http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/theonlyway.HTM

Also, some information on studies on homosexual lifespans since it was brought up in discussion.

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

Turns out that Tim D was a troll. After he got banned his spamming and behavior only proved just how very sick he is. He is the reason all comments are monitored on this blog now. So you can thank him for that.

If you had a conscience you would know that homosexuality brings sickness and death and is harmful to the family order that God set up. I explain it in the link below.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/sexual%20perversion%20is%20a%20messure%20of%20demonic%20activity.htm

If you could discern good you would know that Christians do not support this evil lifestyle because of the suffering it brings on the earth not because we hate homosexuals.

Christians do not believe in stoning people who break God’s laws. We want people to receive Jesus so through God’s spirit the law of God can be written in their hearts. That is the good news that we preach. By saying homosexuality does not bring any more disease and death then a heterosexual lifestyle and calling it a dead argument does not make it true. The lifespan differences make that a fact.

Do you really want to be banned? If not cut out the lying attacks. If I ban you how then will you come on my blog in 4 to 8 years like you said on another post and post that I was wrong about Obama? Like I said there, nobody is guaranteed tomorrow especially on a blog. I clearly said on my other blog why I stopped posting there so I do not need your horse manure about why I stopped. It was mainly because it takes to much time for one person to keep up two blogs and do all the other stuff I do. I did not stop posting because people disagreed with what I said. Most who came to that blog agreed with what I said. In the whole history of that blog less than a dozen people were banned. But if you really want to continue down this attack path you will certainly be one of those who are banned here.

Allowing people to make comments to my posts is a courtesy I provide. If you are only here to argue, attack and disrupt you are not wanted here. This is not a debate site or a forum to argue against Christian. If you do not like it go elsewhere.

What does it matter if you can’t prove or communicate it? It’s such a popular Christian stance to see oneself as part of some kind of “intellectual elite” that has access to some kind of “truth” that the rest of the world is incapable of understanding. Let’s say you do; how can you show that to other people? What can you do to prove this?

So far you seem to believe that, with regard to Yahweh, “You either get Him or you don’t.” That doesn’t seem realistic at all; if He’s real, you’d think that everyone would have a chance to “get Him.” So what would you say to someone who “doesn’t get Him?” Or do you just not care either way?

Good and evil may not be valid to those who have no conscience but that just proves that those without conscience cannot discern good from evil.

Do not misunderstand; I have a consience. It’s that conscience that tells me that homophobes are not very loving people, or that stoning adulterers is not permissable.

They teach as truth what they cannot possibly know having no conscience but we with conscience teach as truth what we certainly do know.

Alright, but how do you know? I suppose you “just get it?”

So which truth is the only valid truth for a rational person of good conscience?

Any person would gladly admit to such truth, if in fact it were truth. Problem is, there’s no way to know that. People who claim to know it cannot communicate it at all; they just talk like it’s obvious, and yet refuse to enforce it with solid reasoning.

I will allow one or two more posts in this direction but it is getting off topic and I just hate it when people use up my Christian Blog disc space to post their Antichrist views. I also do not want to hear what anyone posting here may or may not have said on some other blog. Mud slinging is not allowed here because it puts dirt on my hard drive

Yeah, I already saw how you decided not to post on that other blog anymore because everyone didn’t agree with you. The name-calling kinda tipped me off (“demented, delusional, and dumb”), but I figured I’d drop by and see if you were capable of holding a mature conversation in any case. Call me optimistic.

P.S. I’m not “anti-Christ.” I’m just not Christian. Not that I’m sure it matters to you. You probably think they’re the same thing.

Your worldview does not have a foundation. My worldview is based on facts.

What facts? These are interesting assertions, but nobody seems willing to back them up. Is it really that hard?

Also I encourage u to do research on the Bible and also on the health risks of homosexuality.

Already been there. There are no health risks that come with homosexuality that cannot be derived from the same sex acts being performed heterosexually; likewise, AIDS can be contracted by any party, straight or gay. This is a dead argument.

Also, AIG is one of the most fundamentally un-scientific sites out there. They actually have a forum where you can submit genuine scientific data for Creationists to try and refute using only philosophy (and not science).

Your worldview does not have a foundation. My worldview is based on facts. Also I encourage u to do research on the Bible and also on the health risks of homosexuality. Here is one website that gives information about the Bible and scientific evidence that points to what the Bible says… http://www.answersingenesis.org

“Basically, assertions that “good exists” or “evil exists” are no more or less valid than assertions to the contrary. And with such a matter, all we have to go on are such assertions, and so the matter seems unresolvable.”

Asserting that good and evil exists is much more valid to those who know it exists through God given conscience. Good and evil may not be valid to those who have no conscience but that just proves that those without conscience cannot discern good from evil. They teach as truth what they cannot possibly know having no conscience but we with conscience teach as truth what we certainly do know. So which truth is the only valid truth for a rational person of good conscience?

I thought it might be odd if you two were the same, given that the Justin that posts there has not quite come as close to calling me “dumb”~

It does not matter what atheists or other religious people say what is right and wrong. The Creator God determines whats right and wrong not us.

I fully understand that you, as a Christian, believe that. But the problem for me is that there is no way for you to demonstrate this — you can only say it, or repeat that which has already been said. There is no unit by which “good” can be measured, is what I mean; so if in fact objective goodness does exist, how does it exist? That is the question you must answer.

