I really don't get religions' view on ..

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

What kind of an answer is that? :?

LJS9502_basic

*sigh* You can't declare you beliefs immune to criticism simply because they're beliefs. Unless you're admitting that you don't have a justification for them, and which case why the hell hold that belief in the first place?

What's yours? *waits for 'my beliefs are a personal matter'*

Actually I believe Athiests can go to heaven. If they've been raised a certain way and have been taught to refuse Christ into their lives, but they still live a good life, God is merciful and will let them enter the kingdom, now if they were christian and simply refused Christ and refused to accept him back into their lives then their chances or entering heaven are slim.

ferrari2001

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And nor did it change the fact that you were gay and I was not. See? Our positions are symmetrical. Based on your logic, if I go to hell, so do you.

ferrari2001

No, because--and here, pay attention, because it's important--gay people aren't exempt from Heaven just like murderers (Moses) are not exempt from Heaven, or liars (Apostle Peter), or prostitutes (Mary Magdalene). Because any of those people can accept Christ and go to Heaven.

Atheists, on the other hand. . . .

Actually I believe Athiests can go to heaven. If they've been raised a certain way and have been taught to refuse Christ into their lives, but they still live a good life, God is merciful and will let them enter the kingdom, now if they were christian and simply refused Christ and refused to accept him back into their lives then their chances or entering heaven are slim.

Damn, I used to be Christian. Well, I'm screwed. :P

I don't know about God hating them... but according to that quote, they wouldn't get into heaven. Quite obviously they would, so that particular part of the Bible must be abandoned.

Funky_Llama

Don't you get it yet? YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE BIBLE.

What's yours? *waits for 'my beliefs are a personal matter'*

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I don't know about God hating them... but according to that quote, they wouldn't get into heaven. Quite obviously they would, so that particular part of the Bible must be abandoned.

Theokhoth

Don't you get it yet? YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE BIBLE.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I don't know about God hating them... but according to that quote, they wouldn't get into heaven. Quite obviously they would, so that particular part of the Bible must be abandoned.

Theokhoth

Don't you get it yet? YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE BIBLE.

No I'm not. Its meaning is obvious.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I don't know about God hating them... but according to that quote, they wouldn't get into heaven. Quite obviously they would, so that particular part of the Bible must be abandoned.

Funky_Llama

Don't you get it yet? YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE BIBLE.

No I'm not. Its meaning is obvious.

A young earth creationist told me the exact same thing about Genesis the other day.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Well for one If you have sex Naturally it's being used for Procreation that's what sex is for in nature to procreate, but as humans we can feel more. We have develope a lifelong bond between partners when we have sex and can show the greatest love for one another. These two go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. If you have it soely for love it's lust if you have it solely for procreation you've gotten rid of what it truely means to be human and able to love.

Funky_Llama

Ah, thank you, the naturalistic fallacy. How did I see that coming? :roll:

"If you have it solely for love it's lust"... and also for love, as you stated right then.

When I say love I'm meaning for the Bonding and the Entertainment.I should replace love with Entertainment and fun if that will make you happy.

and how is it a fallacy? Maybe it's a Falacy to athiests because they have no morals about sex but from a christian standpoint it's not a fallacy.

:roll: Oh dear... that's very weak... it is always a fallacy. It can't be a fallacy for me and not for you; the naturalistic fallacy is, objectively, a fallacy. Simple as that. If you want to embarrass yourself, feel free to argue the point...

Well I tried to reword it from some church teachings as best as I could so if you think it's a fallacy in the church be my guest, but I'll just copy and paste now what I was trying to explain.

From two things: human biology and what takes place in the act itself. Let's look at human biology, trying for a moment to put aside our cultural biases about contraception. When a husband and a wife in a faithful marriage engage in sexual love, they are united more closely to one another. Reflection on human experience shows this. But human biology shows that such acts are also capable of bringing forth new human life. In other words, sex between a man and a woman is inherently unitive and procreative.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I don't know about God hating them... but according to that quote, they wouldn't get into heaven. Quite obviously they would, so that particular part of the Bible must be abandoned.

Theokhoth

Don't you get it yet? YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE BIBLE.

No I'm not. Its meaning is obvious.

A young earth creationist told me the exact same thing about Genesis the other day.

