Why do you believe(or not believe)?

Post Reply New Topic

If people avoided homosexuality, they wouldnt get AIDS? The AIDS virus is not interested in your sexuality or gender, it is only interested in being an illness, spreaded by fluid exchange. The only reason, why it spreaded in the beginning more among homosexuals, is because until then, homosexuals had out of biological background no reason to use conceiving methods, when having sex with each other.

Sir, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. AIDS is so rare as to be non-existent amongst heterosexuals who don't share needles, aren't terribly promiscuous, and don't engage in sodomy.

In fact, the major predominantly heterosexual group to have an AIDS problem is sub-Saharan Africans, and that is because heterosexual anal sex is commonly practiced as a form of birth control.

Claiming that monogamous heterosexuals have anything to fear from AIDS is the ultimate in spreading fear needlessly. This claim is actually another example of amoral atheism. Since it has already been established that real Christianity condemns sodomy, this lie was spread by atheists who did so to ensure lots of money for AIDS research so that homosexuals can go on sodomizing one another with impunity. This atheist lie is no different than if atheists tried to claim that nonsmokers are as likely to contract lung cancer as smokers because some nonsmokers do contract this disease.

But no matter how much money is spent, other problems are cropping up in the form of STD's that can no longer be treated with antibiotics. And the less said about the fatal hepatitis spread by homosexuality, the better.

And no christianity itself as written by Jesus, does not encourage slavery. But tons of so called christian people did.

And how do you want to call a racist, homophobe, ...? Is calling someone that steals from you, a thief, condemning an judging? You yourself create a pamphlete, saying how much it was better if people cared for each other and tried to built a better society. So does that only go for people that are "liberal" in your opinion, while people that try to spread and raise hate, aggression and violance among an society, shall be supported us, only because of their hate and violation towards their neighbors being declared as "typical conservative"? People dont dislike "racists, homophobes, sexists, ..." out of fun, but because of racists, homophobes and sexists attacking other innocent citizens and neighbors of mine without any reason. Or simply because of them being a**holes. If someone attacked my 85 year old neighbor verbally for being an 85 year old woman, and out of no other reason, he is an as*hole and I would feel the need to defend her, and to tell this person to leave our neighborhood, if he feels out of fun unable to live peacefully with 85 year old women as neighbors. Am I not allowed to have the same feelings towards other similar people, attacking others for no reasons? What is unreasonable about me telling to dislike someone, that thinks he has the right to verbally attack and cause hate and violance, out of fun towards people? I am as well a "people". If we let such people do on, the next victim of his fun can be as well me. So I think its quite reasonable, and nothing more then selfe defense, to tell people that the broad majority of people, will not accept people getting attacked in any form, out of fun and without any reason.

Sir, do you have any idea how many blacks were lynched between the Civil War and the 1960's, back in the days of evil Christian societies?

Back when we had a Christian society, there was no need to lock our doors; now we need a police state to make people behave.[/quote] What a nonsene. Around here people are secular and very moderate christian, and the majority of people does not need to close their doors. The need to close your door is not based on your religion, but upon your society. Cause a society with an huge difference between poor and rich, where more then 50% need basic support, where public schools offers no useful education that give kids the ability ot get a job, and you will need to close your door.

Again, we need a totalitarian police state and the highest incarceration rates in the world to ensure we don't take our lives into our hands while walking down the streets. It is also the case that I speak from experience. I live in a very religious area and don't even have a door key on my key ring; there is no need. But while I lived in the liberal part of Houston, crime was terrible. This is the reality.

So what is your last sentence about? About people with moral callousness against obscene income inequality, or about atheists? The both topics you mixed are not linked to each other.

Actually, they are linked to each other. Christianity posits a God who condemns murder, and also teaches us to love our neighbors. With atheism, morality is whatever the atheist wants it to be.

I'm not interested in aggregates. I'm not looking for how I will benefit from other people believing. I want to know how I benefit from *my* faith.


Of course Christianity provides for Christian justice and Christian fairness.

Because this being supposedly just happens to know every single possible thing out there without learning or experiencing them personally. For example, he knows every single piece of thought in every conscious individual way before they're ever even born let alone have the capability to think these thoughts.

How is such a being not complicated?



It's some mysterious force that exists outside of space and time.



Semantics is not what I'm here to argue.



