Support NeoGAF

[racooon]

Pauline epistles.

That doesn't constitute historical proof.

Nor does faith.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Nobody likes consigning tens of thousands of people to flames. Much less innocent children, and their parents. Especially when God gave them free will.


He's an omnipotent God, what reason is there for him to have to just wiped them all out? Couldn't he have just introduced socio-economic schemes to improve things? If you catch my meaning. Strikes me as either lazy or just plain bloodthirsty.

Although I agree, I think they have far more to explain regarding the genesis creation narrative, particularly the parts where God punishes the whole of mankind for the sins of its first two members. The idea that guilt is genetic and that their progeny deserved to share their fate (god explicitly introduces mortality, painful childbirth and some other stuff I forgot) for no real reason is a very immature idea.

Original sin is a very important concept in Christianity because it's the reason why we get Baptized and why Jesus has to save us circa the New Testament, but it's morally bankrupt idea.

The other main issue I have, conceptually, is that Jesus had to be "sacrificed" to god in order for him to forgive us. If that was his intention initially, to forgive, why did there have to be sacrifice at all? It's a very arbitrary thing, and he could have prevented suffering by simply forgiving people.

Finally, there's the issue of why God does not simply reveal himself to everybody, why he hides. Some have argued that it's something to do with free will, but that's a bollocks excuse, tbh. He had no problem revealing himself and having his son perform miracles to prove his divinity, but refuses to do this for everybody for no real reason.

 

[racooon]

Uhh, you can be in a homosexual relationship without having sex.

True. Though arguably having a homosexual relationship constitutes 'lust'.
Just playing devils advocate here, I think it's barmy.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I don't see how it's in full swing. They're asking questions in a respectful manner and I'm answering likewise. Whether they agree or not is up to them, if they start flaming or bashing or trolling is when I ignore the post.

Read the OP please. This thread is being taken off track into the same attack/defense of religion that every thread about religion turns into, by people that know they have no business here when they read the OP. By engaging it, you are encouraging it.

 

[opticalmace]

True. Though arguably having a homosexual relationship constitutes 'lust'.
Just playing devils advocate here, I think it's barmy.

So then does having a heterosexual relationship also constitute lust?

 

[racooon]

So then does having a heterosexual relationship also constitute lust?

Indeed. It's a point of serious divide in the COE at the moment. A load of COE folks defec- converted to Roman Catholicism over it.

Also

avatar appropriate.

 

[jay]

Read the OP please. This thread is being taken off track into the same attack/defense of religion that every thread about religion turns into, by people that know they have no business here when they read the OP. By engaging it, you are encouraging it.

There are hundreds of threads that tailor exactly to what racoon is trying to do, yet he can't help but do it here where it is expressly not wanted.

I don't know if I like the idea that people shouldn't disagree in a thread but you are right that according to the OP we shouldn't be asking questions. So thanks to AceBandage for responding to my question and good luck on the thread.

 

[KJTB]

I believe it to be a sin. However, I think that is ultimately between the person and God. O would rather lead am atheist homosexual to Christ than try to tell them that bring gay is wrong. I am a big proponent of gay rights too.

Do you believe that it is a choice or it's something you're born with?

Here's a problem that I have with things like homosexuality being a sin. God is all knowing, all powerful, and good... correct? If God is all knowing, he knows upon creation that of a persons sexual orientation. We all are, after all, created in Gods image. Therefore, is God deliberately creating homosexuals so that they can burn forever in hell?

If you reject that and claim that so called good and evil come about from free will, ask yourself this. If God is all knowing, he knows what you're going to do in life. Your life is determined from the start. If God knows what's going to happen to you prior to you doing it, because of course he is all knowing and all powerful, then is there really free will? If you say there is no free will, then how can a person who is born with the destiny of being tortured for the rest of eternity after death find salvation? This contradicts that God is an all good being, given the morals that he wants us to uphold.

Starting to ramble now, but I think you get the idea.

 

[racooon]

Quick point of information about heaven and hell for Critical-GAF.
A lot of Christians don't subscribe to the 'fire and brimstone' view of hell, if you're going to criticise the ramifications of determinism in Christianity, it's best to say 'don't achieve salvation' instead.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod representing...

Hope everyone is having a blessed and reflective Lenten season. Unfortunately, I had to miss Ash Wednesday service to help a family move out of their house before the Sheriff came to lock them out due to foreclosure.

