Evidence for God from Science

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

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.

Well I wouldn't equate homosexuals with murderers and thieves. Unlike criminal acts, homosexuality may or may not turn out to be genetic or at least have some genetic component to it; the jury's still out on that one. But it doesn't make a bit of difference if genetics do play a role. The fact is that we are created in God's image for a purpose and that purpose is first and foremost to have fellowship with God AND with one another. So procreation is central to our purpose for being and homosexuality is diametrically opposed to it. Homosexuality can be thought of as a tendency that can be controlled, much like some people are predisposed to being alcoholics and drug addicts. We do not excuse their drug addiction or their alcoholism due to their genetic propensity to become such. Rather we treat it as an addiction and avoid the action that causes this addiction. In summary, being a homosexual in and of itself is not the sin. The sin is to act upon it.

Sorry - wasn't trying to equate homosexuality and murder. My point was that people can justify absolutely terrible crimes, so the fact that someone can justify something shouldn't have any value in regards to whether it is right or wrong.

Danny, push away, I don't mind. Yes it does on occasion make me stop and think, most often on this forum. Not always to the point where I feel I should abandon the unreasonable or frantically try to rationalise it. That's part of why I'm quite attracted to Zen Buddhism, it doesn't place a lot of value on human reason and logic - it often sees it as more of an obstacle to rise above, or sneak below - a bit like pride. To quote Marc Breedlove: "I think asking people why they do things is a lousy way of finding out why, even if they are being completely honest. I think that psychological research makes it clear that people often aren't aware of the influences on their behavior." I think it was Bart who recently accused someone of making scripture dance a jig to their own tune and I feel this also applies to reason and logic, there are atheists and agnostics as logical and rationally competent as yourself making reason and logic dance to their own jig. Some say cause and effect points to an uncaused cause, some say it doesn't, who's to be the judge? Some say God is logical and rational, some say it's like believing in a orbiting teapot.
For reasonable and logical atheism I would, as usual, point to J.L Makie's "The Miracle of Theism". He doesn't win me over but by the end of it I felt that he has a pretty solid reasonable, logical and philosophical base for his rejection of theism. It's worth a read, I can lend you it if you wish.

Murray, I agree that there will likely always be a difference of opinion in regards to homosexuality. But the examples you sight of rape and murder also vary from person to person and place to place. There are cases of rape and murder which split public opinion as the case of consensual homosexual relationships split opinion. That's where we need dialogue. The problem with homosexuality is that unlike rape and murder it is fairly well accepted in society, people aren't attempting to to avoid the label homosexual by redefining what they do as a rapist or murderer may. The rapist may say it was consensual, the murderer may say it was manslaughter or self defence, but the homosexual is saying they are homosexual and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Homosexuality seems to have outgrown many of its negative connotations, again these are generalisations, there will still be the Manson's of this world who claim the one thing they regret is not killing enough.
Murder is not simply the ending of life and rape is not simply the placing of genitals into another body. They involve complex notions of intent, consent and circumstance. Homosexuality is easy - it's putting that bit into that bit, and by your reckoning no matter what the intent, consent or circumstance it is wrong. I can have sex with a women and it may be considered morally fine or it may be considered rape, I can shoot a man and it may be considered morally fine or murder, but if I put my thing in another man's behind it's just plain wrong, all circumstantial evidence becomes irrelevant.

Marcus, I think the way most defend murder is by claiming it isn't murder. Eating animals isn't murder, the death sentence isn't murder, shooting other soldiers isn't murder, defending your home with a shotgun isn't murder.... you get the idea.
Killing which is not in line with one's own standards is often considered murder, the acquisition of things outwith one's own standards is often considered theft, the response which is considered hateful has simply been misinterpreted, or was well deserved, or was what they had to hear.
I do have standards, the issue seems to be that I don't have a standard that I have complete faith in with which I can use to measure my own standards and those of others against, an objective standard if you will. If I have a thought like "homosexual marriages seem fine to me" I don't have a book I can turn to with which I can grade my thoughts against. I may refer to books, people and experience but none of these are an ultimate standard.

