My reply to a person on another thread who just asked me to try to convert them

Ok, well do you believe Scientists were able to get a Space Craft to land on a Comet? And do you believe that they used Mars' gravitational field to do so?

Mars is a heavenly body, and even the Ancient Jewish people called Mars "The Blushing one" while other Cultures worshiped Mars (and other planets) directly. So if you believe in Mars, you believe in a God. Also, if you believe in Earth you believe in a God.

This worship is still seen in Hinduism and some other traditions.

And I do not hope to convert you, that is part of your entire misunderstanding of Religion. Not all religions care to convince new people to join.

Reply to someone who said the Planets are named after the Gods

You claim that the Planets are named after the Gods. But that only makes sense if each society discovered the planets. But we know for a fact that these Societies were worshiping the same Gods/Planets, because when Greeks came to Egypt they automatically found the correlating Gods. And in Babylon they drew the Solar systems.

This can even be found in Christian Theology as "The 7 Heavens" and Pre Christian Gnosticism via "The Ogdoad". It would make sense that the planets were named after Gods, but only if we didn't know that they were passed down. Egypt to Greece, Greece to Rome, etc.

"1. Because truth tells us what is, and therefore gives us understanding, which then allows us to predict, reason, and react in an (usually) advantageous manner."

That sounds like someone ascribing personality to a non-personal. Requiring God as a personal truth it seems.

Correct - they've used the fallacy of reification. Truth doesn't "tell" us anything, unless professed unbelievers believe as the Christian does that ultimate truth is found in Jesus Christ who said that he is the way the truth and the life - but then if they believed that they wouldn't be an unbeliever any more.

t's a shame that we can't even have a civil conversation with people that have differing opinions. Just look at how i'm treated for stepping outside the norm. Look at all the comments. I'd love to have a debate on the nature of humanity and how society filters our views. It saddens me when people willingly contain themselves in an echo chamber.

Hey pathetic loser,if what Einstein believed is irrelevant, what makes you think anyone here gives a hoot about what you believe?

Just because you people can't possibly comprehend any other possibility other then machines just happened to come together by sheer chance, does not mean other explanations don't exist or could not exist.. maybe some advanced civilization in the far future time traveled to the beginning of time to create the universe, maybe the universe itself is alive and has always existed.. maybe time has no meaning and does not exist at all, maybe a billion things.. but this all seems very personal to perhaps people that have been "Bible thumped" to death and have a personal vendetta against anyone that can think in other dimensions and along other lines.. Like I said.. Sad and pathetic..

Lust is seeking pleasure with no substance. It's to fill subconscious insecurity. A quick escape from reality. Lust is not good. REAL pleasure is LOVE. Love is innocent. It is not tethered to sexuality. Love is simply a deep profound care for others. It doesn't matter how they look like. You just want the best for them. It's not bound by sexuality and the physical appearance of others. It transcends the materialistic. You don't seek any gratification or anything in return from them. It's true love and it's innocent. You're a fool to base your expectations as the all truth. If we do that we become ignorant. Like a wise man once said "if you base your expectations only on what you see, you blind yourself to the possibility of a new reality."

1) "Lust is seeking pleasure with no substance."

And neither homo- nor heterosexuality is purely about lust.

I addressed this in my comment. Homo is absolutely about lust. You are attracted to their physical appearance. The materialistic.

2) "It's to fill subconscious insecurity."

How is this anything but rectally derived nonsense?

ME: We all have insecurities. Otherwise we'd be perfect which none of us are. We aren't always aware of all of our fear and desires, it's in our subconscious. Lust provides a quick escape. It's pleasure after all. Therefore it fills our subconscious insecurity.

3) " A quick escape from reality."

Don't project your own perception on others or the world in general.

ME: I'm not. We all have fears and it's normal to want to be away of what we fear. Lust gives us pleasure which is an escape from reality.

4) " Lust is not good."

Blind assertion not given in evidence.

ME: It's an escape and not a solution. You haven't solved the problem, you just swept it under the rug. The overcome our insecurities we have to better our selves as human beings through purity and seeking pleasure with real substance. Lust is hard to overcome. It's an addiction. This means you're addicted to something that isn't solving the problem but feeding your insecurity. Therefore not good.

5) " REAL pleasure is LOVE."

Stop treating your opinions as established facts.

ME: It is fact. Love isn't tethered to insecurity and is strong enough to give ones life for others. It takes true strength. Love gives strength. It brings you happiness to see others doing well. That's a pleasure with true substance. 6) " Love is innocent. It is not tethered to sexuality." Neither is it wholly seperate from sexuality. ME: They're not in the same category. Love is profound care for someone. Sexuality is a preference.

7) " Love is simply a deep profound care for others."

There are different forms of love.

ME: No there isn't. There is one love. And then there is lust which is what you speak of.

8) " It doesn't matter how they look like."

So you admit that homosexuality isn't harmful?

