[kdogg]

Either nature is infinite, or God is infinite.

Both are just as imossible to comprehend.  In the end, it comes down to where you faith is, in God or Nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does either have to be infinite? And why do you have to pick either nature or God?

[Slade]

Hmm... the only SA member I could find that was gay was Edmund Heines... I honestly don't see Nazi gatherings descending into homosexual orgies though...

Why do many Christians think God hates homosexuals, anyway? I've heard "It's in the bible." but never where it is and what it is...

[Jordan]

What else is there, Kdogg?

[Dr Lecter]

Erm, yeah... Slade and Cyzyk, your word is conclusive edivence to me... Oh wait no it isn't, I wouldn't trust you guys if you last random people I met on an internet forum alive.

Yes, one thing about God makes it difficult to comprend how he can exist:

God n. 1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

If he created the Universe he obviously had to exist before it, and if he was created by another force, he would no longer be God. So we are suppose to be believe that out of nothingness (literally since there is no Universe), came this almighty supernatural force, for no apparently reason.

PS Are you one of those people that don't believe the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory? Even though the Big Bang theory has been confirmed (obviously not proved but they found evidence to support it) and the Evolution theory has pratically been proven, infact there is prove attached every human body and it is happening among humans and animals as we speak (bet you can't guess what evolution is happening among humans now, well that I am thinking of)...

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 13 March 2005 - 05:31 AM

[Laughlyn]

Err Lecter, there's a whole world of difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Evolution is a theory. We can't prove it absolutely (yet) so it can't be used as the beating stick for religion. Same goes for the big bang. What was before the big bang? probably the same thing the clergy tell you was before God. Now we could go into quantum theory and talk about cats to 'prove' he does\doesn't exist, but that's not going to get us anywhere.

[Dr Lecter]

There's alot more evidence that suggest evolution happened and is still happening than there is prove that God waved his hands about for six days and created the world. Such as humans being born without molars, human reflexes like hair standing on end, the human ear lobe, the apendix, etc. They have no reason for being there because they are a result of evolution. As for the Big Bang, the detection of radiation from it has been found, as well as the fact that the Universe is expanding from a point in the Universe thought to be the centre of the Universe (the red/blue effect thingy means we can see it even with own eyes). Where is the evidence of God's creation? None, because it never happened.

PS Even though I don't believe there is a God, if he did exist I would like to kick him in the crutch and spit on him. Kick him in the crutch untill Jesus falls over. And says "That's for creating a world full of diesease and murderers you sick son of a bitch." And I aware of the fact that being God he would have no parents, but if you were going to say that or mention that Jesus is God too: Bite me. Although since I don't believe in God, its a shame I will never be able to do it. God is just scapegoat to explain why the human race is so evil and murderous, just get rid of him and accept that we all deserve to die for one reason or another.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 13 March 2005 - 07:35 AM

[kdogg]

What else is there, Kdogg?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In terms of nature, there is no proof that the universe if infinite. By infinite, I assume we're talking about time. There could be a scenario where there is not enough mass in the universe to sustain expansion, and so everything starts collapsing. This would cause time to go backwards (i.e. energy would convert to mass, etc). Though this cycle could conceivably go on forever, time would not be infinite. It would have a definititive start (big bang) and end (big crunch). I can't speak in terms of God, since I don't know much about him.

[Laughlyn]

And after the big crunch, theoretically there's probably going to be another big bang, and the whole sequence starts again (probably without us to screw around with it). So time would continue (and I guess be infinite), but things as we know them wouldn't.

Lecter: There's evidence for evolution, but we can't prove it absolutely. That's my point, because we can't prove something but have a ton of evidence doesn't make it a fact, what if we discover a Morlok in the bowels of the earth and he reveals that he created monkeys who evolved into us? Then we're wrong. And the church is also wrong, because 'God' is a Morlok. You're showing the same bind faith in science that others show in religion if you use scientic theory as an arguement. Part of science is accepting that there are things we don't quite understand, but if you really want to be progressive; God started the big bang and the bible translators screwed up the numbers ('he wants a 7 and HOW many zeros?'). poetic license is a bitch.

On a serious note, how come when ever God is mentioned we all assume me mean the big C's God. there lots of other religions, are any of them close to the truth in terms of a god/godess/force of nature? I'm assuming we're still pissed at our parents for making up get up early every sunday morning and go to church when we wanted to hang out with our friends and be deliquents......

