Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover wrote:

For Christians, God is always the central authority. His law supersedes that of man's. Abortion is an example.

What versus would you cite for the abortion aspect?

I don't know why you're arguing with Bav the way you are. You seem to turn things around much. You claim that you believe God's morals aren't relative. Bav does too.

So? The concept of Justice I think is a moral. How we get justice is something different. Judgment and punishment are in God's hands, ultimately; they are a means to create justice.

You keep saying that God said to kill homosexuals, but that's not the end of the story. We are not to do that anymore, under the new covenant, and in different places. You are making an argument where there isn't one, and we keep explaining why but you don't want to accept it. It seems pretty clear to most Christians who read the bible, as I cited the Sermon on the Mount, that we are to love our neighbors, not judge and kill them, in the Church era.

Why don't you point out how/why, in the New Testament, you see that we Christians are to kill homosexuals?

I don't believe the NT teaches such a thing (which is why I don't believe that Christians ought to push for such a position). The challenge I have, is understanding why. I realize that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and it changed things dramatically. But I don't get how to avoid the seeming inconsistency of relative truth (it used to be moral to execute homosexuals and now it isn't).

I realize you argued against punishments having moral values...but you did admit that shooting a child for stealing a lollipop is wrong (immoral). So that seems inconsistent...either punishments have moral values or they do not.

If they do...and executing homosexuals USED to be moral but it isn't any more...then how is it not the case that the value on this punishment is relative (to time, persons, circumstance)?

@cslewislover, Brilliant work! He’s perfect, though I’m not sure which one I like better.. Thank-You cslewislover!

Sorry linkmaster, you know what they say, you snooze, you lose....And don’t touch my new shiny avatar, either of them.

I realize you argued against punishments having moral values...but you did admit that shooting a child for stealing a lollipop is wrong (immoral). So that seems inconsistent...either punishments have moral values or they do not.

Why would you think that an individual shooting someone is a "punishment" in the sense that we are talking about? As a form of God's judgment somehow?? I'm not inconsistent at all, but I'm really beginning to wonder what your motives are.

If they do...and executing homosexuals USED to be moral but it isn't any more...then how is it not the case that the value on this punishment is relative (to time, persons, circumstance)?

I need to go at the moment so I can't review your other comments right now. But, I don't know how many times it can be said that an action done by someone can be deemed moral or immoral, which is separate from any punishment for it. I never even think of punishment as a Christian anyway . . . I don't even know why it's an issue here. It's all about relationship with God. Either you have it or you don't. I think we're called to be in the salvation business, not the punishment business; God will deal with all who want to stay in rebellion.

Punishment has a value only in that it results in justice. Judgment (justice) is delayed until later. It doesn't change its value, if you want to talk about it that way, it just changes the timing of it (and for good reasons).

J.Davis wrote:@cslewislover, Brilliant work! He’s perfect, though I’m not sure which one I like better.. Thank-You cslewislover!

Sorry linkmaster, you know what they say, you snooze, you lose....And don’t touch my new shiny avatar, either of them.

Linkmaster is not going to like that! LOL Now I have to see about getting another one for him! CSLL and I worked on the one you are using and she did the fire one but it is so funny... cause I did not peg you as an anime guy! Sorry LM I will see about others I can get for you!

cslewislover wrote:

I realize you argued against punishments having moral values...but you did admit that shooting a child for stealing a lollipop is wrong (immoral). So that seems inconsistent...either punishments have moral values or they do not.

Why would you think that an individual shooting someone is a "punishment" in the sense that we are talking about? As a form of God's judgment somehow??

Well..why not? For what reason would you think that respondent punitive action differs?

I'm not inconsistent at all, but I'm really beginning to wonder what your motives are.

If it is not a case of inconsistency, then you attribute different characteristics to these 2 different punishments. What are they?

My motives are well explained in my previous 2 posts I think.

What is being done here I belive is the logical fallicy of a false dilemma.

If God declares a penalty (and the penalty is temporal, not eternal) and either declares a different penalty or defers by default to the civil powers that doesn't mean that there is only one option that is "moral" or consistent in it's application.

First, the purpose of punishment from God is redemptive in the NT. God is consistent in the eternal realm and as the only issue present there is whether one has accepted Christ or not, one can experience even capital punishiment on earth and yet still spend eternity with God.

There is no one to one correlation to penalty to crime where God's sovereign will is involved.

How one establishes the framework of a question, carries implications that can impact and limit the answers to only that which is assumed. If that which is assumed is not correct then the conclusion drawn may be logically valid and internally consistent, yet still render an objectively false conclusion.

