Evidence for God from Science

jordon3 wrote:I find most christians total hypocrites that need someone to pick on and use the bible to do so......YET they get divorced as much as anyone that is not christian and REMARRY which is totally sinning IF you believe what the bible says...Talk about hypocrites....so essentially christians that remarry are committing adultery every yes EVERY day of their life there after...yet they constantly point to the bible to brow beat gays.....this is one of many reasons why it is hard to respect christians....they use the bible when it convenient. and they never answer you on such issues

What's to answer? Divorce is obviously almost always wrong, and remarriage after divorce is adultery. Of course, most Christians are not hypocrites in this regard, as most Christians do not get divorced. That's an inflated statistic that also does not take into account the differences in divorce rate among different groups of Christians(in the sociological sense), many of which have significantly lower divorce statistics than the public at large(especially the extremely conservative groups like Catholics and Orthodox). The groups most likely to have higher divorce rates are those considered "liberal" by theological standards. The ones most likely as a group to snub sound doctrine, accept things the Bible clearly says are sins, hold to philosophical postmodernism, accept outright heresies such as modalism, word of faith, sabellianism, pelagianism, hymenaeanism(or neo-hymenaeanism), marcionism, etc.

cslewislover wrote:As for brow beating gays, I do not know any Christians like that. I love gay people as much as I love anyone. Do you personally know any (brow beaters)? Are you referring to most Christians' opposition to gay marriage?

The use of the term "browbeat" is almost always a card played for emotional effect, as most Christians never do anything remotely close to browbeating any homosexuals. Because they feel threatened, which is unwarranted in most cases, homosexual activists paint any sign of disagreement as an attempt at browbeating or censorship. They will often point to severe actions committed by a tiny minority of people who claim to be Christians(such as the "church" of Phelps), people whose actions are rejected by Christians at large(at least the ones aware of the activity), as indicative of Christianity's reaction towards homosexuality at large. Just look at most heated debates on the issue of homosexuality -- you will almost always find some reference to Phelps or some Chick tract.

Now many homosexual activists disagree with Christians and certain passages of the Bible, and they often do it louder and with more venom than any Christian uses when talking about their disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle. Yet you almost never(I hesitate to say never, though I've never seen it myself) see a Christian who gets into a debate on the issue begin whining about how the big bad homosexual is browbeating him. When two people hold opposing views on a topic, it is actually good and right for them to be able to enter into free debate on the topic in order to see whose reasoning holds up the best. This is how they and observers of the debate come to a better understanding of what is actually true. The use of emotional terms such as "browbeat" when they do not apply is nothing more than an attempt at censorship.

If you can't beat your opponent's reasoning, mischaracterize them or otherwise attempt to silence them.

Gee, quite an objective poll here

zoegirl wrote:Gee, quite an objective poll here

Lol, I know. I didn't remember seeing that poll in the past, and I was like "Whoa."

When two people hold opposing views on a topic, it is actually good and right for them to be able to enter into free debate on the topic in order to see whose reasoning holds up the best. This is how they and observers of the debate come to a better understanding of what is actually true.

Agree 100% BUT such debates concerning topics related to religion almost always end up in some form of "I know what God wants".

The use of emotional terms such as "browbeat" when they do not apply is nothing more than an attempt at censorship.

If you can't beat your opponent's reasoning, mischaracterize them or otherwise attempt to silence them.

I agree that the term "browbeat" isn't (usually) appropriate. BUT how different is it from "proving" a point by cherry picking a verse from The Bible, then playing the "you have to believe to understand" card when asked "how do you know God actually wrote the verse in question?" and/or "how do you know that your interpretation of the verse was what God really intended?". If all else fails, fall back on "you're a sinner" and "you're going to hell".

Wayne,

We're not cherry picking.

It's pretty clear what actions were considered sinful. If there were contradictory versus concerning homosexuallity and we CHOSE the one that supports our view, then we would be cherry picking. THere is no verse that *supports" homosexuality.

In fact, what you want to be able to do is cherry picking (rejecting the parts of scripture that *you* don't like). YOu chose to rest upon the parts of the BIble you liek (do unto others) and conveniently reject those you don't.