Hardly an agreement. You're proposing a supreme perfect being that has an eternal mind that knows all and yet, despite its supposed perfectness, could only come up with a universe as flawed as this one.

I'm proposing an entity that doesn't need to be omni-anything. It just is, and it does some sh*t randomly.

"I'm not interested in aggregates. I'm not looking for how I will benefit from other people believing. I want to know how I benefit from *my* faith."

Sir, being a Christian won't make you rich, attractive to good-looking women, or provide you with fame or fortune of any kind if that is what you are asking.

Here is the bottom line: The philosopher's stone for understanding human nature is to understand the dynamic between our very strong, selfish desire for self-preservation and the need to form cooperative societies which require a certain degree of selflessness, which is an absolute prerequisite for any kind of civilization. Most people simply don't need to be encouraged to be selflish; it comes naturally, and this is why the Bible has nothing nice to say about money while not forbidding it outright. We do need to be encouraged to be selfless, and secular liberalism short-circuits this process. This explains the obscene income disparities we see. In other words, when I am all that matters, by definition nobody else matters. And this is the way too many wealthy people see the world now.

When we benefit others, we are also benefiting ourselves. Hence, the Christian commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Actually, I just used your arguments to agree with me that there is some infinite non-created force existing outside of time. I didn't speak of his omniscience or consciousness. That would be another argument, and it wasn't the one I was having with you.

Christianity posits a god who performed and encouraged genocide.

Christianity posits a god who punished the Jews for thousands of years for not following his laws then turns around and changes a works-based system into a faith-based system.

Christianity posits a god who promotes subservience to the state, whether the practices of the state were consistent with Christian principles or not.

I don't think you are reading your bible critically.

Of course that's what I'm asking. Why is it so hard to answer a practical question? It's not complicated.

So if I'm not going to get rewarded for my faith, why have it?

Christianity posits a god who performed and encouraged genocide.

Then why does the Bible command us not to murder? And exactly what group did Christians practice genocide against? The left has murdered far more people than all the religions of the world combined.

Christianity posits a god who punished the Jews for thousands of years for not following his laws then turns around and changes a works-based system into a faith-based system.

Actually, the Old Testament of the Bible claims that Jews were punished for disobedience to God. Do I really need to note that the Jews, and not Christians, wrote the OT? You have to make stuff up to indict Christians. Again, this is typical atheist behavior, as I'm sure you see no problem with what you are doing.

Christianity posits a god who promotes subservience to the state, whether the practices of the state were consistent with Christian principles or not.

Really? Then why does it say in Acts that Christians are to obey God rather than men? Again, you have to make stuff up to have even a feeble argument. Is this really the best you can do?

So how does this support your claim that the Christian justice system is the way to go in this world?

God did his own share of slaughtering of innocent people according to the Bible. Why are you so callous as to not give that some consideration?



Wow, how ignorant.

First of all, homosexuality and sodomy are not synonyms. Heterosexuals do anal sex as well.

Also, AIDS can spread by normal sexual intercourse as well. So the fault does not lie with homosexuality or sodomy.

So now that you are exposed to the information above, you have no excuse to be displaying moral callousness by being judgmental of homosexuals and not showing any empathy for them. These people suffered (and unfortunately still do) lots of prejudice and discrimination because of people of your mindset.



Exactly my point. Instead of discouraging slavery and fighting against it, they continued to enable what was strongly encouraged in the Old Testament.

So what do Christians fight instead? Fellow human beings who don't share the same sexual orientation as them.



Two wrongs do not make a right. Slavery should still be considered morally wrong no matter what. Stop justifying its history.



Yes, I'm totally intolerant of course. And you're high on drama.



I didn't say "all". But it is the Christian influence that leads Catholicism to preach against it.



And once they are born, they do not matter, right?

Abortion is sometimes medically, psychologically, and financially necessary, and as long as it's done as early as possible, then there should be nothing immoral about it, especially when we're just talking about a bunch of cells that haven't even developed into a being worthy of some rights.

If God really was bothered about human life (whether born or unborn), he wouldn't have allowed pregnancy to be risky for women and put some at risk of dying upon giving birth.



You post says it all. No need to post more examples.



At least they're not relishing in the thought of homosexuals and other sinners burning in eternal hell, day and night, for ever and ever.



That wasn't my argument. My argument is that Christianity fails to instill such high morals in Christians.



