Evidence for God from Science

ochotseat wrote:Anyway, it's wonderful that you're trying to get through to your parents, especially your father who probably hates President Bush and respects Hamas,

Actually he likes Bush, and there aren't any food laws in Bahai; it's kind of like Sikism.

If she's an agnostic, why didn't she just try to teach you morals that aren't necessarily tied to Christianity? What hypocrisy.

Good question! I don't think of it as hypocrisy, so much as wishy-washy.

Fortunately, they'll attain a lesser status in heaven than lifelong Christians.

Haven't you ever read Jesus' story of the Workers in the Vineyard?

mdvaden wrote:Why explain what people don't believe or want to hear. If they want to hear otherwise, then let them find, study and read other material that they want to glean from. That's their priviledge.

Thanks for meeting me half-way, but please don't assume that I don't want to hear other people's arguments; I've been asking everyone to give commentary on these passages, and I never get any. They just cross their arms and say "I don't need to say anything." Then I provide my take on the passages, and they simply say that I'm "obviously wrong". So, if I am wrong, not too many people are trying to help me find the way. I pray to God everyday to help me if I'm wrong, and I certainly mean it.

mdvaden wrote:If the Word is true, then there is right or wrong and God's stamp of approval or disapproval is the judge for moral and immoral.

The bible has not one verse supporting homosexuality.

Your method certainly has logic to it, and of course if the Word is true, then Carnal Man has problems. But I feel that judging someone because the Bible never endorses something is building your house on sand.

The word "Faith" in the original Greek in the NT (pistis) means "proof". Often times people think faith is blind, but it isn't. It's a loyalty to God based on evidence, and apparently that's the way God wants it. So I believe that one should look at the Bible with the belief that you're guilty until proven innocent. The proof is for the accusers to provide.

One could make the claim that proof is something you don't always come by when it comes to the Bible. That's true in some cases, but when you're judging another individual, and when you're making laws targeted toward them, proof should be provided; otherwise, acquittal is inevitable.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Shirtless wrote:I've been asking everyone to give commentary on these passages, and I never get any. They just cross their arms and say "I don't need to say anything." Then I provide my take on the passages, and they simply say that I'm "obviously wrong". So, if I am wrong, not too many people are trying to help me find the way. I pray to God everyday to help me if I'm wrong, and I certainly mean it.

Most of us aren't experts in Greek or Hebrew. We have pointed you to articles from those who are, what more do you expect?

Shirtless wrote:

mdvaden wrote:If the Word is true, then there is right or wrong and God's stamp of approval or disapproval is the judge for moral and immoral.

The bible has not one verse supporting homosexuality.

Your method certainly has logic to it, and of course if the Word is true, then Carnal Man has problems. But I feel that judging someone because the Bible never endorses something is building your house on sand.

The Bible neither endorses nor condemns pedophilia. Does that mean I would be innocent if I had sex with a 5 year old? No, that goes against clear biblical premises. The same applies to homosexuality, even if you have a way to interpret the specific passages in ways that don't condemn it. But we have pointed you to articles by others who do address those passages and who, unlike us, actually have the credentials to do so.

Shirtless wrote:I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

And your point? Are you saying that the rights of homosexuals are threatened when gay marriage is prohibited? Well, they aren't. Everyone has the right to marry somone of the opposite sex. It doesn't matter if that's not what homosexuals want. Back to my pedophile example, should I be allowed to marry a 5 year old if that's what I feel in my heart? NO! I do think, though, that our conscience should reveal when we haven't been loving enough to sinners, whether they be liars, abortionists, active homosexuals, or whatever. But loving most emphatically does not mean accepting the sin; rather it means accepting the sinner.

Shirtless wrote:
Actually he likes Bush, and there aren't any food laws in Bahai; it's kind of like Sikism.

He left Christianity for Bahai?

Good question! I don't think of it as hypocrisy, so much as wishy-washy.

Because she may have wanted to prevent you from going to hell after you die, since it wasn't too late for you to be saved though it may have been for her. I believe Christian children should at least try to evangelize to their infidel parents and ultimately let them decide to accept or reject Jesus.

Haven't you ever read Jesus' story of the Workers in the Vineyard?

Are you trying to tell me that lifelong and good Christians like Mother Theresa and bad Christians such as Ted Bundy (a serial murderer who supposedly rededicated his life to Christ before his execution) will be equal in God's eyes in heaven? Doesn't that seem a bit unfair to you? The Bible doesn't clearly state if there is or is not a purgatory, but look at this verse:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?sea ... version=31;

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

One could make the claim that proof is something you don't always come by when it comes to the Bible. That's true in some cases, but when you're judging another individual, and when you're making laws targeted toward them, proof should be provided; otherwise, acquittal is inevitable.