Byblos wrote:The fact is that we are created in God's image for a purpose and that purpose is first and foremost to have fellowship with God AND with one another. So procreation is central to our purpose for being and homosexuality is diametrically opposed to it.

This is where I think much of the issue springs from. Fellowship doesn't need to involve sexual intercourse, we don't have sex with God. There seems to be a leap from having a fellowship with other human beings to fulfilling our purpose by having kids. Unless Dan Brown and co are to be taken seriously then Jesus did not fulfil even the basic purpose of a human being, never mind being a perfect human role model whilst being God. In the Polish Church I attended for many years and the local Church which I have a little involvement there are single people who don't seem to have any intention of meeting an opposite sex partner and having children, they seem happy as they are and don't tend to be told they are going against God's purpose for doing so, they are accepted.
To be blunt the issue does not seem to me focused on the fact that the purpose of humanity is to procreate and more focused upon where people stick their genitals in their spare time. If it was focused upon procreation I would imagine there would be more threads here entitled "Why do many christians not like people who don't have kids?" as opposed to the current thread we're posting which as usual is not focused upon procreation but upon homosexual intercourse. I would say I have a fellowship with many people I don't have sex with, I would also say that people engaging in homosexual acts also manage fellowship despite the lack of conception resulting from this.
Are nuns, monks and priests going against a central purpose of humanity?

Proinsias wrote:Marcus, I think the way most defend murder is by claiming it isn't murder. Eating animals isn't murder, the death sentence isn't murder, shooting other soldiers isn't murder, defending your home with a shotgun isn't murder.... you get the idea.
Killing which is not in line with one's own standards is often considered murder, the acquisition of things outwith one's own standards is often considered theft, the response which is considered hateful has simply been misinterpreted, or was well deserved, or was what they had to hear.
I do have standards, the issue seems to be that I don't have a standard that I have complete faith in with which I can use to measure my own standards and those of others against, an objective standard if you will. If I have a thought like "homosexual marriages seem fine to me" I don't have a book I can turn to with which I can grade my thoughts against. I may refer to books, people and experience but none of these are an ultimate standard.

In what you said, the thing that stands out to me is that you point out vividly the natural human measurement against a standard. You didn't question whether murder was wrong. You indeed suggested human beings try to justify murder by calling it something else (at times) or justifying its cause. The point is, you identify the totally natural and completely human response to these things. People believe these things to be subconsciously wrong against a standard, yet many don't ever go to find what the standard is. However, the standard clearly remains, as illustrated by the reaction.

I agree that books, people, and experiences are not an ultimate standard. However, there -is- an ultimate standard on a great many things, and we see its existence in the reactions I spoke of. I suppose I don't quite understand why you are satisfied with owning a ruler without understanding the notion of inches.

Byblos wrote:The fact is that we are created in God's image for a purpose and that purpose is first and foremost to have fellowship with God AND with one another. So procreation is central to our purpose for being and homosexuality is diametrically opposed to it.

Proinsias wrote:This is where I think much of the issue springs from. Fellowship doesn't need to involve sexual intercourse, we don't have sex with God.

Two different types of fellowship. Throughout the New Testament God is said to be pure love (which is a strong argument for the Trinity by the way but I digress). We are made in God's image in the spiritual sense so our fellowship with Him is along those same spiritual lines. We are, on the other hand, physical beings made for love so our fellowship with one another is physical. Central to this physical fellowship in its purest form is the family unit comprised of a man and a woman united in marriage. Procreation is the natural extension of this physical love and not simply a concupiscent act.

Proinsias wrote:here seems to be a leap from having a fellowship with other human beings to fulfilling our purpose by having kids.

Not a leap at all. It is backed up by the divine law handed down in scripture as well as the natural law.

