Evidence for God from Science

@B.W.

You, yourself, admitted on another thread that there are no moral absolutes and then claim on this thread that any manner of sexual love, including homosexual love, is okay on the bases of love alone.

How can you make that truth claim since you have no moral basis for that judgment?

Read the thread until the end. There isn't a conclusion to it... And please read all my comments and what they say.
The moral base is the evolution of society and how things changed over the many years that passed. The fact that you trust a Creator(God) to have offered you an objective moral base is ok, but that doesn't change the fact that all the moral values were pre-existent without God saying a thing. And I did offer example of other cultures which didn't have a Bible and to which God didn't speak and who have moral values similar to what we have.

I am surprised that so many people quote the Bible on objective moral values when those values were there all the time to begin with.

There is an old saying: "God gives the milk, but not the pail". I for one am totally baffled by the simple fact that people refuse to see anything but what the bible says or in other worse cases, the Bible is even interpreted in many ways, but the substance is the same: if the Bible doesn't says it's ok, well then it's not.

To make it short and simple: (this is just an imaginary example)

1) The sky is blue and we can all see that.
2) Bible: I talked to God and he said that the sky is blue. Can you really prove that God said such an obvious thing?

Now let's offer a moral example:

1) 2000 years ago, in Judaism, gay relationships weren't accepted by society at that time. (and at that time things were very very different from the society we have today)
2) 2 days later: God said that man and man should not lie together as a man and a woman do. Really now? Many things in the bible are just obvious things of a trend that a society had at that time and were just rephrased and said to be authored by God himself almighty and alpowerful. That's nice.

And the list could go on.
Can you offer me an example from the Bible which doesn't mirror/mimic/relate to/present a trend/thing/behavior/moral value/ of the times about 2000 years ago?

Im saying that 'a lifestyle of homosexuality' whether one says he has recieved Christ or not, cannot enter Heaven.

What if someone stumbles, from time to time, with his sin? Would King David be in heaven, under your interpretation? He was an adulterer and murderer.

but the reason why Christ came to Earth was TO SET US FREE FROM the enslavement of sin such as making a continuous habit of a sinful lifestyle.

But, we are not completely free from sin, until we are in heaven. We all still sin, and ask for forgiveness, from time to time.

As to you last paragraph, God knows our heart , our desires, and our motives and how sincere we were at wanting , trying, changing, and relying on his power to be Overcomers of sin.

Who's doing the changing? Are we? Or, is the Holy Spirit changing us? Conforming us to the image of Christ? Remember, we can't change ourselves. Only God, by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, can do that.

I'm just asking you to think about what I'm saying. It seems by your standard, we all are bound for hell.

Bryan, I think you're confusing objective morality, with subjective morality. If the bible were never written, objective morality would still exist, because God exists. The bible points to the source of objective morality. The bible is not the source of objective morality.

Bryan, I think you're confusing objective morality, with subjective morality. If the bible were never written, objective morality would still exist, because God exists. The bible points to the source of objective morality. The bible is not the source of objective morality.

Of course that bible points out to the source. That is what I was saying as well.
The fact that I was pointing out is that the SOURCE is providing obvious statements and nothing extra that could lead to believing that a God has spoken...

And the Bible as I understand from what people here told me is the word of God and his rules that need to be followed.
What I am saying is that God's words are quite obvious and any person could have written the bible by simply applying observation on a given trend in society.
To explain even better, I'm saying that the Bible "shaped" God in a way that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of it.

objective morality would still exist, because God exists

Well, we already had this argument before and neither you or I can prove that God exists or doesn't exist. It's like a world soccer final and nobody scores for an eternity:))

BryanH wrote:

And the Bible as I understand from what people here told me is the word of God and his rules that need to be followed.
What I am saying is that God's words are quite obvious and any person could have written the bible by simply applying observation on a given trend in society.
To explain even better, I'm saying that the Bible "shaped" God in a way that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of it.

