Evidence for God from Science

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Moral without religion and yet taking from religion what makes you moral.
Like an all-you-can-eat buffet - take what you like and disregard the rest.
Paul himself said that the pagans know God without knowing GOD.
The knew the "law" ( what was right and what was wrong) without having the "law" and that is because ALL TRUTH is God's truth.

Then why do we need to use the Bible?

Because the WHOLE picture is far better than a fussy copy of it.

But aren't we saying that the Bible is a fussy copy (of a copy of a copy)?

We are?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:But aren't we saying that the Bible is a fussy copy (of a copy of a copy)?

We are?

Oh sorry - upon reexamination it would seem you are certainly not. I thought you were, but it was another poster. My mistake. :]

As for the bible, it would seem we are at an odds with regaurds to its truth and interpretation. I doubt it will get settled here and would prefer not to get into specifics. I think we can be moral without the bible and you would disagree. I'm willing to leave the disagreement at that.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:But aren't we saying that the Bible is a fussy copy (of a copy of a copy)?

We are?

Oh sorry - upon reexamination it would seem you are certainly not. I thought you were, but it was another poster. My mistake. :]

As for the bible, it would seem we are at an odds with regaurds to its truth and interpretation. I doubt it will get settled here and would prefer not to get into specifics. I think we can be moral without the bible and you would disagree. I'm willing to leave the disagreement at that.

No, I agree that we can be moral without the bible.
Even before the bible there were moral people.
We are created in God's image so the possibility of being moral is part of us.
That is a far crying from saying that we do NOT NEED God to be moral though.

PaulSacramento wrote:No, I agree that we can be moral without the bible.
Even before the bible there were moral people.
We are created in God's image so the possibility of being moral is part of us.
That is a far crying from saying that we do NOT NEED God to be moral though.

I'm not arguing that god isn't needed in the equation, only the Bible. The part further in this is.. is the Bible wrong or outdated on any of its moral tenants? Clearly some of the OT laws were intended for an older society, but some of the NT commandments might too be outdated with our vast technological progression.

Also, is killing in self-defense justified or should you turn the other cheek upon being assaulted? The two positions seem incompatible to me (unless the turning of the cheek is meant metaphorically).

I think we can be moral without the bible and you would disagree. I'm willing to leave the disagreement at that.

Paul, I am amazed that statements like this from Beany continue to pop up. What it shows me is that arguing over contradiction is ridiculous. This is a failure on the most basic level to understand the Christian position. If there is ignorance on the most basic level (general revelation) how is one to understand the Bible. (special revelation) How can one work through apparent contradictions starting with an opinion that is contradictory?

"We don't need the Bible to be moral."

Well, there's Iceland, Sweden, Norway, & Belgium. All extremely secular countries that have extremely low crime, high health, and stable economies (And yes, Iceland is very stable now as well as the safest country in the world). Australia, Japan, and France are also partial examples. It is possible to be moral without religion - you can attribute this to God's gift of a conscience or you can claim something else absurd. Just try and stick to facts when facts are applicable.

And why is that a good thing?

Clearly some of the OT laws were intended for an older society,

Beany. Yes, clearly. The Bible says as much.

Also, is killing in self-defense justified or should you turn the other cheek upon being assaulted? The two positions seem incompatible to me (unless the turning of the cheek is meant metaphorically).

Could they both be applicable given a context? And let's suppose there is a dilema. Why is there a dilema?

Beanybag wrote:Well, there's Iceland, Sweden, Norway, & Belgium. All extremely secular countries that have extremely low crime, high health, and stable economies (And yes, Iceland is very stable now as well as the safest country in the world). Australia, Japan, and France are also partial examples. It is possible to be moral without religion - you can attribute this to God's gift of a conscience or you can claim something else absurd. Just try and stick to facts when facts are applicable. :\

I addressed that in advance:

Reactionary wrote:You can't show up after hundreds of years of advancement, declare a country secular, and claim that it's successful without God, an atheistic country (mind that I'm not speaking about any country in particular).

There, you spoke about countries in particular.

Reactionary wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Well, there's Iceland, Sweden, Norway, & Belgium. All extremely secular countries that have extremely low crime, high health, and stable economies (And yes, Iceland is very stable now as well as the safest country in the world). Australia, Japan, and France are also partial examples. It is possible to be moral without religion - you can attribute this to God's gift of a conscience or you can claim something else absurd. Just try and stick to facts when facts are applicable. :\

I addressed that in advance:

Reactionary wrote:You can't show up after hundreds of years of advancement, declare a country secular, and claim that it's successful without God, an atheistic country (mind that I'm not speaking about any country in particular).

There, you spoke about countries in particular.

Doesn't address Japan. Nor do I find it a particularly good objection for the other countries - I'm more inclined to think that as a country moves away from outdated texts and overly restrictive prescriptive tenants, the more it will thrive (at least, as it seems to be empirically).. Honestly, I'm not sure why God would be concerned with the political actions of states and why he would help one country over another. It seems to me that countries rise and fall purely on the actions of their leaders and constituents.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No, I agree that we can be moral without the bible.
Even before the bible there were moral people.
We are created in God's image so the possibility of being moral is part of us.
That is a far crying from saying that we do NOT NEED God to be moral though.

