Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them (2 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

I dont understand why you find the Vatican superfluous. The authority and structure is one of its greatest strengths. If you leave great moral questions to yourself, as the Prot will do, you will more then likely choose your self interest, justify your sin and invent a plastic Jesus who loves you and your wicked ways. The Catholic is less deluded and is set straight through the humility and release of confession.

At least you admit that there is an element of delusion! I'm proud of you, your on the 1st step to your beloved Truth

 

[Cookie182]

Lol. The woman is still mocking the act which should be reserved for procreation +losing self-control etc.
I dont like this simplification of sex into a very specific physical benifit for the individual, when it's really meant to be the climax of a much deeper spiritual and emotional bond between human beings. Far greater than this ugly materialism

I find your intense stock of a priori knowledge regarding sexual activity disturbing Iron...

 

[katie tully]

I find your intense stock of a priori knowledge regarding sexual activity disturbing Iron...

he just needs to get laid, basically

 

[Cookie182]

^^

 

[Cookie182]

he just needs to get laid, basically

Most of the time I think this is the driving reason behind conservative thought on sexuality. Sex within marriage etc is all stemmed from a subconscious resentment towards facts outlined by evolutionary biology (coupled with political power around the time of the Gospel writings). Our tribal ancestry has set in a variety of attraction mechanisms and the weakest males perish (lowest survival capabilities) not able to procreate, whereas the tribal leaders may actually root scores of women, spreading their genes appropriately. Since females are biologically programmed to simply reproduce, it isn't in their nature to search for a monogamous male, hence many females will have sex (and be protected by) one male, leaving no sex for the sub-alpha men.

Ideological institutions (i.e. religion) attempt to "moralise" a completely natural activity, through creations such as marriage etc which violate our true nature (marriage is let’s face it an epic failure). By socially conditioning the generations that this is the way to go, the unattractive male (generally conservatives) are protected and guaranteed a root. Think about it. If Christianity did not exist, the 1%, completely conditioned good "virgin" girl upon who Iron one day hopes to plant his seed in would not exist and he would be out fighting for this right in reality!

(*References on the evo bio see David Buss a leading expert from the University of Texas)

Men from the likes of Kevin Rudd to George Bush to the Archbishop of whoop whoop are out to suppress the very activity that if he exists, couldn't bring us closer to God (in my view, nature) - religion is nothing more then a selfish superfund, guaranteeing sex for undeserving males and some kind of illusive transcendal importance when your time is up!

 

[Iron]

Most of the time I think this is the driving reason behind conservative thought on sexuality. Sex within marriage etc is all stemmed from a subconscious resentment towards facts outlined by evolutionary biology (coupled with political power around the time of the Gospel writings). Our tribal ancestry has set in a variety of attraction mechanisms and the weakest males perish (lowest survival capabilities) not able to procreate, whereas the tribal leaders may actually root scores of women, spreading their genes appropriately. Since females are biologically programmed to simply reproduce, it isn't in their nature to search for a monogamous male, hence many females will have sex (and be protected by) one male, leaving no sex for the sub-alpha men.

Ideological institutions (i.e. religion) attempt to "moralise" a completely natural activity, through creations such as marriage etc which violate our true nature (marriage is let’s face it an epic failure). By socially conditioning the generations that this is the way to go, the unattractive male (generally conservatives) are protected and guaranteed a root. Think about it. If Christianity did not exist, the 1%, completely conditioned good "virgin" girl upon who Iron one day hopes to plant his seed in would not exist and he would be out fighting for this right in reality!

(*References on the evo bio see David Buss a leading expert from the University of Texas)

Men from the likes of Kevin Rudd to George Bush to the Archbishop of whoop whoop are out to suppress the very activity that if he exists, couldn't bring us closer to God (in my view, nature) - religion is nothing more then a selfish superfund, guaranteeing sex for undeserving males and some kind of illusive transcendal importance when your time is up!

Lol wtf? What selfish interest do the celibate priests, bishops and religious have to gain when they instruct society on the moral expression of their destructive emotions? Youre a fing joke m8

 

[Cookie182]

Lol wtf? What selfish interest do the celibate priests, bishops and religious have to gain when they instruct society on the moral expression of their destructive emotions? Youre a fing joke m8

Well lets not go there on priests and sexual morality, please! Celibacy would have to be the ultimate denial of life- mose well not have been born IMO (since primarily we should replicate). I'd actually argue that it violates one of your previous arguments, the Catholic love for procreation and the sacredness of life! Also Iron, becareful before you judge, I've been raised a Catholic all my life, and whilst I don't prescribe to a direct belief in a diety, I'm very fond of progressive conversations I have had with some clergy (largely philosophical as oppossed to theological, I like the bigger picture), who would possibly (shockingly) share a very different view to yourself! I think sometimes your to quick to assume that you speak for all Catholics on here and abroad (constant use of the term "we believe" etc)...

