@DélioPT:

It`s the religious understanding - and mine too - that the act of homosexuality is wrong because man and women are seen as complementary. So, going against that line of thought is deviating from human nature.

Science disagrees with you. Homosexuality is a normal and natural state for the homosexual, and coercing him/her to deny their very being is a disgusting practice. And what makes you think you have swuch a great understanding of human nature in it's entirety? If you did you'd know that homosexuality is part of it.

Exactly... if you take out everything that i mentioned to make the statement that i made. So, a person that dies for everyone is the same as a dicatator. Someone who lets you choose is the same as the one who doesn`t allow you to choose. Makes sense?
If you don`t believe in God, it`s one thing, but if you take into consideration one aspect of God, you should at least take everything into consideration.

He died for whom exactly? Who's life was in danger, I fail to see the point of this so called sacrifice. Also, I already explained why he doesn't really give you any choices. A dicator gives you a choice also: obey or be destroyed. The deity you worship does the same. Honestly, you're like a broken record.

This action that you don`t understand has a BIG theological implications. It`s not a question of how big was the suffering.
Man sins and by doing that they place themselves away from God. That`s why Jesus/God sacrificed Himself to God so as to not let men die in sin. With His death He also showed that anyone can go to Heaven if they decide to open their hearts to God.

Jesus didn't sacrifice himself. He commited an act illegal at the time and was punished for it. And the fact that God would demand a sacrifice in the first place shows his malevolence. He's the one who damend himanity (for the actions of only 2 people), and he could've easily forgiven himanity (blaming everyone for the actions of just 2 people is irrational anyway). And Jesus was God, therefore his "sacrifice" was pointless, as he wasn't going to go to hell regardless.

The real problem about drugs or other addictions is that they do become your God, that`s why they are considered sinful.

They destroy your health. That's the only problem. The rest is just nonsense.

Don`t know how i changed my tone... honestly.
If something deviates men from God, that results in men`s fall.

I'm pretty sure your deity, as any tyrant, makes sure that any who would oppose his irrational rules would suffer greatly. However, you did change your tone, cause you could find no rational reason why homosexuality would be bad, as opposed to alcohol/drugs.

"trestres on 04/29/11 18:22 GMT

In the case of defining free will, free will is taken to require two things: the ability to decide differently and the person making the decision is the sole arbiter of their decision. Your argument was challenging the claim that a person has the ablity to decide differently; becuase God knows everything, a person does not have the ability to make a decision that contradicts God's knowledge. If I'm reading it correctly, that is your argument.

My argument wasn't meant to show that God does not intervene. I wasn't trying to prove that God cannot be proverbally pulling our strings like we are puppets. I don't think we can prove this with any certainty. It was just meant to show that free will and omniscience are compatible.

With your last paragraph, I might need to explain better. When we say God is all-knowing, we mean he possesses all knowledge. The problem arises because there is not any knowledge about the future until the future becomes present. I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but this prediction does not become actual until tomorrow. In order to test the truth of a statement, we need to have something to test it against, but this correspondance between a proposition and reality is not available when talking about future statements (the future being unobserved). Point being, there is not any knowledge about the future, so it does not count against God's omniscience.

Personally, this makes sense to me, as long as it is only applied to free will. I don't think the same can necessarily be said for physical laws. This arises because of the fact that there is an indeterminate aspect to free-will (not so with physical laws). In order to defeat this argument, I think someone would have to attack the second claim of free-will- the claim that people are the sole arbiters of their decisions. They would need to show that my decisions are not really my own decisions and that God or some other entity is making the decisions for me.

Edit: In regard to your first paragraph, I don't think there is any way we can disprove such claims with any certainty, but I think we can ignore most of these claims because they require awkward explanations and become too complex (Ockham's razor in other words).

I have attended to Theology classes dictated by Catholic priests and theologists, I think I'm gonna go for their word. Either ways what I'm saying is something that you could reason yourself if you want to. When we die our bodies are no more, what remains is the soul. Soul is not material, hence it can't go anywhere. There's no place, just a state of the soul.

So let me get this straight, your WHOLE argument and belief is based on an argument that can be just stated as "I am right because I say so." I hope you realize what a shit argument that is.

Let's play it your way. Your belief is wrong because there is no way the morals of the Aztecs (or greeks, celts, fairy tales, etc. etc.) are the universal truth, and I don't see how anyone else can say so. So you are wrong by the exacty same logic you used. I just substituted one made up belief with another. See how it works?

