Evidence for God from Science

Darwin, getting back to the gay thing ... let me ask you something.

You continually say that you define "good" in part by the majority ... if I understand you correctly, you believe that through the ages what is "good" has been fleshed and defined, more or less, by many people. The bible being one of many "guidebooks" if you will ... and although I do not put my trust in the masses (because I feel people tend to just follow the crowd hypnotically) I do agree with you to an extent. The cumulative knowledge of those that come before us is what we have to work with in our present situation. What works and what doesn't, what is "good" for society, etc.

That being said, I believe the majority of the people in the world are heterosexual. I may be wrong, I have not done any research or seen any figures on this. But if this is true, that the majority of the people are heterosexual, why would you consider homosexuality to be something ... normal and healthy? I mean, I just look at what's in front of me ... look at our bodies. It seems to me that the bodies of males and females were made to come together. Ying and yang, if you will. And there's the possibility of something wonderful produced from this union. Not to get gross, but your anus is for getting rid of waste ... I know it probably feels good or people wouldn't do it, but ... I have to be honest, it seems very abnormal to me.

I am honestly questioning. I know the bible condemns homosexuality. I believe the Qu'ran does too. In a way, I am not interested in what these books say. And in a way, I am not interested in what the majority feel or don't feel (just because Hollyweird has Queer Eye for the Straight Guy doesn't mean the majority of Americans condon the gay lifestyle. The American public doesn't protest anything ... just don't take their TV and toys away).

I guess what I'm saying is ... homosexuality goes against my gut reaction. It could be because of the society I was brought up in ... it could be because of the bible ... and it could be because when I look at it, it seems to me to be against common sense. But I realize that I need to get
beyond my upbringing and also my "Christian" learning and realize the truth about the matter ... any matter, really, whether it be homosexuality or something else. And I am questioning, Darwin, not judging. I am putting together what I have observed over the years I have been on this earth and forming an opinion about something (every human being has a right to do this) and it seems to me that homosexuality is not so "healthy", mentally or physically. If the bible is "God inspired" (or the Qu'ran) and if the bible condemns homosexuality ... I want to truly understand the reason.

B.S! I'm happy to drift along with society as long as their idea of what is Good remains constant.

Be consistent. In one post you said you'd prefer a society where the laws and rules change, as opposed to one stuck on something permament and "outdated"....and now you say you want society to be consistent....

Whilst morals are somewhat relative to the age and the changing nature of society, to say that Good is relative is another expample of gross exaggeration whilst morals change the nature of begin Good as opposed to Evil DOES NOT change in that Murder will ALWAYS be seen as Bad and Theft will ALWAYS be seen as bad.

Theft is not always seen as bad. Communists say, for example, that stealing is good, just as long as you steal from someone richer than you, as this will bring about equality (in the movies, see Ocean's Eleven for an example of this belief). Murder is relative as well-in the case of Terri Schiavo. And, theft in general is considered OK as long as the amount stolen is relatively small.

why would you consider homosexuality to be something ... normal and healthy?

Okay I think that there is some misunderstanding regarding my stance on homosexuality. Whilst I defend it I do admit that homosexuality is unnatural. There I said! HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL!

The way in which the body is designed is clearly for the reproduction of the human race, however...

There are a lot of things that the human race does that is unnatural.

People bunji jump, plummeting towards the ground at hundreds of kilometers an hour is unquestionably unnatural but people still do it.

Eating at McDonalds is unnatural but man those Quarter Pounders are good!

I know comparing homosexuality to bunji jumping or eating at the golden arches is not really sufficient but there are similarities.

If two consenting homosexuals engage in these acts what is wrong with it?

When I've asked this question to any Christian in the past I've gotten in reply 'It goes against the Bible.' or something along those lines, what I'm suggesting is that maybe its time to put the Bible aside and think logically for a little bit.

Do you really think that God is going to be THAT pissed off that two consenting gay people are getting it on?

I know I sound disrespectful towards the Bible and Christianity but I honestly do not mean to be. I have nothing but respect for Christianity (anything with that many followers must be doing something right) however I think the idea of basing our entire lives around something describe in such an ancient book is not the way to go. Hey that's just me.