Anyway, glad to see there's a few of us left on GAF. I know how tough it is to be here sometimes. It's hard to hear yourself being branded as mentally defective because you have faith.

Forgive them, because they do not understand. They seem to think we don't know full well how hard it is to have faith. They think we don't realize our faith must defy human logic. Of course we do, Jesus and the Apostles tell us point-blank that it's hard to have faith and enter the kingdom of God. Many times. Just remember the Parable of the Sower.

Quick question for everyone of faith in here. How do you feel about secular media? What I mean is, movies and games and books that don't really offer any kind of spiritual growth? You think Jesus / God care if you play something like say No More Heroes? What about movies? I'm currently watching Natural Born Killers while typing, but I never saw any issue with stuff like this. I feel to much of it can be bad (whether you are a deist or atheist), but enjoying this kind of entertainment on occasion is just fine.

Personally, I love secular media. I'm with you. I don't think living in the world is anathema to the Christian journey through life at all (after all, Jesus certainly didn't surround himself with just the "goodie-goodie" people, in fact, he often ministered to the worst around...) so why would a fantasy world be any worse?

I think truly destructive media is bad for everybody, Christian or otherwise, but really, how much of that is there really? I have a pretty high threshold I think.

...

This brings up an interesting topic for Christian chat though...

What about music, Christians? What do you like?

Personally, I generally LOATHE contemporary Christian music. When I go to church, I want the big organ, and the old hymns. To me, that makes me feel like I'm someplace special...it feels like I'm in God's house. When some five-piece rock band comes out, it blows the vibe for me completely.

I know others aren't like me, and I don't begrudge anybody "making a joyful noise" to God any way they want, but I like my contemporary music secular, and my Christian music traditional.

 

[AceBandage]

Although I agree, I think they have far more to explain regarding the genesis creation narrative, particularly the parts where God punishes the whole of mankind for the sins of its first two members. The idea that guilt is genetic and that their progeny deserved to share their fate (god explicitly introduces mortality, painful childbirth and some other stuff I forgot) for no real reason is a very immature idea.

Original sin is a very important concept in Christianity because it's the reason why we get Baptized and why Jesus has to save us circa the New Testament, but it's morally bankrupt idea.

The other main issue I have, conceptually, is that Jesus had to be "sacrificed" to god in order for him to forgive us. If that was his intention initially, to forgive, why did there have to be sacrifice at all? It's a very arbitrary thing, and he could have prevented suffering by simply forgiving people.

Finally, there's the issue of why God does not simply reveal himself to everybody, why he hides. Some have argued that it's something to do with free will, but that's a bollocks excuse, tbh. He had no problem revealing himself and having his son perform miracles to prove his divinity, but refuses to do this for everybody for no real reason.

Well, do you think that if God revealed himself to the entire world, that we would all act the same as we do now?


As for why Jesus had to be sacrificed... which has a bigger impact on people? A show of forgiveness through self sacrifice or forgiveness through words?

Again, I don't claim to have any deep insight into the workings of an omnipotent being, but some things certainly seem obvious.

 

[WillyFive]

Firstly, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. What proof is there that he ever existed?

That's a weak (although very controversial) topic of discussion, because it involves rejecting the proof that there already is as 'unreliable'. It has too much reliance on Occam's Razor to go anywhere far.

Most critics of Jesus and religion (including Richard Dawkins and John Remsburg) still believe he existed, because the whole idea can only be discussed with "What if's?". You would end up the same if you asked "What proof is there that he didn't exist?".

But either way, not counting the Bible itself and anything from modern times such as our system for numbering years, there are a bunch of sources that support or seem to support Jesus's existence, such as Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman Senator Tacitus , a Governor from Bithnya known for persecution early Christians, a bunch more. Many if not all of them have been criticized at one point or another, some more than others, but it's all still there for people to see.

If anything, they were talking about something.

 

[Aristion]

That doesn't constitute historical proof.

Nor does faith.

So Paul didn't exist either? The Apostles were a myth then...?

 

[DanteFox]

Firstly, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. What proof is there that he ever existed?

we have multiple, independent documentations of his existence, from both religious and secular sources.

 

[WillyFive]

So Paul didn't exist either? The Apostles were a myth then...?

Nothing if off-limits. You can find reasonable doubt for the existence of anybody from ancient times. It all depends on how far you are willing to suspend disbelief.

