Happiness

actually it's LGTBQTALMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ thank you very much.

The guest above my original comment was a bit harsh, and a bit incorrect. I AM a Christian and we learned to love everyone and that we hate the sin but not the sinner. We aren't all "GAYS ARE GOING TO DIE IN HELL" we are more like, " your a sinner, and so am I. However I repent my sins and you should too."

I wasn't aware loving was a sin. Why would someone want to repent for loving someone else? Love should be treasured, not shunned. What if a man loves another man? What if a woman loves another woman? Where does the problem lay? Is it because a religious scripture says so?
You said you've learned to love everyone, what's so different from loving and accepting those that share a different sexual orientation than what you think it's ideal? I'm just wondering what makes it different, because no matter how much I think about it, I just don't get it.

Love isn't a sin...however, the Bible tells us that that kind of love between people of the same sex is a sin. We don't hate homosexuals because of it; we understand that we are sinners too, and that we need the grace of God just as much as they do.

"Love isn't a sin, except when it is."

Have you ever considered not letting an ancient and inaccurate text dictate your life?

People who claim homosexuality is a sin and that is why they are against it are not doing so because the bible says so, they are claiming it because it is something they don't understand and using sin as an excuse to be against it and condemn those who are. The same bible that says it's a sin also states that men should not cut their hair. I'm sure then that bible following men don't do that. It also states that slavery is okay as long as the slaves come from neighboring territories. So does that mean Americans can get their slaves from Mexico or Canada? It is forbidden to touch the skin of a dead pig, so everyone against homosexuality because of scripture, surely doesn't play football. Wearing mixed clothing (cotton/poly blend) is forbidden, so surely Christians clothing are 100% cotton? Having premarital sex is punishable by death, so everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin, surely follows that rule right?

If people are going to be against others and believe they don't have the same rights as another based on religion teaching, and in the more extreme cases, think those others will burn forever in hell due to their sin, then I assuming those same people follow ALL of the laws stated in the book. Otherwise they would be the ultimate hypocrite, and surely that would be worse.

The guest above my last post understands what Christianity is about as well. As Christians, we believe in what the Bible says (and no, it is not an inaccurate text...just because you don't believe its message doesn't mean that it is inaccurate) and the Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. If you guys want to keep telling us that we're wrong, go ahead, but you're being just as judgmental towards Christians as you think that Christians are towards homosexuals.

Given that pretty much none of the events depicted in the bible are supported by any historical records, or any other credible evidence, it's safe to say the bible IS inaccurate. Also, until people start lobbying against christian marriage, firing people simply because it's known they are christian, and committing assault and murder against christians simply for being christian, then no, they're not being as judgmental towards christians as christians are towards homosexuals.

You're kidding right? They found Noah's ark in the Turkish mountains. People admit that genesis is fairly accurate the first few chapters. Scientists admit that a man name Jesus walked the earth and was crucified. Biblical prophecies are occurring in modern history. Some even believe that 9/11 was a fulfilled prophecy. nonetheless, the bible is accurate.

1. No they didn't. http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp
2. No it isn't. The only part that even comes close is the order in which things appeared, and that's still wrong.
3. No, historians (not scientists) have found a single piece of evidence that a man, whose name could possibly be the original name from which the modern form of Jesus is ultimately derived, was crucified by the Romans. That's not significant, the Romans did a lot of crucifying and for all we know that name could have been fairly common.
4. Show me even one biblical prophecy that came true that mentions any real specifics of the event. Spoiler alert: you can't. All these prophecies are worded so vaguely that they are effectively meaningless and could apply to any number of events.
The simple fact is the bible is not accurate, even remotely, and to claim it is shows an incredible ignorance.

I was unaware of the conclusive study on the Ark, however I believe that they are still accepting it as a candidate. Anyways, the bible is consistent with areas of science. Paleontology, for example. Dinosaurs are referred to twice in Job and once in Psalm. What happened to them? Who knows, but science is weary of that too, right? Scholars also note that statements can be consistent with Anthropology. Job 30: 5-6, for example. Now, the men weren't 'ape-men', but descendents from the scattered people of Babel. They were driven from the community and for some reason deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. That's not hard to believe. If you go to some of the worse parts of America, you can see this as well. Also, keep in mind that the book is like 2000-3000 years old. Look at some of the scriptures. Isaiah 40:23 "The Earth is a sphere." Science agrees. But what about way back when? Earth is flat. There are tons of examples. I did not address the prophecies, too long.

