumate victim/ blame placer. An injustice collector. According to his logic, I was responsible for what "my" people did to his people.

I do not identify as a skin color but as a unique individual with a unique name my mom and dad gave me at birth. I gave up the concept of race over 20 years ago. Gee, I thought to myself, do I have run a disclaimer for being an individual? I never had slaves and I was not responsble for what other idividuals did before I was born. I am an individual and I think we all are. Do I have to run a disclaimer? I do not feel responsble for what a bunch of dead folks did long ago. I hold myself responsible for what I do but, I do not hold myself responsible for what other individuals do. "Ahh yes, i thought to myself, the illusion of fusion."

He countered with, "You are ashamed of your race." "No, I am not. Race is an idea, a concept. Do you not understand my speech? I do not have, or belong to a race! Race is in my mind a concept or idea arbitrarily defined--as my dad said an idea carried to a rdiculous extreme. The idea group was created by a human. It is non living. Race, or group is not a concious entity. We all act unilateally.

Is "group" and "race" ideas whose time has past?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:40 PM

One of the things wearing a label, especially a negarive one, helps its bearers to do is collect injustices. This neurotic agreement encourages the "illusion of fusion." We belong to a group whether we want to or not. Worse ye it's not a "group" we choose. We automatically belong to the group at conception.

Evo's are often at the forefront in categorizing people into grroups while speaking out of the other side of their mouth--contradicting themseles. Consider, Darwin's categorizing the diivision of the human race into five groups.

The United Natitoins now recognizes over 5,000 different ethnic groups. lol

Here's how it works. One "member' of a "group" does somethng to a "member" of another "group". When that happens, the deception kicks in. "'They' are attackig 'my' people!", the individual says to himself. Then everybody in the groups that has formed the neurotic agreements offends themseles on cue. I mean it really gets ridculous.

In the US and others countries whole populations have rioted destorying and loolting over one such incident. Often people that wouldn't give each other the time of day, join forces to hate the members of the "offending" group even though only one "member" of the group did the wrong. Yep, we can obsevre it all over our world all the time.

When people cross the dotted line on the map, they are immediately part of an offending group and "belong" to an opposing country. I guess the maps dotted line has some sort of magical powers. lol It's like we all cease being human caused by things we have no control over--like our phsyical features which allow us to be identified as individuals. Almost no one seems to realize the incongruencey. Instead we gullibly swallow this nonsense and perpetuate it.

If alleged atheists think their independance from religion would allow them to be more objective, I haven't observed it. Believing in evo hasn't seemed to help! What evo scientists teache against the race idea? Dawkins and Hawkins seem mute.They seem obsessed with how we got here rather than how to enoy and stay here.
The "real" issue is an individuals beliefs that cause dysfunction. The problem with the term "religion" is that it says little about what the individual philosopical rules are hiding below the particular label. Relgion's rules are individualized. The indidual decides which one he wants and want not to pply. Philosophical concepts are eclectic and often concflict others in the indiidual's collection.

Recently, several killings have occured under the guise of "racial" conflict (humans fighting humans). Like Satan wants, divide and conqueor--all thanks to neurotic agreements--the illusion of fusion and the illusion of race (i.e  someone belonging  to a different group). Whenever someone does wrong (even if he or she are the police, the wrong can not be logically carried to a group). Why?  Because we are individuals!This tactic only makes a bad situation worse. Violence is individually caused. It is best treated thusly.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 05:08 AM

 

 

Mike: Here's how it works. One "member' of a "group" does somethng to a "member" of another "group". When that happens, the deception kicks in. "'They' are attackig 'my' people!", the individual says to himself.

 

That is exactly correct Mike, and you are eloquently describing the hasty-generalisation fallacy,. Where one individual from a group does something negative then every member of the group is tarnished.

 

What happened when that fellow came up to you an insisted your "race" oppressed his ancestors, was that he committed the opposite fallacy, which is a sweeping generalisation, when he saw you were white and had already concluded that because the group, "white" were guilty of racism to his mind, that because you were white, you were somehow guilty. Quite absurd when you think about it, for how can the colour of skin be so important in defining someone? Totally insane, I would have pointed at a freckle on my arm and said to him, "that part of me is black, now will you please take the four tonne chip on your shoulder and bury some other poor geezer with it instead of me, like erm - a genuinely racist person for example?" :D

 

I had Goku do this to me in a private message. He could see I offered no genuine anti-G*y, or h*m*ph*bic tendencies, so instead he appealed to the group, "theist" in order so that he could make me guilty of homophobia because of the few theists that might genuinely have fear and hatred towards G*y people.

