2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Although, I do follow many of Jesus' teachings - or do, at least, see their worth. But that is as common sense. I would all but discredit the old testament and some of the new testament if it wouldn't offend people doing so.

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Not to mention that it wasn't only for hedonism. Lot knew that they were going to destroy the people. He offered his (virgin) daughters in place of them, even though he was sure that they would be torn to peices. So if you believe that the majority should be able to rape and murder a minority b/c they believe in its goodness, perhaps there are more issues here than we know...

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Because God is meant to be benevolent? If they confessed sins, then they would be forgiven. In the same way, why aren't people condemned in the same way today? Because someone died? O.o That will only take away from the omnipotence of God. God set down a few rules, but because we have free will, he has no right to punish us for it except after death.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: You said yourself morals aren't fluid. Are you saying some morals are now? O.o

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Of course not. I was simply using your own logic against you. Lol. Sorry about that. I don't want to get too far into a debate if it's going to make us hostile against each other, so if we start to cross that line, please warn me. That wouldn't take away from the idea of God as omnipotent. If He chooses not to, how would that make him less than omnipotent?

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: LoL, gosh no. I'm not going to dislike you. You've shown yourself far too intelligent to dislike. The only situation I don't like is the whole 2 vs 1. :P If he had to use his Son to take away the sins of the human world, it would take away his omnipotence, because if he was such a thing, he could do it just like so. I'm going by what the Christian God is meant to be and I'm trying to tie back to how this would result in the conclusion that gay marriage would be wrong. I think we've concluded a stalemate on lack of evidence, but it's simply for fun now.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: And to be fair, I hope this doesn't take the energy away from what we have, but as an agnostic, I have no particular stance. I just like playing Devil's advocate. I would rather see the acceptance of all as equals by law. Religion is a tale to itself, but it opposes such equality in some ways. It deems things as evil. The ignorant and unintelligent will persecute such things and lead to strife. Strife cannot do good for anyone other than for Capitalist gain. I'm no Communist, but I don't see reason by law to believe in a God, but to sympathise for either extreme.

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Lol. Agreed. Well, I'm sure this is going to lead to a whole theological discussion beyond the existance of God, but I will go for it anyway. Lol. (And by the way, it might not be a 2 on 1 soon... Blackfire could come in and start calling us all morons, so it would really be a 2 on 1 on 1. Lol.). Anyway, God very well could have taken away all of the sin without that. Many believe that the reason he did things the way He did was to 1)Show how much He loves us, 2)Show a sacrifice in that we should do likewise, and 3)Remind us that we have the free will to chose or reject him (as opposed to saying, "HA! You're holy! Now what?!") I was going to go somewhere else with this; Brain cramp

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: lmao, For the time, it would make sense to give the people evidence that Jesus was God. Shame people didn't accept it. In some ways, it meshes, and I do believe in something, but I'm hardly willing to give it attributes when there are bad things we can all witness. Evolution and a chance may account for all we have, however unlikely, but that does not exclude that possibility. I see reasons for what you said, in fact, by Christian reasoning, I cannot fault it, but then, I have to question the Christian reasoning and whether it is rational. I like proof as someone who favours science. Maybe that is my fault in such arguments as these - Religions just don't seem to have a strong hold to say

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: what is right and wrong, when a moral code cannot be agreed. By law, we are all equal. That is about it. Da Vinci and other homosexuals have achieved much without reproducing. Sometimes, I question the reasoning for religions to condemn homosexuality and that is all. I will keep it concise to the conditions of the wiki, but with no evidence for or against, I feel obliged (since it feels good/right) to give people that which everyone else is entitled to.

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: like you said we have choice... if we chose to sin and we repent then yes we will be forgiven... back then thay where under a different command ment so thay would have had to do different things (and sorry for the 2 vs 1 thing... i dont have anything else to do)... anyway (im not sure how it was before the flood) but after thay would have had to give offerings to god for forgiveness to prove thay were sorry (i think that was before the flood too) anyway this group of people most likly didnt care thay were sinning (a cirial killer intodays would knows what he is doing is wrong but he dose it anyway with out repentence) so just knowing its a sin's not enough also that wasnt the first time

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: And that's what people often have trouble understanding about me. I say taht I am against homosexuality, and they immedeately think that I am some kind of homophobic Nazi. Lol. It's not that I hate them, it's just that I don't think it's a moral act. I have plenty of homosexual friends, and (as far as I know) they never feel oppressed by me. I am all for them having rights, so long as the definition of "marriage" is understood (though I'm not currently sure what our state defines "Marriage" as). So, hurray for unions if Homosexuality doesn't fall under marriage. As for the whole idea of Jesus being God, I think that it's rather amusing how people can ignore obvious facts sometimes...

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: At teh very least, he must have been the greatest man who EVER lived considering that when placed beside the evidence that Christ lived, the evidence that Aristotle or Plato lived is miniscule. After that, it can only be disputed whether or not people lied about his works.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: That's definitely the atmosphere of the people, but I still struggle to comprehend God as something different as we accept him today. God hasn't changed, nor should we have, but there are stories of cleansing. Something must of changed as I understand it, for God to have gone from almost arrogant, to benevolent. We were all created in the same way and it just comes across as too fictional. Still, God changes his ways and as a necessary being, who is all that, I just don't see the reasoning. The Jewish God and Christian God seem very different.

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: This whole debate seems very out of place. This wiki page is devoted to debate about homosexuals, not religion. I am sure there is a wiki out there meant for such debate. Perhaps this conversation could be continued there?

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Aye, but religion and atheism are two conflicting parties in the idea of what is right; homosexuality included. It's not out of place at all. It's just off on a tangent. If one side can be proven as right, the apparent nature of homosexuality can be understood and this concludes whether the members of this wiki are just full of faith, ignorant or misguided.

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: But it is also apparent that there are those who are against homosexuality and yet are atheist. Blackfire66, the founder of this wiki, clearly stated to believe that there is no god.

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: True. I've always wondered about that myself. A common idea is that the Old TEstament is seen as "Law" (though shalt, or else), while the New Testament is "Gospel" (Even though (x), I still love/forgive). The problem with this is that God is supposed to be unchaging by nature according to most Christian Faiths. Another belief is that since God works through his creation (Another common Christian Tenant), that he still does act like that today, just not to such a degree. Perhaps because we are not as out of control in this day and age? I'm not sure. I need to think on it. I'm a little tired right now as it is! Lol.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: And Lady_Elowyn, I would like to know why that is, other than blatant, unjustified homophobia. =) Anyway, I need to sleepies. No more responses from me for a while.

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: What do you mean by out of control? And I think the new testament has as much law as the old testament. Basically, once Jesus came, the old Law (the old testament) became obsolete, unless a said law was repeated in the new testament. The new testament became the new law.

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: I believe the same thing. Lol. I'm not necessarilly talking about my beliefs right now, just the beliefs of most Christians. The main reason that I'm not discussing my beliefs is because of what Deus said. We're doing this more out of trying to find whether Chrisitianity has a valid standpoint or not. Not whether or not I have a valid standpoint. I agree that both the Old and New testament have both law and gospel. But that, as you aptly stated, is a conversation for a different wiki. =D

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: Well large amounts of the conversation happened while I was missing, and I did not read all of it. So basically you are trying to decide whether or not christianity is valid?