I think I made my point very clear- Christianity subverts the natural sexual process (after all its all based on these "moral" rulings of men, in an uneducated and ultimately extremely selfish context). You do hold that sexuality brings you closer to God yes? (ie look at the song of solomon). Why does it need to be in marriage, with one person, for the rest of the natural life? This is a contextual creation of the time and violates everything natural! It, as I outlined above, conditions women to go against their natural tendency to select the highest value males and protects males against losing out.

 

[katie tully]

Most of the time I think this is the driving reason behind conservative thought on sexuality. Sex within marriage etc is all stemmed from a subconscious resentment towards facts outlined by evolutionary biology (coupled with political power around the time of the Gospel writings). Our tribal ancestry has set in a variety of attraction mechanisms and the weakest males perish (lowest survival capabilities) not able to procreate, whereas the tribal leaders may actually root scores of women, spreading their genes appropriately. Since females are biologically programmed to simply reproduce, it isn't in their nature to search for a monogamous male, hence many females will have sex (and be protected by) one male, leaving no sex for the sub-alpha men.

Ideological institutions (i.e. religion) attempt to "moralise" a completely natural activity, through creations such as marriage etc which violate our true nature (marriage is let’s face it an epic failure). By socially conditioning the generations that this is the way to go, the unattractive male (generally conservatives) are protected and guaranteed a root. Think about it. If Christianity did not exist, the 1%, completely conditioned good "virgin" girl upon who Iron one day hopes to plant his seed in would not exist and he would be out fighting for this right in reality!

(*References on the evo bio see David Buss a leading expert from the University of Texas)

Men from the likes of Kevin Rudd to George Bush to the Archbishop of whoop whoop are out to suppress the very activity that if he exists, couldn't bring us closer to God (in my view, nature) - religion is nothing more then a selfish superfund, guaranteeing sex for undeserving males and some kind of illusive transcendal importance when your time is up!

Just look at the origins of religion. The time, the social constraints, the hypocrisy. We don't even need to go in to detail about why religion is so out of touch. Apart from the lack of crusades and the removal of some unsavory torture techniques, religion has not evolved since the dark ages.

Women we considered inferior and sex was considered heinous. It's a construct made by uneducated individuals so out of touch with sexuality.

The second thing is, religion was so revered because it was a means by which the population was controlled. A subordinate group of people is easier to manage than a free thinking group. Religion instilled fear into these people, and one of our most innate biological desires suffered the consequence. Yet it was totally hypocritical. Whilst kings and bishops and others in position of power were happy to drive fear into the hearts of the people, they were quite happy to ignore these rules themselves.

Sex is not a bad thing. It is not immoral. It's just unfortunate that whilst some aspects of religion have managed to evolve, sex and our desire to have sex and our biological desire to have sex are still being used by the Church to instill fear into the subordinates.

 

[katie tully]

Lol wtf? What selfish interest do the celibate priests, bishops and religious have to gain when they instruct society on the moral expression of their destructive emotions? Youre a fing joke m8

Power.

They have power. And a misguided belief in their own infallibility.

 

[Cookie182]

Just look at the origins of religion. The time, the social constraints, the hypocrisy. We don't even need to go in to detail about why religion is so out of touch. Apart from the lack of crusades and the removal of some unsavory torture techniques, religion has not evolved since the dark ages.

Women we considered inferior and sex was considered heinous. It's a construct made by uneducated individuals so out of touch with sexuality.

The second thing is, religion was so revered because it was a means by which the population was controlled. A subordinate group of people is easier to manage than a free thinking group. Religion instilled fear into these people, and one of our most innate biological desires suffered the consequence. Yet it was totally hypocritical. Whilst kings and bishops and others in position of power were happy to drive fear into the hearts of the people, they were quite happy to ignore these rules themselves.

Sex is not a bad thing. It is not immoral. It's just unfortunate that whilst some aspects of religion have managed to evolve, sex and our desire to have sex and our biological desire to have sex are still being used by the Church to instill fear into the subordinates.