No, but one doesn't need Christianity to come up with laws against rape. It's common sense for highly moral people to want laws to protect human beings from sexual abuse.

By the way, God advocates rape in certain circumstances. Why are you opposing God's will?



Done with the theatrics? Show some rationality for a change.

Sir, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. AIDS is so rare as to be non-existent amongst heterosexuals who don't share needles, aren't terribly promiscuous, and don't engage in sodomy.[/quote] I am no sire, and I dont need you to entitel me to have an opinion. And I know facts. And its by fact really, really senseless to spread in an public forum, used by teenagers and youths as well to spread an so absolutely wrong information, as that AIDS among heterosexuals were so rare, that you could say it to be non existing. Why dont you simply buy a tomahawk rocket and fire it on every "Use a condom./Safer sex." campaign existing? What exactly is your problem with AIDS, when you are even supporting its spreading by telling, sorry, but really, really stupid nonsense, like AIDS being so rare as non existing among heterosexual? O_o I simply dont get it, how someone having so much issues about AIDS, tries by all means to boycott any safety and protection issues against AIDS by spreading such nonsense?

IT DOESNT CARE IF MALE, FEMALE, HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL. IF YOU HAVE A NEW PARTNER, DO BOTH AN AIDS TEST. AND UNTIL THEN DO AN AIDSTEST. Thats a fact.

Quote:

In fact, the major predominantly heterosexual group to have an AIDS problem is sub-Saharan Africans, and that is because heterosexual anal sex is commonly practiced as a form of birth control.

So you think the virus would tell itself: "Oh, I spread myself by anal and vaginal sex. But because of the librarian disliking homosexuals, I know decide only to spread myself by anal sex. If they had vaginal sex, I wouldnt come out. The problem is not them using anal sex for birth control, its because of them having sex without protection. If they have vaginal sex without protection, they spread it as well.

Quote:

Claiming that monogamous heterosexuals have anything to fear from AIDS is the ultimate in spreading fear needlessly.

You can only decide for yourself to be monogamous. But that doesnt help you in any way, if your partner is not. Do you think the virus thinks "Oh, I have now a chance for infecting this other person. But its heterosexual and monogamous, so I´ll decide not to do so?"

Quote:

This claim is actually another example of amoral atheism who did so to ensure lots of money for AIDS research so that homosexuals can go on sodomizing one another.

The claim that AIDS does not care for you exchanging fluids in an heterosexual or homosexual way? BEEEEEEEEP? And I dont know, what you have with your "sodomozing" s**t, they simply have sex with each other, thats something heterosexual people would like to go on as well.

Quote:

The atheist lie of normal heterosexual people not being immune against AIDS? I dont know if that saying is as well known in english language, but have you been hit by a train?



I dont know of the days of the evil christian society then, because there were even laws existing, telling people that blacks were not equal, that it was allowed to treat them like dogs, by forbidding them to enter shops, just as it was accepted that you tried to avoid them unlike other humans, by creating s**t like entrance forbidden, containing that they were unlike other humans and worth less then other humans. So I cant say anything about the days of Christian society, because nothing of that fits in any way to an christian society, but only to a amoral bunch of hypocrites, that would have looked disgusted at a Jesus, not avoiding contacts to any human around him.


Again: You need, as mentioned yourself, a totalitarian police state and the highest incarceration rates in the world, to ensure you dont take your life into your hand while walking down the street.

And among the western societies, your country is beside the Vatican one of the most religious one. So how does that fit with your theory, that less religious people = more crime rates? Do you think other western countries polices, secretly decrease their crime rates, in a conspiracy to let your statement look bad? Dont you think our police has better things to do, then care for you and your theories?