Sometimes, mortal judging is necessary, which is why we have a legal system.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

If you're talking about homosexuals, they have as many rights, if not more, as the rest of us!

By the way, why didn't you reply to the incest post?

jerickson314 wrote:Most of us aren't experts in Greek or Hebrew. We have pointed you to articles from those who are, what more do you expect?

Not "articles" plural, "article" singular. This article. The writer is no more of an expert on Hebrew or Greek than me. I'm afraid that article has been thrown my way so many times that I have to comment on it in another thread.

The Bible neither endorses nor condemns pedophilia. Does that mean I would be innocent if I had sex with a 5 year old? No, that goes against clear biblical premises.

First of all, pedophiles don't "have sex" like you or I, they fondle. Assuming that this is non-consensual, it would be molestation. It would be wrong to molest a child because you are doing to another which you would NOT want done to you. There's a victim in this case. With homosexuality, there is no victim.

should I be allowed to marry a 5 year old if that's what I feel in my heart?

Marriage is an important life decision. A 5 year old is not a full-grown adult who can make up his/her own mind. So no.

Shirtless wrote:Not "articles" plural, "article" singular. This article. The writer is no more of an expert on Hebrew or Greek than me. I'm afraid that article has been thrown my way so many times that I have to comment on it in another thread.

And this list of articles. But you can Google as well as we can; we just sent you the articles from the ministries we are familiar with. If you want to see an article that attempts to be neutral (though it is edited by random site visitors as everything else on Wikipedia is), see this Wikipedia article.

Shirtless wrote:First of all, pedophiles don't "have sex" like you or I

Hey, I'm a single virgin! (No need to respond to this, I know you didn't know that).

Assuming that this is non-consensual, it would be molestation

What if it's not? And what about consensual premarital sex? Premarital sex is also prohibited, but it seems that you could probably twist the Bible on this one even easier than with homosexuality, as little often as it is mentioned!

You seem to be operating from a limited definition of sin as "that which hurts others." That's not the definition; it's more like "that which God disapproves of."

jerickson314 wrote:You seem to be operating from a limited definition of sin as "that which hurts others." That's not the definition; it's more like "that which God disapproves of."

Oh granted! I'm just saying that if it causes harm, it's easier to see that it's wrong. If God disaproves of it, it's still wrong, but only careful reading of the Bible can tell if that's true...God help me if I'm wrong...



...are you?

I looked more at the epistle.us site, and of the arguments I can understand (not being a Greek or Hebrew scholar), all arguments stating that homosexuality was not a sin, and even some of the other arguments, contained obvious fallacies.

The most common fallacy I saw was the false dilemma. In this context, it was pretty much assumed that either you accepted homosexuality as morally acceptable or you were a homophobic. Then, a falsehood of homophobia was proven. Then, it follows from the false premise that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This logic is obviously fallacious, for there is a third view: homosexuality is like all other sins.

You address this in your own story, but in a fallacious way:

Shirtless's Story wrote:I’ve talked to many Christians who say that they don’t hate gays themselves, they simply hate gay acts. Based on first-hand experience, I can assure you that this is simply not true. The core nature of homophobia is that gays are not committing sins, they are sin.

Here, you are making a sweeping generalization. You assume that because you have met some homophobic Christians, all Christians who reject homosexuality must be homophobic. You are using the same logic people use when they reject Christianity just because the Christians they have met are hypocrites.

Then in your story, you mention an injustice done towards a gay person. I agree that the actions you described were very sinful and unjust. Nonetheless, it is simply a non sequitur to say that homosexuality isn't a sin. What if they killed him because he told a big lie? Would that mean that lying is OK?

Then I found another article that was just loaded with fallacies. Read it here. I will take each item one by one:

1.) From my perspective, they're preaching to the choir. I have no problem with anything they say here.

2.) I can't recall any passages where Jesus condemns theft, either. I guess I should go steal some stuff... Plus there's the claim that we should not judge. They misunderstand the meaning of "judge", according to what I've read elsewhere. To "judge" is to claim that you are better than someone else because of their sin. I'm not judging if I say, "Homosexuality is wrong. Nonetheless, the fact that you struggle with homosexuality and I don't doesn't mean I'm any better than you." Strangely enough, it's usually atheists who reference the "do not judge" verse. This is also a red herring, because it starts talking about "fundamentalists" and Pharisees instead of Jesus.

3.) Almost preaching to the choir again. Until the part about, "unless they change their ways." That part is true but very misleading. See Romans 6:1-2 for why they should change their ways. Nonetheless, they don't have to change their ways in order to obtain salvation. Plus, one must question how "Christian" they are while they question whether hell exists.

4.) There is nothing of substance in the attempted refutation. So what if he created "Steve" later? And the fact that he loves them doesn't mean he loves their sin.