 

In other words Mike, because I would treat a G*y person with the same respect and equality as I would anyone else, because that doesn't help Goku's agenda, which is to make out Christians are immoral, then he simply used the group, "theist" in order to force me to be guilty, of something I was innocent of as an individual.

 

I think a lot of people are very ignorant about Christians and what really motivates us. That is always how they appear. It seems very obtuse of them to not realise that we can't drop God and what He has said, simply for their convenience, without making their relative opinions, our God instead.



#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 06:00 AM

I had Goku do this to me in a private message. He could see I offered no genuine anti-G*y, or h*m*ph*bic tendencies, so instead he appealed to the group, "theist" in order so that he could make me guilty of homophobia because of the few theists that might genuinely have fear and hatred towards G*y people.

 

In other words Mike, because I would treat a G*y person with the same respect and equality as I would anyone else, because that doesn't help Goku's agenda, which is to make out Christians are immoral, then he simply used the group, "theist" in order to force me to be guilty, of something I was innocent of as an individual.

You seem to have forgotten your own statements:

Who is moral, a G*y person that argues it is moral to have a G*y lifestyle or a G*y person that abstains from a G*y lifestyle for God?

 

Answer: The latter person was motivated by morality, the former person was motivated by DESIRE and painted over it with, "morality".

 

Or can you offer an explanation how that is not genuinely anti-G*y?



#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:05 AM

One of the things wearing a label, especially a negarive one, helps its bearers to do is collect injustices. This neurotic agreement encourages the "illusion of fusion." We belong to a group whether we want to or not. Worse ye it's not a "group" we choose. We automatically belong to the group at conception.

Evo's are often at the forefront in categorizing people into grroups while speaking out of the other side of their mouth--contradicting themseles. Consider, Darwin's categorizing the diivision of the human race into five groups.
....

 

I think the 4 or 5 categorization of humans into racial classes was done by Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Both were Creationists during the enlightenment era that precedes the rise of Darwinism. They collect data and then pigeon-holed it into classes. So essentially it is based on accumulation of traits. 

 

While Darwin was influenced by British Empiricism, he wasn't one, when he postulated the his Theory of Evolution. He based his arguments on very limited knowledge, which he fitted into a presupposed postulate, which is the genealogical Tree into which he pushed all the species.

 

A more modern conversation about race:
https://archive.org/...sationAboutRace.

Also touches on the "reparation" debate. 



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:30 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Or can you offer an explanation how that is not genuinely anti-G*y?

 

How is it anti-G*y to describe facts? If you are a G*y person, you would not say that being G*y and having that lifestyle is immoral because you have a desire to have that lifestyle. 

 

I was giving an example of a genuinely moral motive, and a person who has moral-values that are actually TAILORED to fit their desires.

 

Obviously if a Christian that regards themselves as G*y, refrains from a G*y lifestyle, they are doing it for a genuine moral reason, that supersedes their desire to have that lifestyle. I know of one such person. That person struggles, it is not easy for them, they struggle with loneliness, etc...the point is, that person is showing outstanding moral courage, by not just acting on some superficial relative morality that is catered in a way to allow for sin and wrong-doing, but they are obeying God at a personal cost.

 

But those who would argue a G*y lifestyle is moral because they are G*y, let's face it, we all know they would be doing that so they can ease their conscience.

 

This is not anti-G*y. For me to simply talk about G*y people doesn't mean I am anti-G*y. What does such a term really mean anyway? If I was anti-G*y in the sense of anti-G*y people, obviously I wouldn't befriend G*y people. 

 

My only real experience of genuine homophobia was in my early teens. I am not G*y but I had three friends who were very obviously G*y. I hung around with them for kid-reasons, so I hung around with those G*y people. I remember one time someone punched me quite hard in my back and said to me, "queer". I think what he meant was, "I think you are G*y so I am hitting you for that reason." Obviously he inferred that because I was friends with G*y people, that I also must be G*y, such is the sophistication of a genuine homophobes thinking pattern. 

