The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Yes, but thats my point. Children are the only difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, if you remove the possibility of children there is no different. The "utter giving of oneself to another" is common in both heterosexual sex within a committed loving relationship and homosexual sex in a committed loving relationship.

So why is one the hight of morality, and the other the hight of immorality.

One is what God gave, the other a perversion of it. That's the theological objection to homosexuality. The practical objections range from it being unnatural (non-reproductive in all circumstances) to its being physically damaging (rectal continance) and medically dangerous (STDs).

No, heterosexuals are attracted to effeminate types, they are called "women"

But surely you can't deny the great number of male homosexuals who are 'camp'? It is certainly true for many I personally know, and the British and American media depict the same.

What is the female "threat"? That doesn't make any sense, why not then just go for a female with female traits.

Yes, it doesn't make any sense to me why someone is gay. Bt it must make sense to them. That's where the rejection of the female personality/embracing of the female traits must come in.

You might be unaware of the actual history of this "theory," that too much attention and love from the mother turns a man gay, but the pre-Victorian theory was that, rather than having much to do with effecting your sexual attraction, this attention from your mother made you into a woman, because you ignored the things that make a man, like hunting and war etc, and following suit you liked men because "women" like men and you were essentially actually turned into a woman.

Interesting. Maybe true for some.

This idea of course ignores everything we know about biology and pyschology and is ridiculous nonsense. It is also easily proved wrong by any example of a gay man who was raised without a mother, of which I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of examples.

I'm can only speak of the homosexuals I know. Their family relationships and/or childhood/adolescent experiences did have the imbalance or corrupting influences. Likewise with the few exclusive paedophiles I have dealt with.

So even if you don't believe homosexuality is genetic (why wouldn't you, except maybe because it is too hard to admit that God actually made homosexuality as part of nature?), you can rest assured it isn't because homosexual men spent too much time helping their mother with the ironing.

That would be like saying God made fornication as part of nature. He made sex with your spouse as part of nature; not with anyone else, heterosexual or homosexual. But there is a part of the homosexual thing that is from Him:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

How? You saying God is straight so everyone else must be straight? Who does God have sex with?

Yes, God is holy and requires us to be like Him. He is not married, nor are the angels, nor will Christians be in heaven. Sex is only the best physical expression of human love today. Then it will be surpassed by the total love of God to us and through us to one another.

Are you saying slavery is slavery unless the master is a god? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter who is doing it, is still slavery.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The difference is God is perfectly good, perfectly just, absolutely worthy of our obedience and love.

That might be a reasonable requirement from a "Creator" but not from a perfect being of love and kindness. It is the requirement of someone who seeks and demands recongition for what he does, which is selfish in my view. It is not done for others, it is done for oneself, for the glory of oneself.

Being God, it would be immoral for Him to demand less than our love and service. It's just your concept of God that is faulty. You make him to be worthy of no more than the best man.

But there is a further dimension to this worthiness of God to our love: He gave His own Son to suffer our hell on the cross, so that we could be forgiven and made His children. As the apostle puts it, We love Him because He first loved us.1 John 4:19.

True, but that love is not given freely, it is given under condition, condition of worship and obedence, condition to follow laws that have no logical purpose except the whim of your God.

If you or I loved wickedness as you demand God do, we would be condemned by every one on this list, I dare say.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

So maybe some folks a long time ago decided to unify all this variable morality into one common Morality for Dummies guide book and give it the supernatural tamperproof stamp. Religion is born

True for many religions, no doubt. But then there is the other scenario: God gave His word to men, who wrote it down and transmitted it down the ages. True religion is born.

Fortunately for us some smart folks then created civil law which is based (generally) on the moral views of the voting majority at the time.

Indeed. The good, the bad, the ugly. Democracy, Communism, Nazism.

Laws evolve to adapt to social developments.

See above.

Morality based on ancient rules and parables is foolish and as we see in theoracys downright dangerous.