Have you ever heard of Josephus or Tacitus? here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ. anyway, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. There were many outside sources that spoke of Jesus who weren't Christians. The fact that the gospels were written so soon after Jesus shows that there was little opportunity for the information to be forgotten or changed from person to person. They were also written by either eyewitnesses or by authors that talked to eyewitnesses. Plus most of these prophecies that you talk about were fulfilled by Jesus. They were all pointing to him as a Savior. In Jesus' day, they had the same Old Testament that we have today, so there was no changing of the prophecies after Jesus lived.

This is what you said earlier: "Also, until people start lobbying against christian marriage, firing people simply because it's known they are christian, and committing assault and murder against christians simply for being christian, then no, they're not being as judgmental towards christians as christians are towards homosexuals." While people may not be lobbying against "Christian" (traditional) marriage, there are plenty of Christians that are being killed around the world just for being Christian. You are judging Christianity right now, just because we are stating our beliefs on the subject; you're basically telling us that we are wrong and you are stereotyping Christians because you think we are all like Westboro Baptist and hate homosexuals.

Yeah, being killed in places where being Christian is a pretty much a minority. And not only Christians, anyone who does not belong to the "ruling" religion is under threat. People pays more attention to Christians because they are more spread out over the world, and thousands of people can speak out for them. Plus, the people doing that are "terrorists" so to speak. Whereas those with a "problem" with homosexuality are mostly normal folk with a extreme dislike towards same-sex couples.
And who says that among those advocating for same-sex marriage, Christians are not involved as well? What about them then?
.
By the way, it's inaccurate, starting from Genesis itself, it basically gives you two versions of how the world was created. First it says God created both man and woman at the end of everything... then it goes saying it created man first and then created the animals, and then he created the woman. From the very beginning. And this repeats all over the text more than once.

(Original guest) Guyss. Okay I don't totally agree with my schools teachings either. Even. I'll admit they confuse me and a lot of others as well. We are told to hate homosexuality but love them, but it's a sin, but all sins are equal in gods eyes, and it just gets jumbled. I don't have a problem personally with it I have a problem with people assuming all Christians are like that one church. And for the long post about what used to be considered a sin, and now is not? There is a difference. It's called ceremonial law. These are laws that were meant to honor God before Jesus took away our sins. These "do not cut your hair" and "don't touch pig skin" is all bound in with making sacrifices everyday. The one about sleeping together before marriage is binding, and I know their are plenty of people at my school doing such things. But that is a sin too! If they don't repent it will be worse for them too, but they won't go to hell. Neither will the homosexuals. If you know god u go to heaven

"I was unaware of the conclusive study on the Ark, however I believe that they are still accepting it as a candidate"
No one with any real expertise in archaeology accepts it. Anyone else irrelevant.
"Anyways, the bible is consistent with areas of science. Paleontology, for example. Dinosaurs are referred to twice in Job and once in Psalm. What happened to them? Who knows, but science is weary of that too, right?"
1. Dinosaur fossils have been discovered for thousand of years, nothing in the bible indicates any understanding of them though.
2. It's quite well known what happened to the dinosaurs actually. An asteroid hit the Earth, causing a nuclear winter resulting in their extinction, those species of therapod small enough to survive evolved into birds.
...

...
" Scholars also note that statements can be consistent with Anthropology. Job 30: 5-6, for example. Now, the men weren't 'ape-men', but descendents from the scattered people of Babel. They were driven from the community and for some reason deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. That's not hard to believe. If you go to some of the worse parts of America, you can see this as well."
That passage references peope being driven out of a community, it does not say anything of the effects. That's not even close to anthropology.
"Also, keep in mind that the book is like 2000-3000 years old."
1000-1800 actually.
"Look at some of the scriptures. Isaiah 40:23 "The Earth is a sphere." Science agrees. But what about way back when? Earth is flat. There are tons of examples. I did not address the prophecies, too long."
The ancient Greeks knew Earth was spherical centuries before the birth of Jesus. This is not special knowledge. But please, give more examples.
...

