DVDizzy Forum

Then the definition of death is when all the vital functions of the body including heartbeat, breathing, and brain activity cease. So ending those things in a fetus is still killing it, it's human life you are killing.

Super Aurora you can argue back and say I'm wrong without being so mean and ridiculing another's beliefs, but anyway, it is actually true that scientists thing the gay gene could be turned either off or on in developmemt. In any case, my theory of the soul entering the body and making the body become homosexual in the DNA could still be possible even though you don't think so because you're close-minded or whatever reason you want to come up with.

Lazario wrote:So then, you believe the sperm and the ova are soulmates? And all along, they were hunting for each other during the fertilization process? Instead of it being more incidental- which sperm impregnates the egg?

No, I believe the soul may come into the body only after a few months, perhaps when the brain and heart are present. The sperm and ova are specila but they wouldn't have two halves of a soul or something.

Heartless, no people raise animals for slaughter in order to eat meat and get protein. It is true there are some other ways to get protein, but a long time ago there wasn't very many ways. Meat is a much more easy and efficient way to get protein. A lot of people would have to change the quality of their happy lives to not eat meat. Plus, people of course also eat meat to enjoy it.

Indeed, you seem to be a rather big animal lover and think that humans aren't superior to animals. So if a human and an animal were both in a fire, you'd save the animal instead? That's really immoral and almost equal to murdering the human. I think you'd be going against your conscience on that one. But we are the ones even discussing the morality of killing or saving animals. Animals, on the other hand, are not giving a crap about us or trying to save us like humans such as you are concerned about. So yea, humans are superior to animals.

If you don't agree with that, unfortunately you cannot say that I only thing such things because of my religion or society. I have thought the subject over myself and formed my own thoughts on it. If you don't think so than I shall say that all you ever think is really just the way the people around you formed your opinions for you.

How is different from removing a fetus from the womb? Easy. Humans aren't supposed to end human life for any reason at all otherwise you are saying the life of any human is as worthless, including your own. I explained once more how a fetus is human life in the beginning of this post.

Disney Duster wrote: Super Aurora you can argue back and say I'm wrong without being so mean and ridiculing another's beliefs,

I'm telling you this cause it been proven countless times. You refuse to listen. You do know that you can ...believe in god and all that and still acknowledge and accept these facts as proven facts.


Also your belief on the gay gene thingI called out on you because you essentially supporting the arguments and statements most anti-gay people say. For a Gay person to actually believe in the same ideology and mind set of the very people against gays, I find that very worrisome and sad. Tim and I were talking about that and worry about you over this.

I'm not arguing to be mean, but I'm telling you this for your sake. Trust me if go out in real world with that mindset you will be easily tooled.

Disney Duster wrote:but anyway, it is actually true that scientists thing the gay gene could be turned either off or on in development.

Link or source please? If not then I call out on you on this.

Disney Duster wrote:In any case, my theory of the soul entering the body and making the body become homosexual in the DNA could still be possible

........

how? explain.

Disney Duster wrote:even though you don't think so because you're close-minded or whatever reason you want to come up with

Ok you got serious fucking balls to say that to me. Especially you of all people. If you said that to me in my face I probably would seriously give you a good beating. I'm not joking there.



In any case, in case you forgot, I'm a deist which means I do believe there is one mono supreme entity or god out there. But unlike the Christians or Jews, we don't see God as a being who interfere with our lives and well beings. To us, God is a neutral being who set the laws of nature and physic and how they operate and then let everything set it's course on it's own. This, to us allow us to believe a God exist without any sort of conflicting issues with factual explanations and scientific discoveries that possibly contradict anything stated in the bible.

My main points in many of my arguments with you isn't to prove god does or does not exist, but to show and inform you of things have been explained and proven and that maybe you need to rework on what your beliefs that be accustom to. You can still be Christian, no one forcing or telling you not to, but some of your logic and backward thinking making you look like a fool in an age where information and new discoveries have been more and more appearing, and many of them seems to be proven statements said in the bible false.