Maybe the morality is ancient because it has proved its worth down the ages. But I agree, theocracies are dangerous.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Also, Tahitian ants. And ants that have honest doubts. Certainly it would be a big stretch to describe even me as "hating and despising" my "Creator" - or would you so describe me?

Yes, even though we are not aware of the antipathy in our hearts, the mere fact that we refuse to believe in Him is proof of the fact. That's true for every one who comes into the world, except Christ.

Unfortunately, no known set of prison statistics bear out what you're saying. For example, these 1999 statistics for England and Wales suggest that the majority of prison inmates consider themselves as belonging to some religion or other.

Yes, when one is admitted into prison, the question of formal religious affliliation arises - even if one has never darkened a church doorstep, the authorities like to pidgeon-hole for administrative purposes. And it has some benefits for the inmate, by way of outside contacts.

I served as a prison pastor for some 17 years, 7 of them full-time. I can assure you most offenders are godless. They are their own gods, if you like. What is good for them is good, what is bad for them is bad.

In addition, you are still conflating "no religion" with "atheist/agnostic".

I agree there is a distinction between the thinking adherence to these positions and the gut acceptance of them. So most of those I describe by the terms would not be able to offer a coherent defence of atheism/agnosticism. But it is their belief, nevertheless.

It is also true that many who can think rationally and defend their position would be less likely to be the brutal hedonists I described. Most would in practice not follow through the logic of atheism, but devise a morality acceptable to society generally.

1. clearly the Inquisition was found justifiable by Christians, as were witch-trials, and heresy hunts.

These enforcements of theology were wrong - but the actions were in a (mistaken) moral framework, not a wilful denial of morality. Even secular societies punish crimes that they later decide were not crimes at all - drug use; underage sex; etc.

2. in a nutshell, Social Darwinism has two main strands:
a. the belief that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races", and should therefore dominate them.

It didn't apply to Catholic Germans or Enlightenment Europeans?

Can one use evolutionary theory to support Social Darwinism? Not really - actually, the poor have more children than the rich, who are therefore less "fit" in the evolutionary sense. Capitalism/materialism, in fact, is deeply counter-evolutionary, in that it substitutes a materialistic reward system for the "proper" purpose of life, which is more life. Energies that "should" go into breeding and rearing are perverted by materialism into the pursuit of the selfish comfort of the individual - although, again, evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, so the "should" and the "proper" are essentially meaningless.

So we should accept man is no more worthy of dominance than insects? It is the perceived worth of man that was the issue, surely? Not so much the quantity, but the quality.

As a matter of interest, why would God supervise only one locally available version of the Bible, if it is required for salvation? Why doesn't every culture that has a flood myth also have the Bible?

God chooses whom He will save out of all the wicked. To them He sends His word.

I'm not sure I understand this point. The "high hills" of the Black Sea basin might have been covered by a local flood. Nothing requires them to be particularly high, any more than the Dublin Mountains are.

Sure, but that could only apply to a little hill somewhere on the shore of the Black Sea. For Noah to say all the high hills were covered must mean no land above the horizon, no land above the horizon for about a year. Let's make a big allowance and say Noah's high hills were no more than 500 feet high. He says the Ark was lifted about 20 feet above the highest one and it stayed so for about a year. Some local flood! It is better to take the account at face value and say he meant the whole world was flooded and stayed so for the year. Then the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, even though we are not aware of the antipathy in our hearts, the mere fact that we refuse to believe in Him is proof of the fact. That's true for every one who comes into the world, except Christ.

Except for those who never heard of him.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, when one is admitted into prison, the question of formal religious affliliation arises - even if one has never darkened a church doorstep, the authorities like to pidgeon-hole for administrative purposes. And it has some benefits for the inmate, by way of outside contacts.

I served as a prison pastor for some 17 years, 7 of them full-time. I can assure you most offenders are godless. They are their own gods, if you like. What is good for them is good, what is bad for them is bad.

