Evidence for God from Science

Alpha~Omega wrote:NO one will agree with your first statement though Murray.

Its just "totally different" then being gay, and to suggest otherwise is crazy talk.
Yet no evidence has been brought to the table to refute your claim other than passion filled rebuttal of "NO that's not right!"

Religion and the nature versus nurture debate aside the 'totally different' aspect of the comparison is often highlighted in regards to the legal and democratic principles of consenting adults. It may also be worth bearing in mind that what was considered marriage in Biblical times may on occasion translate to child molestation in current times.
Things change. Older men marrying young girls without their consent and calling for the death of homosexuals changes to older homosexual men calling for the death of men copulating with young girls without consent.

Regarding the natural vs unnatural, I'm not sure it lends much to the 'homosexuality is a sin' stance, or the 'homosexuality should be embraced' stance for that matter. The shouts of natural against unnatural are only a little more productive than the "NO that's not right!" to the "YES it is!".

To those claiming homosexuality to be either natural or unnatural, may I ask you take a moment to think about these terms. Or to clarify why homosexuality being classed as one or the other should determine its legitimacy or suppression?

Homosexuality again??? Oh great...

Proinsias wrote: Religion and the nature versus nurture debate aside the 'totally different' aspect of the comparison is often highlighted in regards to the legal and democratic principles of consenting adults. It may also be worth bearing in mind that what was considered marriage in Biblical times may on occasion translate to child molestation in current times.
Things change. Older men marrying young girls without their consent and calling for the death of homosexuals changes to older homosexual men calling for the death of men copulating with young girls without consent.

Regarding the natural vs unnatural, I'm not sure it lends much to the 'homosexuality is a sin' stance, or the 'homosexuality should be embraced' stance for that matter. The shouts of natural against unnatural are only a little more productive than the "NO that's not right!" to the "YES it is!".

To those claiming homosexuality to be either natural or unnatural, may I ask you take a moment to think about these terms. Or to clarify why homosexuality being classed as one or the other should determine its legitimacy or suppression?

I wouldn't say that homosexuality being 'natural or unnatural' has anything to do with its 'legitimacy or suppression'. Morality has nothing to do with what comes naturally or what doesn't. They are two separate topics. I don't see how one influences the other at all.

Our modern concept of choosing spouses in marriage is very recent. Most of the time throughout history we had arranged marriages, so there was never any consent (as we define it now). I don't think either way is 'wrong' or 'right', merely different. However, the issue of homosexuality has never changed in terms of Christian moral opposition. And again, this has nothing to do with homosexuality being 'natural' or 'unnatural'. It is immoral as it confuses the purpose of human sexual organs and the purpose of sex in the first place- to procreate. God designed human beings in a certain way and I don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose. He also established laws regarding how men and women are to conduct themselves in that area.

I suppose to summarize: its difficult to agree on whether homosexuality is right or wrong if what Christians use to base the claim on is something non-christians reject outright (God's voice on the matter).

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I wouldn't say that homosexuality being 'natural or unnatural' has anything to do with its 'legitimacy or suppression'. Morality has nothing to do with what comes naturally or what doesn't. They are two separate topics. I don't see how one influences the other at all.

Perhaps not from yourself but most times the topic of homosexuality crops up here it is followed, at some point, by a post stating it is unnatural. It is my opinion that one does influence the other. One's ideas of the natural, the unnatural, the sub natural and the supernatural do tend to contribute to their views on right and wrong.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Our modern concept of choosing spouses in marriage is very recent. Most of the time throughout history we had arranged marriages, so there was never any consent (as we define it now). I don't think either way is 'wrong' or 'right', merely different. However, the issue of homosexuality has never changed in terms of Christian moral opposition. And again, this has nothing to do with homosexuality being 'natural' or 'unnatural'. It is immoral as it confuses the purpose of human sexual organs and the purpose of sex in the first place- to procreate. God designed human beings in a certain way and I don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose. He also established laws regarding how men and women are to conduct themselves in that area.

I suppose to summarize: its difficult to agree on whether homosexuality is right or wrong if what Christians use to base the claim on is something non-christians reject outright (God's voice on the matter).

Our fairly modern concept of child labour and child sex abuse could also be seen as neither right or wrong, merely different. As could our modern laws in regards to homosexuality.

How do we determine if the sex organs are confused?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:However, the issue of homosexuality has never changed in terms of Christian moral opposition.

Sorry for the double post but I think it has. There are many Christians, even some very high up Christians, who are of the opinion that the millennias long view on homosexuality is in need of a shake up.

Proinsias wrote:How do we determine if the sex organs are confused?

Is this a serious question?

MarcusOfLycia wrote: I suppose to summarize: its difficult to agree on whether homosexuality is right or wrong if what Christians use to base the claim on is something non-christians reject outright (God's voice on the matter).

I think you hit the nail on the head. And I fully respect your right to believe whatever you'd like - I think it's important to understand all of the world's religions. I guess I get riled up about this particular issue because it involves people I love, who love each other (I posted about this earlier - it was just approved) who can't get married and enjoy the same legal, social, and emotional benefits that I can. While I don't necessarily agree with everything, I usually understand the Christian point of view on issues. This is one that I've never understood...which is what brought me to your site. But I get it more now. I'm not sure I realized the extent to which people believe that being gay's a choice.

