Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You are making statements of morality here without any standard. Who cares what you think, and why does it matter?

We all have standards Marcus, though we may not all claim our standard is also the opinion of a particular God and book which happens to be objectively correct. It matters to me mainly due to people I know and care about who happen to be homosexual, they care what I think.

That's true, Pro. We all have standards. However, you can provide no rational foundations outside of God for the standards you hold so dear.

Dan

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You are making statements of morality here without any standard. Who cares what you think, and why does it matter?

We all have standards Marcus, though we may not all claim our standard is also the opinion of a particular God and book which happens to be objectively correct. It matters to me mainly due to people I know and care about who happen to be homosexual, they care what I think.

Is your standard objectively correct or is it merely subjective? If it is subjective, what value does it have on the nature of homosexuality as a whole topic?

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You are making statements of morality here without any standard. Who cares what you think, and why does it matter?

We all have standards Marcus, though we may not all claim our standard is also the opinion of a particular God and book which happens to be objectively correct. It matters to me mainly due to people I know and care about who happen to be homosexual, they care what I think.

That's true, Pro. We all have standards. However, you can provide no rational foundations outside of God for the standards you hold so dear.

Dan

Yeah, but I'm fine with that Danny.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Is your standard objectively correct or is it merely subjective?

I don't know. I'm not even convinced the objective subjective divide is a correct division.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:If it is subjective, what value does it have on the nature of homosexuality as a whole topic?

It's a very small contribution to the value of homosexuality.

There are two things that kill discussion. One is having a person who refuses to be wrong. The other is having a person reject any basis for which an argument can be conducted.

If you say there may be no need for a distinction between the objective and the subjective, you don't know what one (or both) are. There are other threads for that. But if you reject one, the other, or both, I would like a definition of how anything you 'contribute' can be of 'value' to homosexuals. What is this 'value', and what makes it valuable? This just feels like its devolving into silliness. If you are okay without any rational explanation for your beliefs... I'm afraid that has a tremendously negative affect on any discussions that involve those beliefs.

Sorry guys...

I didn't mean to make it seem like I was saying "I'm right, you're wrong". It's just something that I feel very strongly about. My views on this have actually done a 180 in recent years.

RickD wrote:

No such thing as an ex-gay. Either they were never really attracted to the same-sex to begin with or they're simply in denial. Maybe if they weren't surrounded with people telling them that they're sinful just for being who they are.

How does this above statement reconcile with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

You just listed one of the many reasons that I'm struggling with my faith.

RickD wrote:
No such thing as an ex-gay. Either they were never really attracted to the same-sex to begin with or they're simply in denial. Maybe if they weren't surrounded with people telling them that they're sinful just for being who they are.


How does this above statement reconcile with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

You just listed one of the many reasons that I'm struggling with my faith.

How so?

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
No such thing as an ex-gay. Either they were never really attracted to the same-sex to begin with or they're simply in denial. Maybe if they weren't surrounded with people telling them that they're sinful just for being who they are.


How does this above statement reconcile with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

You just listed one of the many reasons that I'm struggling with my faith.

How so?

Not being able to reconcile strongly help personal beliefs with statements in the Bible that contradict them.

BOBtheMASTER wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
No such thing as an ex-gay. Either they were never really attracted to the same-sex to begin with or they're simply in denial. Maybe if they weren't surrounded with people telling them that they're sinful just for being who they are.


How does this above statement reconcile with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

You just listed one of the many reasons that I'm struggling with my faith.

How so?

Not being able to reconcile strongly help personal beliefs with statements in the Bible that contradict them.

In the scientific community, if someone's strongly held belief was that the moon was made of cheese, would you continue holding them if you had completely convincing evidence to the contrary? I understand this a little, since I've had beliefs contradict with Scripture as well. The question is, what authority do you trust in the end more?

BOBtheMASTER wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
No such thing as an ex-gay. Either they were never really attracted to the same-sex to begin with or they're simply in denial. Maybe if they weren't surrounded with people telling them that they're sinful just for being who they are.


How does this above statement reconcile with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

You just listed one of the many reasons that I'm struggling with my faith.

How so?

Not being able to reconcile strongly help personal beliefs with statements in the Bible that contradict them.

That's not any different than what I go through. God is always correcting me, as well. That's part of our relationship with Him. He is conforming us to the image of Christ. Romans 8:29

MarcusOfLycia wrote:There are two things that kill discussion. One is having a person who refuses to be wrong. The other is having a person reject any basis for which an argument can be conducted.

If you say there may be no need for a distinction between the objective and the subjective, you don't know what one (or both) are. There are other threads for that. But if you reject one, the other, or both, I would like a definition of how anything you 'contribute' can be of 'value' to homosexuals. What is this 'value', and what makes it valuable? This just feels like its devolving into silliness. If you are okay without any rational explanation for your beliefs... I'm afraid that has a tremendously negative affect on any discussions that involve those beliefs.

There are many things which kill discussion, not just two, and they vary depending on who is doing the discussing.

As to finding out the value of my contribution to homosexuals, I'd say it's been rather minimal but nevertheless supportive. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when two friends get married and enjoying seeing them raising a child is more valuable to me than telling them they are wrong to be in a loving same sex relationship and that God agrees with me.

Proin, some people get warm and fuzzy and fall in excessive love with an animal. Does that make it ok?

Just to get this straight, do you find anything wrong with 1) NAMBLA as long as the 15 year old consents? 2) People marrying animals if the animal seems happy.

I mean the people are happy and if we leave out morals there should be nothing wrong with it correct?

Now the reason we object to things such as the above and homosexual marriage is because we find it immoral.

There is an issue with a fifteen year old consenting, the current consensus seems to be around 16-18 as a minimum. It's a tough one, some fifteen year olds may be in a position to give consent, many may not. The law has to draw the line somewhere, 16 seems reasonable to me.

Marrying animals is another thing I'm not very familiar with. I did see one blind American guy years ago who married his donkey, I think it was on Springer, have to say I couldn't really come to a decision as to the morality of it.

The reason many people don't object to homosexuality is that they don't find it immoral.

That's true, Pro. We all have standards. However, you can provide no rational foundations outside of God for the standards you hold so dear.

Yeah, but I'm fine with that Danny.

Pro, call me Mr. Pushy, but shouldn't this make you stop and think?

Proinsias wrote:
The reason many people don't object to homosexuality is that they don't find it immoral.

A persons view on homosexuality is based on there morals no doubt, but what standards do they hold there morals too? Some people have found murder to be moral, some people have found rape to be moral, it is all a measure of moral judgment.

Until all people have the same morals, homosexuality will NEVER be totally accepted or rejected.

Proinsias wrote:There is an issue with a fifteen year old consenting, the current consensus seems to be around 16-18 as a minimum. It's a tough one, some fifteen year olds may be in a position to give consent, many may not. The law has to draw the line somewhere, 16 seems reasonable to me.

Marrying animals is another thing I'm not very familiar with. I did see one blind American guy years ago who married his donkey, I think it was on Springer, have to say I couldn't really come to a decision as to the morality of it.

The reason many people don't object to homosexuality is that they don't find it immoral.

I would wager a guess that:

The reason many murderers don't object to murder is that they find it justified.
The reason many thieves don't object to stealing is they feel it is appropriate when they do it.
The reason many hateful people don't object to hatred is that they feel they see people more clearly and hatred is the appropriate response.

The point is, and I think Danny was trying to make it too, is that if you don't have a standard, you can't disapprove of anything. Nor, when you really think about it, can you justify anything. Not only do you remove the evil from everything, but you naturally then remove all of the good.