ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.
If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?
maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.
Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.
Christianity and homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #61
hi thereHello AClockWorkOrange,
no worriesI apologize for taking so long in getting back to you.
when the entire idea is absurd, the semantics of it seem inconsequencial."no, it doesnt sound reasonable, which is i why i dismiss the christian god." AClockWorkOrange
So why dismiss Him? Are there no other options to consider? Are there no better understanding of Scripture to consider? Are you sure that youve considered all aspects?
the entire history and nature of the abramatic religions is so very distasteful to me, that if they are correct, i will lose huge respect for the nature of reality.
i think the point i was making was the threat of post mortem punishment set down by god on sinners and non-believers that i equated to striking the child in the milk analogy."it is your fault if you strike the child knowing completely that he would spill that milk." - AClockWorkOrange
I never said anything about striking the child. I will, however, have to clean up after him--a natural consequence. It falls completely in-line with that whole "you reap what you sew" philosophy. Act in a certain way and there may be good or bad consequences to follow. Having something bad happen to you (AIDS, anal cancer, colostomy bags, etc.) are not punishments. Theyre simply the natural outcome of a specific form of behavior.
i think you helped my point."this is semantic: it is not beinficial becuase God punishes you for your infractions: disobeying God.
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4
But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. Chronicles 36:16
i didnt say so, it is the message of christianity."Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
Isaiah 10:5
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36" - AClockWorkOrange
Very well--if you say so. But please give that last piece of Scripture you quoted some consideration.
God essentially sets people up for awful failure, for god created with the ability to doubt. His very nature is in conflict with the scientific method (the idea that you can prove things that are real). So i f god was knowledgable of creating doubtful people, knew they would exist, and gave no definitive inclination to these people, and then has the unmitigated gaul to ruthlessly punish them is...well, sociopathic to say the least.
."we are animals, and share many many many characteristics. What seperates us is that we evolved intellectually, and were able to remove ourselves from the state of nature.
People still exhibit bizzar and detrimental behaviors (or simply "different" behaviors) the difference lying between us and animals is that human communities are far more judgemental. behavior is all a matter of relativity, really.
I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
What separates us from the animals is that we were made in His image. Yes, some people do exhibit some pretty bizarre behavior such as the Virginia Tech gunman
and foraging, herd following, marking territory, hunting+gathering, hiearchies of social power, homosexuality, growing seemingly unneccesary body hair. Things animals do.
We seperated ourselves from the animals by being able to manipulate our environment. Now, i can cite multiple, credible, neutral sources. You can cite the bible. I cannot respect yours over the other.
saying something is different does not render it equal. i never made that leap."behavior is all a matter of relativity, really. I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
If you can cite cultural differences to suggest that behavior is relative then please do so. However, please consider this
If cultural differences can show that all behavior is "relative", then it stands to reason that all cultures are equal. So lets compare other cultures to the traditional American culture.
What about a culture that celebrates high-jacking of multiple planes and using them as missiles to destroy buildings and 3,000 people?
What about a culture that will throw acid in the face of women that do not cover their faces.
What about a culture that will kill a sister or daughter who is a victim of rape to "protect the families honor"?
What about a culture that will refuse to allow little girls from leaving a burning building until they cover their hair?
or shoots them in the back?
Are these simply "cultural differences" or have we simply been "judgmental" and identified an inferior culture?
it seems that you chose to reference radical islam as a "bad" culture. Before you do so, look at radical christianity, global capitolism, radical judaism, and of course...republicans...
just without free will."where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic." AClockWorkOrange
Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task.
scripture does not equate to "truth"."it seems that all the proof you have (correct me if i am wrong) is essentially pointing at something and saying "something had to create this".
speculation is not good enough proof to me, i am sorry." - AClockWorkOrange
No speculation will be necessary. Here is a good place to start
https://ww2.micahtek.com/nexolive/nShop ... N=40679287
Now, be ready to do your homework. The responsibility is on you.
this is the suppression of natural, harmless desire."there should not be a struggle, without honesty in your sexuality, your life is so very hard and psychologically damaged. Gay people should be gay. Straight people should be straight." AClockWorkOrange
But there is a struggle and it typically begins within the homosexual person to fight the feelings that they are having because they inherently know that something is wrong. And it is hard for them and many struggle with it. But they struggle not to give in but to overcome. And for those that reach out for help and are able to find it and are able to overcome same-sex attractions and have happy, fulfilling heterosexual lives
If a person who is only attracted to the same sex forces themselves to bear heterosexual relationships, this is living a painful and damaging lie.
[/quote]
Post #62
Hello AClockWorkOrange & olivergringold,
"the entire history and nature of the abramatic religions is so very distasteful to me, that if they are correct, i will lose huge respect for the nature of reality." AClockWorkOrange
Why do you find them so distasteful? And why would you "lose huge respect for the nature of reality" (which I must admit is a statement that I dont think I understand)?
Isnt the story of love and redemption not one of admiration?
"i think the point i was making was the threat of post mortem punishment set down by god on sinners and non-believers that i equated to striking the child in the milk analogy." AClockWorkOrange
I beg your pardon.
However, the "post mortem punishment" is one that you get to choose to suffer or escape. Its all up to you.
"God essentially sets people up for awful failure, for god created with the ability to doubt. His very nature is in conflict with the scientific method (the idea that you can prove things that are real). So i f god was knowledgable of creating doubtful people, knew they would exist, and gave no definitive inclination to these people, and then has the unmitigated gaul to ruthlessly punish them is...well, sociopathic to say the least." AClockWorkOrange
Again, God has given us evidence of His existence and I have already supplied you with only one source. There are many, many more, but as I have already said the responsibility is on you to search these things out.
As far as the "doubting Thomass" you are alluding to, please understand that Scripture always appeals to our intellects "so that [we] may know".
I am familiar with the scientific method and must employ it from time to time when executing the duties of my job.
But once again, God does not arbitrarily punish people. People choose to accept Him or reject Him.
And God does not "set people up" for failure. Please consider Luke 18:27 "Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God."
"and foraging, herd following, marking territory, hunting+gathering, hiearchies of social power, homosexuality, growing seemingly unneccesary body hair. Things animals do. We seperated ourselves from the animals by being able to manipulate our environment. Now, i can cite multiple, credible, neutral sources. You can cite the bible. I cannot respect yours over the other." AClockWorkOrange
Ah! You cannot except what the Bible has to saybecauseit is a religious text? That hardly seems intelligent. Do you have some proof that the Bible is in error? That it is untrue?
And what about your "multiple, credible, neutral sources"? What is your confidence that they were written without prejudice, bias or agenda?
"saying something is different does not render it equal. i never made that leap.
it seems that you chose to reference radical islam as a "bad" culture. Before you do so, look at radical christianity, global capitolism, radical judaism, and of course...republicans..." AClockWorkOrange
Oh?
"behavior is all a matter of relativity, really. I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
By saying that something is "relative" is to say that it is proportionate in some manner. And while I do not wish to debate definitions with you, you did--to me--seem to equate cultures. However, if you wish to provide examples of "radical Christianity" and I find them to be contrary to Scripture I will have no problem sharing your condemnation of such activity.