I'm not arguing that god isn't needed in the equation, only the Bible. The part further in this is.. is the Bible wrong or outdated on any of its moral tenants? Clearly some of the OT laws were intended for an older society, but some of the NT commandments might too be outdated with our vast technological progression.

Also, is killing in self-defense justified or should you turn the other cheek upon being assaulted? The two positions seem incompatible to me (unless the turning of the cheek is meant metaphorically).

The bible is a progressive revelation of God, cumulating in Christ, that is accommodated to the understanding of the people that it was given to.
There was a time that circumcision was needed to distinguish the people of God, no more.
There was a time that food restrictions were needed, not anymore.
There was a time that man could only understand the cosmos via allegory and metaphor and via points of reference in their everyday lives, no more.
God accommodated Himself to Us because there was NO WAY for US to "raise up to his level".
There were casual laws, like we have now ( If a person...etc) and those laws progressed as God's revelation progressed and MAN could handle it ( case in point slavery that is STILL an issue in some places).
One can never separate from the books of the bible Who wrote it, When, to Whom and Why.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No, I agree that we can be moral without the bible.
Even before the bible there were moral people.
We are created in God's image so the possibility of being moral is part of us.
That is a far crying from saying that we do NOT NEED God to be moral though.

I'm not arguing that god isn't needed in the equation, only the Bible. The part further in this is.. is the Bible wrong or outdated on any of its moral tenants? Clearly some of the OT laws were intended for an older society, but some of the NT commandments might too be outdated with our vast technological progression.

Also, is killing in self-defense justified or should you turn the other cheek upon being assaulted? The two positions seem incompatible to me (unless the turning of the cheek is meant metaphorically).

The bible is a progressive revelation of God, cumulating in Christ, that is accommodated to the understanding of the people that it was given to.
There was a time that circumcision was needed to distinguish the people of God, no more.
There was a time that food restrictions were needed, not anymore.
There was a time that man could only understand the cosmos via allegory and metaphor and via points of reference in their everyday lives, no more.
God accommodated Himself to Us because there was NO WAY for US to "raise up to his level".
There were casual laws, like we have now ( If a person...etc) and those laws progressed as God's revelation progressed and MAN could handle it ( case in point slavery that is STILL an issue in some places).
One can never separate from the books of the bible Who wrote it, When, to Whom and Why.

Which leads in to my point: There was a time that perhaps homosexual restrictions were needed (due to necessary procreative measures or fear of spreading disease? I can't say for sure), and that time is no more.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No, I agree that we can be moral without the bible.
Even before the bible there were moral people.
We are created in God's image so the possibility of being moral is part of us.
That is a far crying from saying that we do NOT NEED God to be moral though.

I'm not arguing that god isn't needed in the equation, only the Bible. The part further in this is.. is the Bible wrong or outdated on any of its moral tenants? Clearly some of the OT laws were intended for an older society, but some of the NT commandments might too be outdated with our vast technological progression.

Also, is killing in self-defense justified or should you turn the other cheek upon being assaulted? The two positions seem incompatible to me (unless the turning of the cheek is meant metaphorically).

The bible is a progressive revelation of God, cumulating in Christ, that is accommodated to the understanding of the people that it was given to.
There was a time that circumcision was needed to distinguish the people of God, no more.
There was a time that food restrictions were needed, not anymore.
There was a time that man could only understand the cosmos via allegory and metaphor and via points of reference in their everyday lives, no more.
God accommodated Himself to Us because there was NO WAY for US to "raise up to his level".
There were casual laws, like we have now ( If a person...etc) and those laws progressed as God's revelation progressed and MAN could handle it ( case in point slavery that is STILL an issue in some places).
One can never separate from the books of the bible Who wrote it, When, to Whom and Why.

Which leads in to my point: There was a time that perhaps homosexual restrictions were needed (due to necessary procreative measures or fear of spreading disease? I can't say for sure), and that time is no more.

Hmmm, that's a tough one.
Homosexuality is a "deviant" sexual behaviour in the technical sense, it is "abnormal" - ie: Outside the norm for our species.
Note I am NOT making a comment on it being "right or wrong" per say, just sticking to the "facts" as it were.
The bible is clear in the OT and NT alike that ACTING on homosexual urges is incorrect, a sin.
Doesn't make a statement on BEING homosexual and it also makes a statement on incorrect HETEROSEXUAL behaviour as well.
I think that IF at any time science proves that homosexuality is something that one is born with, then it would be a progressive revelation" via nature and Christians would have to accept that.
HOW they would is another matter of course.
That said, sexual behaviour of ALL types have restrictions and prohibitions in the bible and I don't knwo if we, as humans, are at a state that we can make an "unbias" call on these things.

