225 replies to this topic

[Allathar]

Ok, so according to you, Archon, the Koran (Qu'ran in English?) is wrong.... But, what about the Bhagavad Ghita? Why is that wrong? Does Ghandi go to hell?

I'd also like to point out that Iraq and Saddam was in NO WAY a generic Islamitic government. No way. That was made up by our friend Bush, who sought after a link to make a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Well, they were both Muslim, that's enough of a reason to invade the fucking country, no? However, as any Muslim can tell you, Saddam didn't rule according to the Qu'ran at all, and that he was on the opposite spectrum of the Islam compared to Bin Laden. Bin Laden hated Saddam as much as he hated Christians.

And Archon, what makes you think God exists, besides that it's written in the Bible that he does?

[Vortigern]

Also, God does not hate gays. Anyone who tells you that, even if it's the Pope himself, is lying.

And, quote!

Leviticus 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Thanks, Bible! But wait, there's more!

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

And while that's all very convincing, let's not forget that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of holy fire, and that the meaning of 'sodomy' has not changed in more than 5000 years. (Seriously, it's one of the few Hebrew words that migrated straight into English.) Sodom was full of gays and sinners, who were probably the same thing, so God smote them down.

I appreciate you wanting to defend your liberal view of Christianity, Archie, but on this one, the Good Book has got it covered.

You're missing the point here. The website said that the Qu'ran was put together by rehashing old concepts and implied that that made it inferior. I was merely pointing out, with examples, that the Bible is no different. They both heavily reference past cultures and beliefs.

Not really true. The formal "timing" of Christmas was decided long after the Bible was written, as with the Suncross. I don't know of any evidence that says the Bible draws from other legends that were in place before it was written.

Let's mesh two points into one here, shall we? The Flood myth. Of course, the Bible is all over this one, it's one of their favourites, but did you really think they came up with it all on their lonesome? You should read some Greek mythology some time. The story of Deucalion involves Zeus sending a flood to end the sinful era of the Bronze Age Greeks after Lycaon sacrificed his son to Zeus, thinking it was a blessing, but the casual slaughter of his offspring appalled Zeus so he drowned the lot of 'em.

And even before that, we have Ziusudra, the sole survivor of the flood in Sumerian tradition. The god Enki, Lord of the Underworld, which happens to be under the sea, tells Ziusudra, ruler of the city of Shuruppak, to build a large boat and hold animals thereupon, although the context is difficult to agree upon because parts of the tablet are missing, and some scholars suggest it was for food rather than to ensure their survival. Anyway, the tablet telling this story has been dated to, at the most recent, 2500 BC. Beat that, Christianity.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of my favourite classical epics, as it happens) Utnapishtim undergoes a similar trial-by-flood. (Note: it may be the same flood but a different interpretation, given that Utnapishtim and Ziusudra are both rulers of the city of Shuruppak, but everything else about the stories is different, so they're generally taken as two different, but similar, myths.) Utnapishtim builds an ark, upon which he places one of every species along with his family. He then released a dove after his boat was becalmed for a week, which returned after failing to find a perch. Then he released a swallow, which also returned. Third, he released a raven, which did not return, and he made landfall. You see the many similarities to the Noah story in a myth reckoned to have been told nearly three thousand years before the birth of Christ?

And while we're on pagans, let's talk about Christmas trees. I admit they're not in the Bible, but they're an historic and accepted part of the Christian holiday, despite having clear pagan roots. (Pun very much intended.) Once again, I shall Bible you and claim success:

Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

If you have a Christmas tree this year, you're breaking the Word of the Lord. Similarly, the tradition of the Yule Log stems from pagan beliefs, which in turn probably stem from people huddled around a fire in midwinter wishing it wasn't so damn cold and deciding to invent a god for that (Brian, the god of wishing it wasn't so damn cold), and of course the Church's depiction of Satan.