"where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic." AClockWorkOrange
"Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task." Dale
"just without free will." AClockWorkOrange
You do seem to have some issue with this idea of "free will". Okay. Lets look at the issue in a more practical manner and see if it "free will" is a reasonable concept.
If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
"scripture does not equate to truth." - AClockWorkOrange
And your evidence is?
"this is the suppression of natural, harmless desire.
If a person who is only attracted to the same sex forces themselves to bear heterosexual relationships, this is living a painful and damaging lie." AClockWorkOrange
"Suppression"? "[L]iving a painful and damaging lie"?
Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are. The men and women whom have I have heard share their testimony speak of a change in desire. They no are attracted to the same sex but are filled with a desire for an opposite sex relationship. So this is not "suppression" or "living a painful and damaging lie".
It is healing.
"Homosexuals struggle with the decision to come out of the closet because they face the judgmental scowls of people who take scripture literally. If you set aside your historically distorted, ancient fictions and began appreciating life as a singular experience then they wouldn't have to struggle with their identity." - olivergringold
I do not doubt for one moment that homosexuals are afraid to "come out of the closet" for the reasons that you described above. But according to my gay friends, it is hardly the only reason.
And we have not discussed "history" here so I am a little confused as to what you mean regarding "historically distorted, ancient fictions".
Perhaps you might care to elaborate?
"the entire history and nature of the abramatic religions is so very distasteful to me, that if they are correct, i will lose huge respect for the nature of reality." AClockWorkOrange
Why do you find them so distasteful? And why would you "lose huge respect for the nature of reality" (which I must admit is a statement that I dont think I understand)?
Isnt the story of love and redemption not one of admiration?
"i think the point i was making was the threat of post mortem punishment set down by god on sinners and non-believers that i equated to striking the child in the milk analogy." AClockWorkOrange
I beg your pardon.
However, the "post mortem punishment" is one that you get to choose to suffer or escape. Its all up to you.
"God essentially sets people up for awful failure, for god created with the ability to doubt. His very nature is in conflict with the scientific method (the idea that you can prove things that are real). So i f god was knowledgable of creating doubtful people, knew they would exist, and gave no definitive inclination to these people, and then has the unmitigated gaul to ruthlessly punish them is...well, sociopathic to say the least." AClockWorkOrange
Again, God has given us evidence of His existence and I have already supplied you with only one source. There are many, many more, but as I have already said the responsibility is on you to search these things out.
As far as the "doubting Thomass" you are alluding to, please understand that Scripture always appeals to our intellects "so that [we] may know".
I am familiar with the scientific method and must employ it from time to time when executing the duties of my job.
But once again, God does not arbitrarily punish people. People choose to accept Him or reject Him.
And God does not "set people up" for failure. Please consider Luke 18:27 "Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God."
"and foraging, herd following, marking territory, hunting+gathering, hiearchies of social power, homosexuality, growing seemingly unneccesary body hair. Things animals do. We seperated ourselves from the animals by being able to manipulate our environment. Now, i can cite multiple, credible, neutral sources. You can cite the bible. I cannot respect yours over the other." AClockWorkOrange
Ah! You cannot except what the Bible has to saybecauseit is a religious text? That hardly seems intelligent. Do you have some proof that the Bible is in error? That it is untrue?
And what about your "multiple, credible, neutral sources"? What is your confidence that they were written without prejudice, bias or agenda?
"saying something is different does not render it equal. i never made that leap.
it seems that you chose to reference radical islam as a "bad" culture. Before you do so, look at radical christianity, global capitolism, radical judaism, and of course...republicans..." AClockWorkOrange
Oh?
"behavior is all a matter of relativity, really. I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
By saying that something is "relative" is to say that it is proportionate in some manner. And while I do not wish to debate definitions with you, you did--to me--seem to equate cultures. However, if you wish to provide examples of "radical Christianity" and I find them to be contrary to Scripture I will have no problem sharing your condemnation of such activity.
"where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic." AClockWorkOrange
"Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task." Dale
"just without free will." AClockWorkOrange
You do seem to have some issue with this idea of "free will". Okay. Lets look at the issue in a more practical manner and see if it "free will" is a reasonable concept.
If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
"scripture does not equate to truth." - AClockWorkOrange
And your evidence is?
"this is the suppression of natural, harmless desire.
If a person who is only attracted to the same sex forces themselves to bear heterosexual relationships, this is living a painful and damaging lie." AClockWorkOrange
"Suppression"? "[L]iving a painful and damaging lie"?
Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are. The men and women whom have I have heard share their testimony speak of a change in desire. They no are attracted to the same sex but are filled with a desire for an opposite sex relationship. So this is not "suppression" or "living a painful and damaging lie".
It is healing.
"Homosexuals struggle with the decision to come out of the closet because they face the judgmental scowls of people who take scripture literally. If you set aside your historically distorted, ancient fictions and began appreciating life as a singular experience then they wouldn't have to struggle with their identity." - olivergringold
I do not doubt for one moment that homosexuals are afraid to "come out of the closet" for the reasons that you described above. But according to my gay friends, it is hardly the only reason.
And we have not discussed "history" here so I am a little confused as to what you mean regarding "historically distorted, ancient fictions".
Perhaps you might care to elaborate?
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #63
Which part?Dale wrote: Isnt the story of love and redemption not one of admiration?
It seems more like a story of an ethnocentric people that saw their God as the only god and they were his chosen people. Even when it is about other nations or people God is using them to shape his people into obedient servants using pious conflicting stories.
Then there is the Christian bible doing much of the same thing only they steal God and their position as replacements. Even the supposed salvation ideas have more to do with the nation then the individual. Salvation was usually views as earthly and corporate.
How sweet to say it is all up to you. Yet you claim it is not by works but Grace and faith interpreted, as a proposition by Christians while it was clearly faithfulness to the promises and favoritism of God.Dale wrote: However, the "post mortem punishment" is one that you get to choose to suffer or escape. Its all up to you.
Yet the NT clearly says he calls that which he chooses. Some gospel writers even say he hides the call. There is nothing like blaming the victims.Dale wrote: But once again, God does not arbitrarily punish people. People choose to accept Him or reject Him.
Yet above it is their choice? The choice being accept him or reject him as you define him.Dale wrote: And God does not "set people up" for failure. Please consider Luke 18:27 "Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God."
You are saying it is all up to us and it is our choice yet we cant do it. It is only possible with God.
Does that really make sense to you?
God sure lowered he standards when all it takes is the acceptance of his son as you define it.Dale wrote: "Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task." Dale
No it doesnt sound any more reasonable that Bubba (obviously black) is saved because he accepts Jesus, which he cant do because only God can accomplish that which is his choice. I see youre not a convincing theologian.Dale wrote: If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Of course they would like to be like others but they are not.Dale wrote: Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are. The men and women whom have I have heard share their testimony speak of a change in desire. They no are attracted to the same sex but are filled with a desire for an opposite sex relationship. So this is not "suppression" or "living a painful and damaging lie".
It is healing.
It would not be living as they truly are I would be living as you feel they should live.