Disney Duster wrote:but anyway, it is actually true that scientists thing the gay gene could be turned either off or on in development.

Sounds fishy to me too.. I'd like a source as well.

Disney Duster wrote:Heartless, no people raise animals for slaughter in order to eat meat and get protein. It is true there are some other ways to get protein, but a long time ago there wasn't very many ways. Meat is a much more easy and efficient way to get protein. A lot of people would have to change the quality of their happy lives to not eat meat. Plus, people of course also eat meat to enjoy it.

Of course meat is a staple in human lives for protein purposes, but that doesn't mean there are still large numbers of torture and millions of wasted animal lives. But producing animals for food wasn't what I was really talking about in the first place. Animal testing has many organizations, scientists, etc. producing millions of animals just to test potential products, drugs, medicinal techniques, etc. on them - and most all of them die. Personally, I would rather prevent the millions of animals that go through their entire lives in torture than prevent the removing of a sack of cells that doesn't even feel anything yet (mentally, physically, emotionally...nothing).

Disney Duster wrote:Indeed, you seem to be a rather big animal lover and think that humans aren't superior to animals. So if a human and an animal were both in a fire, you'd save the animal instead? That's really immoral and almost equal to murdering the human. I think you'd be going against your conscience on that one. But we are the ones even discussing the morality of killing or saving animals. Animals, on the other hand, are not giving a crap about us or trying to save us like humans such as you are concerned about. So yea, humans are superior to animals.

I'm not an animal lover. I just don't like humans very much. But that's not the point. Also, where are you getting the idea that it is immoral from? I'm trying to explain to you that there is no definite concept of morality.. Suppose I think you wanting to choose the human over the animal is immoral... so what? There are no definite guidelines for what is moral and immoral in this world.. There are just beliefs that the general public and governments have accepted as "right" and "wrong," some of them perhaps being derived from religions.

Please don't antagonize me. Would I save the human? Of course I would (probably... lol), but I was merely giving you an example to show that not everyone thinks the same way as you. I was also trying to point out that killing all these animals without second thought is still a mass murdering of animals (your God's created organisms).. I would think killing, in any form, would still be considered a sin of some sorts. Especially when its needless. Killing for our food may not be needless, but there is PLENTY going on that is torture to animals and unnecessary killing. Not to mention the insane amounts of unnecessary disposal of insects, reptiles, arachnids, etc just because they are in humans' spaces.

And by the way, animals may not care about us (as far as we know, they don't even hold the capacity to care about things)... but apparently most humans don't care about saving the other organisms in the world either. Just because we are deemed "superior" makes it alright to continue (needlessly) killing other organisms? How utterly repulsive.

Disney Duster wrote:If you don't agree with that, unfortunately you cannot say that I only thing such things because of my religion or society. I have thought the subject over myself and formed my own thoughts on it. If you don't think so than I shall say that all you ever think is really just the way the people around you formed your opinions for you.

Even if I DID disagree with your opinion, how can I still not claim that you may have those opinions based on your religion or society? If its not from that, where DID you formulate your ideas from?? Even if you believe you formed your own thoughts, religion and society's general perceptions must have had heavy influences on you.

Disney Duster wrote:How is different from removing a fetus from the womb? Easy. Humans aren't supposed to end human life for any reason at all otherwise you are saying the life of any human is as worthless, including your own. I explained once more how a fetus is human life in the beginning of this post.

Who made the rule that humans aren't supposed to end human life for any reason at all? Even if I did think it was alright in some cases to end human life, why would that automatically deem ALL human life as worthless? Makes no sense to me.

I'd have to agree with Super Aurora in saying that my main intention is not to disprove anything you have to say.. its to hopefully help you open your eyes and see things in different perspectives. Though I fear you're too stubborn to let in other ideals.

We are mainly arguing scientifically while Disney Duster is mainly arguing with his religious and moral beliefs. There really is no way for either side to win this argument.

Disney Duster wrote:In any case, my theory of the soul entering the body and making the body become homosexual in the DNA could still be possible [...]

