Evidence for God from Science

Wow, hi everyone...I leave for a week and this page just explodes! Glad to see that there has been some good constructive conversation going on here! I'm sorry that I am unable to address everyone, there were a lot of interesting comments, but the fact of the matter is that i'm not going to bring up a post from 6 pages ago because it simply was 6 pages ago LOL

Beanybag, you do what you want if you love it lol I know this isn't really something that's relevant to discussion, but I always feel the urge to reach out to others when someone tells them that their quest for education is useless. I am a dance major so I get the whole "oh, and what do you plan on doing with that?" spiel so frequently it's ridiculous! If it's what you love, then why do anything else?

I am kind of confused about this whole thing;

1) Is a thing moral because God commands it?

OR

2) Does God command it because it is moral?

Like, at times I THINK that I know what you are trying to say, but then when I try to put it in words I basically just end up saying the exact same thing twice. Is there any other way that you can explain this that makes it less strange?

I'm kind of confused as to where this conversation is currently and how I can really jump back in. I could trace a while back that it was still discussing homosexuality, but I think that it has slightly branched out to discussing how we know right from wrong in general and overall just trying to understand God. That is if I am understanding correctly. It's impossible to truly understand God or what His plan is, but I do have to assume that God does have a plan for me whether I understand it or not. At this moment, it seems that God's plan for me involves me being bisexual. I know that some of you will be in defense of this, but I think that everyone in history has fulfilled their plan as God wanted them to. Do I think that having a boyfriend is wrong? No, I don't see who I am harming and I think that I can still live my life as a Christian even with this "lifestyle" that I live. It's not that I choose to live it either, I do not like my boyfriend because he is of the same sex as me much like I wouldn't like a girlfriend just because she is the opposite sex as me. I like my boyfriend because of the person that he is inside. Is that wrong? If his entire soul was somehow mystically transplanted into the body of a woman would our relationship then be acceptable? Is it really the BODY of the person that matters? Or is it the person inside that we should be really focused on?

Welcome back mylynchrules. I hope all is well with you. Things kinda got pulled off track, as you can see, lol. If you don't mind, I'd like you to adress the post I made on page 5, as it made a lot of important points I'd like to discuss with you. I'm gonna paste it all below for the sake of convenience.

I wasn't a part of the original discussion, but I figured I'd jump in.

mlynchrules wrote:Hey everyone, I'm back for more I've been really busy at work and haven't had much time for the internet at all so I'm glad to be able to rejoin this conversation, even if i may not be able to come back for a while again xP

So ANYWAY! I did want to discuss the word choice "abomination". It was something that I had wanted to address earlier but I neglected to. I do find abomination to be a very interesting word choice. It has a very distinct harshly negative connotation that goes along with it. This connotation, I believe, is the stem for all the hatred and intense dislike of homosexual individual by certain groups. I don't think that "deviant" is any better of a word because that implies that homosexuality is going against what is good, acceptable, or "the norm" and I feel like (and correct me if I am wrong) that we have all agreed that homosexuality itself is not unacceptable or bad, but the acts are what the ambiguous "you" find to be unacceptable. So I don't really know what word I would want to use for homosexuality. But this is all very nitpicky, I just wanted to discuss diction because I find the English language and all of its intricacies extremely fascinating!

Well, let's remember that the word choice wasn't made by any of us, it was made by G-d. Of course, the Bible wasn't written in English. Most people are quoting Leviticus 18:22 when they use this word to describe homosexual activity. The original Hebrew is "tow'ebah." It means, "a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable." It both has a meaning in the ritual sense, such as relating to unclean foods, idols, and mixed marriages, and in the ethical sense, such as relating to wickedness (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08441). And I think that it'd be more accurate to say that we all agree that homosexuals are not unacceptable or bad, as compared to anyone else, but homosexual acts are what is bad, as that's the sin.

"We" want to feel like we are just as liked as heterosexual people.

If anyone, especially one who calls themselves a Christian, doesn't show homosexual people as much kindness, love, compassion, and friendliness as anyone else, than I'd say that person doesn't know Christ very well at all. That's certainly unacceptable for anyone who claims to be His disciple.

This being said, that is not the ONLY thing that people in the GLBT community are after. I personally am a very Christian person, as I have stated some time ago, and should I end up wanting to be married to a man I would very much want to have a Christian wedding. I don't know how possible this is, or if I'm just totally dreaming but whether I marry a man or a woman I want to be wedded under the name of God.

