Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Btw, I found this video quite interesting. I fully support Muslims' right to refuse, what about you? To make them comply, is to force them to do something clearly against their beliefs. IS, to force your morality upon them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

K,

Great video. That explains it perfectly. He gets it. He understands the issue.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Dan wrote:

Say I am a paramedic, but I hold deeply religious convictions that all people of colour are the spawn of Satan and don't deserve life. In your view would I be right in refusing life saving treatment at the scene of an accident to a person of colour because it goes against my conscience and religious convictions?

No. Here's an example of an oath that paramedics must recite, and hold to:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity;
THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

And again, for the umpteenth time, nobody is saying it's ok to refuse to provide service to a gay person, just because he is gay.

I hope you understand the situation that occurred.

So what I am hearing here is that you want to pick and choose when you will and will not apply your religious beliefs.

If that's what you're hearing, you need to listen better.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Dan wrote:

Say I am a paramedic, but I hold deeply religious convictions that all people of colour are the spawn of Satan and don't deserve life. In your view would I be right in refusing life saving treatment at the scene of an accident to a person of colour because it goes against my conscience and religious convictions?

No. Here's an example of an oath that paramedics must recite, and hold to:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity;
THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

And again, for the umpteenth time, nobody is saying it's ok to refuse to provide service to a gay person, just because he is gay.

I hope you understand the situation that occurred.

So what I am hearing here is that you want to pick and choose when you will and will not apply your religious beliefs.

If that's what you're hearing, you need to listen better.

Ok then, say you are a paramedic who has deeply held religious beliefs about not being able to touch people with tattoos, should they ignore their man made oath because they believe they would be breaking their moral code which is instituted by God or should they ignore their religious beliefs instead, after all they are not discriminating against the person, just discriminating against their tattoos.

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong? If we interject ourselves by creating things/writings on cakes, etc - things which go against God's instructions - EVEN IF we don't agree with them - then we not only aren't taking a stand for the Lord, but we are contributing to the sinful statement or thing. If it's just baking a cake - different thing. We're not to be accountable for every neutral thing others use sinfully. But being a witness for God means not just going along with things we know displease God. And there is often going to be a cost for standing up for Godly values. NO law can protect everyone equally. Whatever law designed to prevent discrimination against some, will undoubtedly discriminate against others. Again, people don't have to shop at MY bakery - just go down the street! I don't expect everyone I attempt business with to accommodate ME. And businesses put all manner of caveats as to how they are willing to do business with people. But suddenly, those with an agenda, swarm all over this issue. They want to discriminate against CHRISTIANS! Does THAT not bother people?

Dan wrote:
Ok then, say you are a paramedic who has deeply held religious beliefs about not being able to touch people with tattoos, should they ignore their man made oath because they believe they would be breaking their moral code which is instituted by God or should they ignore their religious beliefs instead, after all they are not discriminating against the person, just discriminating against their tattoos.

Latex gloves. Bam. Problem solved.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't need to read them as I am not supporting forcing people to do anything, all I said was that I personally would supply the goods for the reasons I listed. People should be able to act how they please (within reason), but I can also not agree with it in principle, such is a free and democratic society.

Hey!! Stop picking on the glorious Ministry Of Love, next you will be hanging out to dry our glorious leader Kim Yong Un.

I'd highly recommend reading over many real cases on the ADF Legal website rather than our hypothetical scenarios. Just as a matter of being completely informed.

RickD wrote:

Dan wrote:
Ok then, say you are a paramedic who has deeply held religious beliefs about not being able to touch people with tattoos, should they ignore their man made oath because they believe they would be breaking their moral code which is instituted by God or should they ignore their religious beliefs instead, after all they are not discriminating against the person, just discriminating against their tattoos.

Latex gloves. Bam. Problem solved.

Depends how religious you are, maybe they are a level 5 religious nut which requires not being within a 10m radius.

