Evidence for God from Science

There was quite a bit to read here and I checked out most of the posts but I'm going to go ahead and respond with what I think on the issue and maybe someone can feel free to chime in. I don't have much to say on whats already said but I take a contrarian point of view here. I think that in matters of sex and relationships its just as important to ask God what he would have us do as in any other situation. I turned my will and my life over to his care because I could not properly walk a path of moral principles on my own. I treat matters of sex and relationships as I would anything else, its completely out of my hands. I don't know if God would have me a monk or a harlot unless I seek guidance. Both lifestyles serve importance in one way or another even if I don't understand them. The things that happen in my life teach me so many things. My actions have a wide impact on those around me, larger then I can imagine. I am a stone in the pond. So it is not for me to decide who I should be with or how many people I should be with or even if I should be with anyone at all, but to trust the intuitive thoughts God gives me to take me to the places that I need to be. If God would have me be polygamous I would do so.

Would do you guys think? Legal of Polygamy near

Halsoft wrote:There was quite a bit to read here and I checked out most of the posts but I'm going to go ahead and respond with what I think on the issue and maybe someone can feel free to chime in. I don't have much to say on whats already said but I take a contrarian point of view here. I think that in matters of sex and relationships its just as important to ask God what he would have us do as in any other situation. I turned my will and my life over to his care because I could not properly walk a path of moral principles on my own. I treat matters of sex and relationships as I would anything else, its completely out of my hands. I don't know if God would have me a monk or a harlot unless I seek guidance. Both lifestyles serve importance in one way or another even if I don't understand them. The things that happen in my life teach me so many things. My actions have a wide impact on those around me, larger then I can imagine. I am a stone in the pond. So it is not for me to decide who I should be with or how many people I should be with or even if I should be with anyone at all, but to trust the intuitive thoughts God gives me to take me to the places that I need to be. If God would have me be polygamous I would do so.

How would you know God would want you to do so? Which God, btw?

UsagiTsukino wrote:Would do you guys think? Legal of Polygamy near

Polygamy can't work. If it does, it is not true love, anyway.

Halsoft wrote:There was quite a bit to read here and I checked out most of the posts but I'm going to go ahead and respond with what I think on the issue and maybe someone can feel free to chime in. I don't have much to say on whats already said but I take a contrarian point of view here. I think that in matters of sex and relationships its just as important to ask God what he would have us do as in any other situation. I turned my will and my life over to his care because I could not properly walk a path of moral principles on my own. I treat matters of sex and relationships as I would anything else, its completely out of my hands. I don't know if God would have me a monk or a harlot unless I seek guidance. Both lifestyles serve importance in one way or another even if I don't understand them. The things that happen in my life teach me so many things. My actions have a wide impact on those around me, larger then I can imagine. I am a stone in the pond. So it is not for me to decide who I should be with or how many people I should be with or even if I should be with anyone at all, but to trust the intuitive thoughts God gives me to take me to the places that I need to be. If God would have me be polygamous I would do so.

IceMobster wrote:How would you know God would want you to do so?

The claim that God speaks to his believers is not anything new to you is it?

IceMobster wrote:Which God, btw?

Obviously the God they worship.

UsagiTsukino wrote:Would do you guys think? Legal of Polygamy near

IceMobster wrote:Polygamy can't work. If it does, it is not true love, anyway.

If a person can have more than one child, or friend, and love them all equally; how do you know a person cannot have more than one spouse and love them all equally?

Ken

If a person can have more than one child, or friend, and love them all equally; how do you know a person cannot have more than one spouse and love them all equally?

If MAN is the only measure of such things, it really doesn't matter, does it? Marry your dog, your cow, your sheep - or one of each - really, it wouldn't matter. Why would it be wrong if one of those is a person's desire? Might look a bit weird at the high school reunions, though.



Weird thoughts: If a lesbian transgenders and stays with her lover, does she still consider herself a lesbian? Technically... I see Bruce always considered himself heterosexual, but now, I read "she" doesn't know which side of the road to date on. So, is "she" now a bi-sexual transgendered person? What? If "she" begins dating women, does that make "her" a transgendered lesbian? Oh, what strange days we live in - so confusing. Pretty soon we're gonna need several more categories of silhouettes for the bathroom door signs. But all non-PC silliness aside, I feel for these people, and I know God loves them.

Philip wrote:

If a person can have more than one child, or friend, and love them all equally; how do you know a person cannot have more than one spouse and love them all equally?

If MAN is the only measure of such things, it really doesn't matter, does it? Marry your dog, your cow, your sheep - or one of each - really, it wouldn't matter. Why would it be wrong if one of those is a person's desire? Might look a bit weird at the high school reunions, though.

I agree. However such a man whose measure allowed such a marriage, would not get the approval of you and I; agree? Now if a Deity were the measure, and said Deity allowed one to marry dogs, cows, sheep etc. Said deity would not get the approval of you or I either; right? So what's the difference?

Ken

Ken: I agree. However such a man whose measure allowed such a marriage, would not get the approval of you and I; agree?

Maybe or maybe not - depends upon one's personal preferences in such a matter.

Ken: Now if a Deity were the measure, and said Deity allowed one to marry dogs, cows, sheep etc. Said deity would not get the approval of you or I either; right? So what's the difference?

The theoretical deity you are proposing is a one in whom people believe in and whose authority they accept - well, most would likely not care or think in such terms of right or wrong of such things. But you are only asking a very limited question about the characteristics of one theoretical deity.