The name itself makes clever reference to the satyrs of Greek myth, as does the form he takes. You all know who Pan was, I'd guess, but how about Cernunnos? A Frankish deity with two large, curled horns and cloven hooves, known as a god of fertility and of death. A quick list of other pagan gods which bear a similar form to that which the Church designated to the devil:
Pan (Greek satyr god, heavily involved with debauchery, music and hunting. Very un-Christian.
Cernunnos (See above.)
Bran (English Celtic mythological figure, a mighty warrior who was elevated to the status of a God after his death and related miracles. Very interesting if you want to read about him. I recommend the Mabinogion for an introduction to the whole culture and mythos. Anyway, Bran was often depicted as having horns.)
Wayland (German blacksmith god, well-known in folklore for creating things with/out of horns. Relevant, if not entirely direct.)
Herne (British folkloric figure, ghostly hunter with antlers of his own. Said to haunt the forests around Windsor.)
Tubal Cain (acknowledged as Cain, the Bible's first murderer, whose name itself translates as 'horn'. Trump that if you can.)
Ammon (a.k.a. Ammon-Zeus, Amon-Ra, et al. I'm sure you're familiar.)
Atho (potentially a hoax, but I like to include it nonetheless.)
Dhu'l Karnain (Arabic for "horned one", used to reference Alexander the Great, who of course saw himself, in later life at least, as the son of Ammon-Zeus, mentioned above, and wore horns as part of his formal regalia. You'll note that the Church was never especially fond of Alexander.)

I'm sure there are others, but for now we have more important things to discuss. I think I've proven my point sufficiently.

No there isn't. The Bible states that Noah washed up on the top of Mount Ararat, does it not? For the seas to be that high would require more water than is within the Earth's atmosphere. Disproven.

Ah, but you're forgetting that the flood didn't have to cover today's earth, but the earth of Noah's day. The Bible teaches that the flood geologically changed the earth (2 Peter 3:6). The high topographic extremes of today's world would therefore caused by the Flood, thereby making it impossible to ever make such a Flood again. Exactly as said in Genesis by the way.

OK, I only have a basic understanding of science and geography, but I am reasonably certain that water and aggressive weather tend to erode mountains, not make them bigger. Now, if you'd said the world had been destroyed by an earthquake, I might have had to concede that one. Earthquakes really can reshape the world, but floods cannot, other to make it slightly smaller and wetter. Besides, there's still not enough water.

On top of that, if there truly had been a mighty flood way back when, there would be significant evidence in both the geological strata of the Earth's crust and the fossil record. There is neither. Explain, if you think you're up to the challenge.

Oh yeah, and I just thought of something else. The flood's supposed to have been, what four and a half, five thousand years ago, right? There are documented records of Egyptian civilisation both surviving and expanding during that period, in spite of the regular Nile floodings. You'd think they'd all have been underwater straight away, but somehow they survived. Maybe the evolved gills during the period. Wait, do you believe in evolution?

HA! Maybe the Hadith is true and the gospels aren't. Did you think of that?

And maybe the evidence goes against the Hadith.

And maybe the evidence goes against the Bible. We could go round like this for years.

I hope that covers everything. Just like the flood! Except that this is real. Back to you, Arch.

[Archon]

And while that's all very convincing, let's not forget that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of holy fire, and that the meaning of 'sodomy' has not changed in more than 5000 years. (Seriously, it's one of the few Hebrew words that migrated straight into English.) Sodom was full of gays and sinners, who were probably the same thing, so God smote them down.

I appreciate you wanting to defend your liberal view of Christianity, Archie, but on this one, the Good Book has got it covered.

Homosexuality is obviously a sin. But God doesn't hate sinners and neither should Christians. (Leviticus 19:17 - " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.') That pretty much sums up how a Christian should treat a homosexual - don't condone it, but don't hate him for it either.

Let's mesh two points into one here, shall we? The Flood myth. Of course, the Bible is all over this one, it's one of their favourites, but did you really think they came up with it all on their lonesome? You should read some Greek mythology some time. The story of Deucalion involves Zeus sending a flood to end the sinful era of the Bronze Age Greeks after Lycaon sacrificed his son to Zeus, thinking it was a blessing, but the casual slaughter of his offspring appalled Zeus so he drowned the lot of 'em.

And even before that, we have Ziusudra, the sole survivor of the flood in Sumerian tradition. The god Enki, Lord of the Underworld, which happens to be under the sea, tells Ziusudra, ruler of the city of Shuruppak, to build a large boat and hold animals thereupon, although the context is difficult to agree upon because parts of the tablet are missing, and some scholars suggest it was for food rather than to ensure their survival. Anyway, the tablet telling this story has been dated to, at the most recent, 2500 BC. Beat that, Christianity.