 

[racooon]

That's a weak (although very controversial) topic of discussion, because it involves rejecting the proof that there already is as 'unreliable'. It has too much reliance on Occam's Razor to go anywhere far.

Not at all. There are a lot of compelling arguments supporting the view that the 'historicity of Jesus' is inserted centuries after he lived.
For example, Tacitus, is a source oft nodded to by Christians as proof. Tacitus is never referred to by later Christian scholars as a source (unusual, don't you think?), and our earliest copy of Tacitus was produced by....
A Christian scribe in the 12th century CE (iirc).

Most critics of Jesus and religion (including Richard Dawkins and John Remsburg) still believe he existed, because the whole idea can only be discussed with "What if's?". You would end up the same if you asked "What proof is there that he didn't exist?".

Please reference that, I don't believe it.

....
Oh you did refer to Tacitus. Oh well.
Another note on Pliny (I'm doing my degree on the Classical world so this is my area of expertise, somewhat) he never refers to Jesus at all. He refers to how he had a load of people who reportedly 'worshipped Christ' tortured and whatnot. That doesn't prove the historicity of Jesus.

Suetonius is notorious for being pretty woeful at accuracy. The practice of history at this era is frustratingly difficult. :<

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod representing...

Hope everyone is having a blessed and reflective Lenten season. Unfortunately, I had to miss Ash Wednesday service to help a family move out of their house before the Sheriff came to lock them out due to foreclosure.

Anyway, glad to see there's a few of us left on GAF. I know how tough it is to be here sometimes. It's hard to hear yourself being branded as mentally defective because you have faith.

Forgive them, because they do not understand. They seem to think we don't know full well how hard it is to have faith. They think we don't realize our faith must defy human logic. Of course we do, Jesus and the Apostles tell us point-blank that it's hard to have faith and enter the kingdom of God. Many times. Just remember the Parable of the Sower.



Personally, I love secular media. I'm with you. I don't think living in the world is anathema to the Christian journey through life at all (after all, Jesus certainly didn't surround himself with just the "goodie-goodie" people, in fact, he often ministered to the worst around...) so why would a fantasy world be any worse?

I think truly destructive media is bad for everybody, Christian or otherwise, but really, how much of that is there really? I have a pretty high threshold I think.

...

This brings up an interesting topic for Christian chat though...

What about music, Christians? What do you like?

Personally, I generally LOATHE contemporary Christian music. When I go to church, I want the big organ, and the old hymns. To me, that makes me feel like I'm someplace special...it feels like I'm in God's house. When some five-piece rock band comes out, it blows the vibe for me completely.

I know others aren't like me, and I don't begrudge anybody "making a joyful noise" to God any way they want, but I like my contemporary music secular, and my Christian music traditional.

I like both... at the Church I go, the sing hyms first for like 30 minutes. Then the modern rock band plays music for about one hour.

 

[itwasTuesday]

Born into a Christian family, kinda fell out of it during high school and college. Back into my faith and plan to keep it strong.

Been reading the Bible a lot more since I put the ESV version on my kindle. Wish it had better note taking though.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Catholic for most of my life...Now agnostic...

I'd just like to say that Catholicism/Christianity make for raising good kids...

Thanks to all....Keep the faith.

 

[Aristion]

Not at all. There are a lot of compelling arguments supporting the view that the 'historicity of Jesus' is inserted centuries after he lived.
For example, Tacitus, is a source oft nodded to by Christians as proof. Tacitus is never referred to by later Christian scholars as a source (unusual, don't you think?), and our earliest copy of Tacitus was produced by....
A Christian scribe in the 12th century CE (iirc).

Our earliest copy of Aristotle is from around 1100 C.E., from Caesar, a manuscript of his "Gallic Wars" dates from 900 C.E., Plato is 1200 C.E. etc.


I guess we don't know anything about ancient history then.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Firstly, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. What proof is there that he ever existed?

Talking from a purely historical perspective. We know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pontius Pilate, as documented by Tacitus. There are many other references to Jesus of Nazareth from other major historical figures like Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Suetonius and others. Pretty sure its known around the historical community that the Jesus of Nazareth did walk this earth, at this point in history, I dont think its much of a debated issue.

 

[Morn]

Born into a Christian family, kinda fell out of it during high school and college. Back into my faith and plan to keep it strong.