What if, innately, moral perceptions are universal (whether ignored or adhered to), because we were created so as to have such basic moral understandings? And what if the Deity gave us instructions that, "THIS and THAT are perfectly acceptable to Me," and yet, "THESE specific things are not only sinful, but that, unforgiven by me, I will punish you for - and/or certainly will let you suffer the consequences of (of which He perfectly knows and has warned you against so they can be avoided - what about THAT such Deity? And so, Ken, the existence of such a Deity as the God of Scripture does indeed make a HUGE difference. But any god who doesn't really care what his creatures do is basically irrelevant anyway. Such would be unloving, uninvolved, provide no wisdom or instructions - really, he'd be a god like a kid watching ants killing slugs, and relentlessly battling each other, only for his amusement.

Polygamy is from The Devil.
How do I know this?
Only The Devil would convince males that having MORE than ONE woman to deal with is a good idea !

Philip wrote:

Ken: I agree. However such a man whose measure allowed such a marriage, would not get the approval of you and I; agree?

Maybe or maybe not - depends upon one's personal preferences in such a matter.

So if I understand you correctly, there are circumstances where you may approve of people marrying cows, dogs, and other such animals? If so, I stand corrected and will only speak for myself and say such a person would not meet MY approval. Fair enough?

Ken: Now if a Deity were the measure, and said Deity allowed one to marry dogs, cows, sheep etc. Said deity would not get the approval of you or I either; right? So what's the difference?

Philip wrote: The theoretical deity you are proposing is a one in whom people believe in and whose authority they accept - well, most would likely not care or think in such terms of right or wrong of such things. But you are only asking a very limited question about the characteristics of one theoretical deity.

And your limited question was directed to a theoretical man; right?

Philip wrote: What if, innately, moral perceptions are universal (whether ignored or adhered to), because we were created so as to have such basic moral understandings? And what if the Deity gave us instructions that, "THIS and THAT are perfectly acceptable to Me," and yet, "THESE specific things are not only sinful, but that, unforgiven by me, I will punish you for

Humm… sounds like laws. Humans have laws also. Laws against marrying dogs, cows, and other such animals mentioned.

If we assume such a deity, would you agree that only those who have direct communication with said deity could possibly know the real difference between right and wrong? That those who may worship another deity, no deity at all, or even those who worship the deity, but do not have direct communication with him; will have no way of knowing right from wrong; would you agree?
Of course I don’t embrace those views, but I’m sure there are plenty of folk out there who do.

Ken

Ken: So if I understand you correctly, there are circumstances where you may approve of people marrying cows, dogs, and other such animals? If so, I stand corrected and will only speak for myself and say such a person would not meet MY approval. Fair enough?

Uh, Ken, is that a serious question? Anyone here long and asks ME that - well, you might need some help.

Ken: And your limited question was directed to a theoretical man; right?

Clever, Ken - oh, you are so quick.

Philip wrote: What if, innately, moral perceptions are universal (whether ignored or adhered to), because we were created so as to have such basic moral understandings? And what if the Deity gave us instructions that, "THIS and THAT are perfectly acceptable to Me," and yet, "THESE specific things are not only sinful, but that, unforgiven by me, I will punish you for

Ken: Humm… sounds like laws. Humans have laws also. Laws against marrying dogs, cows, and other such animals mentioned.

Are all laws bad, or do some of them help to protect us?

Ken: If we assume such a deity, would you agree that only those who have direct communication with said deity could possibly know the real difference between right and wrong?

That those who may worship another deity, no deity at all, or even those who worship the deity, but do not have direct communication with him; will have no way of knowing right from wrong; would you agree?

Ken, what do you mean by DIRECT communication - vocal, face-to-face? These are not necessary if your messages to man have been recorded. Plus, God tells us that His basic directives of right and wrong are also in our own consciences - of which basic moral standards are universally recognized, along with awareness of His presence. And 1,600 years of Scripture is a deeper revealing of God's standards.

If NO communication (written or by messengers sent) or instilling of conscience existed, then we would be on our own. But these are not what we have.

Philip wrote: Ken, what do you mean by DIRECT communication - vocal, face-to-face?

Whatever method Christians use to communicate with God. My point was; those of other religions, no religion at all, or those christians who don’t take their religion as seriously as some of you guys here, do not claim to communicate with God this way.

Philip wrote:These are not necessary if your messages to man have been recorded. Plus, God tells us that His basic directives of right and wrong are also in our own consciences - of which basic moral standards are universally recognized,

If right and wrong is in our own consciences, and moral standards are universally recognized, wouldn’t that mean everybody is capable of determining right and wrong on their own?

Ken

Kenny wrote:
If right and wrong is in our own consciences, and moral standards are universally recognized, wouldn’t that mean everybody is capable of determining right and wrong on their own?

Kenny,

You still misunderstand what you failed to grasp when you first came to this board.

Ontology vs Epistemology.

Throughout recorded history and in every culture and group there has always been a clear understanding that there is a "right and wrong".
What those right and wrongs are MAY have changed but the understanding that there IS a right and wrong has never.

And no, there isn't really any scientific or evolutionary explanation for it since, well, IF the driving force for life is procreation and reproduction ( which according to evolutionary biology, it is) then the ONLY notion of right and wrong that we SHOULD have is that it is right to procreate ( no matter HOW it is done) and wrong NOT to procreate.

Ken: If right and wrong is in our own consciences, and moral standards are universally recognized, wouldn’t that mean everybody is capable of determining right and wrong on their own?

Of DETERMINING it? No! God's basic moral standards / our sense of basic right and wrong have been inherently given to everyone - we do not DETERMINE God's universally given moral standards. As for understanding them, yes! We can! Deciding for ourselves whether or not we will do what we innately have been made aware to be wrong - of course - we ALL have been given free will to make moral choices as our hearts and minds so desire.