Exactly, you’re correct in saying that there is no need to elaborate on its stupidity. Having said that, I very much would be careful in extending that to personal spirituality (something difficult to define) but basically every individuals unique perception of life’s philosophical questions (but that’s another issue). I'd say that religion is a horrible hijack of spirituality and as you point out inherently hypocritical. Without sounding like a budding conspirator, I think we could rightfully infer that those small group of men who have held power since inception possibly know it is all a load of shit (I'd extend this possibly to modern day Pope's, although they may be subordinates to an unseen voice themselves) and yeah, its basically the best way to control people, particularly in respect to sexuality.

I think with the amount of anti-religion literature out there, the promotion of secular reasoning and low threat of violence, it is not only unreasonable and insulting to still promote religion Iron, it totally eradicates any academic credibility you have and quite possibly gives the very definition of "evil" itself... (Emphasise the word religion there, not a vision of some creating entity)

If I were mod, any non-secular arguments on issues in NCAP would be banned.

 

[Iron]

This is like the key misunderstanding of you all. You cant accept that it has anything to do with love, because youre so afraid of it yourselves. Your entire rejection of Christ depends on your conviction that we're all about power and are as grubby and selfish as anyone else.
You just dont get it

 

[Cookie182]

This is like the key misunderstanding of you all. You cant accept that it has anything to do with love, because youre so afraid of it yourselves. Your entire rejection of Christ depends on your conviction that we're all about power and are as grubby and selfish as anyone else.
You just dont get it

I'd propose that there would be strong pyschological factors (ie selfishness, love of power) which would motivate anyone towards a religious position. The feeling that you hold an all-knowing truth etc fuels the ego- preachers are the most grubby of all.

Firstly, define "christ" and secondly why even bring this entity into this? I think your living in fear of materialism- no matter what evidence you ever faced, you will never accept the possibility that we could all be just a soup of atoms, motivated to replicate and seek 'happiness' at others expense. Crawl back to your delusion, but I know where the evidence points so far...

Even if there is much more then this simplicity, the rational probability that 'your' subsect of indocrination got it 100% right (without any empiricism) is boastful and insulting, but most importantly fucking tiny.

Open your mind a little, otherwise hotels blow up in Jakata. I'm much more acquainted with the ideas of Mr Wilde; "I have the simplest of tastes- I like the best in everything."

 

[Iron]

Well lets not go there on priests and sexual morality, please! Celibacy would have to be the ultimate denial of life- mose well not have been born IMO (since primarily we should replicate). I'd actually argue that it violates one of your previous arguments, the Catholic love for procreation and the sacredness of life! Also Iron, becareful before you judge, I've been raised a Catholic all my life, and whilst I don't prescribe to a direct belief in a diety, I'm very fond of progressive conversations I have had with some clergy (largely philosophical as oppossed to theological, I like the bigger picture), who would possibly (shockingly) share a very different view to yourself! I think sometimes your to quick to assume that you speak for all Catholics on here and abroad (constant use of the term "we believe" etc)...

I think I made my point very clear- Christianity subverts the natural sexual process (after all its all based on these "moral" rulings of men, in an uneducated and ultimately extremely selfish context). You do hold that sexuality brings you closer to God yes? (ie look at the song of solomon). Why does it need to be in marriage, with one person, for the rest of the natural life? This is a contextual creation of the time and violates everything natural! It, as I outlined above, conditions women to go against their natural tendency to select the highest value males and protects males against losing out.

I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but here goes. To deny life, you have to engage in life-making acts without the intention of dealing with any of the consequences, emotional and physical, which result. Marriage with one person forever is an acknowledgement of the monogomy of God Himself, who has often been portrayed as a kind of lover of mankind, who is appauled when we stray from His love. Your theory that women are the losers of marriage and 'ugly' men are the only winners could not be more wrong or bizarre. Neither are pressured into marriage to anyone in particular and could always lead a respectful and still loving life celibate.

 

[Iron]

I'd propose that there would be strong pyschological factors (ie selfishness, love of power) which would motivate anyone towards a religious position. The feeling that you hold an all-knowing truth etc fuels the ego- preachers are the most grubby of all.

