Jack Thompson Submits Gay Porn to District Court Judge, Judge is Outraged.

[PlagueOfLocust]

Sorry, but in fact all Christians believe Jesus was both God *and* the Son of God... the Trinity is one God in three roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You don't even know what you're talking about here. But if you had managed to find a point on which Catholics differ from most other Christian denominations (and such points do exist, most being issues of tradition rather than fundamentals, with some exceptions such as the authority of the pope), that does not take away from the truth of the Bible which they are based off of. The Bible doesn't say anything about a pope; the Catholics have made that part of their belief system, but it's not in the Bible. How can Christianity function as a belief system when they don't agree? Easy, they all agree on the fundamentals (the Bible), and any denomination of "Christianity" that doesn't follow that is fundamentally not a Christian denomination, regardless of what label they use. My church is non-denominational, because any addendum to the Bible is open to criticism. There's no sense arguing what the proper order in which to light the candles in your church is, particularly when the Bible has nothing to say about it. (But the Catholics do have the core principles down, and my argument is that that's the only essential.)

"Also, it is impossible in all ways for a person to interact with something that cannot be detected in any way."
Ah, but seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are not the only ways of interacting with something; that was my claim. It can still be detected in some way: there's the sense of *feeling*. In your opinion it doesn't happen, but people claim to have a personal relationship with God. Can they prove it? Probably not. But you can't prove they don't, and it's possible that they do, so you have no ground to stand on here. And this lovely bit about seizures really doesn't impress me. Who defined the experiences as "religious"? You could probably, with the same mindset, call altered states of mind brought on by drug-use "religious experiences". And hey, I bet I can get you to believe you're a cow if I start removing/swapping parts of your brain. Does this prove that self-awareness or thought itself is a myth? Of course thought/spiritual feelings have their ties in our biology; the spirit is attached to the body after all. Does "religious feeling" come FROM the temporal lobe, or is it received/processed there? Why not the latter?

"Again, my point is that there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. That is why there are 'good' and 'bad' people."
I know that's your point. And I've made the better argument for why you're wrong about that. But even here you contradict yourself... if there is no right or wrong, how CAN there be good and bad people? (Was this a typo on your part?... either way.) How can you blame a murderer for his "crime" when it's subjective based on his beliefs? You can't, and hence your subjective moral code is a sham. There has to exist an external moral code, or else there is no moral code that actually condemns any behavior/act at all. Unless you can unravel that logic, give up your debate, honestly. And just in case you suggest that behavior needn't be condemned, try imagining a society run by that standard.

"Christianity pretends to know all the answers." If they in fact have the answers, then that they pretend is merely your opinion. "And anyone contradicting those absolute answers is godless, a heretic, and immoral." They're Godless only if they don't have God; heretic is rather archaic; immoral... well, that you may have right, but Christians are instructed only to hate the sin and love the sinner. You're still operating under your own assumptions and bias against Christianity here, and I imagine you'll continue to do so.
"Religions existed before Christianity, some were created afterward, and all of them have the exact same merit, no matter what they say." You can't say that they have the exact same merit, unless you believe that they *all* have no merit. Religions have conflicting fundamental beliefs; they can't possibly all be right. Either one is, or none are. You're free to pick.
"Your belief that killing is wrong is no more powerful than the Aztecs belief that killing was beneficial," You're not really giving anything to back this up. Most of your post consists of undefended opinion, which you must imagine form an argument. No more powerful in what sense? Either one *could* be right? If we adhere to your beliefs that morals are subjective, sure. But then you're all but suggesting that murder is okay, and even you don't believe that. Even better, try this on. What do you imagine would happen if someone killed the priest overseeing the Aztec sacrifice? Wait, all of a sudden murder is a problem? Gulp. I suggest that the Aztecs DID think murder was wrong, except that they also had a belief, on top of that, that the sacrifice to their gods is an acceptable form of murder or is not even murder at all. This seems to be an example of inherent sense of wrong being over-written by other beliefs.

"And just because "right" and "wrong" are not derived from a god does not make them less potent." This is the best of all, because you contradict yourself to the very core. You just got done saying right and wrong don't exist, and now you're making claims of their potency outside of a God. How can something have any level of potency if it *does not exist*? No you're right though, when "right" and "wrong" are not derived from an external moral code (God), they aren't less potent; they, in fact, don't exist at all.

"Frankly, the threat of jail is more of a deterrent to me than some invisible ghost man that probably doesn't exist, if I were to think about commiting a crime." The fear of jail is more of a deterrent for you, who does not believe in God, than God? Obviously, because you don't believe in Him. But if you did believe in Him, or more to the point, if He does exist, then you have much more to be concerned about than jail. I'm lucky enough to make my moral decisions by Aristotle's own method: "I have gained this from philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
"Speaking of which, why punish anyone in this lifetime when god judges everyone after they die? That seems to me to imply a lack of faith." You're darn right; it does imply a lack of faith... you lack faith. Many people lack faith. Not everyone believes they will be punished when they die, and so they will potentially harm others and do whatever they want as long as they're allowed. It's to prevent utter chaos that we must have laws on earth. It's that issue of justice... you know, the concept that cannot reasonably co-exist with your philosophy of subjectivism.
A ghost man, huh? At least if you're going to disagree with me on this, sound educated; know what you're arguing against. Find a Bible. What if you've been lied to your whole life and haven't bothered to challenge it directly? I know both sides of the argument deeply, and I made my choice. You should probably give the issue the same attention. After all, as C.S. Lewis points out: “Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”