If I kill the person that you love the most and ate him/her for supper would that be evil?

Well, I can’t say it would be “evil” because I don’t believe humans have the authority to declare something as “good” or “evil,” if in fact such a concept exists. So no. However, I can say that it would be (a) emotionally devastating on my part, (b) quite odd to me, and (c) not the sort of behavior that our society has stated that it will tolerate. As such, I would advocate a swift countermeasure to assure that the same behavior is not repeated by the same individual again — this last, the same reaction that I would offer in any other situation involving what appears to be a random act of violent cannibalism, regardless of whether or not it was a loved one. The only real difference between the two situations being the emotional impact to myself, personally.

For one thing homosexuality is not a natural behavior and science proves that fact.

How so? From what I’ve seen, it’s proven quite the opposite. There are many species in nature (dolphins, for example) that engage in homosexual behavior and are not negatively affected by it (they aren’t extinct or in perpetual war with one another, and they don’t have problems with AIDS).

I expect that you might respond to this with something like, “When a new lion takes over a pride after the death of the previous king, he kills all of the children belonging to the previous king. Should we do that, too?” To which I will respond, “Of course not.” We don’t allow it just because other species do it; we allow it because there is no reason not to allow it. There is no murder involved, for one, so there could be no starker contrast between the two….but also, it has none of the same social effects. In a society where murder was permissible, the society would crumble — there’s no reason to value life, and so laws come next; why value laws when you can just kill whoever makes or tries to enforce them? The same is not true of homosexuality.

God says homosexuality is a abomination. Also the Bible states that God is not mocked.

I will break this down into Premise (A) and Premise (B).

(Premise A) God says homosexuality is an abomination
(Premise B) God is not mocked

You are using these premises to conclude that homosexuality is “evil” because God doesn’t like it, and since displeasing God is not wise, we should not do it.

I, however, take issue with the premises; for one, I do not believe in God, and therefore I do not rightly care what He may consider an abomination. His opinion is no more relevant to mine than Zeus’ or Odin’s, because from my perspective, they are not real. Also, since I do not believe in Yahweh or any other religious deity, I also am not affected by the threat that “God is not mocked.” What can He do to me? As far as I am concerned, He is not real. You might as well threaten me with the wrath of one of the characters from Star Trek. You can assert that His wrath is imminent, but it has no real effect on me. I might just turn to you and say, “You know you risk the wrath of Odin for worshipping a God other than Him in thanks for the things He has given you.”

If people decide to reject His commands and do the act they will have to deal with the harsh consequences of their actions.

The best and simplest way to phrase my answer is this: “That’s a risk I’m quite willing to take.” I am quite confident in the odds against the existence of the type of god that Yahweh seems to consider Himself. But that’s another discussion entirely….

In the last days the Bible says that there will be people that will not believe that God created the world and that the earth was flooded with water at one time. The Bible also says that homosexuality will be on the arise and flaunted.

With all due respect, the Bible says a lot of things. So does the Quran, come to think of it. And a lot of other holy books.

I will have to give you credit for staying within your worldview when talking about good and evil and by the way I am not the same Justin that post comments on the Crossexamined Blog. I do go to the blog time to time.

It does not matter what atheists or other religious people say what is right and wrong. The Creator God determines whats right and wrong not us.

I do have a question for you. If I kill the person that you love the most and ate him/her for supper would that be evil? why? If you said it was evil then you would have contradicted yourself because you said there was no such thing as evil or good.

I have read one of your post one time on crossexamined blog and u said that homosexuality was a natural behavior. For one thing homosexuality is not a natural behavior and science proves that fact. God says homosexuality is a abomination. Also the Bible states that God is not mocked. If people decide to reject His commands and do the act they will have to deal with the harsh consequences of their actions.

In the last days the Bible says that there will be people that will not believe that God created the world and that the earth was flooded with water at one time. The Bible also says that homosexuality will be on the arise and flaunted.

3. true. The world generally does not believe in objective evil.

This has really little to do with the point I made because it wasn’t an argument from popularity; I meant not that “it doesn’t exist because people don’t believe it exists,” I was merely explaining that from a secular perspective, “good and evil” aren’t necessary as objective, concrete concepts because the secular perspective tends to create a view based on several interweaving factors (such as judging a crime based on things like the motive, or possible duress, instead of condemning the person on actions alone). It wasn’t an argument for or against the existence of good or evil in an objective sense.

2. I think people can know that objective evil exists. Good became a man and was killed only because of objective evil. It also does great harm to believe that there is no objective evil because man must find out that Good was crucified to save them from objective evil.

Fair enough; I’m sure you believe that, and I can acknowledge that. But my point was that all one can do is assert one way or the other; ultimately, it’s completely un-provable that “good” or “evil” are real, objective things….because first one must define good and evil, and those definitions have to come somewhere. The standard fallback for the Christian is to choose God as the definition, but then that definition doesn’t hold in a conversation against an atheist or other-religious person.

Basically, assertions that “good exists” or “evil exists” are no more or less valid than assertions to the contrary. And with such a matter, all we have to go on are such assertions, and so the matter seems unresolvable.

Not trolling, just curious.