|
Post by GGoodie on Jul 25, 2011 15:31:09 GMT
Homosexuality isn't banned by christianity actually... Christ went and straight-up said that the only Old Testament laws that apply are the Ten Commandments- so I'm going to have a different view on this than TSL. Can I see a passage from the Bible that supports this?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 26, 2011 5:20:24 GMT
Okay, so he didn't want it to exist before Jesus came along after which he's fine with it. Even so, it exists, so the question still goes.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 8, 2011 4:24:00 GMT
The only one of those that is even relevant here is #2. And even that one is flawed. You could use the same logic to say God is benevolent, because good exists as well as evil. God allows good and evil to exist simultaneously. Then he is not benevolent. He may not be malevolent, but if evil exists at all then he obviously wanted it to exist. Both Christianity and Islam acknowledge that God did not create Satan. Rather, an angel disobeyed God and became Satan. Incidentally, this only happened after God created humans. Now, of course, most of us interpret Satan, and the angel he started as, as being an allegory, which makes more sense philosophically: When you create, for the first time, a being that has free will, naturally evil will come into existence simultaneously. God couldn't create humans the way they are without creating evil. The creation of evil was therefore, a necessary evil. (Check out that pun. ) Fine, then if God doesn't want homosexuality to exist, why did he create it as an inherent flaw in humanity? Well, if you consider homosexuality to be 100% biological--which I disagree with--then I guess you could say God wants it to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 8, 2011 8:09:55 GMT
It doesn't matter if it's 100% biological or 1% biological, it's still biological. It's something God would have had to manually create, be it triggered or inherent.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 8, 2011 22:55:09 GMT
Then he is not benevolent. He may not be malevolent, but if evil exists at all then he obviously wanted it to exist. Both Christianity and Islam acknowledge that God did not create Satan. Rather, an angel disobeyed God and became Satan. Incidentally, this only happened after God created humans. Now, of course, most of us interpret Satan, and the angel he started as, as being an allegory, which makes more sense philosophically: When you create, for the first time, a being that has free will, naturally evil will come into existence simultaneously. God couldn't create humans the way they are without creating evil. The creation of evil was therefore, a necessary evil. (Check out that pun. ) Fine, then if God doesn't want homosexuality to exist, why did he create it as an inherent flaw in humanity? Well, if you consider homosexuality to be 100% biological--which I disagree with--then I guess you could say God wants it to exist. So what your saying is that angels existed without being created by God?
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 9, 2011 5:27:58 GMT
Both Christianity and Islam acknowledge that God did not create Satan. Rather, an angel disobeyed God and became Satan. Incidentally, this only happened after God created humans. Now, of course, most of us interpret Satan, and the angel he started as, as being an allegory, which makes more sense philosophically: When you create, for the first time, a being that has free will, naturally evil will come into existence simultaneously. God couldn't create humans the way they are without creating evil. The creation of evil was therefore, a necessary evil. (Check out that pun. ) Well, if you consider homosexuality to be 100% biological--which I disagree with--then I guess you could say God wants it to exist. So what your saying is that angels existed without being created by God? Non-sequitor.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 9, 2011 6:00:18 GMT
Not exactly. He's saying that Lucifer was an angel, and that for him to have not been created by God angels would have had to come into being without being created by God.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 9, 2011 21:02:47 GMT
Not exactly. He's saying that Lucifer was an angel, and that for him to have not been created by God angels would have had to come into being without being created by God. What part of this do you not understand? God did not create Satan. He created the angel which turned into Satan.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 9, 2011 23:07:38 GMT
Is God not omniscient? He would have known Satan would turn bad. We've been through this
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 10, 2011 2:11:22 GMT
Is God not omniscient? He would have known Satan would turn bad. We've been through thisFirst of all, yes, he did know that. So what? Secondly, even if he did intentionally create Satan, evil doesn't win unless humans allow it to.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 12, 2012 2:45:47 GMT
30 pages? Sandmaster would be ashamed! Very well, I'll create a topic from thin air. How does one define a god? Must it have created the universe? Does that rule out most Greek gods? Just how powerful does it have to be? All-powerful? Limited power, like (again) Greek gods?
|
|
|
Post by Speaker on May 22, 2012 2:27:26 GMT
And once we define what a "god" is, we must then consider whether we can actually prove if one exists. Then we'll degrade into a flamefest over IPUs.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 22, 2012 2:29:13 GMT
That's a pretty easy definition, at least for our purposes. Something intelligent that created the universe and/or controls the universe, is omnipotent/omniscient/etc. The debate also extends to more specific gods, such as the Abrahamic god.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 22, 2012 3:43:50 GMT
What about non-theistic gods of such beliefs as pantheism and panentheism? In some beliefs such as those, the god is not necessarily a creator or a ruler or a father-figure. Such is doubtlessly a god, but doubtlessly not the theistic god such as the Abrahamic god. In this case, since your definition of "god" is way too narrow, how do we go about revising the definition?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 22, 2012 3:54:57 GMT
Yes, but that's not what this debate is about. I did say "For the purposes of this debate", after all. Pantheism and so forth are great n'all, but they're not really what this debate is about.
Besides, when you've sunk to debating about the definition of a word you know the debate is too far gone. We've managed to keep up a decently long debate with my "narrow" definition of god, so I don't see what's so wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 22, 2012 4:00:29 GMT
Well, just because one can have a long debate with a given definition doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with the definition - indeed, depending on the definitions, the entire debate which took place may already be faulty as a result. After all, we must make sure the foundations (i.e. the base assumptions and definitions) of the debate are good before the debate itself can be held.
Of course, since you pointed out that the debate intended only to discuss theistic gods, then I guess the definition would suffice. I apologize for failing to take note of that...
|
|
|
Post by supermonkeystorm on May 23, 2012 11:46:13 GMT
God had to come from somewhere. He couldn't have just materialized from thin air.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on May 23, 2012 16:24:02 GMT
But God is not matter?
|
|
|