Well, that may be possible in some churches, but, I'm afraid I can't say that would be the most Christian wedding. I'd point out Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Those lines basically make me think that having homosexual sex is literally the same as the first time I thought a girl was sexually attractive...In that case homosexual sex must not be that big of a deal.

Ok so to address the list of things that you stated are abominations,

It both has a meaning in the ritual sense, such as relating to unclean foods, idols, and mixed marriages, and in the ethical sense, such as relating to wickedness

So all of these things (with the exception of Idolatry) are now acceptable. "Unclean food" is in reference to pork (I am assuming and please correct me if I am wrong). I think that there are very few Christians who cut pork out of their diet for any sort of religious reasons. And mixed marriage became acceptable less than a century ago.

I'm going to probably make a few of you uncomfortable with this next statement, but the point of this post is to speculate and discuss so why not? I think that homosexual people are kind of in a similar boat as black people were back before they gained rights, and even to an (much lesser) extent today. There were many religions who did not see black people as being actual people, and there are some sections of Christianity who state (even today) that black people are lesser beings. I think that this is totally wrong and I hope that all of you can agree with me on that. The issue is that white Christians could not accept that someone who is so different looking from them could also be an equal Christian brother/sister. Hopefully someday in the future we will see that homosexual people are still good Christian people, they are just different types of people. I know that this is kind of an interesting comparison, but I think that it can help show the relation.

If anyone, especially one who calls themselves a Christian, doesn't show homosexual people as much kindness, love, compassion, and friendliness as anyone else, than I'd say that person doesn't know Christ very well at all. That's certainly unacceptable for anyone who claims to be His disciple.

I really like this statement. I don't really have much to say about it besides the fact that I wish that more people felt this way too.

So I found the Romans quote to be interesting, so I looked it up in my new Bible that I recently obtained. (I previously had a children's Bible, one of the pocket sized Gideons(?) bibles, and a new-agey type Bible that i decided not to use when Jesus started referring to the currency of the time as "dollars" and God said something along the lines of "You die fool!"...I felt like that wasn't a great translation). My bible now is a King James translation. In my version, it says "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was met". When I read this passage, I see it as saying that God gave man and woman a different type of affection that is "unseemly" which is defined as "not according with established standards of good form or taste". Now let's recall that by this definition, many things are said to be "unseemly"; eating pork and racially mixed marriage being two recent examples.

My bible's translation of the Corintians quote states "Know ye not that unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God". Now, I don't know exactly what "abusers of themselves with mankind" means, like, at all. Can someone explain this to me? When my bible says effeminate it doesn't immediately make me jump to the conclusion "gay people". There are heterosexual people who are effeminate as well as there are non-effeminate homosexual people. In fact, there are homosexual people who are more "masculine" than some heterosexual people. The Bible has been very specific when it is discussing homosexuality ("the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly" as an example). So why would the bible suddenly abandon such specificity and use such a general term as "effeminate" to reference a homosexual person?

And KBCid, I don't see what your lines are supposed to be in reference to in this conversation, unless you are referring to something that happened in the past that I missed. It seems like you're just saying adultery is a sin (agreed) and that looking at a girl and thinking that she is attractive is the same thing as committing adultery. If that second fact is true, I think that most of us if not all of the world has committed adultery many times over. And I agree with Ivellious. If homosexual sex is on the same level as adultery and adultery is looking at someone and thinking "damn, he/she is fine"...then we're all SOL. lol sorry for my casual language there

mlynchrules wrote:
So all of these things (with the exception of Idolatry) are now acceptable. "Unclean food" is in reference to pork (I am assuming and please correct me if I am wrong). I think that there are very few Christians who cut pork out of their diet for any sort of religious reasons. And mixed marriage became acceptable less than a century ago.

Mlynch, By the way you worded the above sentence, I assume when you say mixed marriage, you mean people with different skin color. Could you please show me where the bible states that Christians can't marry someone who is not the same ethnicity, or skin color?

and there are some sections of Christianity who state (even today) that black people are lesser beings.

Please give references of any Christian denomination that says that black people are lesser beings.

Hopefully someday in the future we will see that homosexual people are still good Christian people, they are just different types of people.

What exactly is a "good" Christian person? The bible says that no one is good except God.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.Mark 10:18

Please answer these questions, and give proof for the statements you made.

It's interesting reading the posts here, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality.

It's interesting to see Christians stating they are ok with it. If you are ok with it then you don't believe the Bible literally.

If you are a Christian and you don't believe the Bible word for word, what do you believe in the Bible?

As a Christian, what gives you the right to believe some parts of the Bible and not others?