Bryan, the bible is the written word of God, which points to the living Word of God; Jesus Christ. While the bible shows us rules and laws, it shows us the rules, so we know we are rule breakers, and In need of a Savior. No man is justified by keeping any laws.

Trying to keep on topic here, if God instituted marriage with the first man and woman, like the bible says, then marriage was instituted, by God, before the bible was even written. So, marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman, and as a symbol , and earthly image of the union between Christ and His bride(His true believers). Homosexual sex, and homosexual "marriage" is a perversion of what God instituted.

Trying to keep on topic here, if God instituted marriage with the first man and woman, like the bible says, then marriage was instituted, by God, before the bible was even written. So, marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman, and as a symbol , and earthly image of the union between Christ and His bride(His true believers). Homosexual sex, and homosexual "marriage" is a perversion of what God instituted.

I don't think we are on the same page here. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

1) Marriage existed before the Bible was written and before God allegedly spoke to someone about it.

The Bible which was written by MEN (literally and metaphorically, by males) claims that GOD has instituted marriage between MAN and WOMAN.

1)Marriage existed and pre-dates the bible....
2)The fact that someone wrote a Bible (which consists of many scriptures written by many MEN) and he says there that MARRIAGE is an INSTITUTION created by GOD is not a proof that GOD instituted marriage in the first place.

It's only a man who claims to have spoken to GOD and GOD allegedly has sent a message through him saying that HE Almighty was the one who instituted marriage between man and woman.
And as I said before: the fact that the bible says that a union is between man and woman only reflects the traditions of that time. Can you prove me different?

My question for you is: Why do you choose to believe a MAN that claims he has spoken to GOD? Can you really verify the fact that he actually spoke to GOD and he didn't make all that up to suit his personal beliefs and the trends of the society he was living in?

If tomorrow I come to you and I say that God has spoken to me and he says that gay marriage is ok, will you believe me?

So, marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman, and as a symbol , and earthly image of the union between Christ and His bride(His true believers). Homosexual sex, and homosexual "marriage" is a perversion of what God instituted.

Homosexuals can be true believers as well. So taking this symbol a little bit more literally, Jesus was united with his true believers: both straight and gay people. So I really don't understand this one. You just interpret this to say that homosexual people are not accepted. I could argue and say that this is a proof of how God taught people to accept diversity. Depends on where you stand.

Homosexual sex, and homosexual "marriage" is a perversion of what God instituted

I think that I managed to explain my personal opinion in the first paragraph.

You don't actually know anything about what God instituted. You just have the words of men who claim to have spoken to God. That's all.
If you think that the words of some people are proof enough, I won't argue with you, but at least I would like not to be told here that the Bible is a source of objective morality because you don't actually have a proof for that.

Oh, but it's so much more fun to point out other people's sin and pontificate on how evil they are. It's a good thing Jesus didn't have anything to say about that ... or wait ... maybe He did.

Matt 7:3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Let's just focus on the elements on the list that apply to others and pretend like the sins that are ours are not really quite so serious. What's a little gluttony, drunkenness and self-righteousness when compared to the really "serious sins" that those nasty other people are involved in?

Luke 18:9-14 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

And as I said before: the fact that the bible says that a union is between man and woman only reflects the traditions of that time. Can you prove me different?

Bryan, a simple search of Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable., in a concordance such as Strong's will show you that homosexual acts are not only wrong for the culture of the time. Here's the verse:http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm

And, here's the meaning of the word detestable, or abomination:
Tow'ebah

As you can see, depending on the translation, the word used is detestable, or abomination. Look it up for yourself, if you really are open to the truth. You just seem to be using every excuse you can think of, to justify what God calls detestable.

BryanH, there's no question in my mind that people with a homosexual orientation are loved by God and are as acceptable to Him to enter in relationship with Him as anyone else. That's not an issue. Further, none of us are required to clean ourselves up before we come to God. The approach we have has been secured by Christ and by Christ alone.

That doesn't change the fact that acts of sin, all sin, not just homosexual acts (although those are included) are still sin.