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: ERm... in a sense. Lol. Like I said, I think that at this point I can't really trust my conversational capabilities. I'm REALLY tired. Lol. I will erspond more tommorow after I have slept.

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: lol, understandable. I'm also quite tired. I was up til about 1:00 yesterday... I should be going to bed soon...

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Ok. We were more discussing whether Christianity's position on Homosexuality is valid. That's what I would have said if I was awake last night. =D

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: lmfao... i think i need to wake up more to understand what i just read lmfao

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: Ok I understand now. Well that makes sense... I think...

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: lol my brain is still trying to take in everything lmfao

2005-12-16 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i just don't understand why some of you people care so much about the concept of gay marrige, i mean the you talk [M_Sinner] about this subject and back its ideas you would think that you were gay yourself

2005-12-16 [dfafadsfasdasf]: oh and by the way i did delete your coments...becuz this is my wiki and i can do that

2005-12-17 [Caritas]: Can I join??

2005-12-17 [Lady_Elowyn]: Go ahead. Just add your name to the member list. Although, I wouldn't suggest joining this debate. It's a bit... er...

2005-12-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Pwning?

2005-12-18 [M_Sinner]: Told you. This censorship brought to you by: [dfafadsfasdasf]

2005-12-18 [T_Pop]: *sigh or releafe*... thank God that would have taken me forever to read...erm... i mean... how tarible... how could you do that blackfire??? *shifty eyes* lmfao

2005-12-18 [dfafadsfasdasf]: lol

2005-12-19 [Caritas]: Huh

2005-12-26 [T_Pop]: WHAT THE HELL!!!!!... i was gone for about a week and hardly anything was typed *slightly disapointed look* lmao

2005-12-26 [T_Pop]: NANATU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmfao

2005-12-27 [M_Sinner]: Meaning that he would delete the comments. He has a habit of doing that.

2005-12-27 [T_Pop]: really? *evil grin*... what type comments does he deleat??

2005-12-27 [Lady_Elowyn]: anything that asks him not to insult people for what they believe, and anything that has a good solid argument for a debate in it. For that matter, he'll most likely delete this. Many times has he insulted my beleifs, many times have I asked him not to, and as many times has he deleted the comments I wrote asking him not to insult me.

2005-12-27 [M_Sinner]: I find it amusing, though, that he deleted my arguments on here. Again, I tend to argue on the side against gay marriage, but he couldn't even understand that. I think he deletes any comments with a word bigger than 6 letters, because he can't read it. *Whoops!* I really should watch myself. >=)

2005-12-27 [Lady_Elowyn]: Hey, I believe I set a record. I honestly thought he would delete my last comment by thetime I got on today, but he didn't! I guess he hasn't been on yet. And I agree. Maybe it's the grammar. I also argue on the side against gay marriage, but he made the slight mistake of calling people who believe in God idiots who can't figure anyhting out. Come to think of it, that just about describes Blackfire. Oh well, we'll see how long these comments last.

2005-12-27 [M_Sinner]: Yeah! Lol. He especially hates it when people quote him on two contradictory things that he said like, "w/e idiots" (he was talking to us about belief in God) and then, in his house, "
Treating individuals and groups with respect, irrespective of thier leanings." I really hate people. But I'm pretty sure that he has too many images in his house. On that note, I will go check the rules, and hopefully report him.

2005-12-27 [Lady_Elowyn]: Well, I won't go as far as reporting him, especially considering I have no idea how to. But I believe he does deserve to be reported. He is indeed contradictory, especially considering at least half of the banners for this page include something saying "please do not insult us for what I believe. Then he just turns around and calls people idiots for believign God exists. By the way, I must ask. Are you a christian?

2005-12-27 [M_Sinner]: Of course!!! The reason that I debated the way that I did before is taht I have found that saying the things that I would say as a Christian uaually pushes people away. If I start from scratch, however, and lead them by the hand through my logic, they seem to have a better outlook. It does take quite a long while, however, and so it would seem that at the beginning as though I am not Christian. Wow. I hope that made some sense. Anyway, Yes, I am indeed Christian and proud of it!

2005-12-27 [Lady_Elowyn]: yeah, I know what you mean... I am also a member of Christian and proud of it, as well as my own wiki, March of the Jesus Freaks. And everything you said made perfect sense.

2005-12-27 [M_Sinner]: Yay!!! *feels special* I'll go check out march of the Jesus Freaks. lol. I looked through the basic uploading art rules, and I'm not sure if he's disobeying anything there, but I'm pretty sure that there was some news at some point that said you can only have ten images in your house, no? Or did they change their minds on that? Oh well. I'll find the answer eventually!

2005-12-27 [Lady_Elowyn]: I don't know much about the art rules, actually. I've only been her since about last spring, and if you've seen my house you might notice I have no art or pictures. So I honestly wouldn't know, unfortunately.

2005-12-28 [T_Pop]: well... im going to have to try all that *evil grin*

2005-12-28 [Rizzen]: March of the Jesus Freaks is a nice wiki. I just add my name if I wish to join?

2005-12-28 [dfafadsfasdasf]: to all that reside here this is a notice stateing that as of next week the straight way will have its comments suspended due to lack of respect for the owner of the wiki

2005-12-28 [M_Sinner]: Good ridance.

2005-12-28 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i'm glad your happy [M_Sinner]

2005-12-28 [M_Sinner]: ^_^ Not that the comments are being shut down, but that I will no longer feel any conscious-driven need to bring contradictions in logic to [dfafadsfasdasf]'s attitude (I assume that I am talking to said hypocrite?) Anyway, it really is a sad thing that he sees any contradiction whatsoever as a personal attack on his belief, but hopefully he'll come to his senses in the next few years. I'm sure he believes that he has it all figured out, as do all 15-year-olds (and17-year-olds for that matter), but time reveals many things.

2005-12-28 [Lady_Elowyn]: Indeed. By the way, as all the names seem to be hidden, who's been posting? Yes, to join Jesus Freaks just add your name.

2005-12-28 [M_Sinner]: Sine Here. And the comment above yours, and the one above the one abope that... if you can decipher that. 

2005-12-28 [Lady_Elowyn]: I think I have that figured out. In case you didn't know, this is Elowyn, as well as the one asking who's who.

2005-12-28 [deus-ex-machina]: 17 year olds don't think they have it figured out - they're just willing to believe they're right for reason's sake. 17 year olds just like to argue.

2005-12-28 [M_Sinner]: Erm... I'm sorry? I didn't really catch that. And I certainly do not like to argue. I think of it as a necessary evil. ^_^

2005-12-29 [Rizzen]: Rizzen: Arguing can sometimes be a nice way of discerning where people stand, as it's merely another word for debate. But when it dissolves into name calling and goading, then's the time to step back and re-look at the situation as a whole. At the moment, I honestly think we need a new like of discussion. The current path will lead to nothing but more trouble and insults

2005-12-29 [Lady_Elowyn]: I definitely agree. So... what's a good topic that we can agree on that won't lead to insults?