2500 BC, you say?

And while we're on pagans, let's talk about Christmas trees. I admit they're not in the Bible, but they're an historic and accepted part of the Christian holiday, despite having clear pagan roots. (Pun very much intended.) Once again, I shall Bible you and claim success:

Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

If you have a Christmas tree this year, you're breaking the Word of the Lord. Similarly, the tradition of the Yule Log stems from pagan beliefs, which in turn probably stem from people huddled around a fire in midwinter wishing it wasn't so damn cold and deciding to invent a god for that (Brian, the god of wishing it wasn't so damn cold), and of course the Church's depiction of Satan.

However, you could look at it from the perspective that Christians changed a formerly pagan rite that was against Christianity and made it into a "good" thing, in fact, of the most treasured symbols of Christianity. I don't see that God would really have a problem with that.

OK, I only have a basic understanding of science and geography, but I am reasonably certain that water and aggressive weather tend to erode mountains, not make them bigger. Now, if you'd said the world had been destroyed by an earthquake, I might have had to concede that one. Earthquakes really can reshape the world, but floods cannot, other to make it slightly smaller and wetter. Besides, there's still not enough water.

There's not enough water to cover TODAY's world. The flood could easily have eroded many areas of the earth, creating deep gorges and valleys, and swept sediment up (do you realize how MUCH sediment that actually is?) up to form the world's highest mountains.
Also, who's to say it's either-or? Earthquakes could easily have happened during the flood.

On top of that, if there truly had been a mighty flood way back when, there would be significant evidence in both the geological strata of the Earth's crust and the fossil record. There is neither. Explain, if you think you're up to the challenge.

What do you call sea creatures being found on the summit of Mount Everest?

Oh yeah, and I just thought of something else. The flood's supposed to have been, what four and a half, five thousand years ago, right? There are documented records of Egyptian civilisation both surviving and expanding during that period, in spite of the regular Nile floodings. You'd think they'd all have been underwater straight away, but somehow they survived. Maybe the evolved gills during the period. Wait, do you believe in evolution?

Previous link.

And maybe the evidence goes against the Bible. We could go round like this for years.

We could. This line of inquiry is apparently not constructive...

Your turn, Vorty.

[Allathar]

What do you call sea creatures being found on the summit of Mount Everest?

The result of plate tectonics. Sea creatures die in sea. Their remains remain on the bottom of the sea, eventually getting covered in the earth so they remain intact. Millions of years later, and what was previously the bottom of the sea is now land. Another million years and what was previously land, is now a high mountain. Another million years and the erodation of mountains result in the remains getting uncovered. There you go, remains of sea creatures on top of Mount Everest. Mystery solved.

Oh, and I still don't know why the Bible is more true than the Bhagavad Ghita. Explain that, please? Along with the dinosaurs and the remains of ancient humans (Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, etc)

[Vortigern]

Thanks, Arch, I'll take it from here.

2500 BC, you say?

I do say. And I think we can all agree that the Biblical dates are absolute bollocks. The timescale of the Bible is utterly bizarre and highly inconsistent, and they seem to think it's perfectly normal for people to live for hundreds of years. Methuselah, for example, ("And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:" (Genesis 5:25).) and Noah, who apparently lived for 325 years after the Flood. ("And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." (Genesis 5:32).) If we were to tone down the lifetimes to a regular standard, one that's actually possible, then Sumeria still comes first.

I don't honestly understand how the Bible can expect you to take it so seriously when it requires such colossal suspension of disbelief. Here's something from that link you gave me:

In the book of Genesis, starting with chapter 5, we see that Adam (the first man) lived 930 years. His son Seth lived 912 years. Seth's son Enosh lived 905 years, and his son Kenan lived 910. Mahalalel, Kenan's son lived 895, and his son, Jared, lived 962. Jared's son Enoch lived 365, Enoch's son, Methuselah lived 969 years and his son Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech's son was Noah, he was around 800 years old at the time of the flood.

Utter bollocks. If these guys lived for so long, why don't Jews still live for that long? When did they stop?

However, you could look at it from the perspective that Christians changed a formerly pagan rite that was against Christianity and made it into a "good" thing, in fact, of the most treasured symbols of Christianity. I don't see that God would really have a problem with that.

Oh, Archie, how you make me laugh. You have just agreed with my point in an attempt to disprove it. This is exactly what I was saying. Christians took pagan rites and rituals and made them their own to ease the transition from paganism to Christianity, and because they have no imagination. I thank you for this gem.