5.) The refutation is a red herring - They just point out that not God but a particular group of humans who hate homosexuality also generally hate homosexuals. It's also a sweeping generalization.

6.) They simply make an unsupported assertion. They are also guilty of equivocation, replacing "natural" as in occuring in God's intended plan with "natural" as in what feels right to their fallen human nature.

7.) They seem to be referring only to attractions, in which case they might be right. Nonetheless, they do not support the conclusion at all. It is a non sequitur to claim that heterosexuals would have to have learned their behavior. It is possible that heterosexuality comes naturally and that changing this requires "learning".

8.) Gay behavior can be changed, regardless of whether this is true for attractions. It is also true that straight people cannot change their attractions towards those who aren't their spouses, does this justify adultry? And their conclusion that the only reason they haven't changed is because there is nothing wrong with them is unfounded. We don't conclude that there is nothing wrong with cancer patients who die despite being prayed for.

9.) True, a Christian shouldn't deny homosexuals of the proper kind of love. However, no one needs sexual love to be happy. Jesus never married; neither did Paul. See 1 Corinthians 7:8 and Matthew 19:10-12 for a biblical case for celibacy. Homosexuals can and should have brotherly love, though. It is an absolute lie that people must be married or face an isolated life. Equivocation, again, regarding the word "love".

10.) Using this argument against me would be a straw man argument, because I would not make this claim.

11.) They might potentially be right that this is a myth, but their explanation is like one big fallacy. It's a red herring, because it talks about how straight people behave rather than gay people. And I haven't seen any evidence for the last paragraph (not that there won't be any). Also, I believe that the type of people described are living an inconsistent life even if they don't realize it.

12.) Straw man. I don't make this claim.

13.) Ditto.

14.) Equivocation. They first prove, with success, that people don't choose to have homosexual attractions. Then they change the definition of "homosexual" to refer to a practicing homosexual, resulting in a conclusion they haven't established. And if you follow their "judging" arguments to the logical conclusion, we should all just go get drunk and lie and steal and commit adultry etc. etc. But they are right that Jesus did come to save the world and that salvation is available for homosexuals.

In your article you said,

Shirtless's Story wrote:When you are dealing with someone who is anti-gay, logic will not help you. Logic is a weak weapon against hate.

So I guess you decided to try illogic instead? BTW, this statement is an example of poisoning the well.

You suggested we look at your arguments to see how strong they are, and I did so, and my conclusion is that they are even weaker than the arguments for evolution I see at TalkOrigins.

And I did see some obvious flaws in the arguments about the scripture passage. For example, it is correctly pointed out that "homosexual" was not a distinction the ancient Romans would have associated with a person to have come from birth. However, neither is "thief" or "adulterer" - therefore this rebuttal is meaningless.

Shirtless wrote:It would be wrong to molest a child because you are doing to another which you would NOT want done to you. There's a victim in this case. With homosexuality, there is no victim.

So something is only wrong because it causes harm or pain to another, rather than breaking God's standard that was imparted within us?

I'd also argue with your point that there is no victim in homosexuality, yet I'm too lazy as it is non-essential anyway as to whether an action is wrong under the Christian perspective.

Kurieuo.

I'm going to toss in a quick addition / another facet to this topic. Earlier, someone said the Word does not speak about pediphelia.

Well, it barely speaks about gambling either.

So - the new aspect:

I call it a COMPOUND SIN.

In other words, the Word says for us to look on the things of others and not on our own (obviously with common sense). The Word teaches to avoid lust. The Word teaches to spend time in profitable endeavors. Even to teach others wisdom, which would included helping others preserve their finances.

So if I gambled, or got hooked on it, that one word "gambling" is actually a compound of violationg several principles.

Pediphelia is like that. It's violating a bunch of principles that the Word talks about. But we assign one vocabulary word to it.

Often people avoid looking for all that the Word says that they should or shouldn't do, by diverting their search to a word of their own vacabulary that seems to bring innocent results.

A quick observation of other posts - reminders about hate of sin or hate of gays.

Gays actually hate God's way, but frequently try and turn the coin to get the focus on Christians.

Let me correct that "gay" - I mean homosexuals. Here's a question...

Why do gays prefer the term "gay"?

It's a euphamism. That's a figure of speech that lessens the harshness. For example, we use a euphamism "going to the bathroom" to avoid a direct explanation of the facts.

Even the bible has that. In the Old Testament where David was in the cave cutting a fragment of Saul's garment, it says that Saul was in the cave "covering his feet". That's the eastern euphamism of that day for going to the bathroom. When they sat down to do their duty, their clothing would cover their feet.

So an important key to living includes taking note of when euphamisms and catch-phrases are used and by whom those are used.

jerickson314 wrote:You seem to be operating from a limited definition of sin as "that which hurts others." That's not the definition; it's more like "that which God disapproves of."