 

So I have experienced homophobia, but it very much came from Godless bullies that were definitely not Christian.

 

So I don't think saying, "G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin to God" is anti-G*y, when you think about it, as a Christian we are required to not be false-witnesses, so we have to tell other people what God says is sin, and what qualifies as sin in His sight.

 

I am not sure how you would define, "anti-G*y". I am also "anti-murder" or "anti-abortion", I am also, "anti-rape" or, "anti-adultery". It is not morally wrong to be against sin and on the side of the Lord, unless I am to presume that atheist morality is the correct morality, in which case, why aren't you defending the rights of G*y ants?

 

;D :P



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:56 AM

Hi Mark

I think the 4 or 5 categorization of humans into racial classes was done by Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Both were Creationists during the enlightenment era that precedes the rise of Darwinism. They collect data and then pigeon-holed it into classes. So essentially it is based on accumulation of traits.



While Darwin was influenced by British Empiricism, he wasn't one, when he postulated the his Theory of Evolution. He based his arguments on very limited knowledge, which he fitted into a presupposed postulate, which is the genealogical Tree into which he pushed all the species.


I am sure you are right. However, did these creationist use it to claim evolution? Did they mean it as a hierarchy where the categories were evidennce for evolution? Darwin used the categories to claim he, in a superior race, was further evolved than blacks who were closer cousins of the apes. The imagined direction in evolution is a progression onward and upward--there is litllle mention of devolution which one might imagine would happen.

No one seems to notice that that if we are more fit in the progrssion of evolution upwardly then that would mean since apes still exist the unfit can and often survivel.

Moreoer, Darwin apparently downplayed the fact that human software has the very prominet feature that we can learn. He seemed to ignore the effect that learning might play between his so called different races. I think it was a grievous error. Educatin plays a maor role. I was a teacher.

We now have the computer which can sort the human race into virtually as many groups as we wish. We can even sort it down to 7 billion individuals which is probably what God intends. :)

My interest in his categories is if they have any pernicious effect on individual human behavior (free choice). I suspect they don't in that we observe indentical behavior amongst all the so called groups.

I clicked on the link you provided. It didn't work. I would loved to read what was there. So, if you can provide anoher link or cut and paste it, I would appreciate it.



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 09:43 AM

How is it anti-G*y to describe facts? If you are a G*y person, you would not say that being G*y and having that lifestyle is immoral because you have a desire to have that lifestyle. 

 

I was giving an example of a genuinely moral motive, and a person who has moral-values that are actually TAILORED to fit their desires.

You're not describing facts. You're describing your opinion. 

 

Obviously if a Christian that regards themselves as G*y, refrains from a G*y lifestyle, they are doing it for a genuine moral reason, that supersedes their desire to have that lifestyle. I know of one such person. That person struggles, it is not easy for them, they struggle with loneliness, etc...the point is, that person is showing outstanding moral courage, by not just acting on some superficial relative morality that is catered in a way to allow for sin and wrong-doing, but they are obeying God at a personal cost.

So if I struggle with killing infidels, if I struggle with suppressing my non-killing nature, I can be showing outstanding moral courage when I take up arms to punish the godless people???

 

You base your morality on denying your own nature and putting something else above yourself?

 

But those who would argue a G*y lifestyle is moral because they are G*y, let's face it, we all know they would be doing that so they can ease their conscience.

LOL. You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things? 

 

This is not anti-G*y. For me to simply talk about G*y people doesn't mean I am anti-G*y. What does such a term really mean anyway? If I was anti-G*y in the sense of anti-G*y people, obviously I wouldn't befriend G*y people. 

OMG

You're befriending them, but calling them immoral at the same time?

You seem to think that there is only a single form of anti-G*y behavior. You don't realize the harm you do by telling people them their very nature is wrong.