Point taken, but I don't really think that this particular quote could be allegory or metaphor like Genesis is often considered to be.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Well for one If you have sex Naturally it's being used for Procreation that's what sex is for in nature to procreate, but as humans we can feel more. We have develope a lifelong bond between partners when we have sex and can show the greatest love for one another. These two go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. If you have it soely for love it's lust if you have it solely for procreation you've gotten rid of what it truely means to be human and able to love.

ferrari2001

Ah, thank you, the naturalistic fallacy. How did I see that coming? :roll:

"If you have it solely for love it's lust"... and also for love, as you stated right then.

When I say love I'm meaning for the Bonding and the Entertainment.I should replace love with Entertainment and fun if that will make you happy.

and how is it a fallacy? Maybe it's a Falacy to athiests because they have no morals about sex but from a christian standpoint it's not a fallacy.

:roll: Oh dear... that's very weak... it is always a fallacy. It can't be a fallacy for me and not for you; the naturalistic fallacy is, objectively, a fallacy. Simple as that. If you want to embarrass yourself, feel free to argue the point...

Well I tried to reword it from some church teachings as best as I could so if you think it's a fallacy in the church be my guest, but I'll just copy and paste now what I was trying to explain.

From two things: human biology and what takes place in the act itself. Let's look at human biology, trying for a moment to put aside our cultural biases about contraception. When a husband and a wife in a faithful marriage engage in sexual love, they are united more closely to one another. Reflection on human experience shows this. But human biology shows that such acts are also capable of bringing forth new human life. In other words, sex between a man and a woman is inherently unitive and procreative.

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Actually I believe Athiests can go to heaven. If they've been raised a certain way and have been taught to refuse Christ into their lives, but they still live a good life, God is merciful and will let them enter the kingdom, now if they were christian and simply refused Christ and refused to accept him back into their lives then their chances or entering heaven are slim.

LJS9502_basic

Not necessarially, God is Merciful and if a person was taught to hate christians teachings and not accept Jesus, then it's really not their fault so why would God punish them for that. Now if you purposely turn from Jesus then it's a different story and you willingly rejected him.

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm still confused who see's it as a fallacy, apparently not the Church..

Not necessarially, God is Merciful and if a person was taught to hate christians teachings and not accept Jesus, then it's really not their fault so why would God punish them for that. Now if you purposely turn from Jesus then it's a different story and you willingly rejected him.

ferrari2001

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Not necessarially, God is Merciful and if a person was taught to hate christians teachings and not accept Jesus, then it's really not their fault so why would God punish them for that. Now if you purposely turn from Jesus then it's a different story and you willingly rejected him.

LJS9502_basic

Yes but you have to remember how that person was brought up also. Take example muslims, Muslims are taught that they are Definitely right and everyone else is wrong. and are just trying to get them to stray from the path. Now most of them have heard about christianity, but they are going to deny it even though they've heard about it because of the way they were brought up. So I mean we don't know for sure if they will go to heaven but we have to imagine that God is merciful and will let them in. And you are correct about that being a church teaching.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

ferrari2001

I'm still confused who see's it as a fallacy, apparently not the Church..

Who sees it as a fallacy is irrelevant; the fact remains that it is a fallacy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Not necessarially, God is Merciful and if a person was taught to hate christians teachings and not accept Jesus, then it's really not their fault so why would God punish them for that. Now if you purposely turn from Jesus then it's a different story and you willingly rejected him.

ferrari2001

Yes but you have to remember how that person was brought up also. Take example muslims, Muslims are taught that they are Definitely right and everyone else is wrong. and are just trying to get them to stray from the path. Now most of them have heard about christianity, but they are going to deny it even though they've heard about it because of the way they were brought up. So I mean we don't know for sure if they will go to heaven but we have to imagine that God is merciful and will let them in. And you are correct about that being a church teaching.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm still confused who see's it as a fallacy, apparently not the Church..

Who sees it as a fallacy is irrelevant; the fact remains that it is a fallacy.

You may not understand but what one person see's as a Fallacy may not be a fallacy to someone else. Different beliefs consider different things fallacies. In a religious aspect such as this, my beliefs and the Beliefs of the Church does not consider it a fallacy so in my eyes it is not. But you have your beliefs and you see it as a fallacy. Some religions consider Christianity as a Fallacy, but that doesn't necessarily make it one. It's all a matter of personal beliefs and opinions.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

ferrari2001

I'm still confused who see's it as a fallacy, apparently not the Church..