Yes. Just like you can choose an religion that fits to your moral designs. So instead of hiding their moral design behind an religion, they simply accept their moral as their own, and opening it this way to negotiation and discussion instead of "But mine MUST me right. A GOD SAYS SO! I HAVE A GOD ON MY SIDE! SO I MUST BE RIGHT! EVEN IF I ACT TOTALLY AGAINST MY SO CALLED RELIGION, BY SHOWING MY PURE HATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS! NO, ITS NOT WITHOUT ANY REASON!! ! THEY DO SODOMY!! ! AND ACCORDING TO OLD TESTAMENT THATS BAD! YEAH, I DONT CARE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THAT JESUS WOULD NEVER HAVE ACTED AS I DO. IF ITS FITS TO MY PERSONAL OPINION AND HATE, I HIDE BEHIND THE OLD TESTAMENT! YOU KNOW, THE ONE, THAT WRITES AS WELL, THAT I SHALL SACRIFICE GOD MY MALE FIRSTBORN. AND THAT OUR SOLDIERS SHALL CUT OFF THE FORESKINS OF THEIR SLAYN ENEMIES. AND THAT HAS RULES FOR THE RAPING OF THE WOMAN OF OUR ENEMIES! BUT HAVE NO CONCERN; THESE PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ARE UNLIKE THESE, THAT I USE FOR HIDING MY HATE BEHIND IT, SO THAT I DONT NEED TO FACE IT AND CAN TELL ME TO HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR MY BEHAVIOR, OLD AND MEANINGLESS! BUT THE ONES ABOUT HATING HOMOSEXUALS MUST BE OBEYED BY ALL MEANS! BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY FIT TO MY PERSONAL OPPINION. BUT HEY, I AM NOT A sh***y ATHEIST, SIMPLY CHOOSING WHAT I WANT TO BE MY MORALE OPPINION! NO I AM ACTUALLY CHOOSING CERTAIN PART, THAT I LIKE FROM AN OLD BOOK, WHILE I IGNORE THE PARTS OF THE BOOK THAT ARE OF NO USE FOR ME!"

Maybe the cause why the the christianity of your country, does not protect you from criminals as it should, according to your theory, is because it cant work if people only pretend to be christians, while in reality they misuse is for their own hate religion?

The commandment not to murder is inconsistent with the behavior demonstrated by god. God demonstrated this through wiping out the population of the earth by flood and through the order to the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites.


Yes, punished for not following his laws. Christianity is dependent on the validity of the "old testament". The author of it is irrelevant. The Christian god is the same as the Jewish god.

Your response doesn't refute that your god is a sadist.


Render unto Caesar...

Thelibrarian wrote:
Sir, I cited the slaughter of 120 million innocent people and obscene income disparities as evidence for my claim. I'm not sure what to make out of somebody so callous as to consider these things so inconsequential as not even being worthy of your consideration.


So how does this support your claim that the Christian justice system is the way to go in this world?

I suppose it doesn't if mass murder is permissible. I say it's not. The question is why you think such is permissible.

God did his own share of slaughtering of innocent people according to the Bible. Why are you so callous as to not give that some consideration?

That's right; God did as you describe in the Bible. But there is one very important distinction that is lost on liberals: Liberals place themselves above all else, while Christians place God above all else. In other words, the Christian believes that he is NOT God, and hence the Christian has no right to kill even if God does reserve that right for himself. The tragedy of modern history is that since the atheist does place himself in God's position, the atheist thinks he has the right to kill as God would. The Christian takes seriously God's commandment not to murder.

Quote:
Yes, Christianity, along with ever other major religion, discourages homosexual activity. Twenty years ago I lived in Houston's homosexual district. I saw young kids dying of AIDS. Had these kids followed Christianity's injunctions against sodomy, they would have lived. It's yet one more example of the moral callousness of atheism that was the point of my original post.


Wow, how ignorant.

Is unsubstantiated moral indignation really the best argument you can summon?

First of all, homosexuality and sodomy are not synonyms. Heterosexuals do anal sex as well.

Yes, and as I noted, when they do they are at serious risk for AIDS. This is why the Bible forbids sodomy; it spreads all manner of disease.

Also, AIDS can spread by normal sexual intercourse as well. So the fault does not lie with homosexuality or sodomy.

Sir, since I already addressed this point, it is obvious that we are not communicating. If you want to have a grownup discussion you must give my thoughts the same consideration I give yours. If you can do better, I would relish having an intelligent discussion. Otherwise, since we are not communicating, I will have to ask you not to waste my time.

Quote:
Nor did Christianity encourage slavery. I hope you are not naive enough to believe that Christianity ever held the power to mandate or forbid slavery. Instead, what Christianity attempted to do was to make an institution that existed as humane as possible by mandating certain standards for the treatment of slaves.


Exactly my point. Instead of discouraging slavery and fighting against it, they continued to enable what was strongly encouraged in the Old Testament.