You see, our friend Shirtless and his ilk are what are called liberal Christians. They believe that most of the Bible except the Jesus part is symbolic and not literal or inerrant. That's why he's so supportive of special rights for gays and lesbians.

Let me correct that "gay" - I mean homosexuals. Here's a question...

Why do gays prefer the term "gay"?

Because they feel that "homosexual" is too scientific and pejorative to them when it isn't. I saw a queer activist on TV trying to make an analogy between "homosexual" and "negro," which is completely off base. If they don't like being called homosexuals, what should heterosexuals call them? Sodomites? Or is heterosexual disparaging to straight people too?

Sin by definition is lawlessness. What law is it put to the test to? God's law. What is God's law for? The well-being of all humans and the framework of a healthy relationship with the Lord.

So homosexuality actually hurts the people partaking in it, and it also hurts their relationship with the Lord (putting their bodily desires over Him in their priorities).

ochotseat wrote:

jerickson314 wrote:You seem to be operating from a limited definition of sin as "that which hurts others." That's not the definition; it's more like "that which God disapproves of."

You see, our friend Shirtless and his ilk are what are called liberal Christians. They believe that most of the Bible except the Jesus part is symbolic and not literal or inerrant. That's why he's so supportive of special rights for gays and lesbians.

While I don't know what Shirtless' position with regard to the Bible (I think he does consider it inerrant?), seeing as he has come into Christianity from a secular worldview I think differences such as these are to be expected. A change of worldview is a major shakeup alone, and it would be a little unreasonable to think someone could just drop all their previous right and wrong convictions on issues at the drop of a hat. So the best thing possible to help newer Christians with understanding is dialogue, and I'm confident the Holy Spirit will also continue guiding Shirtless as he grows in Christ.

As for the issue at hand, I do think Shirtless is fighting a loosing battle in trying to justify homosexuality Scripturally. Although God loves such people, and I believe Jesus would have visited homosexuals as he did prostitutes were they around back in his day, there's just too much Scripture to support that homosexual actions are detestable to God. Logically, they not only disrespect and throw in God's face His intended natural design for woman and man, but such acts carry much higher physical health risks.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:While I don't know what Shirtless' position with regard to the Bible (I think he does consider it inerrant?), seeing as he has come into Christianity from a secular worldview I think differences such as these are to be expected.

Kurieuo, thanks for being civil, and thanks a bunch for not jumping to conclusions. I was starting to wonder whether this was a Christian forum after all. The issue of innerrency has come up a lot with me, and I keep having to say the same things. I'll just give out a post I made a while back when you Kurieuo called me "liberal", and you also brought up the subject of pain, and how I thought actual harm is the best way to tell if something is sinful:

Shirtless wrote:I think there's something that needs to be clarified: I don't believe that sex is just a physical act; it can also be emotional and spiritual. I also don't think that something is only immoral if it includes physical pain - I'm talking about emotional and spiritual pain as well. The word "liberal" is I guess a fair label, but I don't like the word liberal when it comes to God. Liberals believe that the Bible was written by a bunch of out-of-work hippies who tried to inject their own cultural beliefs into the Bible and say it came from God, therefore the Bible should be dismissed when convenient.

I don't believe this; I believe that those who say that simply aren't taking the time to interpret the Bible properly. I think that there are a lot of things that Christians believe simply because they've been told to believe it. As a former Atheist, I feel blessed that that I've had the opportunity to examine the many aspects of Christianity and judge why society dislikes some Christian beliefs, and whether these Christian beliefs are misunderstood by the mainstream, whether they're truely divine, or simply man-made. I played the "man from Mars" so-to-speak. I was able to take in the whole picture from a safe distance.

Kurieuo, I do come from a secular world, and it's the hardest thing to let go. I used to believe that abortion was okay, but I'm not so sure anymore. But there's something that you might not know about me: the secular view that homosexuality is ok is something that I wanted absolutely nothing to do with, and I converted to Christianity believing that homosexuality was a sin, end of story! But, to make a long story short, I slowly began to think that maybe I was wrong. Thinking that I might be wrong is something I never let go of, which is why I keep asking people to give commentary on, with jerickson being the only one to really do so.

jerickson, I also want to express even more gratitude for you taking the time to look at the website I gave you, so that we can both be on equal ground . I would like to respond to your last post, as there are things in it that I agree with, and also things that I think are misunderstood. I'm kind of busy today, and I will get to it when I can. So for now, try to hold back the posts, I can't respond to everything

Just wanted to point out that I feel jerickson has hit the nail on the head in everything he's said. I always start by making his point (that homosexuality is not unlike all other sin) but then in the fervor of debating the original point can get lost under what are misconstrued as accusations and condemnations. So well done jerickson.