Evidence for God from Science

Paul: Okay, I thought there was sarcasm in your previous post from how it sounded at the end. But I can tell you get what I mean. My issue isn't with the accuracy of the definition, but with the baggage it brings up.

Let's say, hypothetically, a gay person was clinically depressed and went to a psychiatrist, but said psychiatrist kept calling his orientation a genetic disorder. Feeling very uncomfortable with the label he stops going, and doesn't bother finding another. Without medical help he ends up killing himself.

We've had plenty of people show up on this forum facing serious issues. At least one comes to mind who admitted suicidal thoughts (inspiring my metaphor). It isn't hard to imagine someone who was members of those groups having those problems being driven away before registering just because of that alone. We could have lost chances to help people. See below:

RickD: Okay then, the definition doesn't matter. We can label them, or we can be inviting so they can come and be informed of the real Christ. It may be difficult to do both. Remember, even St Paul kept kosher not to offend the Jews he testified to at times. There is no reason to lie about what they are in the forums. No reason to hide our opinions. Every reason to be tactful in the layout of the forum so they can come. I think we can all see why labelling atheists 'ignorant', while literally accurate, would be counter productive.

PaulSacramento wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Aberrant:
ab·er·rant
ˈabərənt,əˈber-/Submit
adjective
departing from an accepted standard.

I'm not saying the definition isn't accurate. 1Over said one of our goals was to inviting, since "Aberrant" is also used to describe eldritch abominations in different medias here in the US (especially video games), it may be worth considering a word with less cultural baggage. Compare calling someone 'light-skinned' vs 'pale', 'skinny' vs 'scrawny', etc. No one is arguing accuracy, only negative connotations. If that isn't our goal, it isn't worth considering.

Another word with same meaning would be "Atypical".

Aberrant does NOT mean abominable, it means "departing form the standard".
I understand that sometimes words take on a meaning of their own because people decide to put emotions on them outside of what they truly mean BUT that is not the fault of the word.
Perhaps people don't know what the word means and a more "popular" term is needed? Perhaps.
Unorthodox perhaps?
Nonstandard?

Maybe we could call the forum Nonstandard Teachings. Does that sound better?

SS wroRickD: Okay then, the definition doesn't matter. We can label them, or we can be inviting so they can come and be informed of the real Christ. It may be difficult to do both. Remember, even St Paul kept kosher not to offend the Jews he testified to at times. There is no reason to lie about what they are in the forums. No reason to hide our opinions. Every reason to be tactful in the layout of the forum so they can come. I think we can all see why labelling atheists 'ignorant', while literally accurate, would be counter productive.

I see what you're saying. But I guess I would point out how Rich set up the forum as primarily a Christian forum, where believers can discuss things with each other.
See Board Purpose

This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defence and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

I think it has to be clear that certain groups teach things contrary to sound, biblical doctrine. We've had people join the forum under the guise that they were Christian, only to see that they were here to preach their false doctrine. We as moderators, and also other Christian members here, need to be careful not to allow a false gospel to be preached.

With that said, I'm certainly open to changes that may bring more unbelievers to the site. But my experience also shows me that those belonging to certain Christian cults, only come here to preach their false gospel. They're usually not open to correction. So in almost all cases, it ends up where we simply end up showing how their beliefs aren't biblical, and they end up seeing that since they can't be allowed to preach here, they just leave, or even get banned in some cases.

SeekingSanctuary,

I like your train of thought on this. Certainly, we all want unbelievers to hear the gospel.

Hana wrote:
Maybe we could call the forum Nonstandard Teachings. Does that sound better?

It's certainly something we could discuss.

RickD wrote:

Hana wrote:
Maybe we could call the forum Nonstandard Teachings. Does that sound better?

It's certainly something we could discuss.

I am all ears.

RickD: If I'm fully honest, I didn't think about their salvation issue until you brought it up. I was purely thinking short-term issues.

I haven't been here long enough to see much in the way of pseudo-Christians yet. I remember Oldman and the embryotic Jesus and that's it. I had no idea that was the standard.

