Evidence for God from Science

You know its very tricky.

On one hand, I dont hate gay people, on the other hand I know Homosexuality is wrong. You know I wonder if this community could even be called Christian. Now, hold back, before some of you jump on me for saying this and thinking that if I sin e.g lie, steal, cheat etc then I should also not call myself christian, because Homosexuality is a sin like all others, I believe there is a fine line being crossed here.

if I sin, for example I steal, I am sinning and I am still a christian but also a sinner and I can not say the stealing is right because I steal. YOu know I can not say a sin is not a sin if I do not think it is a sin but on the other hand if I claim that stealing (or any sin for that matter) is not wrong then I am adding something to God's standard on my whim.

This is where I see this is going wrong. I have no trouble with them being Homo sexual, what I have trouble is when that homosexuality is not considered wrong or sinful and still they are called Christians. What do you guys think? If I formed a group and added my own sinful acts to the "righteous acts list" and then said that I am doing nothing against the teachings to which I hold to while I am in direct conflict with them, would I be forming a cult? is this not the situation here, what are your thoughts?

I find it incredibly serendipitous that one of my Christian friends on facebook posted this article and video from the "Believe Out Loud" website. It is a video of a bright young Harvard student raised in a conservative Christian setting in Kansas. He is gay, and a devout Christian. He spent the last two years studying the Bible and carefully dissecting the 6 verses of scripture that pertain to homosexuality and homosexual acts and determining their biblical significance, as well as whether the long-held interpretation of them is valid or not. It's a long piece (about an hour) but it is very interesting. Some of it I had already heard (such as pointing out that Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality) and other parts are very new to me. Give it a chance if you get some free time.

http://www.believeoutloud.com/boltoday/ ... lame-bible

I watched the video, thank you for mentioning it. I did enjoy listening to him.

I think for most people he made a really sound case. I have no doubt that he loves God when he says he do. And I do not think that he is being dishonest about his cause.

What I really liked was that he remained cool headed throughout the debate(that's something I'd like to see more in Christians)
That he made his point in a good cohesive perspective, at least from his side they make sense.

But the problem is, while half of what he said is true, the rest of it is just based on bad exegesis, now I am not saying that because I am already dead set on believing the homosexuality is wrong, no. If God doesn't see homosexual behavior as sinful, I ca assure you I would be the first one to admit it regardless of what others around me say. As a teenage I struggled with sexual orientation for some years, so I at least know an have experienced something he says.

And for you or those of you who have watched this video, I'll point out where I find some trouble with his arguments.

I'll start off with the usual assumption that gay people are born gay, except for this assertion from gay people we yet have no clear evidence that this is the case. This alone can actually discard the entire reasoning put forth by Matthew Vines. But I am not going to do this. Lets go on.

He is right that the law does not apply to us and that we should not look at the old testament for laws. While some people would like to object and go down this road, keep some of the law and reject the rest and fight vines' reasoning on that ground, would have a hard time because simply put, it makes the law quite subjective as to what we think should apply today and what should not. Either the law applies whole or it doesn't. and that is not because of the nature of the law but to whom it was given and the N.T clearly states that it has been "done away with". So in my view not much help going down that road at all.

However problems arise when we enter the N.T. First lets look at Romans,

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

for one, the word used Rom 1:26 for nature is "physikēn" in greek "φυσικὴν" meaning"natural" as in pertaining to one's nature or instinct.

the comparison that vines make is with 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”

the word used for nature here is "physis" "φύσις" meaning nature. But we can not look at the word alone but also to the context to which the word is being applied to.

In first century Rome, the head covering was the sign of a woman being married. Since this was the social norm that was followed, if a wife were to go about with her head uncovered or her hair cut short it brought dishonor and disgrace upon both her and her husband. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan, which is shameful and disgraceful. Women covering theirs heads was the norm in Rome, sometimes covering the complete heads. Some women, when being taught that they were no longer inferior to men in Christ, stopped covering heads, Paul advised them that they were going against the norm of their culture and they would be seen as prostitutes/courtesans or women in mourning and not Christians.

Paul also appears to be saying that it is unnatural for a man to exercise the cultural norms of the opposite sex, as it may come across to others as though he wishes he were actually a member of the opposite sex.