I note that there is in fact a large category of people who describe themselves as being of no religion, so clearly this is not a forced choice, but rather an indication of formal adherence.

If religion has the power to make men moral, then that formal adherence means something. If not, not.

I can tell that you wish to say that true Christians are moral, and I cannot disagree, since you have defined them that way - you have discounted both self-described adherence and formal adherence as indicators of Christianity, except where in addition they meet your criteria of being moral by your definition of the term. This is a closed circle, and I can only stand back and admire it!

Tell me instead - are there any true Christians in prison for criminal actions (as opposed to, say, witnessing in China)?

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree there is a distinction between the thinking adherence to these positions and the gut acceptance of them. So most of those I describe by the terms would not be able to offer a coherent defence of atheism/agnosticism. But it is their belief, nevertheless.

It is also true that many who can think rationally and defend their position would be less likely to be the brutal hedonists I described. Most would in practice not follow through the logic of atheism, but devise a morality acceptable to society generally.

I can't deny this either, for the reason given above. I would simply say that, since most describe themselves as of a religious persuasion, it is clear that following a religion by itself does not make men moral.

wolfsbane wrote:

These enforcements of theology were wrong - but the actions were in a (mistaken) moral framework, not a wilful denial of morality. Even secular societies punish crimes that they later decide were not crimes at all - drug use; underage sex; etc.

My apologies - the interruption by ISAW has made me lose the thread of this one entirely. Let me come back to it.

wolfsbane wrote:

It didn't apply to Catholic Germans or Enlightenment Europeans?

Well, it was particularly a Northern European phenomenon. Catholic Europe, by and large, had to make do with old-fashioned racism. It would certainly have affected Catholics in those countries in which it was/is prevalent.

wolfsbane wrote:

So we should accept man is no more worthy of dominance than insects? It is the perceived worth of man that was the issue, surely? Not so much the quantity, but the quality.

This is the case. Man is no more "worthy" of dominance than insects, or dinosaurs, or blue-green algae. Is the biggest bully in school the most worthy person? Is the con who runs the prison the most worthy person?

wolfsbane wrote:

God chooses whom He will save out of all the wicked. To them He sends His word.

Yes, and he sent it (in effect) to Europe (and by extension the colonies). How neatly that dovetails with Social Darwinism!

Social Darwinism, to me, was/is an application of a misunderstood scientific paradigm to the age-old question - "how come we're so special?" - by people in whose minds was already firmly entrenched the idea that Northern Europeans were God's chosen people. It was taken up, not because it represented any actual part of Darwinism, but because it is convenient to pretend that your personal theories have a scientific imprimatur they are almost certainly lacking.

Consider "moral relativism", and the phrase "it's all relative, isn't it?" - tell me, what have these to do with Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

wolfsbane wrote:

Sure, but that could only apply to a little hill somewhere on the shore of the Black Sea. For Noah to say all the high hills were covered must mean no land above the horizon, no land above the horizon for about a year. Let's make a big allowance and say Noah's high hills were no more than 500 feet high. He says the Ark was lifted about 20 feet above the highest one and it stayed so for about a year. Some local flood! It is better to take the account at face value and say he meant the whole world was flooded and stayed so for the year. Then the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat.

Wouldn't one just say "there was no land to be seen"? After all, what were the chances that after a year in the greatest inundation the world has ever seen, Noah would land such a small distance from his origin (but nevertheless not at his origin)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

One is what God gave, the other a perversion of it. That's the theological objection to homosexuality.

I understand it, I just don't think it makes very much sense at all, even within a theological sense. It is basically saying God has upset himself, since God made homosexuality part of nature.

wolfsbane wrote:

The practical objections range from it being unnatural (non-reproductive in all circumstances) to its being physically damaging (rectal continance) and medically dangerous (STDs).

All of which can also be applied to heterosexual sex (even the "physically damaging" part :cool:)

wolfsbane wrote:

But surely you can't deny the great number of male homosexuals who are 'camp'?