Why do you ask others to not ridicule your beliefs when they're obviously ridiculous? I mean, it's called science, not a fairy tale, like you describe it. Either discuss issues based on scientific facts or don't discuss at all --but don't insult our intelligence with your own made-up illusions.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:but anyway, it is actually true that scientists thing the gay gene could be turned either off or on in development.

Link or source please? If not then I call out on you on this.

I saw it on the Discovery Channel about how genes influence how people turn out. They did a study on two identical twin men. Same genes, same environment. But one was gay and one was straight. They had a theory that a gay gene could be turned on. I wanted to look it up but I didn't remember what the theory was called. So I don't have the name of the source so it's up to you to believe me or not, whatever.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:In any case, my theory of the soul entering the body and making the body become homosexual in the DNA could still be possible

how? explain.

Much like how people believe evolution happened but God was behind it causing it to happen, I believe that while just looking at genes it seems they form on their own, that possibly a soul is behind it guiding at least some of the genes to fit how the soul is, like a body that matches what the soul wants. But there are always mistakes just like having no legs or something.

This is how I think the gay gene may be turned on. This is why when you say you and Tim are concerned about me, I am concerned about you or anyone thinking only genes determine how you are. If scientists located the gay gene they could control or get rid of it. You see how I think it better that a soul guides genes to be gay? Then it's not really a "choice", it's unconscious before the soul can choose to do anything knowingly right or wrong, it's still what God wants and it's how the person is supposed to be, and it's okay.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:even though you don't think so because you're close-minded or whatever reason you want to come up with

Ok you got serious fucking balls to say that to me. Especially you of all people. If you said that to me in my face I probably would seriously give you a good beating. I'm not joking there.

You have said similar things to me, one being you saying I'm ignorant. It hurt me but I let it go, I didn't threaten to beat you up. You have hardly any understanding of my emotions and so it's perfectly fair that I can't tell what will upset you, either. I'm sorry if that offended you but how am I supposed to know what will offend you when I didn't mean anything by it and you have unknowingly offended me a few times. I don't tell any friend I would give them a beating, I don't get you.

Heartless wrote:Of course meat is a staple in human lives for protein purposes, but that doesn't mean there are still large numbers of torture and millions of wasted animal lives. But producing animals for food wasn't what I was really talking about in the first place. Animal testing has many organizations, scientists, etc. producing millions of animals just to test potential products, drugs, medicinal techniques, etc. on them - and most all of them die. Personally, I would rather prevent the millions of animals that go through their entire lives in torture than prevent the removing of a sack of cells that doesn't even feel anything yet (mentally, physically, emotionally...nothing).

We actually agree that animals should not be killed like that, and I think I agree that it's alright to remove those cells that don't feel anything yet, but I think by two months experts do think they can feel something, which was what I was trying to get at.

Heartless wrote:I'm not an animal lover. I just don't like humans very much. But that's not the point. Also, where are you getting the idea that it is immoral from? I'm trying to explain to you that there is no definite concept of morality.. Suppose I think you wanting to choose the human over the animal is immoral... so what? There are no definite guidelines for what is moral and immoral in this world.. There are just beliefs that the general public and governments have accepted as "right" and "wrong," some of them perhaps being derived from religions.

Well the thing is I believe that their are some things you can't (or shouldn't) say are not moral. Lots of people say they believe different things. An axe murderer can say he believes killing is not immoral. Doesn't mean I think that means there's no moral standard for killing, it means I think he's wrong. I'm saying I think there are true morals everyone should agree upon despite people (wrongly) choosing not to agree on them. You would like to convince me otherwise but you won't. There should be standards of good. Otherwise things like mere civility and human rights wouldn't even exist.

Heartless wrote:I was also trying to point out that killing all these animals without second thought is still a mass murdering of animals (your God's created organisms).. I would think killing, in any form, would still be considered a sin of some sorts. Especially when its needless. Killing for our food may not be needless, but there is PLENTY going on that is torture to animals and unnecessary killing. Not to mention the insane amounts of unnecessary disposal of insects, reptiles, arachnids, etc just because they are in humans' spaces.