ME: Can you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure how this counters my point. Please explain.

9) " You just want the best for them. It's not bound by sexuality and the physical appearance of others."

Neither is sexuality necessarily.

ME: Can you explain how sexuality isn't bound to physical appearance of others?

10) " It transcends the materialistic."

More unevidenced nonsense.

ME: Well this is a religious point which I don't normally argue. I only did because the other guy brought up religion but if you aren't for that I can argue without it as well.

11) " You don't seek any gratification or anything in return from them."

So you claim that being in love doesn't make people happy? Because it does very much provide gratification and people feel distressed if they are not loved in return.

ME: When you do things out of love you do it because you care and not because you want anything in return. When people love you back it brings you joy. I don't understand what you're getting at here, please explain.

12) " It's true love and it's innocent. You're a fool to base your expectations as the all truth. If we do that we become ignorant."

Look at the plank in your own eye Alex,.

ME: I don't see any but i'd appreciate it if you help me understand

Look Alex is right. I'm not homophobic but from a naturalist/Biologist perspective the only purpose for sexuality is to produce offspring, so homosexuality is inherently un-normal. Also Homosexuality is NOT ingrained in your DNA - that is an impossible situation for genetic offspring. Where Alex is wrong is the Lust part. Two homosexuals can love each others, just as any two men can.

I used to be a die hard Darwin fan, having been educated in the biological sciences. However, over time, I find myself increasingly embracing intelligent design more and more based on my reading of current research. I never conflated Darwin’s theories with Marxism before. Perhaps, after reading this article, that is why, innately, I have come to embrace intelligent design theory more and more.

Those who deny the link between the two miss the point. In both is there is the mentality of superior races based on development. With Darwin it is the exact same thinking as with Marxist. There is always a superior breed of people who are destined by fate, physical, and mental abilities to, not lead, but take over and rule the world. This by the way is the religious views of some Hindu cults. Whereas Creationists and ID have a different view. They believe that all of humanity is created with equally being given the same rights but are given differing talents, capabilities, and gifts. It is not up to one superior race of people to determine if they are allowed to do a certain profession or not or live in a certain way or place. Yes Marxism and Darwin are inseparable linked.

Its not homophobic to say it isn't natural. It would be homophobic to hate gay people purely for their sexuality - which I never once suggested. Reproduction is the only purpose for sexual intercourse. Of course intercourse doesn't result in offspring every time - that would lead to overpopulation - but the function of the act remains the same and the likelihood of offspring occurring the same. I never once mentioned the "morality" of homosexuality - I have only been speaking in ethical terms. Thank you. I couldn't think of the word for some reason. Have you ever had those times where you know that you know the word you are thinking of but just can't seem to think of the precise word at the time? That's what happened to me. You have shown no ignorance of biology. Homosexuality if anything close to being a biological aspect, would only be phenotypic. There is no gene for sexuality, though I am sure sexuality can correlate to the expression of other genes. Intelligence is not a trait and left-handedness can be derived from external stimuli. How is it baseless? Sexuality is not ingrained genetically. Watch any animals pursue sexual satisfaction and you will see this - they will have sex with anything that gives them pleasure.

Its not homophobic to say it isn't natural. ..(rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb).. Watch any animals pursue sexual satisfaction and you will see this - they will have sex with anything that gives them pleasure.

Its simplex animals do whatever pleases them. If there were no motivating factor to catalyze the mechanism of sexual intercourse, then fewer offspring would be produced. Sexual desire serves to increase the rate of impregnation. If there were no pleasure in doing it then it would be done less. Simple logic, really.

1) Abstractions don't have purpose, hence saying that sexuality has purpose means that sexuality is unlike an abstract. Simple logic here. 2. Mechanisms always have a purpose, whether negative or otherwise. Also thanks for merely saying no they don't rather than providing an actual refutation. I dare you to name one mechanism that has no purpose other than the alleged intercourse.

Photosynthesis serves to produce chemical energy to maintain plant-life's sustenance. It also have side-affects such as oxygen production that serve other creatures. Evolution - you suggested that it worked mutate species "result of the evolution of a trait that wasn't detrimental to the survival of the species." The fact is that Evolution isn't a mechanism, evolution is random. Evolution is neither good nor bad. Natural selection, on the other hand, is a mechanism. Gravity is an odd one, because we are once again exiting the realm of biology, which was our focus. Gravity is a mechanism, however, and serves to hold our universe together - it is the glue if you will.

I do pity the Atheist who exists in spiritual blindness and hopelessness. When anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ as LORD sins, there is grieving and sorrow, for the faithful love our LORD and the last thing we desire is to sin against Him or bring Him sorrow.

There is life constrained by Time which is a created entity. Running parallel w/Time is Eternity i.e. the Spiritual World which has no beginning and no end. Our Creator is Spirit and all that we see in Time finds its origin in the unseen, Spiritual World.