But based on this why do I reject vines argument? its rather simple, because the context differs. You should see that while Paul says that failure to observe these traditions may be dishonorable and disgraceful as he says in 1 Cor 11:4-6, he never mentions them as sinful. But in Romans chapter one, Paul is not talking about cultural norms at all rather his focus is on God, sin and those who are fallen.

Vines is reasoning on a premise which is unwarranted that "those who turned away from God, knew God once" That is not what the passage in Romans says, it says that there is no excuse for them to not identify God, because God is manifested in everything, his attributes are shown through his creation, for God himself made them visible, yet the people followed their own imaginations and performed idolatry, replacing god with their own perversion. And he then goes on to say that even God gave them up because they were rejecting God’s designed order of nature and his moral command against such a lifestyle . It is inline with what Paul is saying, because rejecting God, leads in deviation from his norms.

RickD wrote: Paul, I also see the argument that it's unnatural. But how would you expect an atheist to change his mind if you argue that it's unnatural, any more than he would change his mind, that HS sex is an abomination? I've heard the argument that HS sex is natural, because animals in nature engage in HS sex. And, people are nothing more than more advanced animals. Sugar coating what God calls an abomination, just so someone won't be offended, or feel "negative emotions", isn't really what we should do, is it? Again, maybe we as Christians should just preach universalism, and pretend eternal separation from God is just a lie, so we won't cause any negative emotions. People may go to hell, but at least their emotions will be positive, until they get there.

No, homosexuality is NOT natural just because it occurs in nature, it is still a deviant (from the norm) activity since the natural mode of procreation is hetrosexual sex ( between mammals of course).
I try to avoid the moral argument for or against homosexuality simply because for the majority of people morals are subjective when it comes to sex ( of course they are not subjective when it comes to things we hold dear such as infanticide being wrong even though that also occurs in nature).
When I say the homosexuality is not natural I am saying that, in terms of the naturalistic reason we have sex (procreation), homosexuality is NOT natural since there is NO procreation possible.

I don't think that it is about sugar coating how homosexuality is viewed, it is incorrect and a sin BUT that does NOT mean that a homosexual person ( a person that has sexual urges for the same sex) is an abomination, just the ACT is.
We need to make a distinction between the two things before we go anywhere else.

Paul, please see my response to you and Jac on page one, regarding my post you just quoted. Again, sorry for the confusion.

RickD wrote:Paul, please see my response to you and Jac on page one, regarding my post you just quoted. Again, sorry for the confusion.

Saw that
I just wanted to make clear on why I view homosexuality as unnatural and how I try to approach it with people.

re: people being born Gay.
While I don't think there is conclusive evidence of that, I don't doubt it since homosexuality is NOT something a person would choose if they had a choice.
I think that deviant sexual behaviour (deviant = deviating from the norm) is caused by a combination of nature (predisposition) and environmental factors.
Much like any behaviour really, like anger, homicidal tendencies, theft, etc..
Some people are born with certain inclinations and depending on various factors, those inclinations can "take a life of their own" or be "controlled" without much effort.

People here apparently have a hard time understanding why child rape is wrong (which isn't surprising considering scripture is not much help on the subject). So. If a 30 year old man married a 12 year old girl, is he allowed to have sex with her? If your answer is no, then you need to stop comparing NAMBLA to gay people. It's wildly disrespectful, ignorant, and I judge you a little every time it's said. If your answer is yes, then I don't understand why you have a problem with NAMBLA in the first place except that it's gay.

With that said, I think you should take gay Christians a little more seriously. Christianity won't survive this change if it doesn't change with it. If intellectual arguments won't sway you, you all need to open up your minds by getting to know some gay people, because that might be the only thing that can change your mind. As much as I can know anything I know that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Telling me I'm wrong is to tell me that my human experience, my person, is a lie. That's as impassioned as I'll let myself get here. I expect some dissenting posts here, but don't bother, this is all I'll say here for now.