Of course they want to change. Who wouldnt give in to the social pressure coupled with the guilt you lay on their already burdened position. So you program them to lust (desire) after the opposite sex? From what I have read it doesnt usually take but they are apt to tell you anything to be accepted into the fold and back in the closet.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #64
this is still a cop out.There are many, many more, but as I have already said the responsibility is on you to search these things out.
the fact that elements of the bible conflicts with things i can consitantly prove (such as geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predates the semites) is why i had to reject the bible. it conflicted with intelligence.Ah! You cannot except what the Bible has to saybecauseit is a religious text? That hardly seems intelligent. Do you have some proof that the Bible is in error? That it is untrue?
another big part in rejecting god, is that his existance fails an awful lot of logical arguements. to the point of which, the only way for god to exist in our reality (as apposed to a supernatural reality i.e fairytale land) would be for god to magically be exempt from logic. im not prepared to make that exception.
i cant, thats the nature of who ever records history; the difference is that religions are just to conflicted to be taken seriously.And what about your "multiple, credible, neutral sources"? What is your confidence that they were written without prejudice, bias or agenda?
behaviors and cultures develope based on what becomes neccessary for survival; vis a vis, relativity. different factors cause different behavior.By saying that something is "relative" is to say that it is proportionate in some manner. And while I do not wish to debate definitions with you, you did--to me--seem to equate cultures. However, if you wish to provide examples of "radical Christianity" and I find them to be contrary to Scripture I will have no problem sharing your condemnation of such activity.
the diferences in behavior cannot neutrally (honestly) be judged as inferior/superior.
To combat my argument, you picked the most radical example of islam to portray the superiority of all not islam, or at least that was the jist. The problem with that is behavior that endangers society (such as radical islam is a danger to muslim communities) is not accepted by societies, and is not a norm.
You do seem to have some issue with this idea of "free will". Okay. Lets look at the issue in a more practical manner and see if it "free will" is a reasonable concept.
If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Cathar answered this well: it is no more reasonable that all the evils Bubba commits is wiped clean with his belief in jesus.
elementary logical fallacy.scripture does not equate to truth." - AClockWorkOrange
And your evidence is?
In proving anything, one is burdened with proof.
The bible claims itself as the proof of its "truth"
Saying "i am right becuase i said so" does not satisfy burden of truth.
suggesting that people are only naturaly heterosexual ignores the... bases for the existance of homosexuals.Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are.
i can pretend that i am a tree to fit into a community hostile to non-trees, and i can claim that i have no non-tree tendancies and i am happier as a tree.
i am still not a tree.
I am a little confused as to what you mean regarding "historically distorted, ancient fictions".
this is probably referning to the bible[/quote]
Post #65
Hello AClockWorkOrange & Cathar1950,
"There are many, many more, but as I have already said the responsibility is on you to search these things out." Dale
"this is still a cop out." AClockWorkOrange
No, it is not. Apologetics is a very large field expounded upon on many disciplines and a web site will not due such a topic justice. This is an area where you are going to have to do your own homework and I have already provided one resource for you. You are convinced that God can not exist but you do not seem as if you want to fairly look at the evidence.
"the fact that elements of the bible conflicts with things i can consitantly prove (such as geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predates the semites) is why i had to reject the bible. it conflicted with intelligence." AClockWorkOrange
You will have to forgive me as I do not appear to be quite as up to date as you are on some of these topics so perhaps you could provide me with a source about geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predate the Semites and how all of this conflicts with the Bible and with "intelligence".
"another big part in rejecting god, is that his existance fails an awful lot of logical arguements. to the point of which, the only way for god to exist in our reality (as apposed to a supernatural reality i.e fairytale land) would be for god to magically be exempt from logic. im not prepared to make that exception." AClockWorkOrange
Well, Im certainly not asking you to make any exceptions, however, I am not aware that God existence "fails an awful lot of logical arguments". Could you please provide some examples?
"And what about your "multiple, credible, neutral sources"? What is your confidence that they were written without prejudice, bias or agenda?" Dale
"i cant, thats the nature of who ever records history; the difference is that religions are just to conflicted to be taken seriously." AClockWorkOrange
Okay, but if we are going to be fair then why accept the sources that reject God and deny the Bible unless you are prejudiced against God and the Bible to begin with. And we are not discussing "religions" in general but Christianity in particular. How is it "conflicted"?
"behaviors and cultures develope based on what becomes neccessary for survival; vis a vis, relativity. different factors cause different behavior.
the diferences in behavior cannot neutrally (honestly) be judged as inferior/superior." AClockWorkOrange
Especially, if you have no basis for judgment such as a belief in God and the morals that follow such a belief.
"To combat my argument, you picked the most radical example of islam to portray the superiority of all not islam, or at least that was the jist. The problem with that is behavior that endangers society (such as radical islam is a danger to muslim communities) is not accepted by societies, and is not a norm." AClockWorkOrange
No, I picked a culture that is predominant in the Middle East and one that I did not name to illustrate that not all cultures are equal.
"You do seem to have some issue with this idea of "free will". Okay. Lets look at the issue in a more practical manner and see if it "free will" is a reasonable concept.
If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?" Dale
"Cathar answered this well: it is no more reasonable that all the evils Bubba commits is wiped clean with his belief in jesus." AClockWorkOrange
I disagree that he answered it well but you are dodging my question. But quid pro quo. You answer my question and Ill answer Cathar.
"scripture does not equate to truth." - AClockWorkOrange
"And your evidence is?" Dale
"elementary logical fallacy.
In proving anything, one is burdened with proof.
The bible claims itself as the proof of its "truth"
Saying "i am right becuase i said so" does not satisfy burden of truth." - AClockWorkOrange
Actually I think you mean circular logic but thats a whole other topic. However, I will point to my comments above regarding Apologetics as proof.
"suggesting that people are only naturaly heterosexual ignores the... bases for the existance of homosexuals.
i can pretend that i am a tree to fit into a community hostile to non-trees, and i can claim that i have no non-tree tendancies and i am happier as a tree.
i am still not a tree." AClockWorkOrange
Correct, you are a human being created in the image of God. How any of this "ignores thebases for the existance of homosexuals", well Im not sure I follow you.
What I am trying to say is that people are not born homosexual and if they desire change then help is available.
"Isnt the story of love and redemption not one of admiration?" Dale
"Which part?
It seems more like a story of an ethnocentric people that saw their God as the only god and they were his chosen people. Even when it is about other nations or people God is using them to shape his people into obedient servants using pious conflicting stories. Then there is the Christian bible doing much of the same thing only they steal God and their position as replacements. Even the supposed salvation ideas have more to do with the nation then the individual. Salvation was usually views as earthly and corporate." Cathar1950
Well, the part I meant was the overall part about how man through his own actions became separated from God and how God came to this world as a sacrifice for mans sake so that he could be reconciled to God.
Thats the part I meant.
But what are the "pious conflicting stories" you are talking about?