You also mention it all comes down to faith, and faith is highly subjective. As I said, what Christ taught is wrong because it is not in accordance with all the other belief systems out there. In fact every belief system is wrong because we don't know absolutely jack shit about anything. Given 0 information, the probability of being right is 0, which is absolutely any and all belief systems (even atheism, however it is more right than any specific religion, as I have already proven).

@sapphi_snake

Science disagrees with you. Homosexuality is a normal and natural state for the homosexual, and coercing him/her to deny their very being is a disgusting practice. And what makes you think you have swuch a great understanding of human nature in it's entirety? If you did you'd know that homosexuality is part of it.
I never claimed anything, did i?
Homosexuality is an inclination. But in the end it doesn`t matter or not if i tis, because per se it´s not a sin, but practicing is.
The act of homosexuality goes against the idea of man and woman being complementary, the idea of “grow and multiply” and family. Is it part of human nature? I believe it`s not.

He died for whom exactly? Who's life was in danger, I fail to see the point of this so called sacrifice. Also, I already explained why he doesn't really give you any choices. A dicator gives you a choice also: obey or be destroyed. The deity you worship does the same. Honestly, you're like a broken record.
I sound like a broken record? :D
Well, you keep neglecting all the arguments that show that God loves us and insist on looking only at the price of one`s actions.
Evert human life was in danger, because of sin (the opposite of God). So Jesus sacrificed Himself so men`s sins won`t cause their death.
Exactly what tyrants do: love others.


Jesus didn't sacrifice himself. He commited an act illegal at the time and was punished for it. And the fact that God would demand a sacrifice in the first place shows his malevolence. He's the one who damend himanity (for the actions of only 2 people), and he could've easily forgiven himanity (blaming everyone for the actions of just 2 people is irrational anyway). And Jesus was God, therefore his "sacrifice" was pointless, as he wasn't going to go to hell regardless.
Once again you don`t see Jesus motivations or intentions for His actions.
God didn`t demand, He offered Himself to pay the price so humans could ressurrect. And with His sacrifice He showed humanity how one can achieve redemption and live in eternal life.
Everyone sins. Jesus´ death shows how one can achieve redemption. And God does forgive, that`s why i said before that the principle behind His death is that those who die with Jesus, ressurrect with Jesus; love to the point of self-sacrifice. Meaning, men could now beat death.


“They destroy your health. That's the only problem. The rest is just nonsense”
Even from a non religious angle that`s not true. Addictions have a wider effect than just physical effects.


I'm pretty sure your deity, as any tyrant, makes sure that any who would oppose his irrational rules would suffer greatly. However, you did change your tone, cause you could find no rational reason why homosexuality would be bad, as opposed to alcohol/drugs.
I did write something down didn`t i? Wasn`t it as explanatory as other topics? Well, i`m not perfect nor do i master all subjects.

And your idea doesn`t exclude that as punishment people won`t suffer phisicaly aswell for their sins. Actually, the catholic church - and it`s in the Bible  -  says that those who ressurrect for the after live regain their bodies aswell.
Jesus also gained His body as those in whom God lives, will recieve aswell.

@DélioPT:

I never claimed anything, did i?
Homosexuality is an inclination. But in the end it doesn`t matter or not if i tis, because per se it´s not a sin, but practicing is.
The act of homosexuality goes against the idea of man and woman being complementary, the idea of “grow and multiply” and family. Is it part of human nature? I believe it`s not.

Well, all the evidence is against you, so your beleifs are wrong. As a result demeaning homosexuals the way you do  is wrong.

I sound like a broken record? :D
Well, you keep neglecting all the arguments that show that God loves us and insist on looking only at the price of one`s actions.
Evert human life was in danger, because of sin (the opposite of God). So Jesus sacrificed Himself so men`s sins won`t cause their death.
Exactly what tyrants do: love others.

I ignore your arguments, because I showed why they are wrong. There's no love involved. And Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for anything. And God was the one who damned humanity for the actions of just 2 individuals. How's that for a loving god as opposed to a dicator?

Once again you don`t see Jesus motivations or intentions for His actions.
God didn`t demand, He offered Himself to pay the price so humans could ressurrect. And with His sacrifice He showed humanity how one can achieve redemption and live in eternal life.
Everyone sins. Jesus´ death shows how one can achieve redemption. And God does forgive, that`s why i said before that the principle behind His death is that those who die with Jesus, ressurrect with Jesus; love to the point of self-sacrifice. Meaning, men could now beat death.