...
"Have you ever heard of Josephus or Tacitus? here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ. anyway, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. There were many outside sources that spoke of Jesus who weren't Christians."
Such as? Tacticus' annals are a mere repetition of christian myth.
"The fact that the gospels were written so soon after Jesus shows that there was little opportunity for the information to be forgotten or changed from person to person."
The earliest gospel about Christ was written more than a hundred years later. That's plenty of time for substantial changes and exaggerations, especially given Christ's similarities to figures from other religions n that part of the world.
"The fact that the gospels were written so soon after Jesus shows that there was little opportunity for the information to be forgotten or changed from person to person."
No they weren't. No one could have lived long enough pass it on the writers centuries later.
...

...
"Plus most of these prophecies that you talk about were fulfilled by Jesus. They were all pointing to him as a Savior."
A book predicting its own ending is not significant. I was talking about prophecies which christians claim have been fulfilled since the bible was written, events in more recent history as was originally claimed.
"While people may not be lobbying against "Christian" (traditional) marriage, there are plenty of Christians that are being killed around the world just for being Christian."
Only in countries where christians are the minority, which is irrelevant here. Also, marriage predates christianity, and can be found in every culture on the planet, so traditional marriage is not christian.
...

...
"You are judging Christianity right now, just because we are stating our beliefs on the subject; you're basically telling us that we are wrong and you are stereotyping Christians because you think we are all like Westboro Baptist and hate homosexuals."
Yes, I am judging christians who publicly state their bigotry. Just because you're not as loud as those idiots from Westboro doesn't mean your views are not bigotted. I'm not the one whose religion commands me not to judge. Live up to your own standards before trying to apply them to anyone else.

Hello Norman. How are you today? I'm fine thanks. Midterms are here, so that's a pain, but you know.
Wit beyond measure is a man's greatest treasure, as they do say.
“No one with any real expertise in archeology accepts it. Anyone else irrelevant.”
That's not fair to say. I'm sure there are Archeology experts that do keep it as a candidate. You can't just exclude someone as irrelevant. They are an expert and their opinion matters. That's like me saying 'Oh, I hate math, so I'm just going to ignore Ptolemy’s rules one mathematical theories in music'. That's just throwing out a major argument and you need to understand that people are going to recognize that other side. I understand if you don't agree, but you need to be able to defend your answer more than saying that they're irrelevant. They exist. They are experts. They have an opinion on the subject. They are therefore relevant.
....

As for dinosaurs. Of course there is an understanding of them. Most of this is going to be focused from Genesis. They would have been created at the same time as any other land or sea mammal. During the six days of creation. Evolutionists would say they developed millions of years ago, but evolution can't jump. And given the time between then and now, these evolutions would have to been giant leaps in order to produce the evidence they claim to have. Besides this, there really isn't proof of this asteroid. Do you know a scientist that was there to witness this? I don't. The fact is, it's a theory. Like most of science. Now, I'm not dissing science. There are some really smart people and most of the theories are quite relevant. But it's a theory nonetheless. As for why we find fossils, in Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (Man and Animals) had “corrupted his way upon the Earth”. They had become wicked due to sin. Because of this, God sent the flood. Now, we all know that he sent
...

two of every animal (seven in some cases) upon the ark. We can go ahead and assume dinosaurs were included into this. But what happened to the others? Simple. They drowned. Most would have been covered in tons of mud due to the rampaging waters. I mean, can imagine a flood induced by the wrath of God? I think He'd be able to bury those suckers pretty deep. Due to the quick burial, most would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you could expect to find evidence of tons of dead things in rock layers all over the Earth. And you do. This flood occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creation Scientists (Which are just scientists who believe in creation rather than evolution. They are still relevant sources), believe that this created most of the fossils. For the ones that didn't drown, there are variety of theories. The starved to death, the overate, they were poisoned, couldn't reproduce, volcanic ash, mass suicide, parasites, shrinking brain, changes in air
...

broken bones. Keep in mind these are only theories.
On the anthropology. We're referring to the human like creatures discovered, such as Lucy. What can I say? This falls under a theory category. Yes, they exist. But why? Theories clash. I believe it is due to the earlier stated passage. If you continue reading that chapter, it gives a few more details. Not much, but really, being thrust out of a community and struggling for survival. You might surprised what it could do to a man. But of course, I don't know for sure.
...