"However, the "post mortem punishment" is one that you get to choose to suffer or escape. Its all up to you." Dale
"How sweet to say it is all up to you. Yet you claim it is not by works but Grace and faith interpreted, as a proposition by Christians while it was clearly faithfulness to the promises and favoritism of God." Cathar1950
Its not up to me and I never made the claims youve stated above. However you are close when you state that salvation is by faith and not works.
"But once again, God does not arbitrarily punish people. People choose to accept Him or reject Him." Dale
"Yet the NT clearly says he calls that which he chooses. Some gospel writers even say he hides the call. There is nothing like blaming the victims." Cathar1950
Im not exactly clear on what you are trying to say. Perhaps you can be a bit more clear about blaming the victims?
"And God does not "set people up" for failure. Please consider Luke 18:27 "Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God." Dale
"Yet above it is their choice? The choice being accept him or reject him as you define him.
You are saying it is all up to us and it is our choice yet we cant do it. It is only possible with God.
Does that really make sense to you?" Cathar1950
Weather we accept or reject Him is up to us and, no, I dont get to define Him. And what the Scripture above states is--essentially--that all things are possible with God. And all I was doing was addressing AClockWorkOranges comments concerning "doubting Thomass".
"Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task." Dale
"God sure lowered he standards when all it takes is the acceptance of his son as you define it." Cathar1950
Not exactly. Like the Bible says, "[t]herefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
Its not that God lowers His standards, He brings us up to His.
"No it doesnt sound any more reasonable that Bubba (obviously black) is saved because he accepts Jesus, which he cant do because only God can accomplish that which is his choice. I see youre not a convincing theologian." Cathar1950
As Ive already addressed, if AClockWorkOrange will address my question. I will address yours.
Quid Pro Quo.
"Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are. The men and women whom have I have heard share their testimony speak of a change in desire. They no are attracted to the same sex but are filled with a desire for an opposite sex relationship. So this is not "suppression" or "living a painful and damaging lie".
It is healing." Dale
"Of course they would like to be like others but they are not.
It would not be living as they truly are I would be living as you feel they should live.
Of course they want to change. Who wouldnt give in to the social pressure coupled with the guilt you lay on their already burdened position. So you program them to lust (desire) after the opposite sex? From what I have read it doesnt usually take but they are apt to tell you anything to be accepted into the fold and back in the closet." Cathar1950
As I "feel they should live"? Sorry, but I dont get any say in the matter.
And no one is "programmed". And while I have no idea what youve read on this subject I am talking about men and women who have left the homosexual life because they chose to do so.
In case you havent noticed, nobody is forcing anybody to "not be gay". It would be like trying to "force" someone to be a Christian. It just doesnt work that way.
"There are many, many more, but as I have already said the responsibility is on you to search these things out." Dale
"this is still a cop out." AClockWorkOrange
No, it is not. Apologetics is a very large field expounded upon on many disciplines and a web site will not due such a topic justice. This is an area where you are going to have to do your own homework and I have already provided one resource for you. You are convinced that God can not exist but you do not seem as if you want to fairly look at the evidence.
"the fact that elements of the bible conflicts with things i can consitantly prove (such as geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predates the semites) is why i had to reject the bible. it conflicted with intelligence." AClockWorkOrange
You will have to forgive me as I do not appear to be quite as up to date as you are on some of these topics so perhaps you could provide me with a source about geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predate the Semites and how all of this conflicts with the Bible and with "intelligence".
"another big part in rejecting god, is that his existance fails an awful lot of logical arguements. to the point of which, the only way for god to exist in our reality (as apposed to a supernatural reality i.e fairytale land) would be for god to magically be exempt from logic. im not prepared to make that exception." AClockWorkOrange
Well, Im certainly not asking you to make any exceptions, however, I am not aware that God existence "fails an awful lot of logical arguments". Could you please provide some examples?
"And what about your "multiple, credible, neutral sources"? What is your confidence that they were written without prejudice, bias or agenda?" Dale
"i cant, thats the nature of who ever records history; the difference is that religions are just to conflicted to be taken seriously." AClockWorkOrange
Okay, but if we are going to be fair then why accept the sources that reject God and deny the Bible unless you are prejudiced against God and the Bible to begin with. And we are not discussing "religions" in general but Christianity in particular. How is it "conflicted"?
"behaviors and cultures develope based on what becomes neccessary for survival; vis a vis, relativity. different factors cause different behavior.
the diferences in behavior cannot neutrally (honestly) be judged as inferior/superior." AClockWorkOrange
Especially, if you have no basis for judgment such as a belief in God and the morals that follow such a belief.
"To combat my argument, you picked the most radical example of islam to portray the superiority of all not islam, or at least that was the jist. The problem with that is behavior that endangers society (such as radical islam is a danger to muslim communities) is not accepted by societies, and is not a norm." AClockWorkOrange
No, I picked a culture that is predominant in the Middle East and one that I did not name to illustrate that not all cultures are equal.
"You do seem to have some issue with this idea of "free will". Okay. Lets look at the issue in a more practical manner and see if it "free will" is a reasonable concept.
If all things are up to God and free will does not exist then is it not fair to say that our own justice system is unrealistic. After all, nobody is "really guilty" of anything so to sentence people to prison or death is, wellunreasonable and justice is not truly served. So who cares if Bubba just raped and murdered your mom. He must be set free immediately and be apologized to any inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of being arrested and detained, right?
Does this sound reasonable to you?" Dale
"Cathar answered this well: it is no more reasonable that all the evils Bubba commits is wiped clean with his belief in jesus." AClockWorkOrange
I disagree that he answered it well but you are dodging my question. But quid pro quo. You answer my question and Ill answer Cathar.
"scripture does not equate to truth." - AClockWorkOrange
"And your evidence is?" Dale
"elementary logical fallacy.
In proving anything, one is burdened with proof.
The bible claims itself as the proof of its "truth"
Saying "i am right becuase i said so" does not satisfy burden of truth." - AClockWorkOrange
Actually I think you mean circular logic but thats a whole other topic. However, I will point to my comments above regarding Apologetics as proof.
"suggesting that people are only naturaly heterosexual ignores the... bases for the existance of homosexuals.
i can pretend that i am a tree to fit into a community hostile to non-trees, and i can claim that i have no non-tree tendancies and i am happier as a tree.
i am still not a tree." AClockWorkOrange
Correct, you are a human being created in the image of God. How any of this "ignores thebases for the existance of homosexuals", well Im not sure I follow you.
What I am trying to say is that people are not born homosexual and if they desire change then help is available.
"Isnt the story of love and redemption not one of admiration?" Dale
"Which part?
It seems more like a story of an ethnocentric people that saw their God as the only god and they were his chosen people. Even when it is about other nations or people God is using them to shape his people into obedient servants using pious conflicting stories. Then there is the Christian bible doing much of the same thing only they steal God and their position as replacements. Even the supposed salvation ideas have more to do with the nation then the individual. Salvation was usually views as earthly and corporate." Cathar1950
Well, the part I meant was the overall part about how man through his own actions became separated from God and how God came to this world as a sacrifice for mans sake so that he could be reconciled to God.
Thats the part I meant.
But what are the "pious conflicting stories" you are talking about?