The NEw TEstment calls us to love one another, but it is VERY clear that this also means upholding one another in CHrist (if one is a new creation) and to faithfully preach the Gospel (which means declaring our need for our SAvior) fro bringing people to Christ. Does this mean that in a conversation if it were brought up that we would allude to our sinful nature? Sure....if we are mature CHristians, we would certainly not focus the topic solely on sexual behavior. We are sinful, we need CHrist....simple as that. Does this mean that we won't sin anymore? No...does that mean we pursue sinful behaviors? no

There are plenty of scriptrue verses that call us to be sanctified in Christ that would mean our rejecting cherished sins. FOr some of us it means throwing off habits of temper, sloth, lying, vicious speech, gossip....we all have those cherished sins. Heterosexuals are not let off the hook.

Christ told the woman accused of adultery that she should "go and sin no more". Did He love her?!? Absolutely!!! DId He allow her to continue in her adulterous lifestyle because of some notion of being "accepting"? He accepts us as sinners but He cleanses us!!

It does not mean blithely accepting sinful behavior.

NOw that being said, there ar tremendously immature Christians who inapropriately wield Scripture and the Gospel. The Word is a sword and yet used incorrectly, the person wielding i can inflcit damage. No one hear so far in this thread has shown even a hint of the choices presented in that ridiculous poll.

waynepii wrote:Agree 100% BUT such debates concerning topics related to religion almost always end up in some form of "I know what God wants".

I don't see how this is a bad thing. Christianity is considered a revealed religion by its followers. One of the central beliefs without which Christianity doesn't even make sense is that God has in fact spoken, and has made at least some of His desires known, and has inspired a good portion of that revealed knowledge to be written down by select prophets and apostles. So the argument has to go to your second point -- there is no reason for a Christian to believe he doesn't know at least some things about what God wants. That's very postmodern.

I agree that the term "browbeat" isn't (usually) appropriate. BUT how different is it from "proving" a point by cherry picking a verse from The Bible, then playing the "you have to believe to understand" card when asked "how do you know God actually wrote the verse in question?" and/or "how do you know that your interpretation of the verse was what God really intended?". If all else fails, fall back on "you're a sinner" and "you're going to hell".

I don't know anyone who uses that tactic, so it's kind of moot. Even in such a case, it's nothing remotely close to browbeating. It's bad reasoning, but it's not browbeating. You'll need to illustrate how those two actions are the same rather than simply asking "how are they different?" You're the one claiming similarity. "I don't have to back up my assertions; you have to disprove them" won't fly.

Cherry-picking is often used in reference to the verses in Leviticus and Romans most often used in opposition to homosexual actions. Except for the fact that using those verses isn't remotely similar to cherry-picking, so it's a baseless claim. We have references to the Leviticus passage in the pre-Christian Talmud and Mishna that illustrate that it has always been considered a prohibition of homosexual acts, and it(and the NT Romans passage) have been unanimously agreed upon by Christians(even most heretical offshoots) for the first 1900+ years of Christianity. It is only in recent decades that more liberal theologians have begun to attack those passages, but as this goes against the entire historical record it's no wonder most knowledgeable people don't take such assertions very seriously.

And zoe is right. The ones who complain the most about cherry-picking are usually the worst offenders. When something like the Bible is unanimous on a topic, and 1900 years of Christian scholarship(as well as over 500 years of pre-Christian Jewish scholarship) is in agreement on that fact, it is not cherry-picking to trust the overwhelming witness of history. You would need the Bible to say something contradictory in another place for there to be anything to cherry-pick.

"How do you know God wrote the verse in question?" is a very large question. The general approach a knowledgeable Christian would take is to start with the Resurrection as attested by the Gospels. Of course, to support the Resurrection(and all it entails for Christian belief), they would point to textual reliability, genre of the text, agreement on the texts' authorship, agreement between the Gospel texts, historical reliability of the texts, geographical reliability, etc. Perhaps they would get into philosophical arguments for the existence of God, the coherence of the Trinity(pointing to pre-Christian Jewish Wisdom theology to support Christian use of hypostasis), stuff like that. And after going over the Gospels' reliability, they would point to the way that Jesus, in the Gospels, pointed to the Old Testament and upheld its as authoritative and reliable. This includes Leviticus(which, yes, has been shown to be the same at the time of Jesus as it is now via the discipline of textual criticism, so He was referring to the same Old Testament that we have now).