Firstly, define "christ" and secondly why even bring this entity into this? I think your living in fear of materialism- no matter what evidence you ever faced, you will never accept the possibility that we could all be just a soup of atoms, motivated to replicate and seek 'happiness' at others expense. Crawl back to your delusion, but I know where the evidence points so far...

Even if there is much more then this simplicity, the rational probability that 'your' subsect of indocrination got it 100% right (without any empiricism) is boastful and insulting, but most importantly fucking tiny.

Open your mind a little, otherwise hotels blow up in Jakata. I'm much more acquainted with the ideas of Mr Wilde; "I have the simplest of tastes- I like the best in everything."

Lol i'm impressed that youre at least coming at me with your guns loaded now, but i'm unmoved by any of this, just as you are unmoved by anything I say. I have never advocated an extremist faith or one that promotes hatred between people; this should be clear enough by the fact that I actually take the time to talk to you. Nor do I 'boast' about my faith - my intention has merely been to let people know of an alternative to the mainstream, dehumanised and materialistic culture of the world, which you, oddly enough, claim that I am merely afraid of - as if I secretly pine to embrace a culture of death and greed, power and hatred, over the redeeming power of Christ's love for us all.

The core of our faith is a personal relationship with God. It cannot be articulated to non-believers, and nor should it be. From this conviction, we set out to do good in the world and spread His love, being beacons of light and reassurace wherever we go. The last thing on my mind is a desire to 'belittle' you, m8. I may seek to challenge your atheistic assumptions, but I still have a fair amount of respect for you and your usually polite engagement with me.

p.s, Wilde was an amazing Catholic, fyi

 

[Cookie182]

I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but here goes. To deny life, you have to engage in life-making acts without the intention of dealing with any of the consequences, emotional and physical, which result. Marriage with one person forever is an acknowledgement of the monogomy of God Himself, who has often been portrayed as a kind of lover of mankind, who is appauled when we stray from His love. Your theory that women are the losers of marriage and 'ugly' men are the only winners could not be more wrong or bizarre. Neither are pressured into marriage to anyone in particular and could always lead a respectful and still loving life celibate.

They are pressured from the day they grow up to learn that "marriage" is this big thing "between a man and woman" (fuck you gays) bla bla and that is the route to happiness...

From the day we enacted this idea of "adultery", that you need to be together with the same person for life, that only "God" (how can you even be so convinced that a creating energy thinks/feels like a human, this is simply psychological projection- whenver trying to imagine the image of an unknown, animals will project their own image) approves bla bla

I can see the pressure building.

What you fail to realise is that I'm experiencing the biblical "Kingdom of God" right now as I breathe- this is it, its amazing...(and since religion has only ever been interpreted by man, you have no higher weighting to debunk my position). It's the new way- you can't fight religion with reason, so make claims using religious reasoning ie you can't prove it isn't! The horrible thing would be waiting a lifetime to experience the chance of this happiness (which is impossible given your dead, but well ignore that!)

If this happiness is most glorified when I have sex, who are you to tell me any different? If it was so forbiden by an overseeing entity because I'm not married, then why doesn't a lighting bolt zap off my penis?

I'm willing to propose a new religion- the "Kingdom of God" is glorified at the hight of orgasm and anyone which tells you otherwise is a messenger of Satan, a denier of beauty, love and truth- a disgrace in the eyes of our loving God. Let's fuck. Any followers?

Cause the evidence we have so far points to marriage really working doesn't it?

 

[Iron]

They are pressured from the day they grow up to learn that "marriage" is this big thing "between a man and woman" (fuck you gays) bla bla and that is the route to happiness...

From the day we enacted this idea of "adultery", that you need to be together with the same person for life, that only "God" (how can you even be so convinced that a creating energy thinks/feels like a human, this is simply psychological projection- whenver trying to imagine the image of an unknown, animals will project their own image) approves bla bla

I can see the pressure building.

What you fail to realise is that I'm experiencing the biblical "Kingdom of God" right now as I breathe- this is it, its amazing...(and since religion has only ever been interpreted by man, you have no higher weighting to debunk my position). It's the new way- you can't fight religion with reason, so make claims using religious reasoning ie you can't prove it isn't! The horrible thing would be waiting a lifetime to experience the chance of this happiness (which is impossible given your dead, but well ignore that!)

If this happiness is most glorified when I have sex, who are you to tell me any different? If it was so forbiden by an overseeing entity because I'm not married, then why doesn't a lighting bolt zap off my penis?