Anyways, the book is 2000-3000 years old. Most scholars agree that Matthew, the beginning of the new testament, was written in 60 A.D. Compared to today, that's already just under 2000 years. But Old Testament books would have to be older. Isaiah, for example, began his ministry in about 740 B.C. The book is estimated to be written in 680 B.C. At the latest. The Torah (first five books) would have all been authored by Moses. Granted, we don't know the exact date, but it was believe to be around 1445 B.C. At the latest. It's an old book. You can't deny that. Well, you can I guess, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an old book.
Other examples. Bear in mind that these do not refer to modern science. These really old verses and books are pointing out modern science, where beginning science was wrong. Jeremiah 33:22 states there are an incalculable number of stars. Old science said that there were only 1100 stars. Job 26:7 states “free float of Earth in Space”. Old science
...

believe that Earth sat on the back of a large animal. Hebrews 11:3 says that “Creation made of invisible elements”. Most would assume that this referred to atoms. Old science was rather ignorant on the subject. Levitius 17:11 “Blood is the source of life and health”. Old medical sciences drew blood from sick people, believing this would suck out the disease. Leaches, for example, were used quite often. Light moves. Air has weight. These are all addressed in the Bible.
Anyways, I wanted to comment on your reply to guestt.
“Only in countries where Christians are the minority, which is irrelevant here.”
In terms of being killed, yes. I suppose that's true. But not completely. In America, many Christians are ostracized for their faith. Because people believe they are outdated in their beliefs. That they're uneducated and stupid for believing in a God. We get a bad rep from people like the Westboro Church, but we're not all like that, I promise.
...

I also agree with guestt. You are being rather hypocritical. I assume guestt is a Christian, and I myself am one if you haven't guessed. You've been very adamant in your claims against us. Really, I don't mind. I enjoy the debate. I like being able to need to work for my answers because it helps me prepare to witness to others. But we're not bigots, at least, not in the way I think you mean the term. For example, I don't hate gays for being gay. I have gay friends. I don't necessarily support the lifestyle, but I love them all the same. Yes, Christianity tells us not to judge. But of course we do. I judge this boy in my university classes because he's obnoxious. The point is, we're not supposed to, but we do. It's a sin. And it's unfortunately a rather hard sin to stop. We attempt to live up to our standards, but the whole point is that we can't. We can't be perfect. We can't fulfill every law that Christ wants us too. Try as we might. The entire point behind the religion
...

is that we are no better than them. We are no better than the adulterers. We're no better than the thieves. We're no better than the murderers. We're just as bad as them. The only difference between us is that we've asked God to forgive us. To attempt to guide us down a better path.
We're sinners. That's all there is to it. But you can't lump us all into the category of rude, uncaring bigots.

"That's not fair to say. I'm sure there are Archeology experts that do keep it as a candidate. You can't just exclude someone as irrelevant. They are an expert and their opinion matters."
Unless you can provide one example of a credible archaeologist who considers it authentic, then it's safe to conclude that no one with any real expertise accepts it, and thus anyone else is irrelevant.
"I understand if you don't agree, but you need to be able to defend your answer more than saying that they're irrelevant. They exist. They are experts. They have an opinion on the subject. They are therefore relevant."
Again, show me even one credible archaeologist who accepts it.
...

...
""Evolutionists would say they developed millions of years ago, but evolution can't jump. And given the time between then and now, these evolutions would have to been giant leaps in order to produce the evidence they claim to have."
You demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of both evolution and the timescales involved. Suffice it to say there simply is sufficient time for such changes to occur gradually.
"Besides this, there really isn't proof of this asteroid. Do you know a scientist that was there to witness this? I don't."
Except that the impact crater has been found, it is of sufficient size for such an asteroid impact and dated to the same era as the extinction of the dinosaurs. So yes, there is proof.
"The fact is, it's a theory. Like most of science."
You demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of what a theory is.
Also, fossils take a lot longer to form than a few thousand years, and so could not have been formed as a result of the flood described in the Noah myth.
...