@Gabrielman, Anime guy? I just looked the name up on the internet, liked the character and went with him. Besides, only an uncivilized barbarian would turn down a kind offer from a lady...LOL Thanks Gabrielman, He's Awesome!!

Canuckster1127 wrote:What is being done here I belive is the logical fallicy of a false dilemma.

Possibly. I'm open to it being the case. But further clarification is necessary IMO.

If God declares a penalty (and the penalty is temporal, not eternal) and either declares a different penalty or defers by default to the civil powers that doesn't mean that there is only one option that is "moral" or consistent in it's application.

I agree. But where did God do such a thing in this instance?

First, the purpose of punishment from God is redemptive in the NT. God is consistent in the eternal realm and as the only issue present there is whether one has accepted Christ or not, one can experience even capital punishiment on earth and yet still spend eternity with God.

Understood and agreed.

There is no one to one correlation to penalty to crime where God's sovereign will is involved.

Will telling us the moral value? I was with you up until this point. Can you clarify?

How one establishes the framework of a question, carries implications that can impact and limit the answers to only that which is assumed. If that which is assumed is not correct then the conclusion drawn may be logically valid and internally consistent, yet still render an objectively false conclusion.

I agree, and I'm open to the assumption being in error as well. But while your insight may be getting close here, I don't know that it is compelling enough to persuade one seeking the most clarity possible (see the questions asked above).

Just adding a thought too, isn't some of this issue addressed in Jesus' Parable in Matt 20:1-16?

Morality and Equity in outcome are not necessarily the same thing.

BavarianWheels wrote:Totally correct. I have not argued that homosexual acts are not of choice. THE ACTS are of choice, however IF sin has corrupted humanity down to genetic gender affections (as I *think* it has), then there is no CHOICE in chooseing WHO those acts are acted out with. There is no chance for me, as a heterosexual, to ever have thoughts of engaging in homosexual acts with another male. It's utterly repulsive to me.

Well I disagree with that.. That's a double standard on the grounds that genetics have a play in someone's choice. Then technically it isn't a choice, it's how the person is wired. Now you could argue that a homosexual has formed a sin habit, just like any other habit, but habits can be broken. Nonetheless, it still boils down to choice. And for the record, I've had many sin habits, but I've chosen to break them all..

"If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one's race, over which we have no control." -Rich Deem

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ality.html

arjpm06 wrote:I suggest, it's better if you will read a bible. It was really helpful and lot of information you can get there. It is an instrument of God to lead us the right way and for us to know him better.

Welcome to the forums! Hope you enjoy it here

If it is not a case of inconsistency, then you attribute different characteristics to these 2 different punishments. What are they?

Someone shooting someone is not a "punishment" - it's simply an action. A person shooting another for some reason is just an individual action, normally. So no, I'm not inconsistent. This seems pretty basic.

arjpm06 wrote:I suggest, it's better if you will read a bible. It was really helpful and lot of information you can get there. It is an instrument of God to lead us the right way and for us to know him better.

Done that. Also have about $3,000 worth of commentaries, study guides, lexicons, apologetics books from esteemed authors, etc...

Again, this is not about a struggle on whether or not Christians should execute others for what was a capital offense in the OT. It's about meshing the philosophical idea of absolute morality with the application of God's law to the expectations of the modern Christian.

cslewislover wrote:

If it is not a case of inconsistency, then you attribute different characteristics to these 2 different punishments. What are they?

Someone shooting someone is not a "punishment" - it's simply an action. A person shooting another for some reason is just an individual action, normally. So no, I'm not inconsistent. This seems pretty basic.

I suspect that my query would be better served on a philosophical forum than a Christian forum. While the site is quite valuable with excellent content and articles, it would seem the forums (the community) is rather eclectic and cliquish and not open to assisting others in their path and struggle in faith.

I apologize for upsetting the community with theological and philosophical questions. Perhaps a qualified pastor is the better source to go to.

Montana wrote:

arjpm06 wrote:I suggest, it's better if you will read a bible. It was really helpful and lot of information you can get there. It is an instrument of God to lead us the right way and for us to know him better.

Done that. Also have about $3,000 worth of commentaries, study guides, lexicons, apologetics books from esteemed authors, etc...

Again, this is not about a struggle on whether or not Christians should execute others for what was a capital offense in the OT. It's about meshing the philosophical idea of absolute morality with the application of God's law to the expectations of the modern Christian.

Which is part of the problem of framework I mentioned. Is it proper exegesis to interpret or place within the framework of Greek Philosophy (much of this goes to Plato and Aristotle) the Old Testament?