I'm willing to propose a new religion- the "Kingdom of God" is glorified at the hight of orgasm and anyone which tells you otherwise is a messenger of Satan, a denier of beauty, love and truth- a disgrace in the eyes of our loving God. Let's fuck. Any followers?

Cause the evidence we have so far points to marriage really working doesn't it?

No. Happiness is really reserved for the next life. This one requires strength and entails struggle. No one is ever very happy and the sooner you accept this and stop fueling your life on the pursuit of this elusive objective, the more at peace you will be. The real point is that the union of man and woman for life is God's will and ensures a more peaceful and grounded society in which love can flourish.

But your faked outrage at the supposed 'denial' of happiness of the homosexual just shows how shallow your idea of love and happiness really is - as if it cannot exist without constant sex with multiple partners. Surely you see how pathetic and commercial your imagination is on this, right?

Of course, I dont really buy your boastful claim that youre experiencing Heaven on earth right now. You think that your ability to do this proves that God doesnt exist? Or that he approves? That's pathetic, but it's between you and Him m8. I hope it works out for you, but the Truth is out there and you have been exposed to it.

You have grounded all your dreams on your youth, which will fade soon enough. Then you will have nothing but a handful of ashes for memories of a hedonistic and wasted life which never considered anything beyond itself, never reached out to love others in any way that wasnt selfish, never embraced any significant sacrifice or burden for a greater goal...

 

[Cookie182]

Lol i'm impressed that youre at least coming at me with your guns loaded now, but i'm unmoved by any of this, just as you are unmoved by anything I say. I have never advocated an extremist faith or one that promotes hatred between people; this should be clear enough by the fact that I actually take the time to talk to you. Nor do I 'boast' about my faith - my intention has merely been to let people know of an alternative to the mainstream, dehumanised and materialistic culture of the world, which you, oddly enough, claim that I am merely afraid of - as if I secretly pine to embrace a culture of death and greed, power and hatred, over the redeeming power of Christ's love for us all.

The core of our faith is a personal relationship with God. It cannot be articulated to non-believers, and nor should it be. From this conviction, we set out to do good in the world and spread His love, being beacons of light and reassurace wherever we go. The last thing on my mind is a desire to 'belittle' you, m8. I may seek to challenge your atheistic assumptions, but I still have a fair amount of respect for you and your usually polite engagement with me.

p.s, Wilde was an amazing Catholic, fyi

This has little to do with personal attacks and semantics- the question of whether I respect you as a human should not be raised, it is granted. However, as you point out I strongly disagree in every fashion with your sentiments. If it’s a personal relationship with God you seek and to simply love your fellow man- then fuck the institution! Why do you need a hierarchy to keep you on track? Define God however you see fit and get on your jolly way. But you’re too intelligent to know that most religious people don't even think . They believe because that's what they were taught to do since a child. They are indoctrinated into an ideology which spreads to their education in the sciences, their personal relationships, and their politics. When you have a power structure spreading truth with no evidence, inducing fear to believe, this is inevitable and the very definition of immoral. I'll say no more on this- I already carefully dissected personal spirituality out of the mix earlier and said I'm not condemning that. Science does not yet have all the material answers to material questions, never lone philosophical ones. To not at least have a position on life's deep mysteries would be ignorant. However, it is equally ignorant to deny the very possibility that materialism will one day extend into this greater realm and explain all . I don't personally adhere to this view, but intelligently acknowledge it as a possibility- you don't!

Sexuality is a beautiful thing. Religion creates differences in this world you so utterly condemn (this disgusting, greedy world). You think you stand for an oppressed minority- trying to preach love in a veil of hatred, yet the last statistic I looked at last said that 86% of the world adhere to a religious faith! Why will you not entertain the fact that the very words you read in the Bible were written in a world of no scientific knowledge, by men with a range of personality traits (including the want for power, selfishness...) and that the likely possibility is that it is not the Truth?

Talking of preachers, these observations are paramount.

What man of God are we meant to respect? Nearly all of the "preachers" in the US turn out to be screw-ups, attempting to take $$$ through televangelism, we got Muslims blowing up buildings, the atrocities of your Church throughout history, Jews and Muslims killing each other, every week there are new fundies in the news doing something fucked up (the freak this week who kept a corpse on the toilet for 2 months, thinking God will bring her back to life), Catholic priests raping kids left, right and centre, nutcase presidents believing God has personally selected them to invade nations for oil, creationists like Kent Hovvind ending up in jail and trying to debunk well-documented evidence, Africa- a religious turmoil on its own, when does the list end Iron?