1Over: Yeah it does to me.


I guess we have to figure out where the line is between making this place open enough to help the people figure out the flaws in their beliefs and supporting their false beliefs. I have no idea where that line is.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:
RickD: If I'm fully honest, I didn't think about their salvation issue until you brought it up. I was purely thinking short-term issues.

There's also the issue of believers being led astray by false teachings. I guess I'm extremely sensitive to the issue because my family fell prey to false teachings when I was a teenager. Coming out of that, has left me with really no tolerance for certain kinds of harmful false teachings.

I haven't been here long enough to see much in the way of pseudo-Christians yet. I remember Oldman and the embryotic Jesus and that's it. I had no idea that was the standard.

It's common enough here, that we need to keep a discerning eye on the way people post. Personally, I try to flush the false teaching into the open, so as to deal with it as quickly as possible. Sometimes this may seem rude on my part, but when I discern something is not right, I need to clear up the issue ASAP.

I guess we have to figure out where the line is between making this place open enough to help the people figure out the flaws in their beliefs and supporting their false beliefs. I have no idea where that line is.

Yes. And that's the difficult part. Everyone is different. Some people may be open to correction. While others are completely closed-minded. I try to give the benefit of doubt at first.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:I guess we have to figure out where the line is between making this place open enough to help the people figure out the flaws in their beliefs and supporting their false beliefs. I have no idea where that line is.

I have had robust discussions about the law of God being written on atheists hearts as well as homosexuals, with others in my congregation. We don't preach black and white. Some non Christians do a better job at loving their neighbour and being good of heart and conscience than some Christians I know.

Homosexuality is not reflected in the 10 commandments and does not hurt ones neighbour. Adam & Eve, if literal, committed incest. Many pleasing to God in the OT had concubines. The law of God is written even on atheists hearts, whether they like it or not. Going to war where the innocent are killed in colateral damage, or killing to defend the innocent if there was no choice is a sin to some Christians. Should we simply all put our faith in God and let Islam invade and overrun every country and be peaceful so that we do not murder the innocent? Does one actually have to attend a church to be 'saved' or does church attendance simply help one focus on their spirituality?

It is not so black and white to argue what God considers moral or a sin.

What I am trying to get at is that the term 'false beliefs' is huge. The term 'sin' is huge. The discussion around being saved or not, is huge. Some forms of sin are clear, others not so clear.

We need to be very careful with our terminology and the message we are giving when we preach. If we sense any fraility, need or cry for help we should tread very carefully indeed. With suicidal ideation suggesting referral to a well qualified secular counsellor or psychologist is also important in such cases.

I think the good majority of people here have good morals and good intentions. We all have different back grounds and different ways of expressing our opinions, it's human, It's healthy, and it's necessary.

I just think we all needs to get thicker skins and get over things faster; annnd not take every opinion voiced as a direct blow to our hearts.

That is all.

Mazzy wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:I guess we have to figure out where the line is between making this place open enough to help the people figure out the flaws in their beliefs and supporting their false beliefs. I have no idea where that line is.

I have had robust discussions about the law of God being written on atheists hearts as well as homosexuals, with others in my congregation. We don't preach black and white. Some non Christians do a better job at loving their neighbour and being good of heart and conscience than some Christians I know.

Homosexuality is not reflected in the 10 commandments and does not hurt ones neighbour. Adam & Eve, if literal, committed incest. Many pleasing to God in the OT had concubines. The law of God is written even on atheists hearts, whether they like it or not. Going to war where the innocent are killed in colateral damage, or killing to defend the innocent if there was no choice is a sin to some Christians. Should we simply all put our faith in God and let Islam invade and overrun every country and be peaceful so that we do not murder the innocent? Does one actually have to attend a church to be 'saved' or does church attendance simply help one focus on their spirituality?

It is not so black and white to argue what God considers moral or a sin.

What I am trying to get at is that the term 'false beliefs' is huge. The term 'sin' is huge. The discussion around being saved or not, is huge. Some forms of sin are clear, others not so clear.