"However, the "post mortem punishment" is one that you get to choose to suffer or escape. Its all up to you." Dale
"How sweet to say it is all up to you. Yet you claim it is not by works but Grace and faith interpreted, as a proposition by Christians while it was clearly faithfulness to the promises and favoritism of God." Cathar1950
Its not up to me and I never made the claims youve stated above. However you are close when you state that salvation is by faith and not works.
"But once again, God does not arbitrarily punish people. People choose to accept Him or reject Him." Dale
"Yet the NT clearly says he calls that which he chooses. Some gospel writers even say he hides the call. There is nothing like blaming the victims." Cathar1950
Im not exactly clear on what you are trying to say. Perhaps you can be a bit more clear about blaming the victims?
"And God does not "set people up" for failure. Please consider Luke 18:27 "Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God." Dale
"Yet above it is their choice? The choice being accept him or reject him as you define him.
You are saying it is all up to us and it is our choice yet we cant do it. It is only possible with God.
Does that really make sense to you?" Cathar1950
Weather we accept or reject Him is up to us and, no, I dont get to define Him. And what the Scripture above states is--essentially--that all things are possible with God. And all I was doing was addressing AClockWorkOranges comments concerning "doubting Thomass".
"Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task." Dale
"God sure lowered he standards when all it takes is the acceptance of his son as you define it." Cathar1950
Not exactly. Like the Bible says, "[t]herefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
Its not that God lowers His standards, He brings us up to His.
"No it doesnt sound any more reasonable that Bubba (obviously black) is saved because he accepts Jesus, which he cant do because only God can accomplish that which is his choice. I see youre not a convincing theologian." Cathar1950
As Ive already addressed, if AClockWorkOrange will address my question. I will address yours.
Quid Pro Quo.
"Im not talking about people trying to live as something they are not. Im talking about living as they truly are. The men and women whom have I have heard share their testimony speak of a change in desire. They no are attracted to the same sex but are filled with a desire for an opposite sex relationship. So this is not "suppression" or "living a painful and damaging lie".
It is healing." Dale
"Of course they would like to be like others but they are not.
It would not be living as they truly are I would be living as you feel they should live.
Of course they want to change. Who wouldnt give in to the social pressure coupled with the guilt you lay on their already burdened position. So you program them to lust (desire) after the opposite sex? From what I have read it doesnt usually take but they are apt to tell you anything to be accepted into the fold and back in the closet." Cathar1950
As I "feel they should live"? Sorry, but I dont get any say in the matter.
And no one is "programmed". And while I have no idea what youve read on this subject I am talking about men and women who have left the homosexual life because they chose to do so.
In case you havent noticed, nobody is forcing anybody to "not be gay". It would be like trying to "force" someone to be a Christian. It just doesnt work that way.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #66
your evidence is still with only one source (the bible) and people who expounded (apologetics). It is still not good enough.No, it is not. Apologetics is a very large field expounded upon on many disciplines and a web site will not due such a topic justice. This is an area where you are going to have to do your own homework and I have already provided one resource for you. You are convinced that God can not exist but you do not seem as if you want to fairly look at the evidence
*throws any biology textbook, history book, or middle school science book*"the fact that elements of the bible conflicts with things i can consitantly prove (such as geology, paleontology, elemental science, records of civilizations that predates the semites) is why i had to reject the bible. it conflicted with intelligence."
but seriously: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
here are two
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of DisbeliefWell, Im certainly not asking you to make any exceptions, however, I am not aware that God existence "fails an awful lot of logical arguments". Could you please provide some examples?
Logical problem of evil
1.)God exists. (premise)
2.)God is omnipotent. (premise or true by definition of the word 'God')
3.)God is all-benevolent. (premise or true by definition)
4.)All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise or true by definition)
5.)All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6.)God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7.)God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
A: Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
B:God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
C: God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8.)God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9.)Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10.)Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and all-benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.
Evidential problem of evil
1 Gratuitous evils exist.
2 Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
3 Therefore, no god exists.
Those are fairly basic "problem of evil" ones.
1.) To prove something exists, proof is required
2.) faith is based on belief with explicite lack of proof
3.) God is literally illogical.
how many sects of chrisitianity are there?Okay, but if we are going to be fair then why accept the sources that reject God and deny the Bible unless you are prejudiced against God and the Bible to begin with. And we are not discussing "religions" in general but Christianity in particular. How is it "conflicted"?
there seems to be a disagreement.
so only a belief in god can give one a sense of morality or a community a standard of judgment? Am i , as an atheist immoral? all the cultures that didnt have an explicit belief in god without structure?Especially, if you have no basis for judgment such as a belief in God and the morals that follow such a belief.
and i point to my comments regarding source above.Actually I think you mean circular logic but thats a whole other topic. However, I will point to my comments above regarding Apologetics as proof.
What I am trying to say is that people are not born homosexual and if they desire change then help is available.
How any of this "ignores thebases for the existance of homosexuals", well Im not sure I follow you.
the reason people are homosexual is becuase that is what they are honestly and naturally attracted to. by saying that this is a fallacy and heterosexuality is the only way is denying gays who they are and forcing them to be straight: which would be a lie.
It is like saying humans dont exist, trees are the natural way to go, then making me live the lie of being a tree. in gods image
i wish that is how it happened in the pastIn case you havent noticed, nobody is forcing anybody to "not be gay". It would be like trying to "force" someone to be a Christian. It just doesnt work that way.
Post #67
Hello AClockWorkOrange,
"your evidence is still with only one source (the bible) and people who expounded (apologetics). It is still not good enough." AClockWorkOrange
Then you must not understand Apologetics. It may include subjects such as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, logic, statistics, geology and medicine.
Id say that was pretty good
I also looked at your web pages that you provided. Thank you for doing so. However, when compared to the above list of actual sciences--ya know, the ones that use the scientific method and such--Id say they were hardly very impressive at all. And much of the "age of the earth evidence" had already been debunked years ago.
But I again invite you to do your own homework and check out the facts. The resource I provided you is a good place to begin.
"*throws any biology textbook, history book, or middle school science book*" AClockWorkOrange
Well, its another debate, however, a text book from any public school system in this country today is going to be far more about agenda than learning or "intelligence". Believe me. I have already destroyed the credibility of the authors of a ninth grade biology book and publicly humiliated (I mean nationally) one school teacher.
Im sorry. But a "text book" is just not going to provide you with the truth.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
Logical problem of evil
1.)God exists. (premise)
2.)God is omnipotent. (premise or true by definition of the word 'God')
3.)God is all-benevolent. (premise or true by definition)
4.)All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise or true by definition)
5.)All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6.)God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7.)God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
A: Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
B:God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
C: God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8.)God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9.)Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10.)Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and all-benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.
Evidential problem of evil
1 Gratuitous evils exist.
2 Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
3 Therefore, no god exists.
Those are fairly basic "problem of evil" ones.
1.) To prove something exists, proof is required
2.) faith is based on belief with explicite lack of proof
3.) God is literally illogical." AClockWorkOrange
WOW! Thats almost impressive! Its also an old argument, my friend, and its been argued multiple ways.