 

My only real experience of genuine homophobia was in my early teens. I am not G*y but I had three friends who were very obviously G*y. I hung around with them for kid-reasons, so I hung around with those G*y people. I remember one time someone punched me quite hard in my back and said to me, "queer". I think what he meant was, "I think you are G*y so I am hitting you for that reason." Obviously he inferred that because I was friends with G*y people, that I also must be G*y, such is the sophistication of a genuine homophobes thinking pattern. 

 

So I have experienced homophobia, but it very much came from Godless bullies that were definitely not Christian.

LOL, Christians ain't a group, Godless bullies are :rolling eyes:

 

So I don't think saying, "G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin to God" is anti-G*y, when you think about it, as a Christian we are required to not be false-witnesses, so we have to tell other people what God says is sin, and what qualifies as sin in His sight.

 

I am not sure how you would define, "anti-G*y". I am also "anti-murder" or "anti-abortion", I am also, "anti-rape" or, "anti-adultery". It is not morally wrong to be against sin and on the side of the Lord, unless I am to presume that atheist morality is the correct morality, in which case, why aren't you defending the rights of G*y ants?

And this is what I mean when I state you base your morality outside yourself. You're hiding behind the Book telling It states that G*y behavior is wrong instead of thinking for yourself. What harm is done by engaging in a G*y lifestyle?

 



#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 09:51 AM

When I was very new in the faith, I was so excited about finding out who created me and why He did so.

 

I thought sin was my major issue. And so I asked God to give me the ability not to sin. He said, no. The only being that did not sin in the flesh was Jseus. He said, I needed to learn how to forgive sin and what was called the weightier matters of the law, love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness (accepting reality).

I had a 27 year old in counseling. He was extremely h*m*ph*bic. Dysfunctional so. I wondered how I could help him get over what seemed an obsession. Then Jesus's statement, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" came to mind! I had concluded that Jesus meant nobody is any better than anyone else. As the scripture says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Thus, we are all equals.

So after thinking about it I thought I had the answer to get the young man over his obsession an dysfunctional phobia. I told the young man that masturbation was a H*mos*xual act. I thought he would think about it and figure out he was no better than anyone else. But It backfired on me! He became indignant and vowed with intense emotion he would never masturbate again!!!! I had helped make a bad situation worse! I lamented. LOL Must of been what Jesus wrote on the ground that made the difference?



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:29 AM

 

 

Fjuri: LOL. You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things?

 

The two highlighted words are called question-begging-epithets. Had you sought to actually understand my position, you would see that what I was actually saying was that as Christians we, "hate the sin, love the sinner".

 

 

Fjuri: OMG

You're befriending them, but calling them immoral at the same time?

 

No, not really. Really what I am specifically saying, is that God has told us that certain actions are sinful.

 

Believe it or not Fjuri, I myself am saying nothing about G*y people, I am only reporting the truth about what the bible says. The claims in the bible, that God exists, and is God, and He is omniscient, the inerrant word of God the bible, is obviously our holy book and we see it as inerrant. So basically because that is what we genuinely believe, we cannot preach any other message about what it says other than what it really says about such things. With that in mind, given you know that 1. I am a Christian, 2. I believe and accept the bible as God's word, the question is, given that knowledge you have of me, what do you expect me to say about the G*y act?

 

Here we have something that is called a logical disjunction, where because of those two facts I can only give two answers to the question, "is the G*y act wrong".

 

1. It is according to the scriptures.

2. It isn't according to the scriptures.

 

If I give the second answer then I am a false witness, and am lying about what the bible tells us. So then, given I am a Christian, given I do believe the bible really is from God I am forced to give the only remaining answer. 

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

 

So then, given every genuine bible-believing Christian is forced to say that God has told us it is a sin, logically speaking, that means we can't be "h*m*ph*bic", otherwise you would be saying that Christians, all Christians, become Christian because they are homophobes.

 

Think about it - the true cause of me saying the G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, is because God has told us this in scripture, not because I hate G*y people, because every true bible believing Christian, has to say that it is wrong.

 

Logically that proves it does not come from homophobia or hatred of G*y people, for if it did then obviously it would have nothing to do with the scripture and would be a hatred that came from me, without any scriptural influence.

 

 

 

Fjuri: LOL, Christians ain't a group, Godless bullies are

 

Not really, I wouldn't imply that you are a Godless bully because you are an atheist.