Thanks,
Jordan

snorider » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:07 pm

It's interesting reading the posts here, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality.

It's interesting to see Christians stating they are ok with it. If you are ok with it then you don't believe the Bible literally.

If you are a Christian and you don't believe the Bible word for word, what do you believe in the Bible?

As a Christian, what gives you the right to believe some parts of the Bible and not others?

Thanks,
Jordan

I am "okay" with the sinners, not with the sin. Could you be specific as to whose post are referrring to when you say

"It's interesting to see Christians stating they are ok with it. If you are ok with it then you don't believe the Bible literally.

If you are a Christian and you don't believe the Bible word for word, what do you believe in the Bible?"

snorider wrote:It's interesting reading the posts here, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality.

It's interesting to see Christians stating they are ok with it. If you are ok with it then you don't believe the Bible literally.

Yes, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality. Most of the Christians here who are OK with it are OK with the temptation of homosexuality, not with the act itself. Temptation isn't a sin, only a weakness; acting on the temptation is the sin.

Do you understand the difference?

FL

I know this has been dead for a little while, but mlynchrules, you obviously are not concerned with what the text actually says, and are fine with accepting any explanation that makes the Scriptures say differently than their plain meaning as long as it "sounds right." You don't seem concerned with what G-d actually thinks is right or wrong, and are more concerned with what you think makes sense. You've gotten plenty of explanations and Biblical evidence that practicing homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible, but, you respond with, "Yeah, but I think"'s. That's not what a servant of Christ would say, but rather, "What does G-d think?"
You'll always find love and acceptance from sincere Christians, but, you need to make sure that your priorities are straight, and that you really want what G-d wants for your WHOLE life, not just your Sundays and being "nice" to people during the week, or else you may find that you have no relationship with the Christ Who's Name you say you bear.
I'm praying for you, as I'm sure other are here as well. You should pray as well, and keep reading your Bible and asking G-d to show you what it truly says.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

snorider wrote:It's interesting reading the posts here, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality.

It's interesting to see Christians stating they are ok with it. If you are ok with it then you don't believe the Bible literally.

Yes, the Bible is very clear regarding homosexuality. Most of the Christians here who are OK with it are OK with the temptation of homosexuality, not with the act itself. Temptation isn't a sin, only a weakness; acting on the temptation is the sin.

Do you understand the difference?

FL

If Christians are ok with the temptation of one sin, then they are ok with the temptation of other sins? Are Christian's deciding this for themselves or is this written somewhere?
Example: Temptation of rape, child molestation, stealing, killing, adultry etc..

If a Christian is tempted to do any of these things themselves is it not a sin as long as they don't act?

Thanks,
Jordan

I think being "ok" with it is kind of the wrong word.
Christians accept that man is sinful and will have the desire to sin and that sin/desire can manifest itself in many ways.
The act of rape, of theft, of killing, of illict sex, etc, these acts are wrong and condemned as sin, as are the temptation to do them.
A person that has these inclinations but does not act on them is still sinning, but it is less a sin than going through with the act.
A degree of sin if you will, BUT the sin is still there.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think being "ok" with it is kind of the wrong word.
Christians accept that man is sinful and will have the desire to sin and that sin/desire can manifest itself in many ways.
The act of rape, of theft, of killing, of illict sex, etc, these acts are wrong and condemned as sin, as are the temptation to do them.
A person that has these inclinations but does not act on them is still sinning, but it is less a sin than going through with the act.
A degree of sin if you will, BUT the sin is still there.

Wasn't Christ tempted?

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think being "ok" with it is kind of the wrong word.
Christians accept that man is sinful and will have the desire to sin and that sin/desire can manifest itself in many ways.
The act of rape, of theft, of killing, of illict sex, etc, these acts are wrong and condemned as sin, as are the temptation to do them.
A person that has these inclinations but does not act on them is still sinning, but it is less a sin than going through with the act.
A degree of sin if you will, BUT the sin is still there.

Wasn't Christ tempted?

The devil tried to tempt Christ but at no point was Christ tempted.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think being "ok" with it is kind of the wrong word.
Christians accept that man is sinful and will have the desire to sin and that sin/desire can manifest itself in many ways.
The act of rape, of theft, of killing, of illict sex, etc, these acts are wrong and condemned as sin, as are the temptation to do them.
A person that has these inclinations but does not act on them is still sinning, but it is less a sin than going through with the act.
A degree of sin if you will, BUT the sin is still there.

Wasn't Christ tempted?

The devil tried to tempt Christ but at no point was Christ tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.