And by the way, animals may not care about us (as far as we know, they don't even hold the capacity to care about things)... but apparently most humans don't care about saving the other organisms in the world either. Just because we are deemed "superior" makes it alright to continue (needlessly) killing other organisms? How utterly repulsive.

I am not sure if the Bible says anything about killing animals just for no good reason but I'm sure that is frowned upon by God. But I do have to say sometimes when people just get rid of bugs or things that you say is just because "they're in their space", it is usually because they don't even know what the insects are capable of and are afraid they could cause them harm. They should indeed be more educated but if they don't know something they can't be blamed for acting only based on what they know or think they know.

Heartless wrote:Even if I DID disagree with your opinion, how can I still not claim that you may have those opinions based on your religion or society? If its not from that, where DID you formulate your ideas from?? Even if you believe you formed your own thoughts, religion and society's general perceptions must have had heavy influences on you.

Yes, I believe that everyone forms their ideas on their own from their individual spirit, their own minds, but that those minds of course draw on many influences and that sometimes they don't think very much and such influences have far too much influence or almost complete influence.

Heartless wrote:Who made the rule that humans aren't supposed to end human life for any reason at all? Even if I did think it was alright in some cases to end human life, why would that automatically deem ALL human life as worthless? Makes no sense to me.

Well there are arguably some reasons to end human life, but one of them is not just so that another person can not deal with what bringing a human life into the world entails, when that human life only must be with them for nine months. If that person might die because of the human life, or if that human life would end up suffering terribly (similar to how you might end the life of a senior in misery with euthanazia), then those are good reasons. Otherwise killing human life for trivial reasons is saying that human life is trivial.

Goliath wrote:Why do you ask others to not ridicule your beliefs when they're obviously ridiculous? I mean, it's called science, not a fairy tale, like you describe it. Either discuss issues based on scientific facts or don't discuss at all --but don't insult our intelligence with your own made-up illusions.

Only in your and perhaps some other's opinions, Goliath. Spirituality exists, it's a reason that people do certain things, it's something people think of, so it can be brought into discussions, even those of science, as scientific people have even searched for scientific evidence of spiritual ideas as well.

Disney Duster wrote: Much like how people believe evolution happened but God was behind it causing it to happen,

There is no believing in evolution. It fucking happened. the "God was behind it" thing is a something people believe, myself including. But evolution it self is a pure fact.

Disney Duster wrote:I believe that while just looking at genes it seems they form on their own, that possibly a soul is behind it guiding at least some of the genes to fit how the soul is, like a body that matches what the soul wants. But there are always mistakes just like having no legs or something.

The thing is, that's not how a soul works. No in here is denying or saying soul/having spirituality doesn't exist. What where trying to tell you is that's not how a spirit works. And no where does a spirit/soul have anything to do with a person's DNA or genes.

Disney Duster wrote:This is how I think the gay gene may be turned on.

Except there is no such thing of "turning on or off " of people genes. That's not how genes fucking work.

Disney Duster wrote:This is why when you say you and Tim are concerned about me, I am concerned about you or anyone thinking only genes determine how you are.

umm we know wtf we're talking about, otherwise all of us wouldn't be at you all the time. Why do you think you're the only one by yourself in arguing against us in almost any issue or matter? Cause all of know better. We read more, learn more, observe more. Our minds are always formulating and changing after learning new discoveries, news or ideas. You on the other hand, And not just you, but many nutty Christian conservatives, seems stay and stick to the one belief even if certain parts of beliefs are contradicted by proven facts. They refuse to let go and become stubborn. This is why all those nutty conservatives (who are majorly affected and influenced by their Christian religion) you hear about in news always become made of living jokes by people.

We're concern for you cause if you said any of that shit out to people who truly knows the fucking facts, they will fucking laugh at you and/or mock ridicule you. They don't give a shit about your emotions or your feelings.