"How do you know that interpretation is what God intended?" is another pretty big question. After pointing to Jesus' affirmation of the Old Testament's authority and reliability, it would then be logical to point to his affirmation of the Pharisees' teachings. Not their actions, but their teachings -- "do as they say, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they preach." We know from extrabiblical Jewish writings what those teachings included, including that they considered the Leviticus passage to be a prohibition of homosexual acts that was binding on the Jews. Also, over 1900 years of Christian scholarship is unanimous on the fact that Romans 1 is referring to them as well.

"You're a sinner" is a fairly uncontroversial statement. According to Christianity, all have sinned. You're a sinner, but so am I. It's an important fact, but I'm not seeing the controversy.

"You're going to hell," however, is a bit presumptuous. No mere human is in a position to know someone else's eternal destiny, in large part because no mere human can see the future. It would be fairly stupid to say such a statement considering that you have no idea what God has already done in that person's life, what He will do in their life in the future, or how they will ultimately react towards God. All one can possibly tell is how they are reacting to God right now, and that is not enough to reach such a conclusion. "If you do not repent, you will go to hell," on the other hand, is something else altogether. It is a simple, Biblical truth. There is no salvation without repentance, and that is true for everyone. So, again, that would be a completely uncontroversial statement. Opponents of Christianity often treat the latter as if it was the former, though, which is disingenuous.

zoegirl wrote: There are plenty of scriptrue verses that call us to be sanctified in Christ that would mean our rejecting cherished sins. FOr some of us it means throwing off habits of temper, sloth, lying, vicious speech, gossip....we all have those cherished sins. Heterosexuals are not let off the hook.

Christ told the woman accused of adultery that she should "go and sin no more". Did He love her?!? Absolutely!!! DId He allow her to continue in her adulterous lifestyle because of some notion of being "accepting"? He accepts us as sinners but He cleanses us!!

I think the difference for me is that temper, sloth, lying, vicious speech, gossip and adultery are behaviours which can be frowned upon using a basic moral framework, no need for scripture. Having acquaintances who overly indulge in these activities can be an unpleasant experience regardless of your views on them, I can't say the same for homosexuality. Having friends who indulge in homosexual activity has never been an issue for me, having friends who lie, have bad tempers, frequent vicious speech, are compulsive gossipers or who frequently commit adultery has been an issue for me.

I could, and have, explained to friends why I have issues with their behaviour and the impact that it has. I cannot say the same for homosexuality.

And again we are back to why are these against "basic morality"...

Why

Proinsias wrote:I think the difference for me is that temper, sloth, lying, vicious speech, gossip and adultery are behaviours which can be frowned upon using a basic moral framework, no need for scripture. Having acquaintances who overly indulge in these activities can be an unpleasant experience regardless of your views on them, I can't say the same for homosexuality. Having friends who indulge in homosexual activity has never been an issue for me, having friends who lie, have bad tempers, frequent vicious speech, are compulsive gossipers or who frequently commit adultery has been an issue for me.

I could, and have, explained to friends why I have issues with their behaviour and the impact that it has. I cannot say the same for homosexuality.

This strikes me as a very, very selfish way to look at ethics. So things are only right or wrong if they affect YOU directly? The fundamental problem with that approach has, at its core, the same problem that Satan's lie to Eve. Who is life really about? You? Such egocentrism is the ultimate root of sin--all sin. At the very least, you should speak of the impact on others (and on that grounds, we can say much of homosexuality), but even that is faulty, because it is still a teleological sort of ethic, in which something is right or wrong based on the results produced (aka, "the end justifies the means"). All teleological ethics, especially of the type you support here, are fundamentally flawed.

I suspect this is why Zoe asked her question. Why are those things you mentioned wrong? Is it only because they impact you negatively? Such shallowness! But how many people has Jesus forgiven? Have you stopped and thought of the audacity of that? What right has Jesus to forgive anyone? Suppose I slapped your mother and called her a dirty name. Then suppose Zoe said to me, "It's OK Jac, I forgive you!"