If you have a problem with OT teachings, you have a problem with Jews, not Christians. Again, since I already addressed this point, and you ignored me, you are trying my patience.

So what do Christians fight instead? Fellow human beings who don't share the same sexual orientation as them.

That's it. We are not communicating. I'm not responding to you for my health, but to have a discussion. Since I can't make you read what I write, it is obvious I am wasting my time. You can therefore consider this conversation over until you prove you can act like an adult and do better.

Quote:
Thanks to secular influence, communism at one time enslaved several billion people. And it was far less humane than what transpired in the South.


Two wrongs do not make a right. Slavery should still be considered morally wrong no matter what. Stop justifying its history.

Quote:
And since every non-liberal society has practiced bonded labor of some kind, by implication you are saying that all non-liberal societies are evil. Your position is enough to make even the most ignorant, narrow-minded Jehovah's witness--who thinks everybody else is going to hell--look tolerant by comparison.


Yes, I'm totally intolerant of course. And you're high on drama.

Quote:
It is ignorance to say that all Christianity forbids birth control.


I didn't say "all". But it is the Christian influence that leads Catholicism to preach against it.

Quote:
Catholics do, though most of the Protestant and Evangelical denominations do not. I do agree though that any Christianity worthy of the name forbids abortion, and in the strongest possible terms. Christianity does not share your callous indifference toward innocent human life. And there is no more innocent group than the unborn.


And once they are born, they do not matter, right?

Abortion is sometimes medically, psychologically, and financially necessary, and as long as it's done as early as possible, then there should be nothing immoral about it, especially when we're just talking about a bunch of cells that haven't even developed into a being worthy of some rights.

If God really was bothered about human life (whether born or unborn), he wouldn't have allowed pregnancy to be risky for women and put some at risk of dying upon giving birth.

Quote:
Christianity encourages judging people negatively for very superficial/shallow reasons.

Such as?


You post says it all. No need to post more examples.

Quote:
Political Correctness, which is liberalism sacralized, doesn't condemn and judge? How about those it demonizes as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "speciesist", etc. etc. etc.?


At least they're not relishing in the thought of homosexuals and other sinners burning in eternal hell, day and night, for ever and ever.

Quote:
It sounds as if what you are arguing is that since the moral rules aren't always followed, that they should be abolished?


That wasn't my argument. My argument is that Christianity fails to instill such high morals in Christians.

Quote:
I would remind that you that moral and legal injunctions against rape aren't always followed either. Should rape laws be abolished?


No, but one doesn't need Christianity to come up with laws against rape. It's common sense for highly moral people to want laws to protect human beings from sexual abuse.

By the way, God advocates rape in certain circumstances. Why are you opposing God's will?

Quote:
No, what PC has done is to institutionalize "prejudice" against the majority. Back when we had a Christian society, there was no need to lock our doors; now we need a police state to make people behave. Back when we had a Christian society, the rich were part of society; now rich liberals like Bill Gates and George Soros ensconce themselves behind walls to avoid having anything to do with regular people; they most certainly are not their brothers' keepers. Again, I find your moral callousness against obscene income inequality, which means more people are working harder for less, not only to be stunning, but represents everything I abhor about atheism.


Done with the theatrics? Show some rationality for a change.

^ This thread has become a mess. I can't tell who wrote what any more. It makes replying impossible.

Do you think it is rational or christian to close your eyes before official facts, saying that about 50% of new AIDS infections in europe, are affecting heterosexuals?

Do you think its rational or christian to tell yourself, that the 30% of PREGNANT woman having Aids in certain african country, do so because of them acutally practicing conceiving prevention by anal sex to become pregnant? O_o

Do you think it is rational or christian to denie again and again, that the US is one of the most religious western countries, and as well those, according to you, with horrible crime rates?

And if you think its christian in any way, to spread hate and dislkie and aggression...where exactly has Jesus done so? Where is that described in the bible? I have read it, and have a pretty good memory, but beside his meltdown at the temple and other stuff, I wouldnt recall that. So if nothing of that is christian...exactly what about you is christian? The stamp in your birth certificate? And exactly what of that behavior should we copy, to make our neighborhood a better neighborhood?

There is a big difference between believing and knowing I prefer to know!

I didn't say my proposition had to be true, just that it's more likely than yours.

For all you and I know, it could be something extremely mysterious going on that is way beyond anything we could imagine.