2005-12-29 [T_Pop]: um... is something wrong with my CP or did someone change the wiki???

2005-12-29 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: Someone definitely changed a bit of the wiki. Note the comments section. I can understand what you're saying rizzen, but at the risk of sounding like a little schoolboy: [dfafadsfasdasf] started it! ("w/e idiots")

2005-12-29 [T_Pop]: lmfao i see lmfao... well then this should be interesting lmfao

2005-12-29 [T_Pop]: i have a question blackfire... what do you think would have happened if there was no religion ever???... what if we never learned what we learned from religion??? do you really think the world would be a better place??... if you really think about it, if it wasn't for religion then the world would be in more truble then it is now... do you honestly think that we are "naturaly good"???

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: Idiot - do you really think we wouldn't have found the morals we have today without religion? Morals comes from common sense - but they were installed by a godhead through religion. They had no proof of God - they were just power mongering priests of simple people. I imagine that was T_Pop, since she asks a lot of questions - clueless wretch.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: she??? im not a she!!!... and im not clueless... do you really think people could come up with common sense on there own... do you?? i tend to think diffrently... if you realy look at human NATURE!! you will see that thay would prefer the easy and more porductive way for THEM and not others... if it was our nature to be nice and have common sense then why do we have to TEACH our kids to be NICE to each other and to TEACH them why thay shouldnt do what thay WANT to do... if it was in our nature then we wouldnt need to be tought that... and if it was in our to have common sense then why is it that a child will burn itself on fire before it learns not to do it. i ask questions to make YOU think

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: Common... sense... It's in the name. And yeah - I thought the point of asking questions was obvious. We aren't taught by God - we are taught by our parents and elders - who were taught before them. If you wish to argue origins, then sure, go ahead - you can't prove them, but today, the youth can live free of God. People are selfish - even politics is selfish, but people will inherantly see the benefits of a society and production if they cannot seek out the fulfillment of a job by themselves. Farms can be freely independant - what need is there for God there? We do what benefits us - you said yourself - what would benefit me most would be to not do what I wouldn't want others to do to me.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: Do you understand what common sense is? Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment. That's a definition. It's a trial and error form of learning. Burn yourself once - avoid it thereafter. Find yourself emotionally hurt once, avoid it thereafter. Why do you think dictators do what they do? No consequence - no punishment. Punishment is contained within the world and is not handed out by a God who will not interfere with the world.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: How many people listen to authorities over basic matters until nature has punished them? They tell you not to touch fire - but until you're burnt you will never learn the consequence. You eventually learn to trust what people tell you. It does not come from a God. It's a beauty from time. You cannot prove God through those methods.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: ok... then i suppos there is no after life is there??... i mean if there is no God then an after life is pointless isn't it? and if there is an after life then WHAT THE HELL IS IT??? note: if there is no after life the life itself is pointless and we all should die right here and now to get if over with... if you say there is an after life then how can you say there is no God? if you say there is an after life then you admit that there is something besides this world... by admiting there is something besides this world then how can you say that THAT cant effect this world?? something dies and gose to the after life if there is no God then there is no heavin... if there is no heavin then ---

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: there is no hell... if there is no hell then we all go to the same place wether we are good, bad, beleave, or not... if thats true then tell me what is the point of a law that protects people who will be going to the same place as the people who go ageanst the laws... if all this is true (acording to you... yes you did say there was an after life but no God) but if all this is true then why do we have a right to judge anyone of anything or have any ponishments for anything??? you think about all that for a second and i mean actualy think about it and not just read it and come up with a comment not well thought out

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: I don't expect to find an afterlife. You have no proof life has no worth without an afterlife, so your point is void. I do not say there is an afterlife - another void point. I'm not contradicting myself here. Our intelligence and teachings from religions have given us an unreasoned belief in the afterlife. I could go into Marx's view, but I don't wholly agree with that. I just don't see what we have over animals and what that does to give us a right to heaven. Simple words in the Bible confirm nothing of human superiority. You're enforcing your beliefs on me to try and prove God. Which I imagine, should God exist, given teachings, homosexual sex is wrong.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: yes you did say there was an after life but no God - When did I say that?

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: Your tone is quite patronising for someone with a one tracked mind. We consider law because breaking the law results in injustice which hurts. Why should people murder? The law exists to prevent 'selfish humans' from dominating hedonistic tendencies. It keeps social order and it is apparent in society that an ordered system is better than one in chaos in the world we live in today. Trade and life couldn't work without a system of law. It would revert back hundreds of years if so. You fail to see an alternative to heaven or hell or beyond after life. I believe in none of these, but I do see reason for living. I see reasoning in enlightenment and the same reasons other animals live.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: I also wish to do something no human has never done before to further society.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: you said there was an after life way back when... unless im getting the people mixed up and your not Blackfire... if your not then i take that part back and apalogies... now about forceing beleafe im doing no such thing... im trying to make you think... my beleafes is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose agean, he is the son of God and also God himself, he is the "word" itself and the "word" is the Bible... thats my beleafes and im not telling you to beleave in any of it... im trying to make you think about what your saying (you have a slight habit of makeing any point someone says as pushing there beleafes on you)... hipocrit... no offence but thats what you are.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: I'm perhaps a hypocrite on the topic, but then, that's it. It's the best way of getting the point across and no - I'm not Him. I understand you're beliefs and I know why you make them out as fact and in a logical sense, it all makes good sense to end up persecuting and ridding the rights of homosexuals for those beliefs - but there is no proof of God, or Jesus, or the basis of homosexuality. As this is what the topic is about - then what right do any of us have to do anything but give homosexuals the equal rights any other person would have? I cannot disprove or verify God, but as verifying God leads to a descrimination - which in turn is exactly what the belief should be against, I'm...

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: ...willing to say give human rights and compassion to something we don't understand. That is homosexuality. Tell them they are wrong, but don't prevent them under the law of having anything you don't have. As far as the debate goes, it should only go as far as undermining any action to allow gay marriages in a church which opposes it. Otherwise, there is no argument under the law. The UN says there is no basis in the world for descrimination. So be it. It works. Gay people cannot be sinners for just being. Just because black people are born black gives them an inherant right to be treated equally. Gay people are not so obvious, so why doubt when it is descrimination otherwise?

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: *Jesus existed - but there is no proof he was the son of God.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: And yes - I know - God... yippedy doo dah, but from my point of view, I hope you understand. I live, I die, I see injustice, I want rid of it, regardless of any source without proof when we live in an age of equality... I see those people have a right to equality under more powerful authorities, I argue for it, I die either way, having accomplished more beyond one cause. My body is buried, I rot, I might be discovered much later by archeologists. *shrugs*

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: but saying that gays are "born" gay is only a theary... there is no proof to support that... i myself have hurd its everything from "the way there brain works" to "DNA" and still i have not seen any solid profe of either of them... with a black person yes you can see it, and its been proven how thay become that way (this pigment of the skin or something like that) anyway with a gay person there is no proof thay have to be gay... its not in there "DNA" and i dought its there brain wayves either

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: I doubt it's a choice, either way. And heh - lets not even get on the immoral train of 'correction'. If they want to miss out on the pleasures of one guaranteed life they have, they should do what they want - same thing for anyone - as long as no one is hurt by it. Putting faith into something that tells you to do something that hurts no one and you take a risk - well, why not? Pascal's wager. I can see immense reasoning for why an afterlife occurs so often in the history - and it ain't God. The whole of religion is only a theory. Put the word faith in the equation and it's apparently more so. Proof is a matter of understanding... While religion may or may not be fictitious - a root cause of

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: homosexuality isn't far away. I'm not saying there is only one reason either. But the issue is whether it's in someone's nature to be gay - if it is - God is to blame, whether it's genetic or psychological or at birth... Children with brain damage are born that way and if God exists, he is to blame. No one made such a choice in the issue. I see no choice in homosexuality. It's as much a part of heterosexuality is to a straight person. You can give me all the BS about people who 'changed' - deep down, they haven't changed, they've just been scared. They have the same impulses as before.

