Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426867 is a reply to message #426862]

Sun, 25 April 2010 19:41

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma:

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

You use the plural... are you saying that a religion other than Christianity has had a positive benefit?

Certainly. There hve been plenty of belief systems that have revolved around the idea of peacefully coexisting with fellow human beings.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Quote:

For a time. But it all will be gone eventually, it isn't eternal.
Then what's left?

I don't know why you're asking me, frankly.

Heck, I'd accept an answer from anyone.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

You started off by saying that the heaven/hell concept was better because otherwise, if there's no afterlife, you can indulge your own selfish desires, do whatever you like because it won't matter once you're dead. Selfishness, lack of care for others, that must be the problem.
Well, a couple of quick questions later and it turns out that your number one reason for preferring the Christian concept is selfishness. You act the way you do in life because you think there's something in it for you later on. That was the point.

So when you obey the laws of your country, you do it because you're selfish?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Pages and pages ago, I asked: what's the evidence supporting the biblical account reported in Genesis? I've asked this question again and again and again, and you still haven't supplied anything tangible. What little you did provide, not that any of it even answered the question, was very very easy to debunk.

Mmmkay. The Genesis accout deals with the origin of the universe, and so far, I'm the only one who provided a possible explanation of where it came from. Nothing from you yet, that I recall.
But clearly there are only three possible ways:
1) The universe is eternal.
2) The universe is not eternal - it created itself from nothing.
3) The universe is not eternal - it was created by something aterior, and superior, from itself.

Now let's hit it with logic.

1) Science has already declared the universe to not be eternal. "In science, as in the Bible, the World begins in an act of creation. That view hasn't always been held by science. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say that with a fair degree of confidence that our universe has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without any apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation." -Jastrow
2) This possibility is just absurd. "No material thing can create itself." -J.C. Monsma
3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?

1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

it's fine, you see, because anyone reading this thread can clearly see you're just lying to try to evade the question... you have a very clear demand for evidence (again), and you have a flat refusal on the grounds that I won't even look at it. I do say you're lying on this point rather than just stupid, because you don't seem to be that stupid.

This paragraph is just a bunch of hot air and you know it.
I've presented material and you have responded. Now give me a clear reason why I should show it to you AGAIN, since if you truly wanted to see it again, you would go look at it yourself. That isn't a refusal on my part rather than yours.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

I wish I understood why you're so extraordinarily evasive on this point.
It's a simple question. What was the purpose the author had of writing this book? You say it was obvious. So what was it?

I'm not being evasive. I'm trying to avoid being redundant.
But fine.
He wrote the article on Evidence of the Existence of God because he wants to convey evidence of the existence of God to those who want to know why he believes in a God.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

As for where it comes from, seems like we went over that in terms of morality. I answered where morals come from, you didn't...

Oh no. I DID answer that question, I told you where I believe morals come from, same as you.
I believe a higher power created us and those morals. You believe man and morals came from... somewhere.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)
Do you agree with this statement?

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.

Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.

Now who's being evasive?