We need to be very careful with our terminology and the message we are giving when we preach. If we sense any fraility, need or cry for help we should tread very carefully indeed. With suicidal ideation suggesting referral to a well qualified secular counsellor or psychologist is also important in such cases.

There is an explicit condemnation of homosexual acts in the OT and NT.
For the human species, homosexual is NOT in its best interest and as such, can be viewed as harmful.
Sin is doing anything that one knows to be wrong.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:I guess we have to figure out where the line is between making this place open enough to help the people figure out the flaws in their beliefs and supporting their false beliefs. I have no idea where that line is.

I have had robust discussions about the law of God being written on atheists hearts as well as homosexuals, with others in my congregation. We don't preach black and white. Some non Christians do a better job at loving their neighbour and being good of heart and conscience than some Christians I know.

Homosexuality is not reflected in the 10 commandments and does not hurt ones neighbour. Adam & Eve, if literal, committed incest. Many pleasing to God in the OT had concubines. The law of God is written even on atheists hearts, whether they like it or not. Going to war where the innocent are killed in colateral damage, or killing to defend the innocent if there was no choice is a sin to some Christians. Should we simply all put our faith in God and let Islam invade and overrun every country and be peaceful so that we do not murder the innocent? Does one actually have to attend a church to be 'saved' or does church attendance simply help one focus on their spirituality?

It is not so black and white to argue what God considers moral or a sin.

What I am trying to get at is that the term 'false beliefs' is huge. The term 'sin' is huge. The discussion around being saved or not, is huge. Some forms of sin are clear, others not so clear.

We need to be very careful with our terminology and the message we are giving when we preach. If we sense any fraility, need or cry for help we should tread very carefully indeed. With suicidal ideation suggesting referral to a well qualified secular counsellor or psychologist is also important in such cases.

There is an explicit condemnation of homosexual acts in the OT and NT.
For the human species, homosexual is NOT in its best interest and as such, can be viewed as harmful.
Sin is doing anything that one knows to be wrong.

Although I am inclined to condemn homosexuality, I am forced to understand that incest, even looking on your fathers nakedness is sin, however in a literal Genesis, Adam must have slept with his daughter, or a brother has slept with his sister.

Incest is also not in the best interests of the human species, is not included in the 10 commandments given to Isreal, is comdemned, and yet was what happened with Gods blessing in a literal Genesis.

I am not suggesting one preach the condoning of homosexuality. I would preach caution and ask why take a risk on the reasoning of man when eternity is at stake. That is a different way of preaching a message than making a homosexual crying out for help feel like a sick example of Satans spawn on his way to hell unless he immediately repents.

Mazzy wrote:
Although I am inclined to condemn homosexuality, I am forced to understand that incest, even looking on your fathers nakedness is sin, however in a literal Genesis, Adam must have slept with his daughter, or a brother has slept with his sister.

Incest is also not in the best interests of the human species, is not included in the 10 commandments given to Isreal, is comdemned, and yet was what happened with Gods blessing in a literal Genesis.

I am not suggesting one preach the condoning of homosexuality. I would preach caution and ask why take a risk on the reasoning of man when eternity is at stake. That is a different way of preaching a message than making a homosexual crying out for help feel like a sick example of Satans spawn on his way to hell unless he immediately repents.

I think that it is important to into read what we want into Genesis and simply go with what is there AND what it would mean to those it was written TO.
Genesis 1 simply states that God created Man and Women and they were to be fruitful and multipy, no mention of how many He created.
It is when we come to Genesis 2 that we come to the issue of population.
Some work around this issue be reminding us that Genesis 2 is about the Garden in Eden and nowhere does it state that it is making a comment on the rest of the world.

What does become an obvious issue is the flood and what happens after the flood and IF it is taken as a GLOBAL flood then it is clear that via Noah and his offspring and spouses that the whole world was re-populated.
Some will point out however the issue of repopulating the americas, and the islands and the time frame needed for that.