Common sense/logic vs. the bible

[connermt]

Some people think you can't argue against christianity without referncing the bible. This is a flaw in logic as the bible won't try to prove itself false.
That said, of course the bible is basically "all" christians have to work off of. The facts that the stories were written by men, edited by other men and some works weren't even included in the "finished product", all while claiming to be the 'word of god' is disheartening. Add to the mix that fact that the bible - which is the way to heaven for the whole of the human race - has very little to say about other people in the planet at the time.
Putting all that huba-baloo aside, let's look at it from a strictly common sense/logical POV.

A being that is perfect (in no particular order):
- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.
- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely. Then it's illogical to create them in the first place.
- creates people knowing what the outcome would be (sinning) but created them anyway.
- allows a temptation to come into the garden and tempt them, knowing what would happen
- seemingly gets "upset" when it "finds out" what happens and curses them (as if it didn't know what happened)
- destroys a city, save for one family, because it's "unpure". Surely that wasn't the only city that was unpure at the time, no? Then when lot's wife lokos back, she turns into a pillar of salt. That seems rather...unimpressive for sucha being. Surely something more akin to a phaser blast would have been more impressive....?
- destroys the world (with water) save for one family. Again, water seem very unimpressive for such a 'everything' creator. Obviously, since the human race was so 'bad', this supreme (and loving) deity caused almost all of humanity and almost all of the animal species to drown. Ok so he's ticked off at people, but why not spare the animals? What did they do to him? Makes no sense
- comes to earth as a man. It makes no sense why a supreme being that knows everything needs to come down as 'a man' while, at the same time, being different than the man/son.
- employees several different people to write his story of his life (while he's a man) years (in some cases decades) after the fact. One would think, common sense would have god write it himself, or at least have someone else write it while it was happening. It's illogical to wait so long.
- employees terrible writers as their accounts of the same story differ slightly to enormously - some containing parts of the story that others don't. Surely, a logical all knowing god would know that, if this book is to be the guide to mankind's future, it need to be more accurate and not confusing. Yet this isn't the case.

We'll end the examples there. If one wishes, they could go into much more detail with later books.

So where's the human logic in these examples? Surely such a supreme being would have been able to foresee these "issues" and address them in a way outside the biblical text (that not everyone has accessto, or even finds believable).

So where's the logic? Why does one seem to need the bible to prove what the bible says is correct? Surely god must have given us logic, yet when we use it in an unbiased way for such an important goal in mind, it doesn't come full circle.
Logical? Sensible? Where is it?

[connermt]

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say? Try again.

I'd ask you to answer the questions and as part of that show where I misinterpreted you.

Sorry - somehow I missed these responses in the last few days. I'll try to address them now:
You said "So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter?" when that's not what I said.
Please show me where I said "...a logical being should focus on 100% of matter". At that point, you will see where you mis-represented my statement.

you said - Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

So how much matter should a logical being focus on?

Also: My responses were questions. Questions are used to clarify. And therefore it is clear I am trying to get a better understanding of your viewpoint. You aren't answering the questions and not assisting the discussion.

How much? Perhaps there isn't a number - perhaps there is. It seems illogical that out of all the things that exist any being would focus on humanity (a very small percentage) with such verve.

[connermt]

Some people think you can't argue against christianity without referncing the bible. This is a flaw in logic as the bible won't try to prove itself false.
That said, of course the bible is basically "all" christians have to work off of. The facts that the stories were written by men, edited by other men and some works weren't even included in the "finished product", all while claiming to be the 'word of god' is disheartening. Add to the mix that fact that the bible - which is the way to heaven for the whole of the human race - has very little to say about other people in the planet at the time.
Putting all that huba-baloo aside, let's look at it from a strictly common sense/logical POV.