Grace covers all sin but it doesn't make all sin right and acceptable and while the eternal consequences have been covered by Christ for those who come to God through Him, there can be and often are temporal consequences that come as a result of continued willful sin in a believer's life in addition to the fact that continued sin in a believers' life dulls us spiritually to our sense of connection and the presence of God's Spirit in our lives.

Where a lot of confusion comes on this issue is when we try to take issues of truth like this and apply concepts that are foreign to Christian values and ethics. The common philosophy in our culture to address issues like this is known as Utilitarianism. It basically says that the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is measured by how many people are affected negatively and to what degree. Sometimes it's boiled down to a simple mantra that shows up in many areas, that says if what you're doing doesn't hurt anyone than go ahead and do what you want.

That type of approach is not consistent with Christianity in whole. Christians believe that God is the determiner of what is right and what is wrong, and further God created us and knows us better than ourselves, and therefore what He has to say about an issue is in the end right because He knows us and knows also what is best for us. Of course, sin has entered the picture and the root of sin in many ways as demonstrated by Adam and Eve is when we question what God has said and come to believe that we know better than God what is right or wrong for us. Some are threatened by this, particularly if they believe that God is distant, apart from us and in the end just wants what He wants regardless of what is best for us. When we come to realize that this picture is inaccurate and that God loves us and He really desires what is best for us, and we come into a relationship with Him, there's a whole different dynamic at work than just lamenting the things that we "can't do." We're invited into a relationship with God in which He desires us to love Him and trust Him, ultimately not because He has any particular need to do so, but because God is love and it is in His nature and character to invite us to participate in a portion of the fellowship and relationship that God experiences within Himself in what we understand in part through the model of the Trinity.

So, all of that to say that I am in complete agreement with many who believe that those who are homosexual in orientation have been done a great disservice by many Christians and Churches who have opted to make this the effective "unforgivable sin." What is wrong in what has been done in that regard is not that homosexual behavior is not sinful, but that it's been isolated and made particularly heinous while those who deliver that message often attempt to minimize their own sin. That's really at the root of the attitude that Jesus confronted so much in the Pharisees and religious leaders in the time of His earthly ministry. The focus at that time and that culture wasn't as much upon homosexuality as it was particularly on those Jews who were cooperating with the Roman Occupiers as tax collectors and using their roled to collect more tax than what was due to the Romans which they were then allowed to keep for themselves. It's speculation on my part but I think if Jesus were in His earthly ministry here and now in most western cultures He might give that parable I quote in my most recent post above and instead of a tax collector use a homosexual to contrast in a way that would really illustrate the hypocrisy of many religious people who play these types of religious games as to who's more sinful or who's better than others. It's all about wearing masks and attempting to convince others, God and even ourselves of how good we are on our own merits and efforts instead of humbling ourselves, accepting that we are brought to God through grace and Christ alone and when we're aware of that, it become very difficult for us to see others as anything else but sinners like us who are in need of God's grace.

Anyway, I hope this helps to make some things clear. Grace isn't license. It doesn't make sin suddenly of no effect or of no problem when we become entangled in it. The power of sin has been broken by Christ and we have available to us if we receive it and recognize it, God's grace and the assurance that His love for us is not based upon our performance. Attempting to rationalize sin away doesn't work. It's not a matter of us attempting on our own to decide whether a particular sinful behavior whether it be homosexuality or heterosexual adultery or fornication, is now somehow acceptable. In the end if we believe God loves us and is not trying to rob us of our "fun" then we'll come to believe and with His help and in His time experience victory in this or any other area where we are tempted. When we stumble and fall, God's grace remains sufficient and we can stand back up and continue on free from condemnation or guilt.

I haven't arrived. Nobody posting on this thread has arrived. My poop stinks just as much as anyone else's.

@Canuckster1127

First of all I would like to thank you for taking the time to write such a nice post.

You did mention a perspective on homosexuality, but you haven't answered one important question.

I will quote what I have said before to make it more clear for others to read and continue the discussion:

I don't think we are on the same page here. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

1) Marriage existed before the Bible was written and before God allegedly spoke to someone about it.

