Sins of Heterosexuals

Its not wholesome? But its not a sin?

Yep I can read, just several step ahead of you in the intellectual process - as usual.

You do spell well though.

Then how can it be harmless? (putting aside the documented sceintific research about the harmful effects of promiscuity that you have waived away like magic).

If I bring children into a loving family - its a good thing. You can bring anything into it and its STILL good.

Swinging in only good for those who worship themselves. Narcassim is not a good thing borther.

No, killing is not bad.

Murder is bad. You didn't read the Bible did you?

Nope, just rationalization.

Context and mitigating circumstances can influence the consequence of violating a rule, but adultry is ALWAYS bad. Murder is ALWAYS bad. Lying is ALWAYS bad.

Are we seeing this yet?

Now, why should you be forgiven your lies, but a murder should not be forgiven his murder?

And your sources are?

Try the internet, its common knowledge.

Science disagrees.

"4) Sexual promiscuity - Sometimes, it is not really a craving for different partners that drives a person to become sexually promiscuous. More often than not, low self esteem drives that person to try over and over again to prove to him or herself that he or she can indeed satisfy another person. Sometimes, a person feels inadequate, even though his or her sexual partners keep assuring him or her of his or her sexual prowess."

http://www.mynichearticle.com/self-esteem/

Basically you are rationalizing at this point.

 

You don't have ability to support your beliefs. Just for a simple reason: That is a just a belief and you can't support that because you just have faith in that stupid idea. You can't give any proof that idea is right.

And you never will be. Just because God is a creation of the mankind. Not God created the human, the human created the idea of god.

And about the sins of the heterosexuals that is the topic. It is absurd, and unsustainable. And yes, the bible bans the freedom of the people. Like having sex that is something very enjoyable and good. You make phisic exercise, you intimate more with your couple, you give joy to your lover... Many things that are good.

 

So there is no God?

Lets see your proof.

You claim man did it, then explain this:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

Explain Jesus Christ?

Of course, you already have your standard atheist doctrine of atheist (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)baggery that we have all heard before. But you are all cave bear eating ... well, even you admit your are just trolling.

 

Jesus Christ. Maybe existed someone that could be adjusted to his description, but the texts about him are written hundreds years after of his death. So the story has become mythic and changed in many points, so we can't know what is real if there is something real. And I would say that Jesus Christ just is a creation.

LOL. If that are miracles how can be scientifically documented xD. For goddess. Really do you think that I have to believe that? xD

The best is the 9. HAHAA. Seriously. Do you believe that praying will be cured. LOL.

I don't have any doctrine. Just I have something that is based in reason. If you prove me, with facts that God is real, I will believe that. But you can't prove me nothing, neither Jesus Christ, neither that supposed miracles, taken from a religious website, great resource, and mainly because they say that are scientifically documented. They aren't.

 

Agh, another Jesus Myther. What a shock.

Well, some atheist wrote it so it must be true, I mean what would he consensus opinion of historian be in lieu of ... not studying and arriving at a conclusion to simply badger others. Nice atheism.

" Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University and led the attack on Carston Theide's re-dating of the Jesus Papyrus. He considers the Jesus Myth crowd extreme as he writes in The Gospels and Jesus.

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. "

and.

"It is also obvious that the diverse and all but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus Myth arguments. Robert Van Voosrt writes in Jesus Outside the New Testament:

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [Jesus Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."


Of course, that assumes an arguement and not just a statement, but who needs that when you have tin foil hats?

The last atheist to pull this stunt spent three months getting caught in one rediculous lie after another - and now he swears he never claimed that Jesus was a Myth and that he is not and an atheist and never has been.

Feel free to offer up your intellectual prowess that would cause you to over turn the near unanimous position of period scholars (off all ideologies) that Jesus was real.

I am sure the magic of atheism is much more convincing.

Why do atheists contiue to allow other atheists to make the same boneheaded contentions?

 

I am not telling that Jesus Christ could be real, but it is a myth how that is explained in the bible. Probably Jesus Christ was some kind of intellectual of the time, and was a bit advanced to the period. Nothing else. But the miracles are just myth.

Just I am saying that there is no clear evidence of his existence, although it is possible. What is impossible is that he was exactly like it's explained in the gospels. The gospels are a myth, but the myths usually have part of real. Just you have to known which is the real part and that is difficult.

 

Didn't you say this just a post earlier? Now he's a jewish intellectual? Great. I'm so glad you aren't contradicting yourself or anything.

 

No I didn't say that. I said the story is a myth. And in the beginning of the post I said that was possible that someone could exist.

But not exactly as it is related in the story, and for that I said that was myth. Because the story is a myth, although could have some parts of history.

 

And you know this how?

 

What's a sin?

 

Which parts of the "story" are myth, & which parts historically correct? Please provide proof of your emphatic statements.

 

Part of what makes myth a myth is that it's not possible to tell which parts are born from reality and which are not. A myth is simply a "traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society". Religious scripture always fullfill these criteria (hence the term mythology).

 

Everything you write is based on faith. All of it.

There is clear evidence of his existence, both in and out of the Bible. You are just another deluded, lazy atheist, who hasn't even bothered to look and thinks that being lazy is an excuse to attack other people's faith.

But then, you defend trolling too.

 

No, what makes something a myth is when you can prove it is not true.

That is why some things are called mythology.

Just change the standards to maintain your faith, see it all the time atheists.

 

are all the people engaging in these sins Christians. Got a link for that claim?