We do care about you, that's why we try to wise you cause cause otherwise it's only making you look like a fool.

Disney Duster wrote:If scientists located the gay gene they could control or get rid of it. You see how I think it better that a soul guides genes to be gay? Then it's not really a "choice", it's unconscious before the soul can choose to do anything knowingly right or wrong, it's still what God wants and it's how the person is supposed to be, and it's okay.

Thing is as I said before, that's not how fucking genes or soul works. You asked me why would I called you out on being ignorant of Biology? Here' one. Cause what you saying makes know sense especially since that's not how genes work or even what a soul is about. The two are completely different things.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: Ok you got serious fucking balls to say that to me. Especially you of all people. If you said that to me in my face I probably would seriously give you a good beating. I'm not joking there.

You have said similar things to me, one being you saying I'm ignorant. It hurt me but I let it go, I didn't threaten to beat you up. You have hardly any understanding of my emotions and so it's perfectly fair that I can't tell what will upset you, either. I'm sorry if that offended you but how am I supposed to know what will offend you when I didn't mean anything by it and you have unknowingly offended me a few times. I don't tell any friend I would give them a beating, I don't get you.

While I shouldn't have been harsh especially the beating part, The reason I was pissed was cause you have nerve to say that when it is all of us telling you other wise.
You saying i'm ignorant or close minded, not only says that at me but by all of us. It's an insult to our intelligent especially since we read, learn, and know better about the world and how it works. You may got upset when I called you ignorant, but no offense, but you are. If you truly aren't close minded or stubborn, you wouldn't be always arguing with all of us( Me, Goliath, Heartless, Dr.Frankenrolliepollieollie, Lazario, Tim, even engimawing, etc).

Tim read that debate all of us against you and even he face-palmed at the backward logic and statements you make.

Disney Duster wrote:Only in your and perhaps some other's opinions, Goliath. Spirituality exists, it's a reason that people do certain things, it's something people think of, so it can be brought into discussions, even those of science, as scientific people have even searched for scientific evidence of spiritual ideas as well.

You don't get it, do you? Science is not about wild guesses and unsustained claims, like your constant yammering about souls and spirits is. Therefore, they have no place in a scientific discussion. There is neither proof of those things, nor is there scientific consensus to support your theories. The way you word these theories are childish and they come off like tales from a book of fairytales. You may believe what you wish and obviously I'm not asking you to stop believing in them --that's something everybody has to decide for themselves. But please don't bring imagined things into a scientific discussion and please don't base your opinions on matters of life and death on imaginary things. It's dangerous.

Thanks for apologizing Super Aurora, it's alright, as I said before.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Much like how people believe evolution happened but God was behind it causing it to happen,

There is no believing in evolution. It fucking happened. the "God was behind it" thing is a something people believe, myself including. But evolution it self is a pure fact.

The only way to be sure something happened is to see it/experience it for yourself. You can choose not to believe in anything you don't see, and that includes either God or evolution. Yes there's evidence for evolution. You can also say all of existence is evidence for God. Et cetera et cetera.

But after the things you all have said to me...I don't know what to say. I know that science is really really compelling and probably right most of the time, that's something I'm sure you want me to acknowledge, that should make you feel better. But that doesn't mean they're always right, especially when in science "there are no absolutes" and nothing is for certain, theories that were once believed and sounded sensibly right through and through are discovered to be wrong later. Also a lot of the times you will say things like "its proven" and "you don't know how it works" without then explaining how it works or how it's absolutely irrefutably proven. So try doing that, and if you can't, than there you go, I can keep explaining what I think.

I don't know how what I said doesn't make sense. I think I explained it as well as possible.

I do know that people in real life will make fun of me for a lot of the things I say, but sometimes people must say what they believe and withstand persecution for it. :/ I'm usually pretty silent about these things in real life though, because real life is usually nothing like a civil discussion thread.