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: It's hardly a perversion, when it's quite hypocritical of a society who claims it's sinful for them to do so because no child will be born - however, these people are also using contraception. One group of people are doing what they feel attraction towards - the other is delibrately killing life potential with contraception. I don't think the idea of a gay culture helps anymore in proving that it isn't just a bunch of camp men wanting to be 'free!', btw. They only help by making an apparent show that they want to be that way as if it is a tap to be switched on and off.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: but you see... there is no proof that it is any of those things... truthfuly (this is my oppinion so dont get mad or think im pushing it on you) but i think that "gay" people are gay becouse thay chose to be... now if thay became gay by either being showen it, tought it, or expearionsed it i cant say for sure but its a choice... just like how people who are strait "chose" to be that way... now like i said its only my oppinions so dont get mad but from what i can see it fits

2005-12-30 [deus-ex-machina]: You chose to be straight? You mean, as the nurse slapped your ass on the way out, you chose to get turned on by people of the opposite sex? It doesn't fit - because it's more than a choice - it's an urge you can't control. There is certainly no proof to show it is a choice.

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: Ok... I'm not sure A) who's involved in this debate (other than T... I could spot you anywhere. *winks*), and B) what's been said so far (given that I wasn't sure how it started/who was talking, it seemed rather pointless) but I just thought that I would put forth a theory that I had recently (this is kind of in favor of T_pop's idea, so is only believable if you entertain his logic for a moment). You ever notice how people, when they have their first sexual experience, are very timid, and just do, to be blunt, the bare minimum? And as time goes on, those peope who have sex a lot tend to get into the "kinkier" stuff a lot more easily? Could it be that...

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: homosexuality might occur from an exposure to many kinds of sex (i.e. exposure to porn, talking about sex, having sex, etc...), and so it's just drifting more into the "kinky" realm in some cases? From a theological standpoint, this doesn't change my thoughts about it being sinful in God's eyes or anything... just taking a look at one of the other possible causes in some cases.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: what the hell??? you have no proof that a gay person is born gay... NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER!!! if you can show me the proof then i will take that back but as it stands there is none!!! now for the love of everything good and desent START TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!!!!

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: Indeed, we have had this discussion before... there have been cases of identical twins seperated at birth (one with the father, one with the mother, both parents straight) and one became gay and the other straight. While there are other factors involved, I must say that this does point to homosexuality being an aquired characteristic.

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: exactly!!

2005-12-30 [Lady_Elowyn]: [Lady_Elowyn]: But anyway, be kind about saying it. I agree, but you've no idea how annoying it is when people lash out at you because of what you believe...

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: Which, I think, is part of what [dfafadsfasdasf] had to say... before he bacame whatever he has become (personality-wise)

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: sorry

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: Erm... sorry for what?

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: you right... i am pushing a little to hard (even though thats probiboly the only way to make them think) thats beside the point im pushing just a little to hard

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: This is [dfafadsfasdasf]? I didn't know. Lol. Well, I'm glad that you're at least coming to that conclusion. While something may be true, it's usually bad to try and be forceful about it. People just respond in kind. And then people get angry... and then I always end up bleeding! Rofl.

2005-12-30 [Lady_Elowyn]: [Lady_Elowyn]Indeed. Well, I'm glad you've come to that conclusion. Now when you refer to getting them to think, you mean people in favor of homosexuality?

2005-12-30 [T_Pop]: ooh sorry... [T_Pop] that was me... ame with the one that said "exactly" and "sorry" and "what the hell"... ill try to remember the name from now on ^_^!

2005-12-30 [M_Sinner]: [M_Sinner]: So, that wasn't blackfire?... oh... Roflmao. I was skeptical...

2005-12-31 [T_Pop]: sorry about confusing you... maybe blackfire should change the commets back lol

2006-01-12 [dfafadsfasdasf]: you people can talk here again i just don't want to be disrespected

2006-01-13 [T_Pop]: disrespected?? where???

2006-01-13 [deus-ex-machina]: Dum... the last few pages where you joked about how he would delete your posts and earlier still, actually calling him names?

2006-01-13 [T_Pop]: i said that???... *thinks back*... um... i dont think ive been here that long lol

2006-01-13 [deus-ex-machina]: lol - They were obviously there for him to do something about it - I probably shouldn't accuse you personally. I'm not void of blame either.

2006-01-13 [T_Pop]: what?? WHAT??? now im even more confused then before!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!! NOT THE MONKEYS AGAIN!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! *starts fighting amagionary monkeys*

2006-01-13 [M_Sinner]: Really? I thought that I was the only one doing that kind of thing. T_pop is too nice for that.

2006-01-13 [T_Pop]: hay!!... ... ... thats not to nice to say something like that... i could be a crule heartless person would delights in torturing and killing those around me... :'(

2006-01-14 [dfafadsfasdasf]: so [M_Sinner] are we cool now i don't wana fight with you anymore

2006-01-14 [M_Sinner]: Sounds good. Sorry about that earlier. I was just a little ticked off that you were calling me gay for argueing in your favor. That was what got me going.

2006-01-15 [T_Pop]: ok... well as long as we're all happy and friendly and no ones bleeding then everythings ok lol

2006-01-15 [dfafadsfasdasf]: yeah i rather not fight with you people

2006-01-16 [disco biscuit]: god put women and men to together for a reason

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: Prove God exists.

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: are you alive??? dose everything work just right??? these are just a few examples that are odviose to any trained eye

2006-01-16 [M_Sinner]: See John of Antiqua's thesis on the existance of God. Honestly, you can "prove" anything through logic. Including two antithesis... antitheses... Contradictin statements. God is a matter of Faith. To ask someone to prove him (or her) to you is a show that you cannot at this time have faith, thus destroying any purpose that there would be in proving to you that God exists.

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: That does not prove God, T_Pop. I could be alive for many reasons. Things work right considering my environment. You cannot tell me that something is wrong because God says so when you cannot prove to me that God exists. I don't care whether you believe what is right is due to a basis of your faith... but you cannot say something as fact without proof. It does not make for a functioning rule in a multi-belief society. I cannot disprove God, so don't ask me to, but YHWH does not stand up in a court of law, nor will it say anything is right here and now.