Been reading the Bible a lot more since I put the ESV version on my kindle. Wish it had better note taking though.

If you're back/new in faith, I recommend Greg Laurie's new NKJV Start! Bible. It's excellent.

 

[racooon]

In case you're curious as to my background, I've not been an atheist for that long. I'm 19, and became an atheist at about 15. Until that point I'd been an Anglican Christian, going on scripture union holidays and etc, studying the bible and so on and so forth. I also attended Catholic school from the age of 12-16.

 

[Morn]

Talking from a purely historical perspective. We know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pontius Pilate, as documented by Tacitus. There are many other references to Jesus of Nazareth from other major historical figures like Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Suetonius and others. Pretty sure its known around the historical community that the Jesus of Nazareth did walk this earth, at this point in history, I dont think its much of a debated issue.

That's another thing. Atheists love to point out that Pontius Pilate didn't exist either...

Until they discovered proof that he did in 1961:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

 

[racooon]

Our earliest copy of Aristotle is from around 1100 C.E., from Caesar, a manuscript of his "Gallic Wars" dates from 900 C.E., Plato is 1200 C.E. etc.


I guess we don't know anything about ancient history then.

Indeed. We need to be extremely careful when using ancient sources, unless we cross reference them extensively with others.
Part of the reason I think Tacitus' account of Jesus is false is that he isn't referred to at all by later Roman Christians (Tacitus, that is), which I find extremely suspicious.

That's another thing. Atheists love to point out that Pontius Pilate didn't exist either...

Until they discovered proof that he did in 1961:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

I've never heard anyone deny that a Pontius Pilate never existed.

 

[Morn]

If you're an atheist, what are you doing in this thread?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Well, do you think that if God revealed himself to the entire world, that we would all act the same as we do now?

Of course not, they would behave much better than they do on average. Once again, that God was satisfied with revealing himself to numerous people in the bible and performing mass miracles to prove he existed, but will not reveal himself to everybody is simply inconsistent. To argue that it is wrong for him to directly reveal himself is contradicted by those he did reveal himself to, and to argue that it is right for him to directly reveal himself means that he is beating around the bush by not doing so. It's a sub-optimal salvation plan put into motion but an allegedly perfect being.

As for why Jesus had to be sacrificed... which has a bigger impact on people? A show of forgiveness through self sacrifice or forgiveness through words?

So he did not need to be sacrificed at all, he simply wanted to do it? If god directly revealed himself people wouldn't need to be "impacted" or whatever. As it stands there's no shortage of people that believe that this whole narrative didn't even happen at all (I'm one of them). "God loves you so much he killed somebody for no reason to show you just how much he loved you" is not something that inspires me. That sounds like something a creepy stalker would do, not an omnipotent deity.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I don't know if I like the idea that people shouldn't disagree in a thread but you are right that according to the OP we shouldn't be asking questions. So thanks to AceBandage for responding to my question and good luck on the thread.

I never said that people shouldn't disagree, or shouldn't asking questions, so who are you talking to?

I'm talking specifically about people like racoon turning this into an attack/defense of a religion. Every other thread about religion turns into that, with the same played out banal arguments and challenges back and forth. There are perhaps hundreds of threads catering exactly to that, yet people can't help but bring it into the one thread that expressly requests that it be kept out.

The OP made this thread in attempt to talk to the rest of Christian-GAF about a shared interest without the overbearing din of Athiest-GAF wrecking it. So much for having enough maturity and respect to keep their agenda out of one f-ing thread.

I know you guys are trying to be super-friendly and apologetic to show the forum how tolerant and cool you all are, but a large chunk of the membership is never going to treat your beliefs with respect. When it comes to GAF, you'd be better off being Muslim, because GAF will trip over itself trying to defend your religion since it's a football in their larger fight against conservatives.

I say all of this as someone who doesn't believe in a god.

 

[racooon]

If you're an atheist, what are you doing in this thread?

Discussing Christianity, if that's alright with you.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

If you're back/new in faith, I recommend Greg Laurie's new NKJV Start! Bible. It's excellent.

Not back into the faith, but nothing against it either. Thanks, though.

 

[Morn]

But you're not really discussing, you're antagonizing and trying to stir up trouble.

 

[Aristion]

Indeed.