 

This is an easy answer. As stories get passed down from generation to generation, they get distorted.

The Jesus the bible speaks of is more myth that reality.

 

The bible is just a book of myths, that copy fictious books like Gilgamesh, myths from Egyptian mythology...

What kind of source can be considered that? The bible is not a source. Evidence from the bible doesn't have any validity, because this book has been proven wrong in almost everything. Although have some of information like every fiction based in real world, is pure fiction like the Lord of the Rings.

 

No, you can not prove that Odin is false. You can't. Just something starts to be a myth when no body believes in that.

You must prove that your theory is real. If you can't, it can't be considered. Period.

 

So says your opinion.

Which I know is a trite filled bit of nonesense.

One of us has read both the Bible and the history of the Bible, and you will forgive me for once again having to point out that someone who hasn't even bothered to look at something is in no position to tell people what is and is not in it.

Its called an appeal to authority - and it is what makes your opinion a myth.

You bought into the atheist propoganda, hook line and sinker, abandoning all premise of skepticism or search for truth.

Yep, this is indeed modern atheism, angry, uneducated, youth.

 

Sure you can, but, once again, it requires you to actually read something and apply a little brain power.

One claim made by Oden?

"Odin sometimes acts as the instigator of wars, and is said to have been able to start wars by simply throwing down his spear Gungnir, and/or sending his valkyries, to influence the battle toward the end that he desires."

None of the recorded Norse battles have any depictions of something started with divine spears that drove otherwise peaceful men kill one another. In the abscence of this, when we would expect to find this in these places, indicates that Oden is most likely false.

And the process goes on as one claim made after another is proven false.

That is why it is mythology and why intelligent, read, and educated people can tell the difference between religion and mythology.

Atheists alone seem to find this process difficult. Must be religion's fault.

Now, can one of the atheists explain to me how atheism can be such an individualized thing that all atheists invaraibly make the same stupid arguements?

Does even ONE of you have the ability to apply the priniples of skepticism to your own positions? Just curious.

 

I see we haven`t had a substantial or specific reply to my post to kilgram`s post refuting the truth of bible teachings. We haven`t had anything from athiests but bluster and sidestepping, no substance to their claims.

As an agnostic, I`ll freely admit that I simply don`t know.

 

You can't prove anything that is called in the bible. (*)(*)(*)(*) is the same. Seriously.

One person that believes in a written book 1.600 years ago based in copies of myths like Gilgamesh, Ra's myth and others is saying me that I don't read and unintelligent LOL

One person that is not able to think for himself and bases his beliefs on what tells a book. And not what he believes for himself. LOL

No, the problem with mythology is that you consider wrong, but is the same that your religion. You're like an atheist, you refuse all religions except the yours. The mythology has passed to be mythology because people don't believe anymore in it. When the people leaves to believe in some God, this God dies. For the simple reason, that idea dies. Then anymore exist. That is simple.

If someday people leave to believe in christianism, and no believer is alive, this religion will be mythology. Everybody will say that is wrong. Point. Exactly the same that the mythologies. That is what the believers you can't see.

For Odin you have the same proofs that for God: None. Zero. Nothing. Only you have a book. A book full with errors and mistakes, and it is supposed to be God written, then there should not exist any mistake. But there are, thousands, millions.

 

Ok, my position is clear:

- Can you prove something as real?

You can:

- Then I consider that as right

You can't

- Then I will ignore that, and I won't consider that until you're able to prove it.

How the bible are unproven things, then I consider this what it is: mythology.

If you prove me wrong then I will "believe".

But as I've said many times: You must have faith. And the faith goes against the rationality.

Ok, then you're agnostic. Then you should be agnostic with all the unproven things. Or only are you agnostic with the idea God? I know that this sounds strange. But if you can't discard an unproven thesis then you must be unavailable to discard any thesis.

 

These are sins not against any God, but they are sins against the self. The only thing that no one-- not even a god-- can take from you is your integrity. You have to give it away to lose it. Even an atheist acknowledges that judgment occurs at the end of a life: self-judgment, the estimation of integrity and self-esteem-- the most important kind.

A marriage is a promise. If you choose to marry someone, it is a promise to yourself to commit to that one person, for good or ill. You break that promise, and you have betrayed your soul, and it is irrelevant what any god, imaginary or real, thinks about it. He could say it were moral; it would remain a sin.

There is no basis for any of this in the real world. A person adhering to these absolutes against his real-life rational self-interest sells his freedom. The price of freedom is too high to give it to a god for eternal bliss. The price of self-esteem is too high to apologize for the freedom that is its precondition.

In this life, a man is only morally accountable to himself. He cannot live for another, and he cannot ask another to live for him. These are requirements in your religion. You must live for God, and you must accept that Jesus could have lived, and suffered, and died for you. Your religion is actively immoral.

These sexual "rules" are just some of the many examples of self-subjugation and guilt by merit of birth (i.e., slavery) that are the hallmark of Biblical literalism. Even non-literalists have a problem extracting any semblance of morality from the many platitudes and evils scattered throughout the Bible.

If the God of the Bible exists, the "Good Book" is his "Little Red Book," and the snake in Genesis is the Prometheus of freedom and truth whose trouble was probably not worth it for the contempt offered to him in return. The only moral action that could be taken by humanity would be insurrection. Anything else would be the product of fear and weakness.

If God exists and is benevolent, he at most inspired some portions of your religious text, and Locke was his greatest prophet.

 

There are many steps between "believing" and accepting the propositions of the believed-in.