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:However, the issue of homosexuality has never changed in terms of Christian moral opposition.

Sorry for the double post but I think it has. There are many Christians, even some very high up Christians, who are of the opinion that the millennias long view on homosexuality is in need of a shake up.

What makes those Christians correct? The fact that they agree with some cultural groups on it? The fact that they have no Scriptural basis for it? The fact that they are a minority today and a very small minority in all of Christian history? What exactly makes their claim correct as opposed to the orthodox view?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:What makes those Christians correct? The fact that they agree with some cultural groups on it? The fact that they have no Scriptural basis for it? The fact that they are a minority today and a very small minority in all of Christian history? What exactly makes their claim correct as opposed to the orthodox view?

As with most questions regarding what Christians regard correct, it will not be determined in this life. What makes someone correct - God's agreement.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:How do we determine if the sex organs are confused?

Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is. I've studied a fair bit of biology, I've not came across any confused organs aside from brains.

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:How do we determine if the sex organs are confused?

Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is. I've studied a fair bit of biology, I've not came across any confused organs aside from brains.

That is a deliberate misquotation. "God designed human beings in a certain way and I don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose."

I said I "don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose [of sexual organs]". Your question is misinformed.

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:However, the issue of homosexuality has never changed in terms of Christian moral opposition.

Sorry for the double post but I think it has. There are many Christians, even some very high up Christians, who are of the opinion that the millennias long view on homosexuality is in need of a shake up.

The bible has no expiration date.

We follow all it's laws (that is new covenant laws) without question and we sure as heck are not going to ignore 1 just because some people don't like it.

Hey, I don't like the no sex law, I still follow it however.

Some laws expire (Levitican, Moasin, Deuteronomy) some do not (Jesus new covenant laws). We believe god gave us these for a reason so we follow them.

And let me re-state. We DO NOT hold homosexuality above other sins. You seem to ignore the massive Christian movement against pornography, a movement that is hundreds of times bigger than the Christian anti-gay movement.

We protest so many other things that most people agree with being immoral, but one thing we find immoral, some people do not, so they get very upset about it.

FrecklesNYC wrote:

Reactionary wrote:There is not a shred of scriptural evidence for your view.

"Scriptural evidence" is an oxymoron to me. In my belief system, the Bible is a work of fiction, so it's no more "evidence" than Catcher in the Rye.

Are you playing games with me or what? You just said that we formulate our thoughts on the matter (Jesus and His teachings, obviously), by studying the Bible. Here is your quote again, in case you forgot:

FrecklesNYC wrote:Both of us have the exact same reference material (the Bible) from which to formulate our thoughts on the matter,

...so stop moving the goalposts and deal with the topic of discussion. At least thanks for admitting how subjective you are. To say that the Bible is a work of fiction means to deliberately ignore tons of evidence that demonstrate its historical accuracy. Such as:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

The Bible would certainly be considered the best history book of the time, if it weren't for the "supernatural" events that lead some people to reject it because they don't like the implications of a theistic worldview. Or am I wrong? If I am, then please explain why you think the Bible is fictional.

FrecklesNYC wrote:But I don't need to quote scripture to understand that Jesus was a decent person. Do you?

Actually, I do. I already explained - if there is no God, there is no such thing as "decent person". There is only blind chemistry, and to attribute any meaning or sense to it would be useless and irrelevant. On the other hand, if there is a God and the Bible is true, then Jesus is the most perfect moral Judge, among all other things.

FrecklesNYC wrote:I believe that Jesus was a great philosopher and moral teacher, but not divine. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

Impossible. Jesus could have only been three things:
1) The Son of God, as He claimed,
2) A lunatic, or
3) The greatest con artist in the human history.

Why?

If Jesus is not divine, then he was wrong. Someone who teaches an obvious lie is definitely not a "great philosopher".
If Jesus is not divine, then he was a liar. Hardly a "moral teacher", right? I mean, He said that He would resurrect everyone who believed in Him, take them to Heaven etc., if this is a lie (and He would have known if it had been), then it would make Him the biggest fraud in history. Hardly "great", huh?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:How do we determine if the sex organs are confused?

Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is. I've studied a fair bit of biology, I've not came across any confused organs aside from brains.

That is a deliberate misquotation. "God designed human beings in a certain way and I don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose."

I said I "don't believe people have ever accidentally confused the purpose [of sexual organs]". Your question is misinformed.

Apologies for misrepresenting you.

Could you expand a little on accidentally, or deliberately, confusing the purpose of sexual organs?
I'm married, I have a daughter. I don't think there is a sole purpose of sexual organs. If I did I reckon I would have quite a few more children. People often make decisions to engage their sexual organs without much likelihood of there being a conception on the cards. People masturbate, take the pill, use contraception and have genital to other person contact that does not involve direct sexual organ to sexual organ contact. When does this become sin?

Proinsias wrote:Could you expand a little on accidentally, or deliberately, confusing the purpose of sexual organs?
I'm married, I have a daughter. I don't think there is a sole purpose of sexual organs. If I did I reckon I would have quite a few more children. People often make decisions to engage their sexual organs without much likelihood of there being a conception on the cards. People masturbate, take the pill, use contraception and have genital to other person contact that does not involve direct sexual organ to sexual organ contact. When does this become sin?

The same place where sex starts and ends, in the mind.