Beanybag wrote: With that said, I think you should take gay Christians a little more seriously. Christianity won't survive this change if it doesn't change with it. If intellectual arguments won't sway you, you all need to open up your minds by getting to know some gay people, because that might be the only thing that can change your mind. As much as I can know anything I know that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Telling me I'm wrong is to tell me that my human experience, my person, is a lie. That's as impassioned as I'll let myself get here. I expect some dissenting posts here, but don't bother, this is all I'll say here for now.

It is silly to say that IF Christianity as a WHOLE does NOT embrace gay Christians that Christianity will not survive.
It's has survived far greater threats.
That said, I agree that Christians SHOULD embrace Gay Christians and don't see why they shouldn't be embraced and accepted.
Back to the "embrace change or die thing".
It's not new but it may NOT be what you think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

From Vox Day's blog:
The wages of theological sin
It's really remarkable how cause and effect seems to repeatedly elude liberal Christians:

IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States.....

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.

For some reason, despite the observable fact that chasing after the world and attempting to "appeal to today's young people" has been negatively affecting church attendance since I was in junior high, no one ever seems to question an assumption that so repeatedly and reliably fails. It's no different than politics and the fallacy of moderate appeal. People without direction seek leadership, and when the Church refuses to stand for its Christian principles as defined in the New Testament and provide intellectual leadership against the zeitgeist, it not only sacrifices its reason to exist, but counterintuitively, also loses its primary appeal.

Of course Douthat, being somewhat of a moderate conservative, fails to recognize that the gifts of progressive Christianity he cites, "Social Gospel and the civil rights movement", were both intellectually poisonous and societally destructive in the long run. Liberal Christianity shouldn't be saved and it won't be saved. Having cut itself off from its Christian roots, it should be abjured by the rest of the Church and left to its inevitable demise.

There were surely wolves in sheeps clothing who helped engineer the demise of the liberal denominations and congregations, but it should not be forgotten that they were abetted by many foolish and short-sighted individuals who were genuine Christians. One of the great shortcomings of nearly every church I have ever attended is the complete lack of vigilance for the wolves. Paul warns of them, and yet most churches never stop to think that among their most avid volunteers are likely those who seek to destroy the institution.

This is where I see this is going wrong. I have no trouble with them being Homo sexual, what I have trouble is when that homosexuality is not considered wrong or sinful and still they are called Christians. What do you guys think? If I formed a group and added my own sinful acts to the "righteous acts list" and then said that I am doing nothing against the teachings to which I hold to while I am in direct conflict with them, would I be forming a cult? is this not the situation here, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts exactly. I don't care if gays want to worship God, but a lot of them want to think that their lifestyle isn't a sin, and I think that would be a cult or at least some form of aberrant Christianity because in doing what they are they directly violate the Bible. They are applying their man-made beliefs to the Bible and they try to make them fit.

Ivellious wrote:I find it incredibly serendipitous that one of my Christian friends on facebook posted this article and video from the "Believe Out Loud" website.

I watched Matthew Vines' video and I must say, he is an impressive young man. Like neo-x, I'm quite sure Mr Vines will have impacted most of those who take the time to watch the whole thing and most will probably agree with him. Matthew Vines speaks well, is vulnerable, honest and...likeable.

Unfortunately, Vines' hermenutics is unsound because it is a mixture of biblical and humanist ideas. Here are some of the things he says which are just wrong:

-''It is because we have a sexual orientation that we are able to fall in love, have relationships and start a family...'' A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with love; look in your nearest dictionary for confirmation of the secular definition of love. For the biblical definition, consider 1 Cor 13:4-8.

- ''Good teachings are not destructive to human dignity.'' This sounds like a purely humanist idea but Vines' applies it to Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:15-20 thereby completely violating the context.

- ''It is not good for man to be forced to be alone...'' Vines expands and misquotes God's words in Genesis 2:18, arguing that a suitable helper for a staight man is a woman but a suitable helper for a gay man is another gay man. Therefore, God would approve.

My wife and I have a couple of married lesbian friends, and we've known them for about 20 years...maybe more. We see them about 3 or 4 times a year and one of them is a lawyer and claims to know the Bible. Truth is, she doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to the Bible. She and I get along well and of all our friends, she's the only one interested in the Bible, so I always enjoy my time with them. I think Matthew Vines must be a little like my lawyer friend: well studied biblically but with totally screwed up doctrine.

FL