Anyway specifically to Goliath, I didn't bring up the idea of souls when people asked, but in regards to this particular subject I brought up the scientific definition of death, so that fits in the science you wanted me to only use for this argument. Not that it matters since I will bring up the issue of spirituality anyway. In matters of life and death, it is appropriate because spirituality matters in life or death too, that's the whole point.

This was in my Tumblr dashboard today....

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

DancingCrab wrote:This was in my Tumblr dashboard today....

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

LMAO. The religion Duster follows faithfully even debunk his argument. Even though the bible isn't something you should use as evidence.

Super Aurora wrote:LMAO. The religion Duster follows faithfully even debunk his argument.

I know. I can't wait to see Duster's attempts to interpret this differently. But what else can you expect from hypocritical, self-contradicting people like Christians?

Dr Frankenollie wrote: I know. I can't wait to see Duster's attempts to interpret this differently. But what else can you expect from hypocritical, self-contradicting people like Christians?

Seriously, Dr. Ollie, I understand your point completely, but is generalizing like that really necessary?

At any rate, no doubt Duster will come up with some sort of made up interpretation.. I must say I'm looking forward to it as well lol.

Heartless wrote:Seriously, Dr. Ollie, I understand your point completely, but is generalizing like that really necessary?

Okay, it was generalising...but I didn't mean it in seriousness. There are plenty of good, admirable and kind Christians.

Super Aurora wrote:

DancingCrab wrote:

LMAO. The religion Duster follows faithfully even debunk his argument. Even though the bible isn't something you should use as evidence.

No it doesn't debunk it. It's certainly possible that that's what the Bible, and thus, God, constitutes as a living being, but remember that I said you're not supposed to take the Bible literally?

Also notice the passage does not say "Adam breathed". It said he is given the breath of life. What is that? A soul? Probably the intended metaphorical meaning. And then, so when does God put that breath of life in a person, in the womb or the moment they do take a literal physical breath? In fact, it's actually impossible that that Bible passage meant only a literal breath, as it is obviously not only something that makes him breath but also something that makes him animate, able to think, have a free will, etc.

In any case, if you went only by the literal meaning, that's like saying you could kill a baby even up till the point before it breathes. You could joke you could have a full birth abortion. That's sick. There is no way God would intend that. I wish I knew if the Bible ever did talk about the issue we are discussing now, but I haven't sat down to read the entire thing yet.

Bad! Very very bad! I'm not a fan of babies, but killing babies is wrong!

Disney Duster wrote: No it doesn't debunk it. It's certainly possible that that's what the Bible, and thus, God, constitutes as a living being, but remember that I said you're not supposed to take the Bible literally?

Interesting because if I remember correctly, there were several instances from the bible that you did believe to be literal truths.

But if you gonna say what you said in above quote, you might as well not need to follow the bible at all together. Jesus heals the blind? Nah he never literally healed the blind. Noah making a giant ass ark with two pairs of every single species to board it? Nah that was never literally happen it was just some way of saying how they survive a flood. Jesus walk on water? Nah he never really did that. That just a hallucination by the sailors.

Bottom line, It seems like people only love to pick a chooses what they like or want from the bible to justify their own ideals or beliefs.

Disney Duster wrote:Also notice the passage does not say "Adam breathed". It said he is given the breath of life. What is that? A soul? Probably the intended metaphorical meaning. And then, so when does God put that breath of life in a person, in the womb or the moment they do take a literal physical breath?

did you not read this quote:

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

bold is key.

It say that even when a man is fully formed it's still not a human being unless God gives it breathe of life. When you breathe, it's a sign of life. It's a sign you are alive and living person. A fetus doesn't breathe yet in that stage. So even in metaphorical sense it prove your argument wrong.

Disney Duster wrote:In fact, it's actually impossible that that Bible passage meant only a literal breath, as it is obviously not only something that makes him breath but also something that makes him animate, able to think, have a free will, etc.

Being able to think, have free will etc does not constitute as being alive. If you went that direction might as well say animals and plants aren't alive or living either.