A being that is perfect (in no particular order):
- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.
- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely. Then it's illogical to create them in the first place.
- creates people knowing what the outcome would be (sinning) but created them anyway.
- allows a temptation to come into the garden and tempt them, knowing what would happen
- seemingly gets "upset" when it "finds out" what happens and curses them (as if it didn't know what happened)
- destroys a city, save for one family, because it's "unpure". Surely that wasn't the only city that was unpure at the time, no? Then when lot's wife lokos back, she turns into a pillar of salt. That seems rather...unimpressive for sucha being. Surely something more akin to a phaser blast would have been more impressive....?
- destroys the world (with water) save for one family. Again, water seem very unimpressive for such a 'everything' creator. Obviously, since the human race was so 'bad', this supreme (and loving) deity caused almost all of humanity and almost all of the animal species to drown. Ok so he's ticked off at people, but why not spare the animals? What did they do to him? Makes no sense
- comes to earth as a man. It makes no sense why a supreme being that knows everything needs to come down as 'a man' while, at the same time, being different than the man/son.
- employees several different people to write his story of his life (while he's a man) years (in some cases decades) after the fact. One would think, common sense would have god write it himself, or at least have someone else write it while it was happening. It's illogical to wait so long.
- employees terrible writers as their accounts of the same story differ slightly to enormously - some containing parts of the story that others don't. Surely, a logical all knowing god would know that, if this book is to be the guide to mankind's future, it need to be more accurate and not confusing. Yet this isn't the case.

We'll end the examples there. If one wishes, they could go into much more detail with later books.

So where's the human logic in these examples? Surely such a supreme being would have been able to foresee these "issues" and address them in a way outside the biblical text (that not everyone has accessto, or even finds believable).

So where's the logic? Why does one seem to need the bible to prove what the bible says is correct? Surely god must have given us logic, yet when we use it in an unbiased way for such an important goal in mind, it doesn't come full circle.
Logical? Sensible? Where is it?

This my friend, was precisely my struggle with christianity. That is, the 'word of god' was written by men, edited by men, plagiarised, replicated, lost in translation, misconstrued and not to mention written 2000 odd years ago in illiterate, tribal, bronze age middle east. When you look at it like this it is indeed very disheartening for a christian. It's the only argument for god and the only thing christains can use in debate with sceptics or non-believers, yet it's validity cannot be proven, it was not conceived of god but was conceived of men, is more than likely a bunch of fabrication and brainwashing and is somehow god's word? If you are discerning of the holy book, what grounds are there to base your whole life on this document? How is it ANY different from other books written by men? This is the struggle I had as a christain and I'm sure many other impartial believers struggle with this also.

I would suggest, but have no way of proving, that every believer has these issues of belief even if they don't want to admit it. Otherwise, we'd all be spiritual robots.
Most likely just accept it because it's the easy thing to do.

I felt this way when I was a christian, however, I felt unintelligent and embarrassed that I had to answer all sceptics with 'faith' as my proof and evidence for my ultimate beliefs. Once one emancipates them self from believing because they feel they have to, then life is a lot more fulfilling. You love your life and don't consider it a sinful, disgusting waste of time, and no longer wish and dream for the afterlife that we don't even know exists. What disregard and disrespect for our humanity that is.

I have even heard preachers/ministers/priests/etc make the statement "we are nothing without god" or "we are worthless until we accept god" or the like. What a terrible thing to say! Humanity isn't perfect by any means, but it is capable of great things. And likely things we can't even consider. All without any magic man in the clouds.

[connermt]

It works both ways.
I once watched a preacher - leader of his church - say that even if science proved 100% that being gay isn't a choice (and therefore not a sin), he would still consider it a sin.

Even if that is true, how �being gay isn't a choice� is comparable to “being gay is sin�?

Even if science could prove that being gay is not choice, it wouldn’t change that it is not good according to the Bible. Therefore that preacher is at least more logical than you.

But I think it is choice. All can choose that what they want. If person don’t want intercourse with same-sex he won’t do them. No one or nothing forces people to want to do so. Only reason why people are gay is that they for some reason want it. If they want, they can abandon it. But most of them think that in being gay there is something that they don’t want to give up and that’s why they continue being gay.

But I can understand them, it can be really hard to give up something that you like. But I am sure that anybody can abandon it if really want. And that can happen when person understands why it is not reasonable to be gay (= want intercourse with same-sex).

In regards to the stories conflicting, the four gospels directly show conflicts in some aspects of the same story.

It depends on how you interpret. I don’t see why interpretations that make Bible look conflict would be correct.

It's logical simply because a book says so? That's silly. If the bible said purple unicorns lived on a planet made of cotton candy it would be logical to agree with it?
The "choice" is in how one acts, not what one is attracted to. That's an enormous difference that many believers won't accept because it might not allow them to hate others for being different.

Of course, the typical christian response would be some none-sense like "it's because of sin that people are born with this sinful desire". And of course, that would make "logical" sense (even though not all christians would agree with it) because of the political hype that has been bred out of the man written, man edited book of stories that some hold dear called the bible.