 

If you are an atheist it doesn't follow you are a homophobe bully, but if you are a homophobe bully, it does follow you are atheist to Christianity at least, because of what the scripture says, about how, "hate" proves we are not really children of God but love proves that we are.

 

 

 

Fjuri: You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things

 

That's just an ad-hominem attack. You have to provide reasoning, not just state a one-liner that has emotive buz-words in it and no argumentation. Otherwise you give me permission to tu-quoque;

 

"you really are a Christian-phobe Fjuri. How can you state such hateful things?" (see, I provided no reasoning, I just said it. Big deal, what does that prove?)

 

Obviously I have no hatred, I am just stating that people that don't know God have morals that cater for their desires. Are you saying it is not a fact that a G*y person would have G*y desires?

 

If we agree it is a fact and those desires are strong, to the point where those people desperately desire a G*y relationship, do you agree that if they desire it badly enough it might be rather predictable that they would argue that it was perfectly moral?

 

Please answer. Do they have G*y desire? Is it likely they would say that desire is immoral, given it is "part of their nature"? Please answer.

 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality, that morality can be provably shown to be created so that it caters for desires by designing those moral values to INCLUDE those desires as within "morally acceptable" behaviour. 

 

For example the moors-murderer had a morality of existentialism, he reasoned that "all actions are lawful" because God doesn't exist and morality is relative, he basically created a philosophy which allowed him to argue that murdering children was fine and dandy.

 

Realistically what would we expect him to argue given he had a desire to murder children for S@xual pleasure? Is it not rather predictable that he would argue that he was not doing anything wrong within his own morality? (which highlights just what a NONSENSE it is to argue that "we don't need God to be moral". Think about it - the moors murderer would also argue he did not need God to be moral, and he would argue that he did not break his own moral code by murdering children, so what better example is there of how weak the argument is that atheists argue when they argue that they, "don't need God to be moral". of course they don't - because they play God by inventing their own morality, which is a way of simply defining sin and wrong actions, as "right".)

 

:acigar:

 

(disclaimer: I am not saying that this means that you are a terrible sinner, equatable with the moors murderer, after all, don't forget that I did say that I would prefer to be on a street with you driving a truck than with a religious extremist crackpot driving a truck. So don't jump to conclusions.)



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:53 AM

Mike, that guy who was a h*m*ph*bic client, is an example of someone that has a very severe sin-problem, hate and prejudice has twisted their thinking and warped it, and they don't know the Lord so they can't escape their hate. In some sense that is a dangerous person because if he vowed to never masturbate again just because you told him it was a G*y act, then this shows that his thinking was in every sense of the word, WARPED. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like that ended up actually being violent towards G*y people. We can only pray that he took what you said on board, and confessed his terrible sinful prejudice to God, and got help with his twisted views. It is a shame that so many people become victims of hate. If only people knew of the love of God and how it can heal these bitter prejudices.



#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 11:40 AM

Mike,

Mike, that guy who was a h*m*ph*bic client, is an example of someone that has a very severe sin-problem, hate and prejudice has twisted their thinking and warped it, and they don't know the Lord so they can't escape their hate. In some sense that is a dangerous person because if he vowed to never masturbate again just because you told him it was a G*y act, then this shows that his thinking was in every sense of the word, WARPED. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like that ended up actually being violent towards G*y people. We can only pray that he took what you said on board, and confessed his terrible sinful prejudice to God, and got help with his twisted views. It is a shame that so many people become victims of hate. If only people knew of the love of God and how it can heal these bitter prejudices.

Actually I was worried that he might kill himself. I never saw him again. I praayed a lot for him though.

Of course I didn't gie up on him but, he became so rigid he left therapy.

Yes, I totally agree. What I wanted him to see is that we are all more important to God than "sin". The young man's sin was that he would not forgive himself and others gayness. Thus gayness became his unpardonable sin. He believed certain sins were more important than God. A particular sin had become his idol.

God is creating us because He wants us to exist. Some of us sometimes forget He is still creating us. We can fall in love with life and worship it more than God.

At the hospital they played a light melody of tinkling bells on the PA everytime a new baby was born. I heard them several times during the two weeks I was there.