Who sees it as a fallacy is irrelevant; the fact remains that it is a fallacy.

You may not understand but what one person see's as a Fallacy may not be a fallacy to someone else. Different beliefs consider different things fallacies. In a religious aspect such as this, my beliefs and the Beliefs of the Church does not consider it a fallacy so in my eyes it is not. But you have your beliefs and you see it as a fallacy. Some religions consider Christianity as a Fallacy, but that doesn't necessarily make it one. It's all a matter of personal beliefs and opinions.

I couldn't give a crap whether you think it's a fallacy; it still is one. If I claim that I believe that 1+1=3, would I get away with, "Oh, well, that's just my belief"? Personal opinion does not even come into this.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

LJS9502_basic

Ah, I was waiting for that to make sense. :P

He argued that sex should be for procreation because that is natural. Clear case of the naturalistic fallacy.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm still confused who see's it as a fallacy, apparently not the Church..

Who sees it as a fallacy is irrelevant; the fact remains that it is a fallacy.

You may not understand but what one person see's as a Fallacy may not be a fallacy to someone else. Different beliefs consider different things fallacies. In a religious aspect such as this, my beliefs and the Beliefs of the Church does not consider it a fallacy so in my eyes it is not. But you have your beliefs and you see it as a fallacy. Some religions consider Christianity as a Fallacy, but that doesn't necessarily make it one. It's all a matter of personal beliefs and opinions.

I couldn't give a crap whether you think it's a fallacy; it still is one. If I claim that I believe that 1+1=3, would I get away with, "Oh, well, that's just my belief"? Personal opinion does not even come into this.

You are using your personal opinion in claiming it's a fallacy because that's what you believe. So don't say personal opinion doesn't come into it, that's what the entire fallacy is based on is personal opinion. and it's not just my opinion but the opinion of millions..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

Ah, I was waiting for that to make sense. :P

He argued that sex should be for procreation because that is natural. Clear case of the naturalistic fallacy.

umm I claimed it was for both Natural Procreation and bonding and entertainment, you cannot seperate those. I didn't say it was just for natural procreation. I said you cannot just have sex just for procreation but had to have both the procreation and love.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

Funky_Llama

Ah, I was waiting for that to make sense. :P

He argued that sex should be for procreation because that is natural. Clear case of the naturalistic fallacy.

You are using your personal opinion in claiming it's a fallacy because that's what you believe.

ferrari2001

So it is merely my personal opinion that 1+1=2, then?

...and it's not just my opinion but the opinion of millions..

ferrari2001

Argumentum ad populum. Another fallacy. Which no doubt you'll deny.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Still falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

LJS9502_basic

Ah, I was waiting for that to make sense. :P

He argued that sex should be for procreation because that is natural. Clear case of the naturalistic fallacy.

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

You are using your personal opinion in claiming it's a fallacy because that's what you believe.

Funky_Llama

So it is merely my personal opinion that 1+1=2, then?

...and it's not just my opinion but the opinion of millions..

ferrari2001

Argumentum ad populum. Another fallacy. Which no doubt you'll deny.

Dude the Scientific Community and the Religious community don't see it as a falacy? So why exactly do you consider it a falacy. After all, what's already been said Biologically it IS MEANT for procreation.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

LJS9502_basic

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

Many religions preach acceptance but condemn those who are homosexuals. Pathetic.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

You are using your personal opinion in claiming it's a fallacy because that's what you believe.

ferrari2001

So it is merely my personal opinion that 1+1=2, then?

...and it's not just my opinion but the opinion of millions..

ferrari2001

Argumentum ad populum. Another fallacy. Which no doubt you'll deny.

Dude the Scientific Community and the Religious community don't see it as a falacy? So why exactly do you consider it a falacy. After all, what's already been said Biologically it IS MEANT for procreation.

I never said the scientific community doesn't see it is a fact. It does, actually. Look, read this. And stop digging that hole for yourself.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

ferrari2001

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

And one of the bases on which you argued this was that it is natural.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

LJS9502_basic

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

I'm not claiming that saying that arguing that sex as a hobby is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy per se. But doing so on the basis of the fact that procreative sex is natural is the naturalistic fallacy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

Funky_Llama

I'm aware it's a biological fact; I'm not saying it itself is fallacious. I'm saying that to try and argue on the basis of that fact that non-procreative sex is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy.