There's not enough water to cover TODAY's world. The flood could easily have eroded many areas of the earth, creating deep gorges and valleys, and swept sediment up (do you realize how MUCH sediment that actually is?) up to form the world's highest mountains.
Also, who's to say it's either-or? Earthquakes could easily have happened during the flood.

Clearly neither of us really understand geography. OK, so where are these deep gorges and valleys? *scans the horizon* I got nothing.

Anyway, harking back to my Geology GCSE (that's right, bitches, I'm qualified!), a flood would not have swept up that much sediment. Potentially the sediment could have been floating in the water, but physics states that it would be equally dispersed throughout the water, so it would just land an equal layer across the world. And do you realise how MUCH sediment it would take to raise up an entire mountain? Hint: a lot. Apparently Mt. Everest weighs 357 trillion lbs. To clarify, that's 357'000'000'000 lbs, which converts to 161'932'476'090 kilograms. Religion: 0, Logic and science: a billion.

What do you call sea creatures being found on the summit of Mount Everest?

I call it prehistory. They were pre-Cambrian fossils, dated to more than 600 million years ago. Wait, the world was only created 13000 years ago by God. Clearly they're just there to trick us. Like the dinosaurs.

Oh yeah, and I just thought of something else. The flood's supposed to have been, what four and a half, five thousand years ago, right? There are documented records of Egyptian civilisation both surviving and expanding during that period, in spite of the regular Nile floodings. You'd think they'd all have been underwater straight away, but somehow they survived. Maybe the evolved gills during the period. Wait, do you believe in evolution?

Previous link.

That doesn't answer anything. You've just told me that the Flood apparently happened in 4990 BC. OK, so maybe the Egyptians weren't a major civilisation back then, but there were still people around. Saqqara is thought to have been built around that time. They couldn't have done that if they were all drowned. And there were numerous other peoples hanging around, apparently holding their heads just above the water level. How do you explain them? Or do you just put it down to an act of God?

Oh, and I note you couldn't think of a reply to the points about the fossil record and the geological strata evidence. Clearly real science is too much for any Christian to deal with.

The ball's back in your court now, Archie.

[duke_Qa]

Homosexuality is obviously a sin. But God doesn't hate sinners and neither should Christians. (Leviticus 19:17 - " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.') That pretty much sums up how a Christian should treat a homosexual - don't condone it, but don't hate him for it either.

I have to say that's a pretty progressive stance on homosexuality. if you just box it together with every other sin we are prone to committing and don't make some greater sins than others, people would get along just fine. The "normal"/average religious stance on Homosexuality is as if it's worse than murder, which does not make sense to me. "Thou shall not sodomize your effeminate friend, even if you are drunk or just feel like it" is not a part of the ten commandments, so it can't be any worse than your generic sins, can it?

Edited by duke_Qa, 04 December 2009 - 03:47 PM.

[Archon]

Homosexuality is not "worse" than murder. It's a sin, but it shouldn't be treated the way Christians do now. The average Christian wouldn't ban an alcoholic or a divorcee from your church, so why a gay person? It's not half as bad as child abuse or rape, or murder or terrorism.

[Archon]

I do say. And I think we can all agree that the Biblical dates are absolute bollocks. The timescale of the Bible is utterly bizarre and highly inconsistent, and they seem to think it's perfectly normal for people to live for hundreds of years.

From Wikipedia: Biblical apologists that assert literal translation give explanations for the advanced ages of the early patriarchs: in this view, first, man was originally to have everlasting life, but as sin was introduced into the world by Adam and Eve, its influence became greater with each generation and God progressively shortened man's life; "four falls of mankind" (according to Witness Lee) correspond to four observable plateaus in longevity upper limits. Second, before Noah's flood, a "firmament" over the earth (Genesis 1:6-8) could have greatly contributed to man's advanced age.

Oh, Archie, how you make me laugh. You have just agreed with my point in an attempt to disprove it. This is exactly what I was saying. Christians took pagan rites and rituals and made them their own to ease the transition from paganism to Christianity.

I don't disagree with this. I don't see anything bad about it.

Clearly neither of us really understand geography. OK, so where are these deep gorges and valleys? *scans the horizon* I got nothing.

Nice try...think man, think!