Essentially, the argument is, "God does not fit my ideas of what God should be therefore God does not exist."
And I keep pointing to the proof for you. But you are going to have to make the commitment to examine the evidence yourself.
"how many sects of chrisitianity are there?
there seems to be a disagreement." AClockWorkOrange
There are a few, however, we all agree that to get to be saved one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
"so only a belief in god can give one a sense of morality or a community a standard of judgment? Am i , as an atheist immoral? all the cultures that didnt have an explicit belief in god without structure?" AClockWorkOrange
Yes. Gods values are unchanging. What was wrong 5,000 years ago remains wrong today. And what was good 5,000 years ago is still considered good by God today.
By comparison, mans values are in constant flux. His values are always changing to the next politically correct whim. Man can even justify evil. A pedophile doesnt really hurt a child when he molest him. Oh no!! Hes really just "loving" him.
Yea, right.
So without a firm grounding of morals based upon Gods teaching, what man does would ultimately never be "wrong" as his values are always changes to excuse his behavior. Take my example above. What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?
"the reason people are homosexual is becuase that is what they are honestly and naturally attracted to. by saying that this is a fallacy and heterosexuality is the only way is denying gays who they are and forcing them to be straight: which would be a lie. It is like saying humans dont exist, trees are the natural way to go, then making me live the lie of being a tree. in gods image" AClockWorkOrange
The last time I looked into it, the folks that actually studied these things had not yet determined what causes homosexuality. Of the things they could agree on, they did agree that homosexuality is not genetic and that it involves multiple and complicated factors varying by degree from person to person. Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.
So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.
"In case you havent noticed, nobody is forcing anybody to "not be gay". It would be like trying to "force" someone to be a Christian. It just doesnt work that way." Dale
"i wish that is how it happened in the past" AClockWorkOrange
Yes, my friend, this is something that we can agree on.
"your evidence is still with only one source (the bible) and people who expounded (apologetics). It is still not good enough." AClockWorkOrange
Then you must not understand Apologetics. It may include subjects such as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, logic, statistics, geology and medicine.
Id say that was pretty good
I also looked at your web pages that you provided. Thank you for doing so. However, when compared to the above list of actual sciences--ya know, the ones that use the scientific method and such--Id say they were hardly very impressive at all. And much of the "age of the earth evidence" had already been debunked years ago.
But I again invite you to do your own homework and check out the facts. The resource I provided you is a good place to begin.
"*throws any biology textbook, history book, or middle school science book*" AClockWorkOrange
Well, its another debate, however, a text book from any public school system in this country today is going to be far more about agenda than learning or "intelligence". Believe me. I have already destroyed the credibility of the authors of a ninth grade biology book and publicly humiliated (I mean nationally) one school teacher.
Im sorry. But a "text book" is just not going to provide you with the truth.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
Logical problem of evil
1.)God exists. (premise)
2.)God is omnipotent. (premise or true by definition of the word 'God')
3.)God is all-benevolent. (premise or true by definition)
4.)All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise or true by definition)
5.)All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6.)God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7.)God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
A: Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
B:God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
C: God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8.)God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9.)Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10.)Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and all-benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.
Evidential problem of evil
1 Gratuitous evils exist.
2 Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
3 Therefore, no god exists.
Those are fairly basic "problem of evil" ones.
1.) To prove something exists, proof is required
2.) faith is based on belief with explicite lack of proof
3.) God is literally illogical." AClockWorkOrange
WOW! Thats almost impressive! Its also an old argument, my friend, and its been argued multiple ways.
Essentially, the argument is, "God does not fit my ideas of what God should be therefore God does not exist."
And I keep pointing to the proof for you. But you are going to have to make the commitment to examine the evidence yourself.
"how many sects of chrisitianity are there?
there seems to be a disagreement." AClockWorkOrange
There are a few, however, we all agree that to get to be saved one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
"so only a belief in god can give one a sense of morality or a community a standard of judgment? Am i , as an atheist immoral? all the cultures that didnt have an explicit belief in god without structure?" AClockWorkOrange
Yes. Gods values are unchanging. What was wrong 5,000 years ago remains wrong today. And what was good 5,000 years ago is still considered good by God today.
By comparison, mans values are in constant flux. His values are always changing to the next politically correct whim. Man can even justify evil. A pedophile doesnt really hurt a child when he molest him. Oh no!! Hes really just "loving" him.
Yea, right.
So without a firm grounding of morals based upon Gods teaching, what man does would ultimately never be "wrong" as his values are always changes to excuse his behavior. Take my example above. What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?
"the reason people are homosexual is becuase that is what they are honestly and naturally attracted to. by saying that this is a fallacy and heterosexuality is the only way is denying gays who they are and forcing them to be straight: which would be a lie. It is like saying humans dont exist, trees are the natural way to go, then making me live the lie of being a tree. in gods image" AClockWorkOrange
The last time I looked into it, the folks that actually studied these things had not yet determined what causes homosexuality. Of the things they could agree on, they did agree that homosexuality is not genetic and that it involves multiple and complicated factors varying by degree from person to person. Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.
So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.
"In case you havent noticed, nobody is forcing anybody to "not be gay". It would be like trying to "force" someone to be a Christian. It just doesnt work that way." Dale
"i wish that is how it happened in the past" AClockWorkOrange
Yes, my friend, this is something that we can agree on.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #68
apologetics fails to satisfy competent burden of proof.Then you must not understand Apologetics. It may include subjects such as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, logic, statistics, geology and medicine.
Id say that was pretty good
But I again invite you to do your own homework and check out the facts. The resource I provided you is a good place to begin.
if you are unwilling to present your own argument, as opposed to telling me to "do my homework" please cease using this as your argument.
.I also looked at your web pages that you provided. Thank you for doing so. However, when compared to the above list of actual sciences--ya know, the ones that use the scientific method and such--Id say they were hardly very impressive at all
they are a basic study of religous history and evolution, as well as basic geological overview.
such as?And much of the "age of the earth evidence" had already been debunked years ago.
dont make me use the "dinosuar" word.
your statement is interchangable with the bible.Well, its another debate, however, a text book from any public school system in this country today is going to be far more about agenda than learning or "intelligence". Believe me. I have already destroyed the credibility of the authors of a ninth grade biology book and publicly humiliated (I mean nationally) one school teacher.
Im sorry. But a "text book" is just not going to provide you with the truth
the difference is that the content of science text books are subject to change *as you noted* and all content is also subject to testing and scrutiny; whereas the bases of the bible is not by its followers.
these arguments are based on christian definitions of god.Essentially, the argument is, "God does not fit my ideas of what God should be therefore God does not exist."
please, for the sake of argument, define your god.
how can i argue your point if i dont understand it?
you saying "i believe in god" right now is equal to saying "the mimsy went to time table"
nonsense.
there are several thousand.There are a few, however, we all agree that to get to be saved one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
some believe that babtism is required as well, calvinism believes in predestination, mormons too, jehovas witness think they will become gods, american christian sect pick and choose aspects of the bible, the old convenant is completly different than the new covenant, which raises eyebrows regarding continuity.
there is something iffy about the bible
es.
less nice, closer to bigotry.Gods values are unchanging. What was wrong 5,000 years ago remains wrong today. And what was good 5,000 years ago is still considered good by God today.