Oh come on. COME ON. The earliest copy of the New Testament that we have dates from 125 C.E. (Gospel of John was written circa 90 C.E.), and yet virtually all scholars accept almost everything Caesar says from his Gallic Wars, while the earliest copy comes over a millenia since it was written.

We need to be extremely careful when using ancient sources, unless we cross reference them extensively with others.
Part of the reason I think Tacitus' account of Jesus is false is that he isn't referred to at all by later Roman Christians (Tacitus, that is), which I find extremely suspicious.

Ignatius of Antioch (living at circa 107 C.E.), Clement of Rome (circa 90 C.E.) confirms Paul's epistles as historically valid writings (Paul wrote to Clement's church, after all).

I've never heard anyone deny that a Pontius Pilate never existed.

But he didn't. He's a literary figure from the Gospel narratives, and Josephus lived 60 years after Pilate's tenure, so the information is clearly hearsay.

 

[racooon]

Oh come on. COME ON. The earliest copy of the New Testament that we have dates from 125 C.E. (Gospel of John was written circa 90 C.E.), and yet virtually all scholars accept almost everything Caesar says from his Gallic Wars, while the earliest copy comes over a millenia since it was written.

Not at all. No scholars worth their weight in salt accept anything in ancient sources as gospel (hur hur) out of hand.

Ignatius of Antioch (living at circa 107 C.E.), Clement of Rome (circa 90 C.E.) confirms Paul's epistles as historically valid writings (Paul wrote to Clement's church, after all).

Bear with me while I do some research.

 

[toxicgonzo]

Checking in, but I have doubts about how well this thread will fair. I usually avoid political/religious GAF threads.

 

[Morn]

But he didn't. He's a literary figure from the Gospel narratives, and Josephus lived 60 years after Pilate's tenure, so the information is clearly hearsay.

Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

 

[AceBandage]

Of course not, they would behave much better than they do on average. Once again, that God was satisfied with revealing himself to numerous people in the bible and performing mass miracles to prove he existed, but will not reveal himself to everybody is simply inconsistent. To argue that it is wrong for him to directly reveal himself is contradicted by those he did reveal himself to, and to argue that it is right for him to directly reveal himself means that he is beating around the bush by not doing so. It's a sub-optimal salvation plan put into motion but an allegedly perfect being.

Well, even in the Bible, there were hundreds of years where there was no interaction between Earth and God. Who knows, maybe he decides to let things play out for a while before enacting another part of his plan.

So he did not need to be sacrificed at all, he simply wanted to do it? If god directly revealed himself people wouldn't need to be "impacted" or whatever. As it stands there's no shortage of people that believe that this whole narrative didn't even happen at all (I'm one of them). "God loves you so much he killed somebody for no reason to show you just how much he loved you" is not something that inspires me. That sounds like something a creepy stalker would do, not an omnipotent deity.

Actually, since Jesus (as told by the Bible) is God in human form, it's less "God loved you so he killed someone." and more "God loved you, so he sacrificed himself."

 

[bengraven]

Why not make it a "discuss your religion" thread?

Well, even in the Bible, there were hundreds of years where there was no interaction between Earth and God. Who knows, maybe he decides to let things play out for a while before enacting another part of his plan.

Eddie Izzard says that God was likely reading the instruction manual to the things he just created. haha

 

[GatorBait]

It should be simple. Love one another. Don't be a shithead. Treat the world and everything in it as a gift. Let others live their lives. Live yours.

I just consider that being a good person. I could get on-board with religion if this is what it was all about and what was preached. Perhaps that is what Christianity is actually supposed to be, but it doesn't seem that way in practice (from the standpoint of man-made religion).

 

[tafer]

Catholic here... well, looks like the thread is starting to get ugly.

Too bad, I was hoping we could share our favorite music about the subject.

 

[AceBandage]

Why not make it a "discuss your religion" thread?




Eddie Izzard says that God was likely reading the instruction manual to the things he just created. haha

They were in Chinese though.

 

[Aristion]

Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

I'm arguing an objection pre-1961.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

This thread derailed faster than I though... I had something else in mind.

=(

 

[Morn]

Catholic here... well, looks like the thread is starting to get ugly.

Too bad, I was hoping we could share our favorite music about the subject.

I agree. Is this type of trolling allowed in the Islam thread?

 

[bengraven]

They were in Chinese though.

And He was like "damn, now I have to create Chinese" so I can read it.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Catholic here... well, looks like the thread is starting to get ugly.