Anyway, harking back to my Geology GCSE (that's right, bitches, I'm qualified!), a flood would not have swept up that much sediment. Potentially the sediment could have been floating in the water, but physics states that it would be equally dispersed throughout the water

Err...no. More erosion = more sediment. A torrent of water like that would have carried tons and tons of debris with it, in massively uneven amounts because of where the debris picked up.

They were pre-Cambrian fossils, dated to more than 600 million years ago.

Evidence please.

But there were still people around. Saqqara is thought to have been built around that time.

Stress the 'thought'. Some estimates put it at only 3,000 years ago.

Oh, and I note you couldn't think of a reply to the points about the fossil record and the geological strata evidence.

There are fossils of sea creatures in the deserts of Colorado. The Grand Canyon is topped with limestone that came from a lime sediment deposit from a large body of water that swept over it at some point. As well as carrying fossils of thousands-of-years old sea creatures.

Happy now?

Oh, and your serve. *swings racquet*

[Ash]

The evidence is those fossils. You can date that shit, you know. Or are you one of those creation-tards who disputes the irrefutability that carbon's (among other elements) molecular structure degrades over millennia, and that that can be used to date things?

I'm not going to bother to dissemble the rest of your post - Vort can do that just as well if not better than I. I will just say this:

Homo Sapiens evolution: circa 32,000 years ago
Old Testament (aka the Torah) written: circa 3,500-2,500 years ago. (Yes, Judaism is older than Christianity, or did you not do the research?)

With that in mind, your argument that 'Christianity is oldest therefore it's right' is rendered moot. What were people believing in before then? How do you know they weren't right because they're even older still? By your own logic you should be Jewish at least. Or maybe Pagan, or Zoroastrian or, more likely, Animist.

[Vortigern]

Honestly, I can't be bothered to discuss this any further. I can't remember where I read the date of the clams atop Mt. Everest, but a moment's research suggests that there is simply no way they were put there by a flood. For one thing, they were buried in layers of sediment, which simply would not have occurred with a single flash flood. The sediment would have fallen away with the water or been eroded by wind and snow soon after. Secondly, the major argument used by creationists is that the clam fossils found are closed, which they assert means the clams were buried alive. This is not true. Clams only open after death when boiled or when certain pressure conditions are met. On top of a mountain those conditions would likely not have been met, even a little. Clams would stay shut.

By the way, I've been to Saqqara. Trust me, it's a hell of a lot older than 3'000 years. I'm no expert but even I could tell. If you compare the degree of erosion and environmental damage to the outside of the pyramid to the damage done to the pyramid of Cheops, you can instantly tell which is older, and for another thing, the step pyramids were never built again after they cracked angular pyramids. So neh.

Basically, I realise I won't be able to change your mind, and you won't be able to change mine. I don't believe a word the Bible says. If, when I die, St Peter tells me to fuck off down to hell for not believing, I will gladly issue you an apology.

P.S. Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

[Ash]

Pascal's Wager can easily be turned around on any theist. "What if we're both wrong, and the Norsemen were right?"

[Vortigern]

What indeed... I guess we'd best find somebody to hold our vigils when we die, Ash.

[Allathar]

Oh, and I still don't know why the Bible is more true than the Bhagavad Ghita. Explain that, please? Along with the dinosaurs and the remains of ancient humans (Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, etc)

Archon, you haven't answered me yet

[Puppeteer]

Also, God does not hate gays. Anyone who tells you that, even if it's the Pope himself, is lying.

So your version of Christianity is right, and others' versions are wrong? Pretty much every Christian says that, who should we believe?

Homosexuality is obviously a sin.

Fuck you; in the eyes of my humanitarian, rational God, you're a sin, for judging and criticising people. So are all your homophobic Christian brethren, for attempting to deny people simple liberties. Your God can go die.
I'd also like to ask what your definition of 'sin' is. In the last quote you said that homosexuality is a sin, yet in the previous but one quote you said that God does not hate homosexuality. So what the hell is a 'sin'?

To become a Christian, all you have to do is accept that sacrifice. If you don't, it doesn't matter how good you are.

So the criteria for getting into the esoteric, discriminative and self-righteous land of the pretentious is to just 'accept' Jesus? Being good isn't a necessity, I see.

You argue that the Bible is older, and the Bible versions have less variants than the Qu'ran version? This seems to be an argument that the Bible is more constrictive and less reforming.

Edited by Puppeteer, 04 December 2009 - 07:24 PM.