Kurieuo wrote: The issue as I see it, isn't that the person is refusing to make the cake, which they refuse on the basis of their good conscience to God (and no one's life is at stake if they don't write the message on top of the cake). Rather, the true issue between us is that that Neo-X and yourself do not see homosexuality as morally wrong, or harmful to anyone, or an affront to God.

I say that these people should have equal rights.
Is homosexuality morally wrong? I am not so sure at the moment. I think it is but I try to see why is it biological then.
Is it harmful to anyone? We'd have to define harm, but I don't particularly think so. Jac makes a good case of it being harmful though. And while I don't fully agree, I appreciate it.
Is it an affront to God? Based on the evidence, I'd let God decide that. But let's say it is then that should have little effect on what I say next.

I just know this: Love your neighbour, even if it is a gay neighbour, or a divorcee, or whatever choice of sin you may wanna fit in there. Whatever they are or the sin they do, they should have the same courtesy as the rest of us sinners, and the same rights (unless it is criminal or illegal). And that I support fully. I can't force a Christian to do something against their will but if it were upto me, I'd have no problem making a cake etc...

As C.S. Lewis once said "I know the two great commandments and I better get on with them".

Even if it is not in your good conscience to support the message, I'd support it to show love and grace for that person. that to me is more important. Because to show mercy grace and love, there is nothing that stops you, there is no command against that.

I was able to bring the good news to a non-christian family by eating and dining with them on their non-christian religious festivals, and eating their sacrifical meat which not done in the name of our God, it was for someone else. Their message flew in the face of my most core beliefs as a christian and yet, to me those people were more important. And that is the kind of experience I have had.

Neo: I say that these people should have equal rights.

Yes, as long as that doesn't mean trampling MY rights!

Neo: Is homosexuality morally wrong? I am not so sure at the moment.

So, again, Scripture is a problem for you???!!!

Neo: Is it an affront to God? Based on the evidence, I'd let God decide that.

Um, do you think Scripture is in ANY way vague about what God thinks about this issue of unrepentently PRACTICING homosexuality? But if you don't believe the pertinent Scriptures are God-given, then nothing will persuade you!

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: The issue as I see it, isn't that the person is refusing to make the cake, which they refuse on the basis of their good conscience to God (and no one's life is at stake if they don't write the message on top of the cake). Rather, the true issue between us is that that Neo-X and yourself do not see homosexuality as morally wrong, or harmful to anyone, or an affront to God.

I say that these people should have equal rights.
Is homosexuality morally wrong? I am not so sure at the moment. I think it is but I try to see why is it biological then.
Is it harmful to anyone? We'd have to define harm, but I don't particularly think so. Jac makes a good case of it being harmful though. And while I don't fully agree, I appreciate it.
Is it an affront to God? Based on the evidence, I'd let God decide that. But let's say it is then that should have little effect on what I say next.

I just know this: Love your neighbour, even if it is a gay neighbour, or a divorcee, or whatever choice of sin you may wanna fit in there. Whatever they are or the sin they do, they should have the same courtesy as the rest of us sinners, and the same rights (unless it is criminal or illegal). And that I support fully. I can't force a Christian to do something against their will but if it were upto me, I'd have no problem making a cake etc...

As C.S. Lewis once said "I know the two great commandments and I better get on with them".

Even if it is not in your good conscience to support the message, I'd support it to show love and grace for that person. that to me is more important. Because to show mercy grace and love, there is nothing that stops you, there is no command against that.

I was able to bring the good news to a non-christian family by eating and dining with them on their non-christian religious festivals, and eating their sacrifical meat which not done in the name of our God, it was for someone else. Their message flew in the face of my most core beliefs as a christian and yet, to me those people were more important. And that is the kind of experience I have had.

Well said Neo, I wish I had your way with words and I wish I wasn't so blunt sometimes.

Neo-X wrote:I can't force a Christian to do something against their will but if it were upto me, I'd have no problem making a cake etc...

To be clear, I've never said that I wouldn't make the cake with a pro-gay message. You can search my posts.