Too bad, I was hoping we could share our favorite music about the subject.

You'd need serious banning to keep a thread like this clean, and honestly, even if one of the mods was interested in helping this thread, I doubt they'd want to gain the ire of the mob in doing so.

 

[racooon]

If you want to share music and etc, and ignore posts at your whim, it's your prerogative.
Jeez it's like some of you have never used the internet before.

I think this is a tune.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Here's a problem that I have with things like homosexuality being a sin. God is all knowing, all powerful, and good... correct? If God is all knowing, he knows upon creation that of a persons sexual orientation. We all are, after all, created in Gods image. Therefore, is God deliberately creating homosexuals so that they can burn forever in hell?

God created the original, perfect Adam in his image. Adam fucked himself up. Then we came after. We are the products of Adam.

I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp. Think of it as a product. God created a perfect device. He then let the device have free will and the ability to replicate itself. The device fucked up, and the imperfect result was replicated, not the perfect prototype.

As far as homosexuality goes, do you have a problem with probably 99% of day-to-day heterosexual activity being a sin too? Because that's what it is.

Look, if I think about fucking the cute waitress bending over that table--guess what? I've committed just as much of a sin as you in blowing a dude, or taking it in the ass. That's just how it is. We're all sinners, and we all sin all the time. We sin in thoughts, words, and deeds. It's not like homosexuals have a monopoly on sexual sin.

So, if you are a homosexual, that's tough. But I don't see it any different as being a man who's basically hard-wired to want to fuck as many hot women as he can. That's tough too. God doesn't see it any differently. It's just a different river to cross, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. You have to make your own choices what you want to do with your sexuality, just like I have to with mine.

The good news is, the salvation from homosexual sin is exactly the same as the salvation from hetero sin. It's salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for everybody--gay, straight, whatever.

 

[AceBandage]

And He was like "damn, now I have to create Chinese" so I can read it.

And thus, the Tower Babel was created.

 

[mikeybwright]

God created the original, perfect Adam in his image. Adam fucked himself up. Then we came after. We are the products of Adam.

I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp. Think of it as a product. God created a perfect device. He then let the device have free will and the ability to replicate itself. The device fucked up, and the imperfect result was replicated, not the perfect prototype.

As far as homosexuality goes, do you have a problem with probably 99% of day-to-day heterosexual activity being a sin too? Because that's what it is.

Look, if I think about fucking the cute waitress bending over that table--guess what? I've committed just as much of a sin as you in blowing a dude, or taking it in the ass. That's just how it is. We're all sinners, and we all sin all the time. We sin in thoughts, words, and deeds. It's not like homosexuals have a monopoly on sexual sin.

So, if you are a homosexual, that's tough. But I don't see it any different as being a man who's basically hard-wired to want to fuck as many hot women as he can, because God doesn't see it any differently. It's just a different river to cross, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. You have to make your own choices what you want to do with your sexuality, just like I have to with mine.

The good news is, the salvation from homosexual sin is exactly the same as the salvation from hetero sin. It's salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for everybody--gay, straight, whatever.

Great post. As a Christian I wasn't sure what to expect when I clicked this thread, but this made me smile.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Well, even in the Bible, there were hundreds of years where there was no interaction between Earth and God. Who knows, maybe he decides to let things play out for a while before enacting another part of his plan.

But he could just reveal himself to everybody, or talk to people directly whenever they wanted to ask him questions. There isn't really a compelling reason for him to hide other than in an effort to deliberately create doubt about his existence.

Actually, since Jesus (as told by the Bible) is God in human form, it's less "God loved you so he killed someone." and more "God loved you, so he sacrificed himself."

That's going to vary based on your denomination, but if you believe in the trinity, "god killed his human avatar" isn't all that exciting. It's not a sacrifice if you get to live for eternity in paradise, is it? At best it's inflicting some temporary pain on yourself. Once again, I don't see the benefit of this - claiming that god killed his human body doesn't make Christianity more convincing, and if you already believe in God in the first place the claim about self sacrifice isn't going to matter - you'll still worship him for creating you, praise him for the good things in your life etc. The fact that so many other religions exist without a self-sacrifice on the part of the deity no problems is ample evidence of this.

Anyway, I've spoken my mind and I'll bail out of the thread before it gets even more off topic. Peace out guys. Even though I think you're all wrong, I still love you (but not like, in a gay way).