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: ok... i will agree with you on that... there is now way to forse you to beleave so i wont even try... all i can say is that with the "logic" of man there would be no reason to have prisons "an eye for an eye" thing... anyway its your disision to belave or not and no one can force you

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: It's not my decision, as I have no faith. Until I have faith, I will not believe in God. Without faith, it is apparent to me that it is just as likely God doesn't exist as much as he does. I don't understand your point about prisons. So if you wish to elaborate, I'll reply then. FYI, I would like faith, inspired by a real experience. If it doesn't happen, I'll be happy to live my life as I want, because as an agnostic, I favour a lack of God for my idea of 'One life only allows for me to do what I want now'. For me, I don't believe there will be any punishment in the afterlife for what you do now, since God - to me - doesn't exist.

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: well... the idea of the prison was that it was Jesus who told us not to follow with the "eye for an eye" thing. and Jesus was God so if it wasn't for God then we would still be killing eachother no mater where we live or what we do. now about your lack of faith... i cant say much for it... i myself find my faith wavering here and there but to think that there is no punishment for what we do here is not right... whats the point of punishing peolpe while there on earth if theres no punishment after life?

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: I don't agree with punishment except for correcting behaviour. Prison doesn't always work, but some people need to be kept off the streets. And don't tell me what I believe is wrong. I didn't say it was right. People are punished because they did wrong and the law needs to make example of such people. I think the law is too strict personally. I think the death penalty is disgusting. Luckily it doesn't exist here. Just because something exists here doesn't reflect what is yonder.

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: well... the question is why do we get punished?... if the after life has no punishments then life should also reflect that... for whats the point of punishing someone for something if there is no punishments after word??... also if that is true there is no punishments in the after life then why is everyone so afread of death?? we should all just kill owrselves now and get it overwith right??? my logic say's theres punishments in the after life... but i wont try to make you beleave me... just think about these things yourself and if you still think there is no punishments in the after life then by all means beleave it

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: I believe what I believe because almost instantaneously I can see faults in what you see. Right now, I cannot be bothered to elaborate. I just can't believe God by your terms.

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: if you say so... and i beleave in Jesus along with God... dont forget Jesus... he's cool lmfao

2006-01-16 [deus-ex-machina]: What if were to go into Islam? Or some other faith completely unrelated to Jesus - the son of God?

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: um... dud... I beleave in Jesus along with God... i said nothing about you... like i said im not going to force you into my beleafs... so you can go and do what you want i just want to live in a world where people THINK about what thay are saying... not nessessarly saying you but most everyone i've meet dont do that... i can go into an entire 5 hour rant on that subject but i think i'll just leave it with that

2006-01-16 [M_Sinner]: Y'know something? This is the kind of conversation that got the comments nearly banned last time, and (as we had determined) this isn't really the place to talk about it. That being said, I will now become a hypocrite by continuing the conversation (at least until someone agrees with that statement). You have said that this is a multi-belief society, right? Well, considering that a part of the Koran says that those who do not believe should be killed (as does a part of the Bible, if taken out of context), then it is obvious that certain religions cannot coexist in the same society without violent consequences. So, tell me, who gets to stay?

2006-01-16 [T_Pop]: sorry but i think i got into this wiki just after the event you discribed Sine... what happened??? lmfao

2006-01-16 [Mr_McEwan]: FUCKING RIGHT! STRAIGHT POWER!

2006-01-16 [Mr_McEwan]: I'M FUCKING SICK OF THOSE QUEERS GETTING ON TV AND RAMMING THEIR RIGHTS DOWN OUR THROATS (Whilst trying to ram something else down).

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Sine - that's a minority. You ask the majority of Christians and Muslims what faith is, and they will teach you love. The conflict in Israel is over hyped. Jews and Muslims can get on fine. Most do. It's the minority that ruin it for the majority. As for Chitching - you deserve to die for a general ignorance. =D You said 'don't forget Jesus' - obvious mistake on you're behalf... Come on, your life is obviously dominated by faith, how else are people meant to react when you post? All religions are open to interpretation... If it were taken literally, Christianity would be harder to stomach than it is already.

2006-01-17 [M_Sinner]: Please elaborate on that point. Though T_pop originally posted the "Don't forget Jesus" comment, I like to think that I can barely compare to his huge amount of faith. If taken literally, much of Christianity would be a far kinder religion from what I can see. Especially if you take into account Paul's letters (which makes up most of the New Testament-- the supposed "focus" of the Christian religion).

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: God does not need to exist with Jesus. Jesus existed by proof of historical documents, but his miracles weren't. I may believe in God, but not one who is benevolent. God exists in many forms, almost to the extent where the Abrahamic God disappears to be something else. He had faith, but there is no proof that he was the Son of God. I may relate to a religion that has nothing to do with Jesus. Yet, would I be accused of being wrong as such? This isn't a Christian wiki in it's intentions. Jesus made Christianity a more realistic religion, but it is still far outdated. Denominations such as the COE have come under criticism when I think they have the right balance.

2006-01-17 [M_Sinner]: Understood. I just wasn't sure what you meant exactly by that statement at first. And I so think that you have a quite valid point there. While I do dissaprove of homosexuality, it is on a purely religious basis, and that is not the intention of this wiki. As such it should hold little if any bearing on the discussions had here.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Nevertheless, the Bible is outdated. And their is little proof in the Bible that says homosexual marriage is wrong. Leviticus is an overquoted source. Many others go unmentioned, if they even exist. I discredit the Bible as a modern source on topical issues. Science has advanced as has understanding. There is no proof at all the Bible is the word of God. Religion as a whole may be the oppression of the masses by the early educated. There is nothing to say otherwise. Marx and HG Wells say otherwise.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Still, saying this, I credit religions on modern teachings. For example the Catholic church, which uses natural law as well as the Bible. The Catechism of the CC is a perfect example of what I believe religion should be. Ancient scriptures should be referred to, not necessarily believed. The obvious should neither prove God either, when such evidence can work in such opposite favour too.

2006-01-17 [M_Sinner]: I, personally, perfer the Lutheran Chatecism. ;) But that's just me.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Basically, homosexuality has not be proven to be genetic, hormonal or experiencial difference. It pains me to think that people believe that this leaves it to be a choice. I can tell you it's not a deliberate choice. I despise the idea that it is a subconscious choice also - but that is evolution based. Just because something has not been proved, does not mean it shan't be in the future. Researchers will say all things, religions will say it's wrong, but something that people choose not to be cannot be wrong surely. It may be correctional, but it's a disgusting view that all homosexuals should be changed by drugs. It takes away variation, of left handed people, of the black people... etc

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: I only know of the CCC, sorry for my ignorance. I have little experience of Christianity beyond Catholicism other than what they persecute. It's why I believe Christianity ought to promote itself as a loving religion rather than one which tells you what is wrong. As an agnostic... Christianity really is viewed as the bad boy... the sadist. Religion should be about positive experience. Negative denunciation does little for teaching. It's part of the reason a huge pro gay movement has evolved, along with the true belief that all people deserve equal rights under the law.