In one post you said you'd prefer a society where the laws and rules change, as opposed to one stuck on something permament and "outdated"....and now you say you want society to be consistent....

If a society is working then I'm happy for it to be consistent however when there is mass protest and discomfort among people then it is obviously time for change. Hope that cleared it up for you.

This is my argument for keeping Darwin_Rocks around...maybe in a little cage where we can feed him-he makes me think. Everything God says to do in the Bible has a logical reason behind it. And now, I'm looking into expanding my knowledge on the logical reasons against homosexuality.
I've always had the reason that it goes against nature, and though I don't believe the bungi jumping McDonald's argument has any validity, I think there's more behind the issue that I don't know.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

Interesting there ^^^

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

I've thought problems with STDs was true, but never had it validated... never looked up an answer^^^.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:however I think the idea of basing our entire lives around something describe in such an ancient book is not the way to go. Hey that's just me.

Yeah that's fine, and chosing to life my life as set out by the Word of God is really, just me. Yeah it's an old book, but I believe it. Should I defer my moral judgement to Micheal Moore instead?

I guess my point is this: give me something better to believe in than an ancient book delivered to me by the creator of the universe and I'll consider basing my entire life on something else.

Btw, that's a good post KM. When God says that the wages of sin is death, I think it's pretty clear that he was speaking truth, and really those stats don't suprise me at all. They do lend credence though, to continuing to follow the instruction in our beloved "ancient book."

Darwin_Rocks wrote:
however I think the idea of basing our entire lives around something describe in such an ancient book is not the way to go. Hey that's just me.

Didn't feel like finding the original post....

If it hasn't failed after thousands of years, why must it be abandoned? The concepts behind the car are over a century old. Should we abandon it, even though they have worked all this time? Just because something's new doesn't mean it's better than the predecessor.

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

It is easy to read and accept information such as this and relax. Our beliefs justified by Science, however one must question the nature of the survey.

Whom as the participaters in these surveys, are they homosexuals that have been alive for thirty forty years. I could even suggest that the reason behind the psychiatric and suicide problems have nothing to do with their homosexuality but rather the acceptance of this. For all we know these could have been individuals whom have been rejected by their family for their life choice, this is all speculative but I think valid.

So until we get the details of these above mentioned statistics we have to understand that they could indeed be flawed.

No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

This is a much more heated issue, and probably one that provides the most trouble for those willing to accept homosexuality. However once again we need to examine the evidence.

In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.

These are all diseases that can be transferred via heterosexual anal sex, which for all we know happens out there in the world. I know that the church sees anal sex as wrong but to deny that it happens out there in the real world is stupid, I'm not saying that you guys ARE denying it but labelling homosexuals as more prone to disease than heterosexuals is wrong because these diseases are equally as likely to be caused as a result of heterosexual anal sex.

Felgar Wrote:
Yeah that's fine, and chosing to life my life as set out by the Word of God is really, just me. Yeah it's an old book, but I believe it. Should I defer my moral judgement to Micheal Moore instead?

I guess my point is this: give me something better to believe in than an ancient book delivered to me by the creator of the universe and I'll consider basing my entire life on something else.

Im not saying that you should abandon the Bible at all. The Bible is filled with teachings that I think everyone should read. Some of Jesus' teachings are excellent in my opinion. What I am suggesting is that you accept that the Bible is not the bottom line. Indeed live by the book as you have been but remember it's not the only one out there.

Of course you should not defer moral judgement (whatever that means) to Michael Moore, I wouldn't look to Michael Moore for complete morality either for one he is somewhat of a hypocrit (I'm pretty sure he makes a lot of money himself off of films like Farenheit 9/11).

I guess my message is: Listen to Everyone, be open to many ideas and have the ability to question things yourself.

If it hasn't failed after thousands of years, why must it be abandoned? The concepts behind the car are over a century old. Should we abandon it, even though they have worked all this time? Just because something's new doesn't mean it's better than the predecessor.

Obviously I wasn't clear enough. I'm not suggesting you abandon the Bible, only become more open minded to the plight of others. Especially when those others dont mean you or anybody else harm.