The Bible which was written by MEN (literally and metaphorically, by males) claims that GOD has instituted marriage between MAN and WOMAN.

1)Marriage existed and pre-dates the bible....
2)The fact that someone wrote a Bible (which consists of many scriptures written by many MEN) and he says there that MARRIAGE is an INSTITUTION created by GOD is not a proof that GOD instituted marriage in the first place.

It's only a man who claims to have spoken to GOD and GOD allegedly has sent a message through him saying that HE Almighty was the one who instituted marriage between man and woman.
And as I said before: the fact that the bible says that a union is between man and woman only reflects the traditions of that time. Can you prove me different?

My question for you is: Why do you choose to believe a MAN that claims he has spoken to GOD? Can you really verify the fact that he actually spoke to GOD and he didn't make all that up to suit his personal beliefs and the trends of the society he was living in?

If tomorrow I come to you and I say that God has spoken to me and he says that gay marriage is ok, will you believe me?

The fact that both you and RickD avoided this question right now and chose to continue providing examples from the Bible when I challenged its "divine authenticity" is somehow out of place from my point of view taking in consideration the path of the discussion. I may be over-exaggerating.

Bryan, a simple search of Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable., in a concordance such as Strong's will show you that homosexual acts are not only wrong for the culture of the time. Here's the verse:http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm

Can you please explain me what is the point of this example? People 2000 years ago considered homosexuality an abomination. That was my point exactly. People at that time had little medical knowledge about homosexuality and etc etc. People at that time considered physically handicapped people abominations as well and freaks of the nature... Where you going with this? And by the way... I've done some research online. The Leviticus was written over 3000 years ago... As much I would like to back you up, in 3000 years a lot of things change. Do you consider that the society we have today is similar to the one that existed 3000 years ago?

BryanH,

I actually did address your point. You're applying the Utilitarianism I spoke of and asking whether the Bible is really true in terms of God's pronouncing what is right or what is wrong. You don't accept the Bible and apparently don't accept anything in the realm of absolutes when it comes to morality particularly when you appeal to culture.

I understand cultural issues perhaps more than you might think. I understand that there are cultural nuances that make particular actions acceptable in some cultures but not in others, not because of anything inherently right or wrong with the action itself but because of what that culture or society attribute as particular meaning. So while for many in western cultures, for example it means something to see two men or two women holding hands walking down the street, in many African cultures nothing is thought of it as it's simply a demonstration of connection while the two converse.

There's no shortage of different tacts and approaches that you or anyone else can take with regard to seeking to explain away or justify things. It's difficult at times even within Scripture to identify those things related to standards that tied into cultural norms. For example, tatooing was probably considere wrong and condemned because it was a common practice of pagan priests. In the New Testament when it speaks of women being dressed and perfumed in the public square it likely wasn't speaking of the use of make-up but rather the admonition not to look like a prostitute.

All that understood, there are some absolutes that cross culture. Scripture appears very clear to me in the assessment that homosexual acts are sinful.

If you simply wish to argue against the validity of Scripture then your issues isn't really homosexuality and homosexual acts. It would appear to me that your issue is you don't want to accept that there is any authority from God on issues like this and you'd prefer more of an "anything goes" with an appeal back to Utilitarianism.

That's your perogative of course. You can choose what you wish to believe in that regard. What you can't choose is whether in the end God will subject to your standards or you will be subject to God's.

I believe sin is sin and I rejoice that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to address all sin and most importantly for me, my own. I don't have it out for homosexuals or homosexual sin any more than my own. God loves homosexuals. I love homosexuals and I try to live honestly and transparently to where I don't fall into the trap of self-righteousness or judgment of others by any different standard than what I myself am subject to.

It would be one thing if the only prohibition of homosexuality was a passage in Leviticus. It's not however. It's present as a warning and admonition not only in the Old Testament but also the New Testament. The time frames and differences in culture are about as significant between Levitucus and Romans as what is present in terms of the first century until now. I don't see any indication that sexual immorailty in that context is impacted by culture. I don't find the arguments presented particularly convincing and that's coming from someone who is about one of the more non-traditional type christians that you're likely to meet and someone who can read the New Testament at least in it's original language and has studied the history and culture of the times.