By comparison, mans values are in constant flux. His values are always changing to the next politically correct whim. Man can even justify evil. A pedophile doesnt really hurt a child when he molest him. Oh no!! Hes really just "loving" him.
Yea, right.
So without a firm grounding of morals based upon Gods teaching, what man does would ultimately never be "wrong" as his values are always changes to excuse his behavior. Take my example above. What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?
mans values devolops from nesecity.
i promise you, native americans, pacific islanders, aboriginies, asia, africans, south americans, and early europeans all had morality and value systems long before the christian/jewish/muslim belief or recognition of that god ever touched them.
1.) it is natural in that sexual desire is naturalThe last time I looked into it, the folks that actually studied these things had not yet determined what causes homosexuality. Of the things they could agree on, they did agree that homosexuality is not genetic and that it involves multiple and complicated factors varying by degree from person to person.
and all straight people have sparkling childhoods?Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.
my child hood sucked, and i still ended up attracted to girls.
often, abuses and neglect are a reaction to a childs homesexuality, not a cuase.
this strikes me as out of line. not just that it conflicts with the reality of the lives of gay friends of mine, but it just smacks of bigotry.So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.
take a step back, and really read that phrase.
"your gay becuase your development was wrong".
whoa.
Post #69
Hello AClockWorkOrange,
"apologetics fails to satisfy competent burden of proof." AClockWorkOrange
Im not sure what youre calling "competent" but I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Apologetics have changed lives by bringing people to a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior. The evidence is as plentiful as it is overwhelming.
"if you are unwilling to present your own argument, as opposed to telling me to "do my homework" please cease using this as your argument." AClockWorkOrange
Im happy to move along regarding this issue, but as Ive already pointed out to you, apologetics is an enormous subject and I certainly could not do the topic justice in this forum. But I stand behind what I have already told you but I will be more blunt about it this time. Apologetics is an area that you are going to have to study for yourself if you are to maintain any intellectual credibility especially after having made such statements as, "apologetics fails to satisfy competent burden of proof."
If you have not studied this area, then how can you make such comments. And if you have studied this topic, why do you make such assertions?
"they are a basic study of religous history and evolution, as well as basic geological overview." AClockWorkOrange (concerning the web-pages you supplied in your previous offering)
They appear to be nothing more than severely biased views from apparently some very bitter people. Shame.
"And much of the "age of the earth evidence" had already been debunked years ago." Dale
"such as?" AClockWorkOrange
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
Agree or disagree, there is a lot of debate on this issuestill.
"Im sorry. But a "text book" is just not going to provide you with the truth" Dale
"your statement is interchangable with the bible.
the difference is that the content of science text books are subject to change *as you noted* and all content is also subject to testing and scrutiny; whereas the bases of the bible is not by its followers." AClockWorkOrange
Youve misunderstood what I was trying to say. In any event, you are correct when you say that the Bible cannot be changed. The truth is not subject to change.
"these arguments are based on christian definitions of god.
please, for the sake of argument, define your god.
how can i argue your point if i dont understand it?
you saying "i believe in god" right now is equal to saying "the mimsy went to time table"
nonsense." AClockWorkOrange
I believe God to be exactly what the Bible says He is. Perfect, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, one God in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Creator of all things and everything else the Bible says He is.
Does this help?
"There are a few, however, we all agree that to get to be saved one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior." Dale
"there are several thousand.
some believe that babtism is required as well, calvinism believes in predestination, mormons too, jehovas witness think they will become gods, american christian sect pick and choose aspects of the bible, the old convenant is completly different than the new covenant, which raises eyebrows regarding continuity." AClockWorkOrange
I couldnt disagree with you more. Calling yourself a Christian doesnt make it so. But for the sake of clarity I will offer a definition. A Christian is someone who believes that God came to this world (in the form of Jesus) and lived a sinless life and was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin and was raised bodily back to life three days later. It is by this beliefand only this beliefthat we are saved and have a place in Heaven.
A bit simplistic but that should do.
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian. I am not familiar with "Christian Sect" so I cant comment. But I dare say there are far fewer than the "several thousand" Christian denominations you claim there to be.
"the old convenant is completly different than the new covenant, which raises eyebrows regarding continuity.
there is something iffy about the bible" AClockWorkOrange
Yes, the Old Covenant in completely different from the New Covenant in every respect and simply enhances its "continuity". In fact, if there were no New Covenant, the rest of the Bible would become suspect as it was prophesized. Why do you contend then that there is "something iffy about the bible"? Im really having a bit of difficulty in understanding your point here and it makes me wonder if you have any real understanding of the Bible.
"What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?" Dale
"less nice, closer to bigotry." AClockWorkOrange
I dont get it. Why is this bigotry?
"mans values devolops from nesecity." AClockWorkOrange
I am more inclined to believe that mans "values" develop more on a whim without any sound moral grounding, but I may not have considered every point. Do you have any examples you can share where mans "values" developed out of necessity?
"it is natural in that sexual desire is natural" - AClockWorkOrange
Sexual desire is natural but sexual behavior is just that--a behavior. And behaviors are learned.
"Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present." Dale
"and all straight people have sparkling childhoods?" AClockWorkOrange
Of course not. But we are talking about a rarely occurring event that affects only about 2% of the population.
"my child hood sucked, and i still ended up attracted to girls." - AClockWorkOrange
Whew!!
"often, abuses and neglect are a reaction to a childs homesexuality, not a cuase." AClockWorkOrange
How many young kids do you know that are homosexual? Personally, I dont know any. Never have. And the age at which this is affected is so young I fail to see how even the child could know or even understand that he was "homosexual".
"So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development." Dale
"this strikes me as out of line. not just that it conflicts with the reality of the lives of gay friends of mine, but it just smacks of bigotry.
take a step back, and really read that phrase.
"your gay becuase your development was wrong".
whoa." AClockWorkOrange
Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
I dont see how your use of the word "bigotry" fits. Gays folks are free to have a relationship with someone of their own sex if they choose. I have no say in the matter.
In addition, your comments ignore the testimony of people like Stephen Bennett, Joe Dallas and thousands of others that have received help and no longer have same sex desires. And these same wonderful people speak of having difficult childhoods leading to developmental problems. It would seem to me that these folks would be the ultimate experts and Im only repeating the things that they have already said.
How is this bigoted?
"apologetics fails to satisfy competent burden of proof." AClockWorkOrange
Im not sure what youre calling "competent" but I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Apologetics have changed lives by bringing people to a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior. The evidence is as plentiful as it is overwhelming.
"if you are unwilling to present your own argument, as opposed to telling me to "do my homework" please cease using this as your argument." AClockWorkOrange
Im happy to move along regarding this issue, but as Ive already pointed out to you, apologetics is an enormous subject and I certainly could not do the topic justice in this forum. But I stand behind what I have already told you but I will be more blunt about it this time. Apologetics is an area that you are going to have to study for yourself if you are to maintain any intellectual credibility especially after having made such statements as, "apologetics fails to satisfy competent burden of proof."