Imagine that you are a seive, texts come flying at you like 'The Bible' the 'Koran' and perhaps a few of Moore's documentaries, it's up to you to determine what you take out of it. However I would suggest throwing in a few controversial texts into it as well. eg.- Philadelphia or Boys Dont Cry both of which deal with the humanity behind homosexuality. By examining a whole variety of information you can determine what you want to be and how you want to live through other texts constructed by humans, not just the Bible.

This just points out the fact that you can't convert someone to Christianity or anything else with facts....people will and have (Darwin_Rocks above) made excuses (poor ones, of course). You say look at other sources, and to a point I'd agree. You can be right and not be a Christian. One of those transcendentalists was right with one statement (Thoreau I think). He said, as I poorly remembered, that if you consider yourself a thinker, but if you stay the same after hearing new information, you are not a thinker.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:What I am suggesting is that you accept that the Bible is not the bottom line. Indeed live by the book as you have been but remember it's not the only one out there.

First let me say that I respect the tone in which you answered, so I'll make an effort to be less accusational as well.

I guess the above quote really gets to the heart of it though... I mean, what else *should* I use as the bottom line? A person's gotta have a bottom line, and given that I believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God, where else would I rationally turn to for that bottom line?

Really that's what I want you to understand. That when it all comes down, what you're asking Christians to do is to willingly reject a part of the Bible on the grounds that society knows better.

And, I should have said it earlier, how you could you use books that contradict each other to form your bottom line? The Koran and Book of Morman contradict the Bible (both on one of the most important things in the Bible-the divinity of Jesus-both claim he was not God)(Mormoms say He was just one God, and we could become like Him)(Muslims say He was just a prophet).

Really that's what I want you to understand. That when it all comes down, what you're asking Christians to do is to willingly reject a part of the Bible on the grounds that society knows better.

Yeah and I'm realising that we will probably never agree with each other. In fact I'm realising that living by the Bible isn't as bad. The majority of Western Society accepts the Bible and we are relatively fine despite a few minor hiccups. It could be alot worse.

And, I should have said it earlier, how you could you use books that contradict each other to form your bottom line? The Koran and Book of Morman contradict the Bible (both on one of the most important things in the Bible-the divinity of Jesus-both claim he was not God)(Mormoms say He was just one God, and we could become like Him)(Muslims say He was just a prophet).

Maybe it comes down to interpretation. I mean is Christ's divinity in The Bible really Divinity? Or is it symbolic of the idea that maybe his teachings are the only ones that really need to be followed. However this debate should be left for another post.

I feel bad that this argument has taken over Masterminds plea for advice on dealing with the world. So I give you this:

Live life, dont hurt people and enjoy it while it lasts.

And remember, according the Gandhi "An eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind."

And remember, according the Gandhi "An eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind."

Maybe that phrase-an eye for an eye-shouldn't be taken literally (as in goug out someone's eye when he does it to you). It probably means every foul act deserves justice.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:Yeah and I'm realising that we will probably never agree with each other. In fact I'm realising that living by the Bible isn't as bad. The majority of Western Society accepts the Bible and we are relatively fine despite a few minor hiccups. It could be alot worse.

I'm glad to see you say this. Honestly, most of the laws in our Western societies were originally based on Judeo-Christian values. I think we've done ok but I do think we're continuing to move away from those foundations.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:Maybe it comes down to interpretation. I mean is Christ's divinity in The Bible really Divinity? Or is it symbolic of the idea that maybe his teachings are the only ones that really need to be followed.

Yeah if you want to debate we can talk about it in depth elsewhere. But for the record, it IS full-fledged outright Almighty God Divinity. In fact, most Christian theology emphasizes that Jesus and God are one - Jesus really IS God. Really that's the only way it can work, because in order for Jesus to have the authority to cover our sins, He really has to be God because no other being has any authority over sin at all.

Darwin_Rocks wrote: Live life, dont hurt people and enjoy it while it lasts.

Esspecially the part about not hurting anyone, we can definately agree on that.

Matthew 22:36-39
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'