Proinsias wrote:Unless Dan Brown and co are to be taken seriously then Jesus did not fulfil even the basic purpose of a human being, never mind being a perfect human role model whilst being God.

Jesus did not incarnate to teach us how to procreate, we'd been doing that for quite some time before that. His purpose was to provide life after death.

Proinsias wrote:In the Polish Church I attended for many years and the local Church which I have a little involvement there are single people who don't seem to have any intention of meeting an opposite sex partner and having children, they seem happy as they are and don't tend to be told they are going against God's purpose for doing so, they are accepted.

Some are not called to the sacrament of marriage. That doesn't mean chastity should be tossed out the window.

Proinsias wrote:To be blunt the issue does not seem to me focused on the fact that the purpose of humanity is to procreate and more focused upon where people stick their genitals in their spare time.

That's exactly where the problem lies. Once there is a disconnect with the divine and natural laws then anything is permissible, even natural.

Proinsias wrote:If it was focused upon procreation I would imagine there would be more threads here entitled "Why do many christians not like people who don't have kids?" as opposed to the current thread we're posting which as usual is not focused upon procreation but upon homosexual intercourse. I would say I have a fellowship with many people I don't have sex with, I would also say that people engaging in homosexual acts also manage fellowship despite the lack of conception resulting from this.
Are nuns, monks and priests going against a central purpose of humanity?

As I said, not everyone is called to marriage. We are perfectly capable of having a spiritual fellowship with God without having a physical fellowship with one another. But it doesn't mean a natural physical fellowship can be substituted with another at whim.

Proinsias wrote:Danny, push away, I don't mind. Yes it does on occasion make me stop and think, most often on this forum. Not always to the point where I feel I should abandon the unreasonable or frantically try to rationalise it. That's part of why I'm quite attracted to Zen Buddhism, it doesn't place a lot of value on human reason and logic - it often sees it as more of an obstacle to rise above, or sneak below - a bit like pride. To quote Marc Breedlove: "I think asking people why they do things is a lousy way of finding out why, even if they are being completely honest. I think that psychological research makes it clear that people often aren't aware of the influences on their behavior." I think it was Bart who recently accused someone of making scripture dance a jig to their own tune and I feel this also applies to reason and logic, there are atheists and agnostics as logical and rationally competent as yourself making reason and logic dance to their own jig. Some say cause and effect points to an uncaused cause, some say it doesn't, who's to be the judge? Some say God is logical and rational, some say it's like believing in a orbiting teapot.
For reasonable and logical atheism I would, as usual, point to J.L Makie's "The Miracle of Theism". He doesn't win me over but by the end of it I felt that he has a pretty solid reasonable, logical and philosophical base for his rejection of theism. It's worth a read, I can lend you it if you wish.

Oops! I missed this, Pro, I'm sorry about that. I'm on the hop at the minute but will get back to you later on. I have heard that Mackie was very good. I would like to read that book. If you are willing to part with another book for months on end then you know I'm your man

MarcusOfLycia wrote:In what you said, the thing that stands out to me is that you point out vividly the natural human measurement against a standard. You didn't question whether murder was wrong. You indeed suggested human beings try to justify murder by calling it something else (at times) or justifying its cause. The point is, you identify the totally natural and completely human response to these things. People believe these things to be subconsciously wrong against a standard, yet many don't ever go to find what the standard is. However, the standard clearly remains, as illustrated by the reaction.

I agree that books, people, and experiences are not an ultimate standard. However, there -is- an ultimate standard on a great many things, and we see its existence in the reactions I spoke of. I suppose I don't quite understand why you are satisfied with owning a ruler without understanding the notion of inches.

I may be misunderstanding you but this appears to come back to: general human agreement equals objective moral truth. If we both dislike murder but love cheesecake we must be tapping into objective truth in regards to these matters. When people believe homosexuality right or wrong, who's tapping the vein of truth?