If you have not studied this area, then how can you make such comments. And if you have studied this topic, why do you make such assertions?
"they are a basic study of religous history and evolution, as well as basic geological overview." AClockWorkOrange (concerning the web-pages you supplied in your previous offering)
They appear to be nothing more than severely biased views from apparently some very bitter people. Shame.
"And much of the "age of the earth evidence" had already been debunked years ago." Dale
"such as?" AClockWorkOrange
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
Agree or disagree, there is a lot of debate on this issuestill.
"Im sorry. But a "text book" is just not going to provide you with the truth" Dale
"your statement is interchangable with the bible.
the difference is that the content of science text books are subject to change *as you noted* and all content is also subject to testing and scrutiny; whereas the bases of the bible is not by its followers." AClockWorkOrange
Youve misunderstood what I was trying to say. In any event, you are correct when you say that the Bible cannot be changed. The truth is not subject to change.
"these arguments are based on christian definitions of god.
please, for the sake of argument, define your god.
how can i argue your point if i dont understand it?
you saying "i believe in god" right now is equal to saying "the mimsy went to time table"
nonsense." AClockWorkOrange
I believe God to be exactly what the Bible says He is. Perfect, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, one God in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Creator of all things and everything else the Bible says He is.
Does this help?
"There are a few, however, we all agree that to get to be saved one needs to accept Christ as Lord and Savior." Dale
"there are several thousand.
some believe that babtism is required as well, calvinism believes in predestination, mormons too, jehovas witness think they will become gods, american christian sect pick and choose aspects of the bible, the old convenant is completly different than the new covenant, which raises eyebrows regarding continuity." AClockWorkOrange
I couldnt disagree with you more. Calling yourself a Christian doesnt make it so. But for the sake of clarity I will offer a definition. A Christian is someone who believes that God came to this world (in the form of Jesus) and lived a sinless life and was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin and was raised bodily back to life three days later. It is by this beliefand only this beliefthat we are saved and have a place in Heaven.
A bit simplistic but that should do.
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian. I am not familiar with "Christian Sect" so I cant comment. But I dare say there are far fewer than the "several thousand" Christian denominations you claim there to be.
"the old convenant is completly different than the new covenant, which raises eyebrows regarding continuity.
there is something iffy about the bible" AClockWorkOrange
Yes, the Old Covenant in completely different from the New Covenant in every respect and simply enhances its "continuity". In fact, if there were no New Covenant, the rest of the Bible would become suspect as it was prophesized. Why do you contend then that there is "something iffy about the bible"? Im really having a bit of difficulty in understanding your point here and it makes me wonder if you have any real understanding of the Bible.
"What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?" Dale
"less nice, closer to bigotry." AClockWorkOrange
I dont get it. Why is this bigotry?
"mans values devolops from nesecity." AClockWorkOrange
I am more inclined to believe that mans "values" develop more on a whim without any sound moral grounding, but I may not have considered every point. Do you have any examples you can share where mans "values" developed out of necessity?
"it is natural in that sexual desire is natural" - AClockWorkOrange
Sexual desire is natural but sexual behavior is just that--a behavior. And behaviors are learned.
"Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present." Dale
"and all straight people have sparkling childhoods?" AClockWorkOrange
Of course not. But we are talking about a rarely occurring event that affects only about 2% of the population.
"my child hood sucked, and i still ended up attracted to girls." - AClockWorkOrange
Whew!!
"often, abuses and neglect are a reaction to a childs homesexuality, not a cuase." AClockWorkOrange
How many young kids do you know that are homosexual? Personally, I dont know any. Never have. And the age at which this is affected is so young I fail to see how even the child could know or even understand that he was "homosexual".
"So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development." Dale
"this strikes me as out of line. not just that it conflicts with the reality of the lives of gay friends of mine, but it just smacks of bigotry.
take a step back, and really read that phrase.
"your gay becuase your development was wrong".
whoa." AClockWorkOrange
Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
I dont see how your use of the word "bigotry" fits. Gays folks are free to have a relationship with someone of their own sex if they choose. I have no say in the matter.
In addition, your comments ignore the testimony of people like Stephen Bennett, Joe Dallas and thousands of others that have received help and no longer have same sex desires. And these same wonderful people speak of having difficult childhoods leading to developmental problems. It would seem to me that these folks would be the ultimate experts and Im only repeating the things that they have already said.
How is this bigoted?
Post #70
Sorry for having been away so long. There is way too much to catch up on so I will just jump back into the flow.
I will point out that a similar study of left-handedness showed that in 80% of cases where one twin was left-handed, the other was also. Stronger than for homosexuality but still not 100%.
Now, would we EVER suggest that left-handedness is not natural, that it is only a 'develpmental' phenomenon, that it is not an in-born characteristic, that people should attempt to be 'cured' of it? Most people would consider such suggestions ridiculous, and I would say the same thing to suggestions that we should approach homosexuality by focusing on trying to 'cure' people.
In fact, in many instances people did try to 'cure' their children or pupils of the 'anomaly' of being left-handed. Did they succeed? Well, yes sometimes they coerced the children into writing, eating, etc. with their right hand. However, they were never 'cured' of being left-handed, they simply adapted to an outside pressure without ever 'losing' their innate characteristic.
Same thing with gays, in the vast majority of circumstances. We should stop this mis-guided and harmful approach, stop denying what we do know about homosexuality, and stop citing anecdotal evidence of those who 'claim' to have been cured as trumping the vast majority of testimonies of gays who know better.
I think it is fair to say that homosexuality is not completely determined by genetics. However, this does not mean there is no genetic component. One study of twins separated at birth I have seen indicated that roughly 50% of the time, when one twin was gay, so was the other. This is not 100%, of course, but it still strongly indicates that genetics plays some role.The last time I looked into it, the folks that actually studied these things had not yet determined what causes homosexuality. Of the things they could agree on, they did agree that homosexuality is not genetic and that it involves multiple and complicated factors varying by degree from person to person. Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.
So to say that someone is homosexual because thats what they "naturally" are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.
I will point out that a similar study of left-handedness showed that in 80% of cases where one twin was left-handed, the other was also. Stronger than for homosexuality but still not 100%.
Now, would we EVER suggest that left-handedness is not natural, that it is only a 'develpmental' phenomenon, that it is not an in-born characteristic, that people should attempt to be 'cured' of it? Most people would consider such suggestions ridiculous, and I would say the same thing to suggestions that we should approach homosexuality by focusing on trying to 'cure' people.
In fact, in many instances people did try to 'cure' their children or pupils of the 'anomaly' of being left-handed. Did they succeed? Well, yes sometimes they coerced the children into writing, eating, etc. with their right hand. However, they were never 'cured' of being left-handed, they simply adapted to an outside pressure without ever 'losing' their innate characteristic.
Same thing with gays, in the vast majority of circumstances. We should stop this mis-guided and harmful approach, stop denying what we do know about homosexuality, and stop citing anecdotal evidence of those who 'claim' to have been cured as trumping the vast majority of testimonies of gays who know better.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