2006-01-17 [M_Sinner]: True. I was just talking to a pastor yesterday about that. While I think that Christianity should be accepting and the like, it should have a stance of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Many religions adapt to the beliefs of modern day, and I honestly think that this shows more than anything that they cannot be true religions. If a god changes his mind on a matter, what defines what that god would believe? It would make for a very chaotic system of beleif. While this far from "proves" that Christianity is the one true religion (or that religion is even a valid thing) I do find it ammusing that Christianity's unwillingness to evolve is what makes you detest it, while I praise it.

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: if you really look at it the bible is the oldest book that has survived to now with relitivly no changes beside language changes that is. if you look at the origanal language of the bible (from what i have heard) its the same now as it always has been (i personaly dont have the pationts to check) although i can say i have a 100 some year old bible and dispite its odd color and almost gone cover the context seems to be almost exactly the same as my newer one. i will try to check more on it but im pritty sure its the same. anyway the point is that christianity hasn't changed all that much... but the people's inturpritation of it may never come to a single agreement... i would love to see ---

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: all the denominations banning together to (at the varry least) make a christion counsal but with the stuberness of man it dosen't look like its ever going to happen. dispite that the message of the bible is still there for anyone who wants to, to pick it up and just desipher it. some things i will admit you shouldnt exept at face value but those things usualy have a deeper meaning (as with most of the bible)... otherthings i have to say you should take as face value. but its up to the reader to determan which one is which and what to make of all that the bible says. i've been trying to read a book each mounth and trust me theres a lot you can get out of each book

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Christianity as a whole isn't unwilling to change. The Church of England is criticised as being liberal. It has been blessing gay relationships for years now. Since I believe the Bible is not God's word, I find some teachings hard to accept because they seem to have been born out of the ignorance of the time. To me, the word of God is apparent to everyone as it is good intrinsically. There is no proof that the Bible is the word of God, but I do believe if he were to exist, it's quite obvious what he would teach as there would be no dispute if man really is born with an innate sense of goodness.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: I only detest religion because I can see it's origins as being something used to dominate others. And it's not that religion is unwilling to change... I just think that if God created the world, there would also be proof that things are right and wrong. I don't believe descriminating claims should be made when people cannot justify it and religions just can't seem to help themselves, lol.

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: well no one is born with the innate sense of goodness. if they where then there would be no need to teach kids the diffrence between right and wrong for thay would already have that innage sense of goodness in them. i will admit that in the past religion was used to dominate people but is that really the work of the religion, or is that the work of peoples inturpritation of it. i myself wouldn't beleave any religion if it outright said that we should go out and make everyone beleave. i may joke about things like that at times but if the Bible actualy said we should force people to beleave then i would not be a christion. so thats something you should look at. in the past christions---

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: were persicuted, tortured and even killed becouse of there beleafes but meany stuck to it. it wasn't untill some horny king who wanted to marry a girl, that christianity went the other way as to force people to becoume christions. that was his inturpritation of it, and so thats when christianity tried to rip off people and dominate them. the Bible itself dosen't say anything about forceing people to become christions but mearly telling them about it and even teaching them if thay want to learn more. just becouse something happen in the past to opress people dosen't mean that the Bible says it. now other religions that do say to opres people i can almost garente that its not a good religion

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: I'm not talking about oppression under the Christian Church. Sorry, I meant as in the origins in religion in general. A man later to become the first priest in history pointed to the moon and the sun and talked of Gods whom the masses should please. They should also live in ways that would satisfy the Gods. This had no divine influence, it's just a man finding away to become early man's leaders. I don't believe religions are evil, but I think there was a stage that underwent from priests being away of creating false power in the name of God, to truly believing in God and preaching the word as religions do now. I can understand perfectly well why God could just be a fictional character handed

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: down over generations. I still think if God existed and religion was meant to be, we would all find reason to worship one true religion which shines through. I know some people have no access to some religions... and if know we're told God won't interfere... Still, if God is perfect, his teachings should be so perfect that we would all want to conform to those teachings.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: As referring to the innate sense of goodness, Paul wrote in Romans: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts ultimately accusing or defending them."

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: i agree with you that in the past religion was a way to controle poeple and most of the religions where desined to do just that. in fact in the Bible it says that there where houndreds of gods and goddesses all around the "known" world, and yes there is little evidence that the Bible is little more then a farry tail bassed on true places to amouse and controle the masses. but if it is a book desined to do that then why is it that everyone in the Bible (exept Jesus) has a flaw and is shown that flaw in the stories. in that time if your going to convince someone to join a religion you dont point of flaws but streangths. its the same in todays society. the flaws are things we try to hide---

2006-01-17 [T_Pop]: but the Bible shows them or speaks of them. the reason why i beleave that no one can beleave in the same religion is that everyone is diffrent and so will beleave diffrently. the reason why religion is a key issue is becouse its something people beleave and put faith in. you cant reason it or give it logic (or at least non we can give) and there will always be those people who will do anything to get away from the masses. children will try to do things diffrently then parents, antisociel people, and even people livening in other contrys wanting to be completely sepret from the rest of the would. thats why you will never have a singal religion through out the whole world.

2006-01-17 [deus-ex-machina]: The flaws of the people don't reflect the bad nature of God. Each time, God is made to look like an almight being and regardless of the followers, it is God who is the important one. Nevertheless, I don't see what there is to say that people being different means there can never be a unified religion. Millions of people relate to the same faith and they are all different.

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: have you looked at all the religions?? do you understand the psyci of people??... if people kill each other over the stupidest things and sew each other over things that have no true meaning then why would you think thay would agree on something as complexed as what thay beleave in?? honestly if you look at the way mankind reacts to each other you will see a pattern amerging that most people need someone to either hate, or fight... honestly a "unified religion" and "world peace" is imposible for us becouse we dont know how to optain it. there's a quote that fits this... "if everyone's thinking same then someone's not thinking" its not that people cant get along its that people wont---

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: get along. and i agree with that state ment. if a "unified religion" ever comes to be i would be sceptical of it for it would make so meany comprimises and be so worped just to make everyone happy that it could never hold up to any real test of faith. honestly its an imposability to happen... what would be the rules? what would the "god" look like? what would be the punishments for those rules?... no matter what you do people will find somehting to fight over and argue with in this "unified religion". in fact fighting and argueing i can honestly say is in owr nature to do and it dosent matter what you do people will still disagree and try to seperate themselves from others thay dont like.

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: From what you said earlier - it's simply easier to therefore believe God doesn't exist. =) If there was a unified religion, there wouldn't be such disputes. Wrong would still occur, but christians sue christians now. It means nothing different. But if God was apparent, there would be no such debate. Such teaching would be absolute truth. For one, gays would be accepted as just being people and gays would also understand why they are gay. The unified religion would teach all. As there isn't one and all religions live in ignorance and assumptions, I don't see how God can exist. 'Free will' is simply an escapee testament to answer the problem.

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: I admire how you ask me whether I know the psyche of people. You obviously do. =)

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: 'Comprimises'... You are assuming people would still have conflicting views. If God is perfect, then what he says is perfect. You can't improve perfection and it's bloody hard to hate it too. Religion shouldn't have to be about having a rule for every single scenario. That's where religion has gone wrong. Honestly, a lot of the Bible was written by men who existed hundreds of years ago. It would have been them who decided how to interpret primary precepts and turn them into secondary ones. Christianity is almost at perfection if you leave it at the Sermon of the Mount and the Golden rule because they still apply today. The Church of England comprimises on issues that are so far out-dated...