[Archon]

Very well Vort, we'll call it a truce eh *shakes hand*

Puppeteer, I'm not trying to deny people 'simple liberties.' I think homosexuality is sinful, but I still accept gays and respect them like any other person. I don't hate them.

God hates homosexuality, not homosexuals. Like he hates lying, but not people who lie. And he hates sin, but not people who sin.

[Ash]

Then he's the most hypocritical creature in all of existing, and he can cram his afterlife up his omniscient arse. I'm not going to bow to a hateful and megalomaniacal tyrant, who wields double standards, bad judgement and petty grudges with equal fervour. Even if I believed God existed - which I don't for one picosecond - I would refuse to worship him because to do so would go against my moral principles.

If God hates homosexuality, why did he create so many homosexuals? How can homosexuality be a sin if he allowed it to happen? How is it a sin anyway? I mean, seriously, how exactly are they harming anyone else? There's no way he can hate something and not hate those that perpetrate it (because without the perpetrators the act would not exist).

[Puppeteer]

Then he's the most hypocritical creature in all of existing, and he can cram his afterlife up his omniscient arse.

I've expressed similar sentiments before. I'd rather have my humanitarian morals over his intolerance.

Offtopic: we had a lecture by a gay rights activist today (he left Labour for the Green party, he's a human rights activist, he's funny and daring, he's outed hypocritical bishops and he's also made a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe - ) and announced, at the start, 'What makes you (the audience) heterosexual?'. I felt like responding with 'God' to be ironic

Edited by Puppeteer, 04 December 2009 - 08:05 PM.

[Puppeteer]

We have freewill, yet Satan is responsible for the 'less desirable' decisions we make? Ha, contradiction!
Oh, you deleted it.

This God can't really love someone if he considers them sinful. He then segregates between perpetrators of degrees of sin. If he really doesn't care about sin, then why have the term? Define it!

[Ash]

He created people perfect, without sin.

Incorrect and disproved by your own holy book. Have you even read the bible? ALL of it, not just the bit where God turns nice-ish. Actually, you don't even need to read the first half - Jesus allegedly died to save everyone - past and present - for their sins. He wouldn't have had to bother if humans were without sin. 1-0 to Ash, by quoting the bible no less.

HGod allows any person to make their own choice. No matter who you are, you have free will.

You think homosexuality is a choice? You can't help what sex you're attracted to any more than you can choose whether you're an introvert or an extrovert.

God loves everyone no matter what sins they have committed.

The very idea that homosexuality is a sin is what is abhorrent to me. And if God loved everyone he'd have forgiven them their sins. You can't forgive people then punish them for the same thing you forgave them for. Which means everyone is auto-absolved for their sins from birth to death. So, one way or the other you contradict yourself. Are people without sin or aren't they? If they are, God can't punish them or hold it against them, or else he's a fucking hypocrite and a liar.

Oh wait, we know God is a liar anyway, from Genesis (among other places). He loves to fuck with people's heads and emotions too. Basically he's an all-round asshole. You don't love someone then ask them to kill their OWN SON as a sacrifice.

We in England have a saying, Archon. It goes something like this: "Pull the other one; it's got bells on."

[Archon]

@ Puppeteer: Yeah, that was an accident. I'm copying many of my replies from an essay I wrote a while ago That was referring to the whole Adam & Eve thing.

But anyway, God can still love someone if he considers them sinful:
Think of this. Your little bro takes your favorite book and rips it in half. Naturally, you don't exactly "condone" that (you would likely be yanking it away from him and punching him in the face) but you'll forgive him. Hopefully

Incorrect and disproved by your own holy book. Have you even read the bible? ALL of it, not just the bit where God turns nice-ish. Actually, you don't even need to read the first half - Jesus allegedly died to save everyone - past and present - for their sins. He wouldn't have had to bother if humans were without sin. 1-0 to Ash, by quoting the bible no less.

Indeed I have read the bible. He created us perfect, we chose sin.

If God loved everyone he'd have forgiven them their sins. You can't forgive people then punish them for the same thing you forgave them for.

He did forgive people their sins (Jesus sacrificed himself on the Cross). If someone doesn't accept that sacrifice and refuse to be forgiven, that's their choice.

If they are, God can't punish them or hold it against them, or else he's a fucking hypocrite and a liar.

No, he'd be a hypocrite if he was unjust.