So anyway, it's fine if you wish to simply summarily dismiss what I've said. That's your choice. In the end, your choice in this area is the same as it is for everyone regardless of what particular sin we might hold dear. Is the Bible true and does God know what He's talking about? Does He really love me and want what is best for me, or is He just a celestial party-pooper in the sky?

I know what I believe. You'll have to dedice those things for yourself. Just remember that while you have the power to make decisions, you don't have the power to determine consequences outside of the decisions themselves. I don't say that to attempt to manipulate you with fear or to shame you. It's simply something that is true and needs to be considered.

RickD wrote:

Im saying that 'a lifestyle of homosexuality' whether one says he has recieved Christ or not, cannot enter Heaven.

What if someone stumbles, from time to time, with his sin? Would King David be in heaven, under your interpretation? He was an adulterer and murderer.

but the reason why Christ came to Earth was TO SET US FREE FROM the enslavement of sin such as making a continuous habit of a sinful lifestyle.

But, we are not completely free from sin, until we are in heaven. We all still sin, and ask for forgiveness, from time to time.

As to you last paragraph, God knows our heart , our desires, and our motives and how sincere we were at wanting , trying, changing, and relying on his power to be Overcomers of sin.

Who's doing the changing? Are we? Or, is the Holy Spirit changing us? Conforming us to the image of Christ? Remember, we can't change ourselves. Only God, by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, can do that.

I'm just asking you to think about what I'm saying. It seems by your standard, we all are bound for hell.

In order ----

1. From reading the Bible, it tells us that the very reason Christ came to Earth to be a sacrifice for our sins, was for us to be Overcomers of sin and its lure ..and, that he came to break the power of Sin in our lives. If we choose to remain in a sin continuously ,then we are not Overcomers . We have been given the power to be victorious and God expects our life to reflect that which is the essence of having been Born Anew. It may require professional Christian Counselling , but Gods desire is that sin doesnt have a hold on us anymore . The fact that God listed specific sins such as lifestyle homosexuality disqualifying a person from heaven in Romans 1 , 1 Cor. 6 , and elsewhere.... indicates that it IS possible to not remain there. Hence the scripture :" SUCH were some of you (who engaged in these) " -- paraphrased.

2. God looks at our heart, desires, and motives regarding sin...and wants us to hate sin as much as he does. He does not want nor expect his Children to live defeated Christian lives or lives that dont show any difference between the world and Godly living. In the book of Revelation, it says that its only Overcomers who have any claim on heaven (paraphrased) .

3. The H.S. WITH our cooperation makes for An Overcomer of sin. In 1 Cor. 6 :9-12 , I dont find any caveat of 'IF a person hasnt become addicted to a sin' in the passage ; what we read is a definitive statement on specific sins which include lifestyle Homosexuality / Sexual Immorality. We should not read things into scripture to make sinful lifestyles more palatable the same we should not read into the Genesis account of Creation ' millions of years ' to make it more palatable with popular secular stellar evolutionary thought.

CallMeDave wrote:We should not read things into scripture to make sinful lifestyles more palatable the same we should not read into the Genesis account of Creation ' millions of years ' to make it more palatable with popular secular stellar evolutionary thought.

Ya just had to go there didn't ya!

Byblos wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:We should not read things into scripture to make sinful lifestyles more palatable the same we should not read into the Genesis account of Creation ' millions of years ' to make it more palatable with popular secular stellar evolutionary thought.

Ya just had to go there didn't ya!

Put your hands in the like you don't care and yommmmm
Yom, yom and yom

bippy123 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:We should not read things into scripture to make sinful lifestyles more palatable the same we should not read into the Genesis account of Creation ' millions of years ' to make it more palatable with popular secular stellar evolutionary thought.

Ya just had to go there didn't ya!

Put your hands in the like you don't care and yommmmm
Yom, yom and yom