Oh yes the "interpertation" excuse: God can create everything that is, but can't write or even edit his own book in such a way that it wouldn't be open for interpertation? Yeah, that's just as logical as your previous claim.
Which is to say, not at all.

[1213]

That has no reproductive function. The tongue is there for tasting, eating, talking. Kissing is as much unnatural or unreasonable (by your definition) as homosexual sex. Kissing can also transmit herpes and other deseases.
It is a bad unreasonable habit and you should stop it.

Yes and heterosexual sex can also transmit diseases. But I didn’t speak about diseases that I hope are not default in all people all the time.

And I think lips are equal to lips, genitals are equal to genitals and therefore there is nothing wrong in the idea to connect equal things in right conditions. But genitals are not equal to intestinal. And I think it is not reasonable to connect them. In my opinion it can be compared to eating from toilet. Maybe you could survive, but most people think it would be unreasonable and disgusting and I think there are good reasons for that.

And I say only that this is how I think. I have not seen any reason to change my opinion. I understand that most people don’t want to believe this. And it seems to me that this is too sensitive topic to discuss and therefore I leave you alone with this topic.

Now why do you think people do kiss?

That question could help you find the truth in this subject.

[PREEST]

I don't see any reason to believe that they know more.

Medical doctors and psychiatrists?...

I know that doctors claim that it is irresistible and person is forced to that against his own will. And it is nice way to get legitimacy and a clear conscience. Probably no gay will say against that because it makes them feel better. It takes bad conscience way.

I think that is not true that person can’t give up it. If person really wants to give up something, there is no force that makes him do against his own will. Person don't give up that, because for some reason he sees gay sex appealing or desirable. What is the real reason? Every one that has some desire can think answer to that by himself. And I am sure that there is in some part of persons mind that reason. Also heterosexuals have reasons for their desires. But peoples don’t usually see reason to study their mind and think what true reasons of their acts are. Those reasons can be born very early in peoples mind and therefore it may be hard to notice them.

And in case of sexual desires, I think that all people have same basic sexual need, because people have equipment for reproducing and sex. That what happens in people’s life can affect how person wants to use that property. And gay people have, in some point of their life, started to see same sex more appealing and they have started to see intercourse with same sex desirable and started to like it. If they wouldn’t really like it, they wouldn’t do that. It is same as if you don’t like chocolate, you don’t eat it (And I know people that don’t like chocolate and they don’t eat it, even when it can be rich in calories).

And if you are honest to yourself, you can think why you like something. For example, if you like chocolate, you can think why you like it. You may like it because it is sweet or for some other reason. But if you think there is some reason why it is not good to eat it, you can learn to even hate sweet. For example, if it makes you fat and you don’t want to be fat.

Sexuality is however more complex in my opinion. But I think, if we think it only from biological perspective, genitals don’t need anything else but other sex to fulfill their real function. All other is only peoples own addition that comes from what they have learned to like.

I think “Falling in love� is euphemistic way to describe people’s sexual desire and lust. Real love stands well without sex, but sex without love is empty. In my opinion there is only one way to describe love shortly and well and it is care without conditions (Longer way to understand it is to read Bible and understand it). Other loves are only impure love, which may have been mixed to for example lust. But of course we can all define love as we wish. But then it is not reasonable word to use, unless we understand what we mean with it. If you define love some other way, I don’t see reason why it would be good and something that people should even have.

I say that intercourse with same sex is unreasonable, because I think genitals are not meant be put in every place that you can imagine. They have certain function and because what I read from biology it is not that what gay people think it is. I think this is also comparable to eating. I assume that you don’t eat through your nose, because it wouldn’t be reasonable, even though it may work also that way. Nose is not just designed for eating.

I don’t see any reason to believe that God made people gay. And I think there is no reason to try to please God with celibacy. It doesn’t make much difference if you everyday desire sex but deny it from yourself because you try to please God. I have understood that people should give up desires that they think are not good. And if person thinks gay sex is good according to God I think that is bigger problem than the act itself. But celibacy could be reasonable if you that way avoid harm. And intercourse with same sex may cause harm, although I think many “doctor� wouldn’t admit it.

In my opinion being gay is accepted, approved and it seems to be even “recommended� also by media commonly, because it is easy way to control population.

Aside from the horrible grammar, that absolutely pained me to read. It is very clear that as long as religion is around, gay people will be discriminated against. The entire entry is filled with ignorance and prejudice. Not a hint of love and compassion, which the christian faith professes to be.