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 12:09 PM

Believe it or not Fjuri, I myself am saying nothing about G*y people, I am only reporting the truth about what the bible says. The claims in the bible, that God exists, and is God, and He is omniscient, the inerrant word of God the bible, is obviously our holy book and we see it as inerrant. So basically because that is what we genuinely believe, we cannot preach any other message about what it says other than what it really says about such things. With that in mind, given you know that 1. I am a Christian, 2. I believe and accept the bible as God's word, the question is, given that knowledge you have of me, what do you expect me to say about the G*y act?

 

Here we have something that is called a logical disjunction, where because of those two facts I can only give two answers to the question, "is the G*y act wrong".

 

1. It is according to the scriptures.

2. It isn't according to the scriptures.

 

If I give the second answer then I am a false witness, and am lying about what the bible tells us. So then, given I am a Christian, given I do believe the bible really is from God I am forced to give the only remaining answer. 

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

A repeat from previous post:

And this is what I mean when I state you base your morality outside yourself. You're hiding behind the Book telling It states that G*y behavior is wrong instead of thinking for yourself. What harm is done by engaging in a G*y lifestyle?

What is immoral about an act that is not harmful done to anyone else? Every other immoral act is detrimental to another person, yet this one is not. Any particular reason why this is?

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

 

So then, given every genuine bible-believing Christian is forced to say that God has told us it is a sin, logically speaking, that means we can't be "h*m*ph*bic", otherwise you would be saying that Christians, all Christians, become Christian because they are homophobes.

 

Think about it - the true cause of me saying the G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, is because God has told us this in scripture, not because I hate G*y people, because every true bible believing Christian, has to say that it is wrong.

What you say is hateful. I've shown you how harmful it is to G*y people. I'm not saying you are hateful. These are separate issues. Your words, your fruit though. You are under the assumption that your holy book contains only good things. Don't you agree that saying people their very nature is wrong, harming them, making them constantly unhappy is not a good thing?

 

That's just an ad-hominem attack. You have to provide reasoning, not just state a one-liner that has emotive buz-words in it and no argumentation. Otherwise you give me permission to tu-quoque;

 

"you really are a Christian-phobe Fjuri. How can you state such hateful things?" (see, I provided no reasoning, I just said it. Big deal, what does that prove?)

If you read my post, I provided evidence further down the post:

"You don't realize the harm you do by telling people them their very nature is wrong."

 

Obviously I have no hatred, I am just stating that people that don't know God have morals that cater for their desires. Are you saying it is not a fact that a G*y person would have G*y desires?

Did you see me deny the fact that a G*y person has G*y desires? I do deny that relative morality is based upon a person's desires. Relative morality is based on innate, genetic factors and learned, cultural factors. Not on the desires of individuals. 

 

If we agree it is a fact and those desires are strong, to the point where those people desperately desire a G*y relationship, do you agree that if they desire it badly enough it might be rather predictable that they would argue that it was perfectly moral?

Me, Fjuri argues that is perfectly moral and yet I have no G*y desires.

 

Please answer. Do they have G*y desire? Is it likely they would say that desire is immoral, given it is "part of their nature"? Please answer.

Their answer regarding the morality would be based upon the cultural upbringing of that individual and how he underwent it.

 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality, that morality can be provably shown to be created so that it caters for desires by designing those moral values to INCLUDE those desires as within "morally acceptable" behaviour. 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality.

 

For example the moors-murderer had a morality of existentialism, he reasoned that "all actions are lawful" because God doesn't exist and morality is relative, he basically created a philosophy which allowed him to argue that murdering children was fine and dandy.

 

Realistically what would we expect him to argue given he had a desire to murder children for S@xual pleasure? Is it not rather predictable that he would argue that he was not doing anything wrong within his own morality? (which highlights just what a NONSENSE it is to argue that "we don't need God to be moral". Think about it - the moors murderer would also argue he did not need God to be moral, and he would argue that he did not break his own moral code by murdering children, so what better example is there of how weak the argument is that atheists argue when they argue that they, "don't need God to be moral". of course they don't - because they play God by inventing their own morality, which is a way of simply defining sin and wrong actions, as "right".)

We lock people like that up for our safety, not because the acts are immoral.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users