My issue is one you touch upon here -- with one's freedom being taken away to believe and act according to their beliefs. Do we truly value a person's freedom? Even if we do all we can to change the minds of others, so long as the freedom of others aren't infringed upon, then such is good -- and it's what God also values, our freedom.

It is not loving to force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs. I don't see it as unloving to not make a cake that you disagree with the message of. Furthermore, I see such as oppression if one is being forced or compelled to support something that they disagree with. Not making the cake isn't oppression, being forced to or lose your job/have your business closed down is oppression. Especially when that is the agenda of the person making a request.

Oppression is what is happening, when people are being taken to court left, right and centre. Christians are being "legally forced" to concede or suffer consequences. That is wrong. I'd call it wrong if it were Muslims. I'd call it wrong if a gay person was forced to make a cake that went against their beliefs.

Let's not miss what is actually going on here. It isn't really about the cake or the message, love, grace or however you want to spin it. Rather, it is Christians being largely targeted because their beliefs are not acceptable or tolerable by many "liberal" minded people in a secular humanistic society, in particular activists within a leftist LGBT community (which many gay and lesbian people do not agree with).

Philip wrote:

Neo: I say that these people should have equal rights.

Yes, as long as that doesn't mean trampling MY rights!

Ofcourse...I am not advocating for that. I mean a church should have the say whether they would marry a gay couple or not, and they should have the right o refuse. The problem comes when churches get legal funding and benefits and tax cuts and exemptions but then refuse the tax paying citizen. You can't do that.

Similarly, in a business it becomes tricky. You can't refuse someone because of your beliefs.

I don't think you fully appreciate the consequence of what you are saying, and thus the principal on which you are advocating this. I asked before and I ask again. What if this law abiding, tax paying citizen gets refused from every baker in the city or country or the world? Where should he go?

I asked Rick, I think, what if you are living in a non-Christian country and they refuse to get you a cake based on the Christian belief/message that has to go on the cake. And what if you are a minority and you get refused everywhere. Wouldn't that be wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating? Wouldn't you feel bad?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Perhaps you have never been in a situation like this and perhaps that is why you don't take this scenario seriously or care. I don't mean this to belittle what you are saying but I think somewhere in the world these things are a reality and you may have never faced that and thus may be it is hard to imagine.

But in any case. I am not sure if you can do it in a business. Maybe your lawmakers should be more specific about such things.

Neo: Is homosexuality morally wrong? I am not so sure at the moment.


So, again, Scripture is a problem for you???!!!

Neo: Is it an affront to God? Based on the evidence, I'd let God decide that.


Um, do you think Scripture is in ANY way vague about what God thinks about this issue of unrepentently PRACTICING homosexuality? But if you don't believe the pertinent Scriptures are God-given, then nothing will persuade you!

I think the O.T is very specific about it. The N.T is a little vague but I am sure that it follows the path of the O.T at least in principal that this is wrong. But my concern comes because those same scriptures also said:

1. Stone the prostitute
2. Kill the homosexual
3. kill the witch
4. Stone the sabbath law-breaker
5. kill the adulterers
6. kill the blasphemers
7. Kill anyone who preaches another religion
8. stone the person who curses his parents
9. It also says that drunks, idiots, and cowards are also not having a part in the kingdom of God.

The scriptures are very clear about these things and yet you don't do it? Why?
And the same reasons why you don't do or follow those things anymore is the same reason I think there may be grey areas.

But most important of all, is what I said before. You can waive your rights in order to love and I think that is something which redeemed men in Christ can show the fallen world. They can waive their rights for others. Paul, although not the for the same cause, says that "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race" Rom 9:3"


He is willing to waive his rights to save a non-believer Jew, his nation and people. I think the principal is not much different here. And that is what I think Christ preached on the sermon on the mount.

Matthew 5:38-42
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 “And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 “And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two 42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”

I am not sure how else to see this, if not to waive your rights voluntarily in Christ to show others mercy, love and grace. Please let me know if you think otherwise.

EDIT.
By the way Phil, when is this argument going to stop? Whenever I say anything remotely of scripture which is not in line with your view, you bring out the same charge against me, that I don't think it's from God and I don't believe in them, and nothing will persuade me etc etc.