Why should we look to any1 but ourselves when deciding our relationship to this entity (a word with its origins in submission, yet what I would call energy)? Should we turn to the likeliness of Billy Graham? The great preacher of the 60's who used cheap NLP tricks, a well ran marketing scam and a bunch of backward redneck's to backup his legitimacy? The embarrassing fact is that our head of the Anglican Church in Australia openly admits to being 'converted' by Graham way back in the 60's; "to Christ" (whatever that means). I wonder if he forwarded his cheque with FedEx, there was no direct deposit like today...

 

[yoddle]

Lol i'm impressed that youre at least coming at me with your guns loaded now, but i'm unmoved by any of this, just as you are unmoved by anything I say. I have never advocated an extremist faith or one that promotes hatred between people; this should be clear enough by the fact that I actually take the time to talk to you. Nor do I 'boast' about my faith - my intention has merely been to let people know of an alternative to the mainstream, dehumanised and materialistic culture of the world, which you, oddly enough, claim that I am merely afraid of - as if I secretly pine to embrace a culture of death and greed, power and hatred, over the redeeming power of Christ's love for us all.

But do you believe there are other ways in which to oppose/reject/proactively deconstruct this?
Like, aside from embracing the love of God, or whatever.
As in political/lifestyle things like embracing Green Anarchy or anti-consumerist counter-cultures?

 

[Iron]

This has little to do with personal attacks and semantics- the question of whether I respect you as a human should not be raised, it is granted. However, as you point out I strongly disagree in every fashion with your sentiments. If it’s a personal relationship with God you seek and to simply love your fellow man- then fuck the institution! Why do you need a hierarchy to keep you on track? Define God however you see fit and get on your jolly way. But you’re too intelligent to know that most religious people don't even [me] think [/I]. They believe because that's what they were taught to do since a child. They are indoctrinated into an ideology which spreads to their education in the sciences, their personal relationship, and their politics. When you have a power structure spreading truth with no evidence, inducing fear to believe, this is inevitable and the very definition of immoral. I'll say no more on this- I already carefully dissected personal spirituality out of the mix earlier and said I'm not condemning that. Science does not yet have all the material answers to material questions, never lone philosophical ones. To not at least have a position of life's deep mysteries would be ignorant. However, it is equally ignorant to deny the very possibility that materialism will one day extend into this greater realm and explain all . I don't personally adhere to this view, but intelligently acknowledge it as a possibility- you don't!

Sexuality is a beautiful thing. Religion creates differences in this world you so utterly condemn (this disgusting, greedy world). You think you stand for an oppressed minority- trying to preach love in a veil of hatred, yet the last statistic I looked at said that 86% of the world adhere to a religious faith! Why will you not entertain the fact that the very words you read in the Bible were written in a world of no scientific knowledge, by men with a range of personality traits (including the want for power, selfishness...) and that it could well not be the Truth? Talking of preachers, these observations are paramount. What man of God are we meant to respect? Nearly all of the "preachers" in the US turn out to be screw-up, attempting to take $$$ through televangelism, we got Muslims blowing up buildings, the atrocities of your Church, Jews and Muslims killing each other, every week there are new fundies in the news doing something fucked up, Catholic priests raping kids left, right and centre, nutcase presidents believing God has personally selected them to invade nations for oil, creationists like Kent Hovvind ending up in jail and trying to debunk well-documented evidence, Africa- a religious turmoil on its own, when does the list end Iron? Why should we look to any1 but ourselves when deciding our relationship to this entity (a word with its origins in submission, yet what I would call energy)? Should we turn to the likeliness of Billy Graham? The great preacher of the 60's who used cheap NLP tricks, a well ran marketing scam and a bunch of redneck's to backup his legitimacy? The embarrassing fact is that our head of the Anglican Church in Australia openly admits to being 'converted' by Graham way back in the 60's "to Christ" (whatever that means). I wonder if he forwarded his cheque with FedEx, there was no direct deposit like today...

Lol pay attention. 'Defining God however I see fit' is the same thing as denying Him; it is the plastic Jesus that Prots build themselves. Rather, you should see it as a Truth beyond yourself, which you have a sense about, but are inclined to ignore due to your fallen nature in a sinful world... The institution is there specifically to keep individuals of all times and cultures alive to the great cosmic struggle between good and evil which is played out every day all around us. No one could possibly be expected to grasp all this alone. We need eachother, we need community - communion! As i've said, the basis of our faith is a 'personal spirituality', but to rely on yourself to steer you to truth is a course which is just begging to be corrupted.