Pay the price to whom? Himself? Is that suppose to make anyone sympathatic towards him?

Even from a non religious angle that`s not true. Addictions have a wider effect than just physical effects.

The physical effect is by far the most devstating, and the hardest to overcome. It also leads to the other defects.

You are right, about what I was trying to argue, which is the idea of free will not being compatible with predestination (the idea of a higher power knowing the future). The thing we're not agreeing on is 'what is omniscience?' which is a HUGE question. There have been debates for a very long time, and there really is no right answer. Before I get to that though I want to get to Occam's razor (I always spell it this way =P).

First, some background for anyone else reading that thinks Occam's razor is about 'the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one'. This is a misrepresentation, Occam's razor is about shifting burden of proof onto more complex theories. The better overall statement is that "Simpler theories are, other things being equal, generally better than complex ones". That is, unless the more complex theories can in some way provide proof for the necessity of their complexity, they should be re-worked or abandonned until a simpler form is found. Also, the key words are 'other things being equal'. 

Okay, that out of the way, the problem I have with Occam's razor with discussing the extremely theoretical is that it tends to lead to complete disregard for what may possibily be correct. My idea is a little strange, overly complex, and harder to follow then the simpler ideas we already have. Is it wrong? The part that makes it especially tricky is that I'm commenting beyond our perception. It's completely unknown territory, and as far as we know now, may very well remain unknown forever. In essence, just applying trends and ideas we can perceive to things we cannot perceive seems kind of lazy to me sometimes. Maybe this is more important but I'm not looking for validity, I'm merely discussing possibility. A possibility that would normally be easily disgarded due to following Occam's razor.

Now, onto Omniscience! I need to hold back here or I'll go on for about 10 paragraphs. I've been reluctant to say this but yes, there are more than one kind of omniscience and different beliefs regarding omniscience and perception of time. I mentioned predestination before, and that plays a role in this too. You and trestres are both talking about inherent omniscience, the ability to know what one chooses to know and can know. So you posit that the future is not knowledge to be known, that just by being the future, means it is something that has not happened yet and thus has no direct basis in reality. 

My point is that I simply disagree with that notion, and when we're done, we will both have to just agree to disagree. Let me put it in a different perspective though. We view time in a dynamic, linear fashion. We remember the past, live in the present (which instantly becames the past of course) and dream of/hope for/think of the future. But what's to say this is actually the case? Yes, this is why I went into Occam's razor in that much depth, but what if time is not dynamic, and is actually static, and we only view/experience time in a dynamic manner. This is more of what I'm getting at, it's completely theoretical, but it's not like it hasn't been discussed before. Was it Slaughterhouse 5 that was mainly about this very point? I can't remember, it's been too long. That is to say, that everything is merely the past in sense.

Well, all the evidence is against you, so your beleifs are wrong. As a result demeaning homosexuals the way you do  is wrong.
What evidence? Being born one way doesn`t classify as human nature. And if i`m not mistaken science hasn`t proven for sure. Also, a genetic "inclination" doesn`t mean that the religious concept of human nature is wrong.
As i said before, it doesn`t really matter what inclination per se, as it`s only wrong when practiced, just like every other sin. What`s wrong is the action.

I ignore your arguments, because I showed why they are wrong. There's no love involved. And Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for anything. And God was the one who damned humanity for the actions of just 2 individuals. How's that for a loving god as opposed to a dicator?
You didn`t prove a single thing. The only thing you showed was how you only see a "detail", if you will, don`t care what the context is and judhe the whole for the part. You ignore the difference that clearly exists between God and dictators just because you can`t see past the fact tha people should be held responsible for their choices. There isn`t freedom without consequences. Life has causes and consequences. It`s not just with our relation to God, in our own relations there is repercussions for the good and the bad and with God it`s no different.
More, you act like having no freedom and living in fear of a dictator, that gives you no real choice, that doesn`t love you or care about you, is the same as someone who loves you, died for you, lets you choose and gives everything to make you happy.

"Pay the price to whom? Himself? Is that suppose to make anyone sympathatic towards him?"
If you can`t compreehend the fact that His sacrifice came out of love and gave mankind a chance for redemption and ressurrection, then you really won`t see how important His actions were.

"The physical effect is by far the most devstating, and the hardest to overcome. It also leads to the other defects."
You can handle pain and still find piece of mind and at heart, but if you haven`t piece of mind or at heart, then believe me, it will be a lot more devastating than any physical pain. The sense of void, for example, is more hurtful than any physical addiction.