I have repeatedly told you my stance on things. And instead of blindly following dogma, I have told you repeatedly the reasons why. Evidence mostly... the point is, I have reasons for what I believe. yet you always make it sound like I have an anti-bible agenda here. That scripture don't hold any respect to me. I am sorry but this is really not true. I do respect them and treat them with care.

But I am tired of defending against these straw man attacks. I really am.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neo-X wrote:I can't force a Christian to do something against their will but if it were upto me, I'd have no problem making a cake etc...

To be clear, I've never said that I wouldn't make the cake with a pro-gay message. You can search my posts.

My issue is one you touch upon here -- with one's freedom being taken away to believe and act according to their beliefs. Do we truly value a person's freedom? Even if we do all we can to change the minds of others, so long as the freedom of others aren't infringed upon, then such is good -- and it's what God also values, our freedom.

It is not loving to force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs. I don't see it as unloving to not make a cake that you disagree with the message of. Furthermore, I see such as oppression if one is being forced or compelled to support something that they disagree with. Not making the cake isn't oppression, being forced to or lose your job/have your business closed down is oppression. Especially when that is the agenda of the person making a request.

Oppression is what is happening, when people are being taken to court left, right and centre. Christians are being "legally forced" to concede or suffer consequences. That is wrong. I'd call it wrong if it were Muslims. I'd call it wrong if a gay person was forced to make a cake that went against their beliefs.

Let's not miss what is actually going on here. It isn't really about the cake or the message, love, grace or however you want to spin it. Rather, it is Christians being largely targeted because their beliefs are not acceptable or tolerable by many "liberal" minded people in a secular humanistic society, in particular activists within a leftist LGBT community (which many gay and lesbian people do not agree with).

I understand K, and appreciate your concern. And I agree with you. My issue here is not that you should do something against your conscience. I think what I have said is that I am not sure about the law and if it allows for such. And I also think that there is a problem in principle, at least when it comes to public business because it leads to much bigger problems.

Please see my post to Philip on rights and love above. nd if there is an agenda, then ofcourse it is a very different thing, k. I don't think I can comment on that much, except that it is wrong.

All I know for sure is that this is a big problem.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: The issue as I see it, isn't that the person is refusing to make the cake, which they refuse on the basis of their good conscience to God (and no one's life is at stake if they don't write the message on top of the cake). Rather, the true issue between us is that that Neo-X and yourself do not see homosexuality as morally wrong, or harmful to anyone, or an affront to God.

I say that these people should have equal rights.
Is homosexuality morally wrong? I am not so sure at the moment. I think it is but I try to see why is it biological then.
Is it harmful to anyone? We'd have to define harm, but I don't particularly think so. Jac makes a good case of it being harmful though. And while I don't fully agree, I appreciate it.
Is it an affront to God? Based on the evidence, I'd let God decide that. But let's say it is then that should have little effect on what I say next.

I just know this: Love your neighbour, even if it is a gay neighbour, or a divorcee, or whatever choice of sin you may wanna fit in there. Whatever they are or the sin they do, they should have the same courtesy as the rest of us sinners, and the same rights (unless it is criminal or illegal). And that I support fully. I can't force a Christian to do something against their will but if it were upto me, I'd have no problem making a cake etc...

As C.S. Lewis once said "I know the two great commandments and I better get on with them".

Even if it is not in your good conscience to support the message, I'd support it to show love and grace for that person. that to me is more important. Because to show mercy grace and love, there is nothing that stops you, there is no command against that.

I was able to bring the good news to a non-christian family by eating and dining with them on their non-christian religious festivals, and eating their sacrifical meat which not done in the name of our God, it was for someone else. Their message flew in the face of my most core beliefs as a christian and yet, to me those people were more important. And that is the kind of experience I have had.

Well said Neo, I wish I had your way with words and I wish I wasn't so blunt sometimes.

You do alright on your own. We have different voices and ways to express ourselves, all are important.

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong?

Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.