PaulSacramento wrote:Hmmm, that's a tough one.
Homosexuality is a "deviant" sexual behaviour in the technical sense, it is "abnormal" - ie: Outside the norm for our species.
Note I am NOT making a comment on it being "right or wrong" per say, just sticking to the "facts" as it were.
The bible is clear in the OT and NT alike that ACTING on homosexual urges is incorrect, a sin.
Doesn't make a statement on BEING homosexual and it also makes a statement on incorrect HETEROSEXUAL behaviour as well.
I think that IF at any time science proves that homosexuality is something that one is born with, then it would be a progressive revelation" via nature and Christians would have to accept that.
HOW they would is another matter of course.
That said, sexual behaviour of ALL types have restrictions and prohibitions in the bible and I don't knwo if we, as humans, are at a state that we can make an "unbias" call on these things.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and respect on this subject. :]

Of course, I think promiscuous and risky sexual behavior are something that should be restricted. But I don't see the harm in a homosexuals being able to have healthy, homosexual relationships. While most evidence and testimony points to the high inelasticity of sexual orientation, I don't know how much it matters if it's a choice or not. Is it a choice for you to prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla? My answer: Who cares? Both options are fine options, no matter how you get there! =D

I'll describe what I see and why I largely support homosexual relationships. When I see a gay couple together, they are thriving in much the same way a heterosexual couple thrives. It brings them great joy to share in love, and to bring that love to a maximal high through sexual intimacy. I see children, whether adopted or no, also thrive in the family with same-sex parents, happy to have two parents supporting and loving them. And I ask myself, "Would God REALLY be against this?" I can't say I can see how God would oppose this in any way, if he is indeed fully benevolent.

I am not really sure if we can make the call that children thrive and are well adjusted in a homosexual parental system.
Too soon to tell for sure, but, well...to be honest, I've seen what happens when a kid(s) have only one type of "paternal unit" ( be it only male or female) and you can tell that kid is "missing something" and they know it too.

One could argue that the homosexual "padarenistic" ( is that the term?) society of Sparta, for example, allowed young males to thrive, not sure how that would work in 21st century.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not really sure if we can make the call that children thrive and are well adjusted in a homosexual parental system.
Too soon to tell for sure, but, well...to be honest, I've seen what happens when a kid(s) have only one type of "paternal unit" ( be it only male or female) and you can tell that kid is "missing something" and they know it too.

I'm just not sure that that's even true. I feel like you might have seen this before, but I'll link it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
It's a speech of Zach Wahls speaking up in defense of his gay mothers.

The way I see it is you either have good parents or bad parents - gender doesn't seem to matter that much. I should also point out that most of our society's gender roles are highly artificial and don't carry over from society to society - and on a different note, I doubt their legitimacy and value very highly, but I won't get into that. Good parents, if they feel the child is not receiving enough adult support from a member of a specific gender, can always put that child in contact with good role models of that gender. First and foremost, what a child needs is loving and supportive parents, and I think empirical evidence supports this (I can provide links to studies which support this if you want). Beyond the issue of parenthood, however, I still can't seem to find any strikes against homosexual relationships.

PaulSacramento wrote:One could argue that the homosexual "padarenistic" ( is that the term?) society of Sparta, for example, allowed young males to thrive, not sure how that would work in 21st century.

I don't think one could argue that, unless you're using a different definition of the term thrive. I think the term you're looking for is 'pederastic' by the way.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not really sure if we can make the call that children thrive and are well adjusted in a homosexual parental system.
Too soon to tell for sure, but, well...to be honest, I've seen what happens when a kid(s) have only one type of "paternal unit" ( be it only male or female) and you can tell that kid is "missing something" and they know it too.

I'm just not sure that that's even true. I feel like you might have seen this before, but I'll link it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
It's a speech of Zach Wahls speaking up in defense of his gay mothers.

The way I see it is you either have good parents or bad parents - gender doesn't seem to matter that much. I should also point out that most of our society's gender roles are highly artificial and don't carry over from society to society - and on a different note, I doubt their legitimacy and value very highly, but I won't get into that. Good parents, if they feel the child is not receiving enough adult support from a member of a specific gender, can always put that child in contact with good role models of that gender. First and foremost, what a child needs is loving and supportive parents, and I think empirical evidence supports this (I can provide links to studies which support this if you want). Beyond the issue of parenthood, however, I still can't seem to find any strikes against homosexual relationships.

PaulSacramento wrote:One could argue that the homosexual "padarenistic" ( is that the term?) society of Sparta, for example, allowed young males to thrive, not sure how that would work in 21st century.

I don't think one could argue that, unless you're using a different definition of the term thrive. I think the term you're looking for is 'pederastic' by the way.

I can only speak from what I have seen myself so...
No doubt that a child with loving and supportive parents well thrive but I often wonder about how they handle the issues that comes with two gay parents and how they develop the tools to deal with non-homosexual issues...I just don't know.
Just as heteros are not equipped to deal with homosexual issues, I don't see homosexuals being able to deal with Heterosexual issues...