Both you and your mother would be highly, and rightly, offended at Zoe's pretentiousness. What right would she have to offer forgiveness for the offense of another? If anyone is to offer forgiveness it would be your mother and then you. None other. But this is precisely what Jesus did. He asked no one's permission to forgive. In fact, against that, in all cases in which He forgives, He behaves as if HE is the one offended by the sin. And may I suggest to you that He behaves that way precisely because He IS the one who is offended.

In such a case, you take Zoe's position (well, the position I've attributed to her in our tall tale) when you claim to be offended by your friends' behavior, and you take God's position when you claim that is your system of ethics. It is God, and none other, who is central to the issue of right and wrong. Our actions affect (in the loose sense of the word) Him, not us. And while homosexual activity may not offend you, it is a direct assault on God's command, design, purpose, and sovereignty.

Bottom line: if you are the arbiter of right and wrong, then you certainly have the right to not question homosexuality. But bear in mind that when you make yourself that arbiter, you are setting yourself on God's throne. I certainly hope you are qualified to sit there. I know I am not.

edit: OOPS - had Zoe as quoting Proinsias. My bad! Didn't want to attribute the wrong wording to Zoe. Thanks, Byblos, for pointing it out!

WEll...I *think* I've been accurately represented her

But otherwise Jac

Jac3510 wrote:This strikes me as a very, very selfish way to look at ethics. So things are only right or wrong if they affect YOU directly? The fundamental problem with that approach has, at its core, the same problem that Satan's lie to Eve. Who is life really about? You? Such egocentrism is the ultimate root of sin--all sin. At the very least, you should speak of the impact on others (and on that grounds, we can say much of homosexuality), but even that is faulty, because it is still a teleological sort of ethic, in which something is right or wrong based on the results produced (aka, "the end justifies the means"). All teleological ethics, especially of the type you support here, are fundamentally flawed.

I didn't mean to imply that things are right or wrong only if they affect me directly. I was speaking from my own experience and consciously avoided using the words right and wrong.

Jac3510 wrote:I suspect this is why Zoe asked her question. Why are those things you mentioned wrong? Is it only because they impact you negatively? Such shallowness! But how many people has Jesus forgiven? Have you stopped and thought of the audacity of that? What right has Jesus to forgive anyone? Suppose I slapped your mother and called her a dirty name. Then suppose Zoe said to me, "It's OK Jac, I forgive you!"

Both you and your mother would be highly, and rightly, offended at Zoe's pretentiousness. What right would she have to offer forgiveness for the offense of another? If anyone is to offer forgiveness it would be your mother and then you. None other.

If you slapped my mother and called her a dirty name then myself or my mother may not forgive you, on the other hand we may. If it did actually occur I would hope that there were plenty of people willing to forgive you and that it may go some way to me putting it down to something very out of character.

Jac3510 wrote:But this is precisely what Jesus did. He asked no one's permission to forgive. In fact, against that, in all cases in which He forgives, He behaves as if HE is the one offended by the sin. And may I suggest to you that He behaves that way precisely because He IS the one who is offended.

I ask no permission to forgive and also behave as if I am offended on occasion. I behave the way I do in part because I am offended by things.

Jac3510 wrote:In such a case, you take Zoe's position (well, the position I've attributed to her in our tall tale) when you claim to be offended by your friends' behavior, and you take God's position when you claim that is your system of ethics. It is God, and none other, who is central to the issue of right and wrong. Our actions affect (in the loose sense of the word) Him, not us. And while homosexual activity may not offend you, it is a direct assault on God's command, design, purpose, and sovereignty.

I think I'm just not sold on the idea that homosexual activity is a direct assault on God's command, design, purpose and sovereinty.

Jac3510 wrote:Bottom line: if you are the arbiter of right and wrong, then you certainly have the right to not question homosexuality. But bear in mind that when you make yourself that arbiter, you are setting yourself on God's throne. I certainly hope you are qualified to sit there. I know I am not.

Bottom line: if you are the arbiter of right and wrong then the religion or philosophy that you follow must be right.

Please listen to William Lane Craig explain homosexuality from the Christian worldview:


http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... sexual.mp3

Thanks.