I'm not claiming that saying that arguing that sex as a hobby is immoral is the naturalistic fallacy per se. But doing so on the basis of the fact that procreative sex is natural is the naturalistic fallacy.

Too confusing but i agree good sir, saying sex is a sin is totally stupid and ignorent.

Too confusing but i agree good sir, saying sex is a sin is totally stupid and ignorent.

Phenom316

Sex itself is not a sin, but it depends on the context.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Hah, I hadn't seen that other verse before. "And this is what some of you were." In other words... people who used to be homosexual, but are no longer.

Theokhoth

Guess what happens after death. . . . . .you're no longer a sinner.

Given that it states that homosexuals don't inherit the kingdom of God... it doesn't appear that you'd get 'let off' like that.

You know, this is what breeds fundamentalism: you take a quote, and no matter how many times you're corrected, you run with it.

If homosexuality is itself a sin, then I won't be gay after death. Simple. I don't think sexuality will exist in Heaven anyway.

You didn't correct him though. You just made excuses. Just because you told yourself that you corrected him, doesn't mean you actually did, in reality.

Nothing is being taken out of context by Llama or myself. The verse states clearly. It is you who is twisting the meaning of the verse to fit your own lifestyle, and somehow avoid hell. Because of course you want to avoid hell.

That's why you adopted the "Catholic stance" on homosexuality. Because other christian sects don't believe that being homosexual is ok. Of course you're going to choose the one that is most accepting of you. That's just natural. This however, doesn't mean it's the true church. Just because it's the most comfortable one to you personally, doesn't mean it's right, universally.

You didn't correct him though. You just made excuses. Just because you told yourself that you corrected him, doesn't mean you actually did, in reality.

Um. . . .yeah, I kinda did.:|

Nothing is being taken out of context by Llama or myself.

The fact that the very next verse corrects your points kinda shows that you were. . . .

The verse states clearly. It is you who is twisting the meaning of the verse to fit your own life**** and somehow avoid hell. Because of course you want to avoid hell.

Let's go with that.:roll:

That's why you adopted the "Catholic stance" on homosexuality.

I don't think I ever told you that. . . . unless I have told you that. . . . . .DS.

Because other christian sects don't believe that being homosexual is ok.

Good for those sects. There are some Christian sects that promote homosexuality; why didn't I join those?

Of course you're going to choose the one that is most accepting of you.

You're under the impression that I've chosen a denomination.

That's just natural.

Don't play psychoanalyst with me; I got straight A's in Psych.;)

This however, doesn't mean it's the true church.

Wow. You do sound like a Christian fundamentalist.

Just because it's the most comfortable one to you personally, doesn't mean it's right, universally.

Of course. But I see no Biblical reason to dismiss it as wrong. You pulled up a verse that APPEARS to say homosexuals never go to Heaven, but if you read on you see that that is not the case, and that salvation does not work that way.

Persecuted_1

The fact that the very next verse corrects your points kinda shows that you were. . . . Theokhoth

The very next verse. I read it. I continues what the first one said basically.

I don't think I ever told you that. . . . unless I have told you that. . . . . .DS. Theokhoth

Here's this DS thing again. What's the deal? You said it earlier in this very thread. Or it might have been someone else, but I know I saw in this very thread someone say that the Catholic church doesn't feel that being homosexual is a sin.

Good for those sects. There are some Christian sects that promote homosexuality; why didn't I join those? Theokhoth

Too much pressure? You wanted to avoid the persecution of your family and peers; the same perscution that you pile on top of me in heaping mounds?

Don't play psychoanalyst with me; I got straight A's in Psych.;) Theokhoth

Being book smart does not equate to being talented, in the same areas of study. Don't fool yourself that by thinking a good grade justifies you as some certified genius.

Wow. You do sound like a Christian fundamentalist. Theokhoth

I consider myself agnostic. I'm only trying to make points to you.

Of course. But I see no Biblical reason to dismiss it as wrong. You pulled up a verse that APPEARS to say homosexuals never go to Heaven, but if you read on you see that that is not the case, and that salvation does not work that way.

Theokhoth

Nothing was out of context. The next verse just says that some of you were that way, and when they came to Christ, he washed them of their sins. One of those sins is being homosexual. You have not come to Christ to have him wash your homosexuality away. Because that's impossible.