[Dr Lecter]

So its wrong for me to believe something that there is evidence to prove it, but its ok for other people to believe things just because it was written into a book named the Bible... Even though there is evidence that disproves most things in there. Yep, I understand. My silly evidence is powerless compared their powerful evidenceless belief that undermines the whole way that the world works.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 13 March 2005 - 12:05 PM

[Cyzyk]

Why do many Christians think God hates homosexuals

I personally wouldn't care about them if it weren't for two things- queer pedophile priests (who I hope we all have problems with), and the fact that they seem to have a host of other problems with them. Apart from that, the Catechism points out that although a person may have such leanings, it is their responsibility to resist them as they are unnatural. It is not sinful to be that way; it is sinful to give in to it, as it is wrong to give into any other temptation. In a sense, they are no different from pyromaniacs and kleptomaniacs.

Dude, it is acceptable to believe in evolution and be a Christian. At least the Catholic Church says so. (I personally am a Creationist; I know some biology, and evolution is not consistant with my personal knowledge.) In case you've never actually read Darwin, you'll notice he mentions that evolution may have been the way God made the word. Darwinism is not altogether at odds with Christianity- it does explain a number of things, and would explain why there are so many subtypes of similar creatures. There's no reason why human beings can't evolve earlobes. Then again, there's no reason why sharks shouldn't have evolved advanced brains long before there were any mammals at all.

[Slade]

Laughlyn, I've been wondering the same thing.

Speaking for the Discordians who worship the goddess Eris (who is really hot, but also can be a bitch, and knows absolutely everything there is to know about absolutely everything:

"Before the beginning was the nonexistant Chao, balanced in the Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpushpull of the Hodge and the Podge.

Whereupon, by an Act of Happenstance, the Hodge began to gradually overpower the Podge--and the Primal Chaos came to be.

So in the beginning was the Primal Chaos, balanced on the Edge of Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpullpush of the of the Podge and the Hodge.

Whereupon, by the Law of Negative Reversal, the Podge swiftly underpowered the Hodge and Everything broke loose."

And that is why a Discordian may not partake of Hot Dog Buns on Fridays.

In all seriousness, the Primal Chaos isn't even an entity with a consciousness, let alone Yahweh/Jehova. It just Is.

Edit: The fact that there is order in chaos and chaos in order proves that that the Primal Chaos exists.

Or, if I were Descartes: because I intristically possessed the knowledge of the disorder of the universe as a priori Truth, there must have existed an entity to implant this knowledge into my species at the initial Creation who is the arche-type of this concept.

Edit 2: Cyzyk - So if two homosexuals were legitmately married by the Church (assuming it allowed that sort of thing), would it not be giving in to temptation anymore? Or is any sex without the intent (or ability) to reproduce giving in to temptation? Could you elaborate, please?

This post has been edited by Slade: 13 March 2005 - 02:47 PM

[Laughlyn]

Slade: Thank you for mentioning the point there, this thread was posted as open ended, but ended up as the people vs christianity, FTR, I hang out with a Christian dire hard, a Hindu, and a Pagan, which explains the next point;

Lecter: I never said you we wrong, I said that you need to be open minded. That's the beauty of science; developing theories into facts. Until that day comes, try to accept that there could be something else, a universal constant if you will, that may affect things.

Oh, and could we please move away from discussing homosexual nazis. Lecter's sig is a Hoffman quote (and quite a funny one if taken in the right context), perhapes Cyzyk beef should be with him.

[Hannibal]

There must be a God, after all do we not have Coca leaves, coffee, cigarettes and aw shit I forget the rest, but hey, you have to wonder, if there is a God, guess who created Pot? Guess who created sex? Guess who created women?

He may be a dead-beat Dad, but he's a genius.

[Cyzyk]

Could you elaborate, please?

Certainly. Such a marriage could not occur under canon law. To quote the Catholic Catechism, (partially as evidence, partially since it's easier to understand, and mostly because I'd rather cut-and-paste than type it all)

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

However, this must be viewed with knowledge of another quote-

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Basically, it isn't the extramarital aspect that is wrong; it is the fact that at its core, homosexuality is completely unnatural. I think that answers your question, if it doesn't, point out which part(s) I ignored.

[kdogg]

What if a man has sex with a sterile woman, or vice-versa; is this considered unnatural and disordered also?