Evidence for God from Science

Saw this on facebook..

The real hypocrisy is someone pointing out anothers deflection by deflecting themselves

Perhaps, but it's still true.

Nessa wrote:Saw this on facebook..

The real hypocrisy is someone pointing out anothers deflection by deflecting themselves

FB_IMG_1506144530562.jpg

Its a valid point, that doesn't detract from the fact that gay marriage is, biblically speaking in this case, wrong.
I believe it is false analogy.

By the way, there is no prohibition about drinking as much as getting drunk.
Drinking doesn't equal getting drunk any more than speaking equals cursing.

Remember, hypocrisy is not relevant to an argument if the argument is based on some factual view.

The person making the argument can be the biggest "a-hole and jerk and hypocrite but if he is right in this case, then he is right.
One needs to focus on the argument and not the person/people making it.

edwardmurphy wrote:Perhaps, but it's still true.

I'm surprised you replied to one of my threads

I don't think it's possible to be human and not to be a hypocrite at times regardless of what you believe.

Nessa wrote:Saw this on facebook..

The real hypocrisy is someone pointing out anothers deflection by deflecting themselves

FB_IMG_1506144530562.jpg

Yea but some sins are way worse than other sins

And the questions noone ever asks, what is marriage? Where did "marriage" come from? Is "marriage" religious? Is "marriage" just acknowledging what is natural? Is "marriage" a certificate? Does "marriage" have an true objective meaning? If everyone just had the same understanding of "marriage" I doubt there would be issue.

Nessa wrote:Saw this on facebook..

The real hypocrisy is someone pointing out anothers deflection by deflecting themselves

FB_IMG_1506144530562.jpg

Relax! I'm not justifying sin,but no true Christian can be a hypocrite. People throw that word around playing God in judgment to justify their own sin by pointing to somebody elses sin. But the truth is a hypocrite would be somebody acting like a Christian that is'nt a Christian,just putting on an act.When Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites he was comparing them to the actors that put on plays and skits in the Roman ampitheaters. He was basically telling them you're just putting on an act,acting like men of God when you are'nt men of God.We are all sinners justified because of what Jesus did,not what we do. None of the men God used were perfect,only Jesus who was God in human flesh was perfect,everybody else God used were flawed humans who made mistakes and sinned and it was their faith in God that justified them before Jesus.A hypocrite is not somebody that sins,because we all do,a hypocrite is somebody just acting like they are a Christian but have never been saved.

edwardmurphy wrote:Perhaps, but it's still true.

For a small percent it may be true and apply but that is not the norm and does not make all Christians ... Hypocrites

I am sure that not all atheist smoke, drink, commit adultery and fornicate with anything they like and would not suggest that either as a tactic to bring disrepute on all atheist. Nor should folks attempt to disrepute and paint all Christians as bloody hypocrites either because of the sins of a few...

Agree?
-
-
-

The poster thing didn't say that all Christians were hypocrites. Basically it just says that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Check your own lifestyle before you start looking at your neighbor with a critical eye.

So yeah, I agree that it's a bad idea to paint with too broad a brush, and I try very hard not to. I have never condemned Christians in general. I don't believe that Christians are all good, all bad, or all anything else. We're talking about 3 billion people here.

Ed: So yeah, I agree that it's a bad idea to paint with too broad a brush, and I try very hard not to. I have never condemned Christians in general. I don't believe that Christians are all good, all bad, or all anything else. We're talking about 3 billion people here.

B.W.: I am sure that not all atheist smoke, drink, commit adultery and fornicate with anything they like and would not suggest that either as a tactic to bring disrepute on all atheist.

You know, this reminds me of all the people who are upset with "those" people, that group, that race, etc., etc., because they selectively apply the terrible or aggravating sins of the few, to the many who have nothing to do with it. Look at the whole anti-cop thing - based upon a small percentage of cops who are bad people. Or hatred of America because of the sins of various people, but then applied to an entire country - as if the country were a person. I see this done across the board of people upset about racial transgressions, whenever they insinuate that those of THEIR racial identity, as a percentage, are not nearly as bad as those of other races - and usually of the dominant culture's race. Or minorities who are outstanding citizens who racists tie to their anger at a small number of individuals to an entire race. It's just wrong, however and whenever people generalize beyond specific people who have specific views or who have committed certain acts, by applying their anger either beyond the guilty individuals, or as they are only selective angry but not objective as to the aggregate of people types and groups they SHOULD likewise apply their anger to. Because when people do this, it makes a lot of innocent people who have been tarred with their venom very angry. I often see people who are the most bent out of shape over racial mistreatment, not only selectively so, but often equally racist. Thing is, human beings often want convenient scapegoats they inappropriately direct their anger at. But this is far from a modern issue!

It's a false dichotemy. Lifestyle preferences have nothing to do with marriage, which is much more than what you do with your sexual organs. The better comparison would be "gay marriage" vs "polygamy" or "open marriage".

Ed, sorry to single you out, but I'm sure I know know where you stand on same-sex marriage. I doubt you consider "marriage" as having an real objective meaning, but see it as merely a social construct. The difference really is one of different philosophical worldviews. So, "marriage" to you doesn't have a fixed meaning devoid of what society says, but rather means whatever we (society) say it means. "Marriage" doesn't have a real basis like 1+1=2, but its meaning is adaptable and movable. If marriage has no real basis beyond society, then fine, let's shift the definition.

For a moment though, step out of your more Atheistic view where meaning to morality and the like are merely social constructions. Put yourself in Theistic shoes where a realist view on many things we naturally believe in are embraced, things like fairness, goodness, morality, universals and even marriage have a REAL basis. It would be unfair for someone to be put to death for a crime they did not commit, but what if everyone thought it best anyway to put that person to death and so called such "fair"? Unless there is a REAL meaning to "fairness", then who am I to say what they see as "fair" is wrong?

Similarly, marriage is seen as having a REAL meaning and basis. A Christian realist understanding of marriage is founded upon God. God created man and woman, and "marriage" takes on a specific meaning of man and woman coming together. So then, even if all of us believed and said marriage could be had between the same sex, we would all be wrong since such isn't what marriage means at all (like "fairness" isn't really what people think is best). If God designed man and woman to come together physically (considered the consumation of "marriage"), then the meaning of marriage is just that. None of us can change it.

I would add, from a non-Christian more societal perspective, that man and woman coming together forms the most natural basis for families, and healthy families in turn form a good foundation for human societies. We get that wrong, play with the telos (natural or divine) of marriage which affects the function it serves with raising next generations, then society will indeed start falling apart if we go against this telos.

As an aside, broken marriages have far-reaching consequences for those who are raised within them, we all know this. Can you picture what a broken marriage looks like? If you can, kudos to you. Because if marriage has no REAL definition then there isn't any such thing as a "broken" marriage. Marriage is just marriage. You see, we all seem to have some intuition of what a "broken" or "healthy" marriage is meant to be like, which suggests that deep down within ourselves we all acknowledge some REAL standard of what a "healthy marriage" is and as such "marriage" itself.

Gonna go ahead and reply as best I can. My kids broke my computer a couple weeks back, so I'm trying to keep up on a smart phone. I'm too old to do that.

I have to push back on your comments regarding people hating the police because of a few bad actors on the force. The notion that the whole left, or all African-Americans, or even most people connected to BLM hate the police is another example of what you're talking about.

A few bad actors on the left demonized the police in general, and then a few bad actors in the world of conservative punditry used that to demonize everyone who tried to call attention to police misconduct. Most Americans respect the police, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter are lying, as usual.

edwardmurphy wrote:
Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter are lying, as usual.

Lying about what, specifically?