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: That they are wrong themselves. You cannot talk about how well Christianity has stood it's grounds when it has removed so many aspects of Christian tradition. When it seemed stupid that some things were forbidden to eat for example... It was changed because it made no sense to do it anymore. It's the same for why people in some Churches have finally realised that homosexuality is something people do not consciously choose to be. The law made it legal. The differences between Jehovah's Witnesses, Anabaptists and The Church of England are phenomenal... But they all think of themselves as Christian. Christianity only agrees on the few things that matter about God and his word.

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: The unified religion would have to be much more basic, because no, you cannot get everyone to agree, but simple laws, which are laid down by God which actually exists, would be followed by all. Even atheists are able to do what they think is good. In theory, if God existed, this would be the same thing for all people. You cannot tell me that in doing two different things, both can't be right. Religion doesn't have to tell you what is right and wrong in every situation, because good actions ought to be apparent as they would receive good outcomes. Sine the religion doesn't exist, God's words were either never spoken, or humans made religion with no influence from God...

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Or the words were never spoken, how can you assume he exists? Or if he does, there is such a thing as heaven? He might be nothing you account for. Or if human's made religions, they ought not to be listened to on issues of secondary precepts. I would conform to a unified religion, because really, by the perfect divine grace of God, it should be so holy that no man could refuse it. God is incomprehendable. We shouldn't think about what exists to prove God, but how things would be if he did. It's why I look at the world and I see no God. It's why I look at religion and see no God.

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: The third possibility - the one that rings true to the world - is that God spoke and humans poisoned his teachings by adding in their own dilute, contingent understandings of the world... A world which is constantly changing and a world they were living in with utter ignorance of science... If this is the case, God is weak, or not as perfect as he is thought to be. Creator, yes. Good one? No. And definitely not speaking divine words of wisdom so powerful that we are all drawn to them and their goodness.

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: so let me get this strait... before i respond to something that you didn't intend to say... you say that Gods word should be so purfict that no human can dispute its holyness, that no matter who you are or where you come from if you hear the "true" word of God then you would beleave just from what it says?? you also say that its hard to hate perfection and if God was really perfect then there would be no way we could hate him?? and that if God was almighty and perfect that there would be no way we could change his word? and that this "unified religion" would be so perfect that everyone would just convert to it becouse of its hollyness?? and finaly that there is now heaven or hell ---

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: and everyone would be treated justly for what thay did? or everyone would be treated fairly?? (cant quite tell which one you mean there)... but is that about it? or did you not mean to say something in there?

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: The only pre-assumption I made was that the idea of free will given to us is a load of bullshit. It's used to rid all fallacies which if the idea of given free will wasn't there, would destroy religion. Ask less questions. Use better punctuation and please try and spell better. Your messages are really difficult to read. Basically, all religions could be unified by some simple rules. Religions should never have tried to have justified the right actions of all scenarios when the answers came from man and not God. I'm ready for you to spout a lot of shit now, but please, try and be open minded - your patronising behaviour is not justified when you argue with blind faith only.

2006-01-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Ooh ooh, and since you obviously have a reply in mind - I want some sources and more than just beyond the Bible. =D I want some proof that I'm wrong... Not that I even strictly believe it. Just another reason as to why God wouldn't exist. And check the word 'perfection' too - It means more than just 'the best' - and especially in relation to God.

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: ok... first i would like to point one simple thing out to you. (note that this is simple math that you can do yourself)... say you sin just once a day. you sin only once a day for all your life. (and by "sin" i mean you brake a law either mentaly or physicly) now say the average age for people is 75 years old ok (this is all low for both the sining and the years of life) and im not even going to start with leap years. anyway thats 1 times 360 times 75 which is... 27,000 now this is simple things like say steeling or hateing someone. you yourself have said that God should be purfict right. so how can he stand a person who has sinned 27,000 times in there life (note the avrage person ranges---

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: anywhere from 75 to 3,000 sins a day) but say its only one. how can he stand 1 person with 27,000 sins?? if he is purfect then he should banish us all from him and live in his purfect way's right?? to say that he would except a person who has that meany sins implys he is not purfect and expects nothing from people. and if he expects nothing from people then why should we expect people to always follow the law???... now before you say "well we dont do that meany sins" or something like that consider for a second... to sin once for a perfect God would be to meany times... i mean he's purfect so who would he say something like "well im purfect but i will reward you for your impurfections"...---

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: that makes no sense what so ever dose it... now im not getting this out of any book or any thing and im not even useing the Bible... im just useing the commen sense i was given... now about your comment that people will imbrace perfection... it dosen't happen... i myself have expearionsed this... try being around several people who are doing something wrong... dosen't matter what it is whether its drinking exesively, steeling... whatever... try standing there doing the "right thing"... garented thay will try to make you do what there doing... its becouse doing the right thing is (in a sense) perfection for its not wrong. if people imbrased perfection then no one would do wrong or thay ----

2006-01-18 [T_Pop]: would join the peolpe who are doing right... thats how i know it wont work... now just out of interest what do you think the "simple rules" would be?? every religion has simple rules... some are more complext then other while some are so relaxed that its hard to know if its a rule or a sagestion... so what would "simple rules" be??? if you could figure something out that everyone could agree with then i will pay you a thousend dollers as soon as i can.

2006-01-18 [M_Sinner]: I gave up trying to read this a long time ago.

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: No - you misunderstand perfect then. If he's perfect and loving, he would not be repulsed. He would also be able to deal with all the sins. We sin, we are still contingent. Religion is about trying to be the best you can be, but you will still make decisions. Christians sin. Muslims sin. A unified religion would not create perfection in contingent beings. As religion goes, you swear, you sin. God would be able to understand this in his perfection - he could look at us and understand whether we meant good or not. The Jehovah's Witnesses who believe only 144,000 people will go to heaven initially are breeding a form of perfection. In religion, this is wrong, as all of them would be Jovos.

2006-01-19 [Caritas]: Me to...

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: He would expect us to follow the law. A simple law, which would have open ends, but all within what would could be considered right. If the action can be justified, it shall be right. The law and opinion will still exist no matter what... But instead of persecuting gay people because you think it's wrong since it does not lead to procreation, you love them for who they are. The basis would be a love of one's neighbour - the perfect rule. This would be God's word. If he gave us free will, why worship him? If he is perfect and he created us intentionally, and we do have free will, we would worship out of respect, not decree, or upbringing. Religion should not be about upbringing.

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: Your common sense is uncommon then. I asked you to look up perfect. You seem to be stuck in 'vengeful God' mode. Vengence is not a part of perfection. It's not a positive quality. It certainly isn't a perfection. As for perfection - nothing you can do is perfect. Excessive drinking isn't wrong. Nor is stealing. For someone who believes in God, you're misunderstanding perfection utterly. We can never be perfect. Nothing we can do can be perfect. Even the things we do that are right aren't perfect, because we aren't God. By not stealing, or not drinking, we are not achieving steps towards perfection. We should just try to do what we believe is right, with the sane mind, to function and to love

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: It doesn't matter what the differences are. If God said them, and they were apparent, all would follow them. That's my point. As there is no unified religion, there is no God. Because God is first and foremost loving. This is the difference between religion and science. Religion credits him with love. Science credits a God with power. Science need not disagree with religion though, if God is the cause of the world. The two needn't conflict if religion is true. Still, science can exist without religion... Science is still young. We haven't given it time to say whether or not God exists. Therefore, religious views should not be held above an atheist's or a gay person's on the issue of gay...