Much of the problem is that the human response to homosexuality is rather varied at the moment. Between the God hates [homosexuals] rallies and the gay pride marches there are a lot of people debating as to the level of legitimacy that should be extended.

May I ask your view on homosexuality? Should it be legal but stay out of marriage? Should it be a criminal offence? Should we treat those admitting homosexual activity as we would rapists and murderers, as people who should be punished/rehabilitated accordingly?


.....


Byblos:

The existence of natural laws or divine laws, and our access to them, is where we disagree. I think. You can see obvious natural and divine law breaking in homosexual relationships and I can't.

..........

Danny, I'll post it out in the next week or so.

Thank you, Pro.

Yes it does on occasion make me stop and think, most often on this forum. Not always to the point where I feel I should abandon the unreasonable or frantically try to rationalise it. That's part of why I'm quite attracted to Zen Buddhism, it doesn't place a lot of value on human reason and logic - it often sees it as more of an obstacle to rise above, or sneak below - a bit like pride.

It is certainly not irrational to say you aren’t prepared to abandon something outright because you haven’t got a rational explanation for it.

I’m not so sure that Buddhism ultimately abandons pride. But I have an idea. I’ve been racking my brains for a book I could lend you, one that would appeal to you. Now since I’m going to be reading ‘the other side,‘ how about a book by Paul Williams, The Unexpected Way, On Converting from Buddhism to Catholicism…? He was professor of Indian and Tibetan philosophy and head of the dept. of theology and religious studies at Bristol. He examines much of Buddhism, but in a fair and balanced light. Bloody hell, is this a review? Let me know, since I’d like to return the favour.

There are atheists and agnostics as logical and rationally competent as yourself making reason and logic dance to their own jig. Some say cause and effect points to an uncaused cause, some say it doesn't, who's to be the judge? Some say God is logical and rational, some say it's like believing in a orbiting teapot.

You know what I want to say here don’t you? But you know what, I feel like I’ve said it about thirty times over the last week or so. My ‘ead ‘urts…

Proinsias wrote: I may be misunderstanding you but this appears to come back to: general human agreement equals objective moral truth. If we both dislike murder but love cheesecake we must be tapping into objective truth in regards to these matters. When people believe homosexuality right or wrong, who's tapping the vein of truth?

General human agreement on a great many things changes over time. If an objective moral standard exists, it cannot change. Clearly, the two cannot be the same thing by their own definitions.

Cheers Danny, that book does sound like an interesting read, especially coming from a Catholic background.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote: I may be misunderstanding you but this appears to come back to: general human agreement equals objective moral truth. If we both dislike murder but love cheesecake we must be tapping into objective truth in regards to these matters. When people believe homosexuality right or wrong, who's tapping the vein of truth?

General human agreement on a great many things changes over time. If an objective moral standard exists, it cannot change. Clearly, the two cannot be the same thing by their own definitions.

But the two can theoretically be in agreement on occasion. The question being that if an objective moral standard exists, does it view homosexuality as right, wrong or on a case by case basis. There is a fine line between trying to point out what is objectively wrong and throwing the weight of God behind your own opinions.

Proinsias wrote:Cheers Danny, that book does sound like an interesting read, especially coming from a Catholic background.

Done.

Yes, the latter part of the book is mainly Catholic in content. You might want to skip that since it is very doctrinal. Although there are one or two amusing sub-chapters of 'Catholicism' that are philsophical in their content, including 'Can one find God in sh*t?' ...

Proinsias wrote: But the two can theoretically be in agreement on occasion. The question being that if an objective moral standard exists, does it view homosexuality as right, wrong or on a case by case basis. There is a fine line between trying to point out what is objectively wrong and throwing the weight of God behind your own opinions.

I trust that God has revealed His opinion about it as clearly as possible by lumping it with all other manner of sexual sins throughout Scripture, which I also trust to be from God. As a Christian and not a deist or agnostic, I have to confirm a source of revelation, and I do very willingly based on the evidence. In that revelation, I find a very clear stance that I embrace. It is sinful. It sometimes causes health issues, sometimes personal issues, but it is always sinful.