To accept that materialism can explain all of life's mysteries is also a denial of God. Surely you see this! Science and material goods can be great things only if developed alongside an ethical boundary. I mean, the atom bomb was certainly a great invention - but how moral is it, exactly? You can never find any answers along these lines to any of life's greater problems, my frien. To believe that you can is the lie that every dictator has fallen for and used to justify utter horror, from Nero to Stalin and beyond.

The very notion that you consider the 'oldness' of the Bible valid grounds for dismissal is appauling! As if their lack of insight into certain scientific developments invalidates the wisdom of the prophets and apostles and Christ Himself! Do you really understand us that little?? It is all about a moral realm which is beyond the individual, beyond this world, beyond our reason and its good fruits and tragic weeds.

Of course I cant deny scandle and disaster from Catholics. There has been appauling failure in the past and there will be more failure in the future. It has inflicted a gaping wound on our credibility and authority, absolutely. But it is not fatal. We accept our failures, we learn from mistakes, we ask for forgiveness and mercy, but, most importantly, we put our faith in God first - not man, not an institution. When you keep your eyes upon Jesus and look forward in his wonder and grace, the things of this world will grow vague and dim in the light of his glorious face.

 

[Cookie182]

No. Happiness is really reserved for the next life. This one requires strength and entails struggle. No one is ever very happy and the sooner you accept this and stop fueling your life on the pursuit of this elusive objective, the more at peace you will be. The real point is that the union of man and woman for life is God's will and ensures a more peaceful and grounded society in which love can flourish.

But your faked outrage at the supposed 'denial' of happiness of the homosexual just shows how shallow your idea of love and happiness really is - as if it cannot exist without constant sex with multiple partners. Surely you see how pathetic and commercial your imagination is on this, right?

Of course, I dont really buy your boastful claim that youre experiencing Heaven on earth right now. You think that your ability to do this proves that God doesnt exist? Or that he approves? That's pathetic, but it's between you and Him m8. I hope it works out for you, but the Truth is out there and you have been exposed to it.

You have grounded all your dreams on your youth, which will fade soon enough. Then you will have nothing but a handful of ashes for memories of a hedonistic and wasted life which never considered anything beyond itself, never reached out to love others in any way that wasnt selfish, never embraced any significant sacrifice or burden for a greater goal...

Discussion with you really is pointless. The greatest happiness you will ever feel is now . Your whole self-concept rides on future events, then what, when they don't come to fruition? God can not be proved to not exist for you, as you would cease to exist with him? Who are you, Iron, without the Christianity? I'd say a bunch of tears and frustration. By my books, the best philanthropists are at least sceptics, if not agnostic/atheists.

This form of presuppositionalism is disgusting. You completely erode the fact that I don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of this "God" you speak of. I think your truly lacking in spiritual knowledge if you have not yet challenged for yourself what "God" means. You haven't entertained the idea of an Einsteinian God- a man much smarter then your illiterate, desert comrades! Embraced the words of the enlightenment- Voltaire, Jefferson, Russell, even back to the classical Greeks! What of Buddhist and Zen teachings? I think you need some serious Eastern exposure.

As Jefferson said:

" Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

But you will not accept other views, the most frustrating thing is, you'll never know you were wrong- i.e. when you’re dead. But personally, I think prayer would be the most selfish thing in existence and at large Christianity (particularly Protestantism). How dare anyone assume they are important enough that some supernatural entity knows them on a personal basis, answers to their fears and unlimited wants and bends the naturalistic laws (i.e. miracles) in their favour! Most Christians aren't about love; its a double edged sword- there faith stems out of stupidity and fear, they take Pascal's wager and hope to selfishly reap eternal rewards for simply uttering "I believe in Jesus". I know you have your own little dodge of this argument (they are real Christians blah blah, but you can't deny its truth). The most sickening fact is- any sceptic who is out there really making a difference (for selfish reasons or not) is condemned. Now that’s fucked up.

This is the ultimate root of fundamentalism, of course you deny it, but there are people out there who equally believe they know the "truth" just as strongly as you. Conflict is inevitable and the world will continue to suffer as you say, while religion avails.

Night.