So, God makes you gay and says that gays can't go to heaven unless they repent for being gay Well, that's stupid because first off, no one should have to repent for something they had no control over, and second, you couldn't change or repent for being homosexual anyway, because it's in your DNA code. Unless God expects you to be able to alter your DNA, but then of course he would have to give us supernatural powers for that to be possible, and I doubt God will be doing that anytime soon.

In short, you're screwed, and you got screwed by the very God whom you seem to have undying adoration for.

Nothing was out of context. The next verse just says that some of you were that way, and when they came to Christ, he washed them of their sins. One of those sins is being homosexual. You have not come to Christ to have him wash your homosexuality away. Because that's impossible.

So, God makes you gay and says that gays can't go to heaven unless they repent for being gay Well, that's stupid because first off, no one should have to repent for something they had no control over, and second, you couldn't change or repent for being homosexual anyway, because it's in your DNA code. Unless God expects you to be able to alter your DNA, but then of course he would have to give us supernatural powers for that to be possible, and I doubt God will be doing that anytime soon.

In short, you're screwed, and you got screwed by the very God whom you seem to have undying adoration for.

Persecuted_1

[QUOTE="Persecuted_1"]

Nothing was out of context. The next verse just says that some of you were that way, and when they came to Christ, he washed them of their sins. One of those sins is being homosexual. You have not come to Christ to have him wash your homosexuality away. Because that's impossible.

So, God makes you gay and says that gays can't go to heaven unless they repent for being gay Well, that's stupid because first off, no one should have to repent for something they had no control over, and second, you couldn't change or repent for being homosexual anyway, because it's in your DNA code. Unless God expects you to be able to alter your DNA, but then of course he would have to give us supernatural powers for that to be possible, and I doubt God will be doing that anytime soon.

In short, you're screwed, and you got screwed by the very God whom you seem to have undying adoration for.

LJS9502_basic

I'm just going by what the verse says.

But by saying that, are you saying that it's you who speaks for God, instead? I think I've seen you do that in this thread already anyway.

You won't be an atheist after death.;) Ever hear the saying, "There are no atheists in Hell"?

Sex will appear so unbelievably trivial in eternity that we just won't give a crap about it anymore. At least, that's what I think will happen. Sex in Heaven is never mentioned in the Bible.

Theokhoth

You know what else in never mentioned in the bible? Lots of stuff. Including the modern rise to mainstream acceptance by homosexuals. I guess since it's not in the bible, gays were never supposed to have become so accepted! :o

I'm just going by what the verse says.

But by saying that, are you saying that it's you who speaks for God, instead? I think I've seen you do that in this thread already anyway.

Persecuted_1

No...you haven't.;)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You won't be an atheist after death.;) Ever hear the saying, "There are no atheists in Hell"?

Sex will appear so unbelievably trivial in eternity that we just won't give a crap about it anymore. At least, that's what I think will happen. Sex in Heaven is never mentioned in the Bible.

Persecuted_1

You know what else in never mentioned in the bible? Lots of stuff. Including the modern rise to mainstream acceptance by homosexuals. I guess since it's not in the bible, gays were never supposed to have become so accepted! :o

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

What kind of an answer is that? :?

Funky_Llama

*sigh* You can't declare you beliefs immune to criticism simply because they're beliefs. Unless you're admitting that you don't have a justification for them, and which case why the hell hold that belief in the first place?

OWNAGE to the max. Exactly to the point. Why believe in something you can't justify? Ha ha.

[QUOTE="Persecuted_1"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You won't be an atheist after death.;) Ever hear the saying, "There are no atheists in Hell"?

Sex will appear so unbelievably trivial in eternity that we just won't give a crap about it anymore. At least, that's what I think will happen. Sex in Heaven is never mentioned in the Bible.

LJS9502_basic

You know what else in never mentioned in the bible? Lots of stuff. Including the modern rise to mainstream acceptance by homosexuals. I guess since it's not in the bible, gays were never supposed to have become so accepted! :o

Love your neighbor is just advice for living, but the bible never specifically prophesized that homosexuals would become so accepted, even popular! It's so trendy to be gay nowadays! :o

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

What kind of an answer is that? :?

Persecuted_1

*sigh* You can't declare you beliefs immune to criticism simply because they're beliefs. Unless you're admitting that you don't have a justification for them, and which case why the hell hold that belief in the first place?

OWNAGE to the max. Exactly to the point. Why believe in something you can't justify? Ha ha.

And DS loves to use the words owned and ownage....