It is as objectively wrong as the worship of self or money, which today is seen as a virtue in many first-world nations.

Sorry Marcus, I thought I answered you a while back. Must have forgotten to hit the post button.

I think we may need to agree to disagree. There are many and varied reactions to homosexuality and I don't believe the bible, or any other book for that matter, serves as an authority on the matter. I agree it sometimes causes health issues and it sometimes causes personal issues but beyond that we tread different paths.

Murray wrote:

CaptainBeatDown wrote:It shouldn't be wrong. Also why have a bunch of people on the earth to continuously reproduce when overpopulation is an extremely huge issue? Homosexual couples can adopt kids and give them an amazing life,especially if that child is suffering in a third world country. And if you're saying they're doing it only for pleasure and that's a "sin". Then never have sex unless it's for a baby and see how you feel. And don't even play with yourself,because apparently pleasure is a sin. Don't eat or enjoy food,because enjoying life is apparently a sin. I believe things should be called "sins" if in the long run your selfish actions hurt someone in the longrun or forces that person to do something they don't want to do. AKA; like forcing someone into something for your own pleasure. When two people care genuinely for each other,they should be able to express those feelings without being persecuted especially when they're NOT hurting anyone. When two people are intimate the brain ends up releasing oxytocin and vasopresin,two powerful horomones that leads to couples bonding.
Oxytocin reduces cravings. When scientists administered it to rodents who were addicted to cocaine, morphine, or heroin, the rats opted for less drugs, or showed fewer symptoms of withdrawal. (Kovacs, 1998) Oxytocin also reduces cravings for sweets. (Billings, 2006)
Oxytocin calms. A single rat injected with oxytocin has a calming effect on a cage full of anxious rats. (Agren, 2002)
Oxytocin increases sexual receptivity and counteracts impotence. (Pedersen, C.A., 2002), (Arletti, 1997)
Oxytocin counteracts the effects of cortisol, the stress hormone. (Legros, 2003) Less stress means increased immunity and faster recovery.
Oxytocin appears be a major reason that SSRIs (like Prozac®) ease depression, perhaps because high levels of cortisol are the chief culprits in depression and anxiety disorders. (Uvnas-Moberg, 1999)

Wow.....Soo many misconceptions here.

1) Sinful pleasure is a sin, homosexuality is sinful thus is a sin. We have plenty of debates on whether masturbation is a sin or not
2) Homosexuality leads to diseases, it is unclean.
3) Children raised in homosexual house holds are prone to ridicule and will never have the joy of experiencing a mother and father. I'm sure it is a very awkward for them. And the homosexual adoption rate in 3rd world countries is 1/100,000 couples, not a very strong argument.
4) The reason we withhold pleasure (no sex until marriage) is because we are devoted to god and wish to show him our devotion to each other and love each other. The reason why most couples divorce is because they married because the sex was good, sex gets old, so does the relationship. This is why god said to wait, fall in love with the person first.
5) The brain also releases oxycotin in moments of lust, I’m sure you know that as well.


In conclusion we oppose it because god says it is immoral, we are opposed to all immoral sex homo and hetero, we do not hate gays, we disagree with the lifestyle.

(1)Again,When two people care genuinely for each other,they should be able to express those feelings without being persecuted especially when they're NOT hurting. Children are too young to make decisions,and pedophiles force themselves on that child.
Homosexuals do not force each other,it's open and requited.
(2) "The brain also releases oxycotin in moments of lust."
It's released during things such as orgasms,in which straight people who are married can also feel. Not necessarily "lust." Since lust is in association to "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite".
(3) "The reason we withhold pleasure (no sex until marriage) is because we are devoted to god and wish to show him our devotion to each other and love each other. The reason why most couples divorce is because they married because the sex was good, sex gets old, so does the relationship. This is why god said to wait, fall in love with the person first."