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: marriage. No one can figure out simple rules (and by simply mentioning complexity... you defy the point of what simplicity is) because when humans try, they do not possess the knowledge to make such rules. Only God by definition would have such an ability. As that is not the case, I only have to assume God doesn't exist. As a man, I can only make rules which would make only a group of people happy. If thats two, a few hundred, or a number of millions... It doesn't matter. No man can unify all people. Only God can. As people are not unified, and believing God is perfect... capable of all and being pure of love and knowledge and power... I would have to say that YHWH just isn't there.

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: The idea that free will exists and that God won't interfere is only an ancient priests safe haven that whatever happens, God isn't to blame. The masses will still follow him for it. We believe we have free will... but what of fate? A perfect God wouldn't make us brain zombies... He would let us choose... But surely he would also make what was right more definitive. As such rules are foreign - non-existant - what is there of God for me to believe in? You will have faith no matter what. Fine. But don't use God as an argument against anything. He might exist... but since his love cannot be shared and you cannot tell me it exists so I believe... it holds no standing in my life, or in the law.

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: That is why a recognition of gay civil union has recently been made to exist in the UK. God and state are different. 'Gay marriage' is a coined term few gay people want or need. Equal under the law is all they require and now in my country they have it. I won't force Churches to accept gay people, I just don't want them to try and restrain movements. This is the reason of the wiki, this is what I try to relate to.

2006-01-19 [T_Pop]: ... ok... lets say that... a person is perfectly clean... do you think that if thay walked up to a person who is filthy and gave them a big hug that thay would still be perfectly clean??... if you think so then i would like to explain perfectly clean to you... if you dont think so then how can you think that God is perfect but would exept people with open arms?? pefect and loveing dose not mean exepting of things that the person (God in this case) is agianst. so how can you say that he will exept us just becouse he is perfect?? why then would he make laws, rules, or even guide lines if he exepts everyone no mater if thay follow them or not? it makes no sense if you really think about it.

2006-01-19 [T_Pop]: now... dont get me wrong... i will admit that God dose love no matter what we do... but he cant exept us for if he dose then he himself would be imperfect... that is why i cant beleave that God will exept us just for nothing... like i said he cant even stand 1 sin... if he dose then he would be imperfect... and people sin at least that a day. now if God cant exept one sin AT ALL then how can he exept us when we sin 27,000 times plus?? if he dose then he is imperfect... if you have a diffrent definition then me then please tell me your definition of his perfect love... like i said he may love us but he cant exept us for our sins (thats where Jesus comes in)... but thats for a different time.

2006-01-19 [Rizzen]: it is true God hates even 1 sin, no matter how small, but that is why we are granted forgiveness. For us to be accepted, we must ask forgiveness for our sins. When we do, they are forgiven, thus we are able to enter heaven without sin

2006-01-19 [M_Sinner]: No. Hell no. What if you commit a sin right before you die? You think you won't make it into heaven? Wrong. "For it is by grace that we have been saved, through faith. This not of yourselves, it si a gift of God. Not by works-- that no man may boast." Asking for forgiveness is a work. It is purely by grace that we are allowed through those gates.

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: Perfect. A hard comprehension is required. God may 'hate' the sin, but he doesn't hate the sinner for it. I would bet money that you could not confess every sin you have ever committed. You would have to obsess throughout your entire life. If you know you've done wrong, God is perfect enough to know this is so. He will forgive us... ceremonies don't do anything different. We are told our sins are forgiven on this earth... It doesn't mean they are, we are just relieved with guilt. If God was truly perfect, which by definition he would be, then if we had intended to live our lives correctly and we knew we had sinned but we're sorry for doing so, I don't see why that makes any difference other

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: than what doctrines tell you. "how can you think that God is perfect but would exept people with open arms"... This is almost a contradiction. Being perfect wouldn't make God selfish, arrogant and elitist. Perfect means agape and what we do will not matter to God because he can forgive any sin. A ceremony of asking for forgiveness means nothing. And really... stop asking questions as a format of arguing. =) There is still right and wrong, but religious people tend to make right and wrong too specific. As with laws. God would have rules because he knows perfection. Therefore he knows harmony and chaos. He knows how harmony would be achieved and so he would only make rules that can help

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: humanity strive towards being like God. This would be all people. Although perfection cannot be achieved, say two people from two different religions reach the closest thing possible to perfection on Earth according to their religion... They would be two different things. Two different perfections? Religion causes strife. Different religions cause all the things that shouldn't exist. If God really had a chosen people - they do not exist yet, but that doesn't mean no one can get into a heaven, supposing it exists.

2006-01-19 [Caritas]: I can't read all that!!!!!

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: Yes you can. You just don't want to. =P

2006-01-19 [Caritas]: But its SOOO MUCH!! What do you mean I just don't want to??

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: Well, if you wanted to, you'd read it. I'm not blaming you though. I only read it because I put a part of it forward. =P

2006-01-19 [Caritas]: uh huh...Still.....

2006-01-19 [deus-ex-machina]: I hope you're not getting offended. The point that it is long is no reason to not read it, not least comment on it.

2006-01-19 [Caritas]: OKAY!!

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: Well, as far as God being able to forgive any sin, He does. Except for one. See, the way He made creation was to give Adam and Eve choice. That's what he based the creation on. So, if a person wishes for God NOT to forgive them, that is the only "unforgivable sin," though I'm not sure if it's a sin, exactly. In other words, turning your back on the word. If you don't believe that He will forgive your sins and the like, how can you want the forgiveness? There was something else that I was going to say, but I'm a bit distracted right now. Oh, yeah. something else. Were you telling me or someone else to stop asking questions as a format for argueing?

2006-01-20 [T_Pop]: lmfao

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: T_Pop - as it's a very irritating format. Many places would tell him to 'fuck off' - not even knowing he is english and should at least have a basic comprehension of the language. I don't believe in God, but I know other people do and since he is an influential figure in the argument and their ignorance based on 'his' teachings is the reason for homophobia/negative homosexual feelings... I think I should argue all cases as to why God doesn't exist. So far, T_Pop has only suggested 'Life' and 'The Bible' in favour as lone cases. I know I'm sinning, which is why I'm praying for a miracle. Just because a unified religion would exist, doesn't mean atheists wouldn't exist. Faith would still be

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: required if evidence wasn't put forward. Even so, that doesn't mean that non-believers would be incapable of not following a true law. They would be inspired to do so, if they felt perfection. That would draw them to God. Or it would prove the innate sense of goodness T_Pop denies, but is mentioned by Paul. People don't have to be born with goodness, it's something that comes with age, maturity and wisdom. True wisdom is universal.