...
"Creation Scientists (Which are just scientists who believe in creation rather than evolution. They are still relevant sources), believe that this created most of the fossils."
'Creation Scientists' do not apply the scientific method are so are not scientists, their baseless assertions have no relevance in scientific discussion.
"Keep in mind these are only theories."
No, they are at best hypotheses, and weak ones at that.
"Anyways, the book is 2000-3000 years old. Most scholars agree that Matthew, the beginning of the new testament, was written in 60 A.D."
Christian scholars perhaps. Credible scholars with no demonstrable agenda to push conclude the earliest parts of the new testament were written no earlier than 100 C.E. With the vast majority being written close to 1000 C.E.
"Old science believe that Earth sat on the back of a large animal."
No, that's old creation myth. The spherical nature of the Earth has been observed by cultures predating Christianity.
...

...
"Hebrews 11:3 says that “Creation made of invisible elements”. Most would assume that this referred to atoms. Old science was rather ignorant on the subject."
Again, the theory of atoms originated with the ancient greeks, old science is nothing like you imagine it and quite frankly I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense from.
"In America, many Christians are ostracized for their faith."
No, christians are the majority in America, the only 'ostracizing' that occurs is when they attempt to push their religion on others who want know part of it. This is as it should be.
"We get a bad rep from people like the Westboro Church, but we're not all like that, I promise."
And? I never said all christians were like WBC, but that doesn't stop other christians from being bigots.
...

"I also agree with guestt. You are being rather hypocritical. I assume guestt is a Christian, and I myself am one if you haven't guessed. You've been very adamant in your claims against us. Really, I don't mind. I enjoy the debate. I like being able to need to work for my answers."
Where have I been hypocritical? I am adamant in my view only because I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to contradict what I have already observed.
"But we're not bigots, at least, not in the way I think you mean the term. For example, I don't hate gays for being gay. I have gay friends. I don't necessarily support the lifestyle, but I love them all the same."
If you consider someone morally deficient in comparison to yourself because of a different circumstances of birth then you are, in fact, a bigot.
...

...
"We can't be perfect. We can't fulfill every law that Christ wants us too. Try as we might. The entire point behind the religion."
And you don't see the insanity in a deity that makes you ill and then commands you to be well?
"But you can't lump us all into the category of rude, uncaring bigots."
I don't lump you all together, I make a judgement based on your professed beliefs.

From Utah, Mormon, and my sister is gay. The right to marry legally is universal and should be open to everyone. It doesn't undermine my beliefs or life or rights for same sex couples to marry. I've never felt that my love, respect, or acceptance of someone, should be restrained because that person lives differently than me.

There have been over 400cultures that have died out within a generation of legalizing homosexuality. You uncultured swine.

If that's true, you won't mind me asking for where this "fact" can be verified. Are there research studies or anthropological papers you could site, with certified documentation by those educated and verified to make such a statement?

I require documented, scientific(?) evidence. Names, dates, percentage of the population not being "straight", and all that.

Guest I would like to point out that homosexuality in practice is already legal in the US the only thing changing is that they can now be legally wed in certain places. Therefore your comment is pretty much invalid based on that alone. Also the earth is very densely populated and no one knows what the carrying capacity of the planet is so if you are going based on gays not being able to produce children (even though they can thanks to in vitro fertilization) your point is also mute because a few less babies being born a year isn't going to hurt anything. It may even be beneficial.

Just because they practice homosexuality doesn't mean they are going to hell. Jesus paid the price to forgive us our sins, and if you don't understand that, I'm not sure if you really understand what Christianity is all about. We're called to love people, even though they sin...so you shouldn't be disgusted by them. We can be disgusted by the sin, but we shouldn't hate the person that is sinning, because you and I are both sinners too.

you can be gay but a person who worships God on a daily basis.
You can be gay, but a person who says "Hey how's your day going" to everyone he sees on the street.
You can be gay, but a person that always knows the right thing to say.
If you can do all that and go to Hell, it's a bad God we worship.

also, that MEANS YOU JUDGE PEOPLE. You can't even follow rules that you yourself make up!