Gay people can also wait until marriage as well,but people aren't making gay marriage legal.
(4) " Children raised in homosexual house holds are prone to ridicule and will never have the joy of experiencing a mother and father. I'm sure it is a very awkward for them. " That's because people aren't open to the concept of homosexuality,oh I wonder who that would be.
(5)"And the homosexual adoption rate in 3rd world countries is 1/100,000 couples",they're still adopting kid. Sure not at a high rate,but aren't they still and giving them a good life? Also where did you get that facts from?
(6) Homosexuality leads to diseases, it is unclean.
A LOT OF things can lead to diseases,two straight people can kiss and get a cold from another.
Straight people can get STDs as well.

Hello Cypher, I do apologise I have not read all 88 pages of posts, just the first, but I wanted to say this.

Firstly if christian does not like a homosexual, he forgets who he is. Just as Jesus said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" (resulting in no stones being thrown), we should realise all of us have sinner against God and require Jesus' sacrifice to make us Holy and righteous again.

I am always drawn to these discussions as I see that gay people feel that this is a big issue of contention with what the bible says about homosexuality. As a result, they tend to feel excluded, or if not "feel" are physically excluded by christians. This is totally against the spirit of our Lord who loves the whole world, wants all to come to know Him and to be saved.

Now let me make myself clear, the bible does call homosexuality sin, however it also calls a number of other things sin too. It mentions homosexuality about 3 times, but other sins are mentioned far more. Consider pride, conceitedness, haughtyness. These are mentioned hundreds of times. I believe the proportion with which things are mentioned should be the proportion that we address them in our lives. So, gay people, please note. God LOVES you. Dearly. He sent His only son Jesus to die for you, so that you may have life, and life in abundance. Please do not feel you are incompatible with Jesus because of your sexuality. It would be far better for you to seek Jesus and come to Him first, then later, if it is His will, He will deal with your lifestyle.

Consider this. I am a straight man, married, with a child. Yet do I lust after other women? Yes I do - I try not to, but it is natural to me to do this. Is it right? No it's not, its actually called sin in the bible and equated to mental adultery. So, did I let this prevent me from coming to Jesus? No! I came to Jesus and asked Him to transform me as He promises He does. I asked Him to save me and change me. Over time I have found that although I still feel attraction to women I am able to control (mentally) lust and keep my sexuality within the bounds of my marriage, where it should be. Does this make sense? Gay guys and girls, don't be separated from God because of your sexuality. Come to Jesus first, let Him work on you and see what He does?

Now on to my second point, Cypher you mention "people are born homosexual". I do not believe this to be 100% true. Yes, I will agree that some men are obviously effeminate and some women manly. They must have hormones in their body which cause them to feel attracted to the same sex. However did you know that studies performed on genetically identical twins (often used in scientific studies to determine nature from nurtuer) show that when one twin is gay, there is only a 20% chance that the other will be gay? If this were a purely genetic thing, then the chance would be 100%. This shows there is a fair amount of choice going on as well as genetics.

Lets go back to my personal example. All heterosexual men have attraction to women in common. Yet some of them choose to marry and be faithful, others to 'sleep around'. They all have the same desire. I promise you the ones married are not doing so because they are somehow less manly than the others. So what is the difference here? The difference is choice. The married men, myself included, make a choice to do what God asks us to do, that is to love our wives, protect them, provide for them, be faithful to them physically and mentally. Its a daily choice and I have to tell you without Jesus in my life I would find it hard to make this choice.

So, back to you guys. If you are gay and reading this, please do not be offended if I tell you that your lifestyle is part genetic but also part choice. This is a scientific fact, look it up if you wish. I want you to know that the love Jesus has for you is very real and because of this great love, He will meet you just where you are. Do not let your sexuality be a barrier. If you truly want to know Jesus and to have the life in abundance that He promised (John 10:10), then just come as you are, allow Him to enter your life and then, see what happens!