Disney Duster wrote:In any case, if you went only by the literal meaning, that's like saying you could kill a baby even up till the point before it breathes. You could joke you could have a full birth abortion. That's sick. There is no way God would intend that. I wish I knew if the Bible ever did talk about the issue we are discussing now, but I haven't sat down to read the entire thing yet.

You're missing entire point of my argument, the passage, and how it debunk yours.

All in all it only tells and shows that you (as in people in general) seems to only love pick and choose what's truth of literal or metaphorical in the bible even if the passage in it's self contradict your personal belief you believe is following the Christian doctrine and what's right and what's wrong with the bible. It also shows that Christians don't even read the bible they claim to follow faithfully of. Might as well not believe in or follow the bible all together while you're at it.

TsWade2 wrote:Bad! Very very bad! I'm not a fan of babies, but killing babies is wrong!

Fetus aren't babies yet.

TsWade2 wrote:Bad! Very very bad! I'm not a fan of babies, but killing babies is wrong!

They're not babies.

Please come back when you can muster up an adult contribution.

Disney Duster wrote: Much like how people believe evolution happened but God was behind it causing it to happen, I believe that while just looking at genes it seems they form on their own, that possibly a soul is behind it guiding at least some of the genes to fit how the soul is, like a body that matches what the soul wants. But there are always mistakes just like having no legs or something.

This is how I think the gay gene may be turned on. This is why when you say you and Tim are concerned about me, I am concerned about you or anyone thinking only genes determine how you are. If scientists located the gay gene they could control or get rid of it. You see how I think it better that a soul guides genes to be gay? Then it's not really a "choice", it's unconscious before the soul can choose to do anything knowingly right or wrong, it's still what God wants and it's how the person is supposed to be, and it's okay.

Wait, how do you decide which features of a person are a mistake, and which are defined by the soul? To me, that seems like an impossible guessing game. How can you possibly know that there aren't legless souls? Maybe that soul functions better in its physical body with no legs. If gay people aren't a mistake, how come being born without legs is one? Is it because one is physical and one is mental? If that is the case, then what about people with Autism? Are they mistakes, or are their autistic souls, destined to be autistic? And is gender identity decided by the soul or the body? Are transgender people "mistakes", because their body was formed as an incorrect sex for its corresponding soul? Or is the mistake in their mind? Or do they fare better as humans if they have to go through the pain of transition? I could go on.

I find it interesting how you make a point to mention that there are always mistakes. Because I have been plagued in my life by religious people telling me that god makes no mistakes.

And I am not trying to sound smart or anything (I apologize if I sounded that way with my excessive questioning, but I feel it was the best way to get my point across, because your theory just leaves SO many questions.), I am honestly interested in how you come to these conclusions, and what you think is defined by the soul, and what is created by errors.

Super Aurora wrote:But if you gonna say what you said in above quote, you might as well not need to follow the bible at all together. Jesus heals the blind? Nah he never literally healed the blind. Noah making a giant ass ark with two pairs of every single species to board it? Nah that was never literally happen it was just some way of saying how they survive a flood. Jesus walk on water? Nah he never really did that. That just a hallucination by the sailors.

Bottom line, It seems like people only love to pick a chooses what they like or want from the bible to justify their own ideals or beliefs.

You use your mind to figure what you think is metaphorical and what you think is literal. I just explained how the breath of life cannot be only literally oxygen.

Super Aurora wrote:

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

bold is key.

The part you bolded is not the quote from the Bible. It is what the tumblr person wrote.

Super Aurora wrote:Being able to think, have free will etc does not constitute as being alive. If you went that direction might as well say animals and plants are alive or living either.

Animals are alive. You shouldn't kill them either, but what I've been talking about in here is killing live humans.

Alphapanchito, I think I can answer any questions you have by explaining that I think what we like about ourselves is what is not mistakes, and what we don't like is mistakes. Now, sometimes do other people or situations influence what we like or don't like about ourselves? Yes. Do we sometimes change what we like or don't like about ourselves? Yes. But what we eventually figure out to be the things we truly will always like or not like about ourselves, I feel is what our soul may have chosen.