True, but I know more non-camp gay men than camp gay men (I think people tend to only notice the camp ones, and not notice the ordinary gay men, of which there are main), and actually the guys I talk to about this say the more feminiate a man is the less attractive they are.

It makes sense that gay men want men, not men pretending to be women. Just as women's tastes range between muscle bound macho men to more sensitive intelligent book worm type men, so too do gay men. But the line is drawn someone, just as most straight women don't want to actually go out with another women.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, it doesn't make any sense to me why someone is gay. Bt it must make sense to them.

Think of it this way. I would never ever in my life want to give another man a blow job, or even recieve a blow job from another man. I would find the whole experience completely disgusting. But my girlfriend doesn't mind and by God Ilove to recieve a blow job from my girlfriend. I don't understand the desire to give a man a blow job, but that doesn't matter.

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe true for some.

No, not really. That theory has been discredited for quite some time. Put simply, your brain and natural development doesn't work like that. It was simply a missguided assumption by people back then based on lack of understanding

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm can only speak of the homosexuals I know. Their family relationships and/or childhood/adolescent experiences did have the imbalance or corrupting influences. Likewise with the few exclusive paedophiles I have dealt with.

Well paedophilia is a different thing all together. Also, I'm not too sure what you mean by "corrupting" influences. Do you mean sexual abuse?

wolfsbane wrote:

He made sex with your spouse as part of nature; not with anyone else, heterosexual or homosexual.

Well that doesn't really make sense, since marriage isn't part of "nature", it is a human/societial construct. Humans were having sex before we could speak to each other, let alone agree to get married to each other.

So you can say that we aren't supposed to have sex unless we are married, which is fine, but then homosexual sex only becomes wrong because at the moment homosexuals can't get married. So why not just let homosexuals get married, then it won't be wrong.

It seems to me that God have made heterosexuals and homosexuals in the same fashion and it is other humans, not God, who conspire to make sure homosexuality is always wrong. Sex before marriage is wrong, but homosexuals can't get married, therefore homosexuality is always wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sex is only the best physical expression of human love today. Then it will be surpassed by the total love of God to us and through us to one another.

So if God is neither heterosexual or homosexual, since He doesn't have sexual desire for another (since who could that other be), how can you say that heterosexual humans are made in His image, but homosexual humans are not, since His image doesn't include sexual preference?

wolfsbane wrote:

The difference is God is perfectly good, perfectly just, absolutely worthy of our obedience and love.

Again, that doesn't make sense. If he is perfectly just worthy and good why does he enslave humanity to his will, or require worship from us? Those traits, if found in a human, would be considered failings. So it doesn't make sense that they could be found in a perfectly good being

wolfsbane wrote:

Being God, it would be immoral for Him to demand less than our love and service.

Its seems an moral failing for a prefectly good being to demand anything.

wolfsbane wrote:

You make him to be worthy of no more than the best man.

No, actually you do, since I know men who do service for others and expect nothing in return, not even recongistion of this service. Following your logic of God these men seem more moral than God, since God does service for others but expects a lot in return.

Simply saying he is perfect goodness yet ignoring what he actually does seems a bit illogical. Surely what He is should be based upon what He does.

wolfsbane wrote:

But there is a further dimension to this worthiness of God to our love: He gave His own Son to suffer our hell on the cross, so that we could be forgiven and made His children.

Well, before we get into the theological discussion of why God had to do anything (why did he have to give his son so we could be forgiven, why not just forgive all sin? He is God after all. Are there external rules God has to follow?), that is no more than many humans have done throughout the ages.

wolfsbane wrote:

As the apostle puts it, We love Him because He first loved us.1 John 4:19.

Seems more that He loves us and expect we love him back in return, does it not?

wolfsbane wrote:

If you or I loved wickedness as you demand God do, we would be condemned by every one on this list, I dare say.

But what is wickedness? God says homosexuality is immoral (according to the Bible, seemingly contradicted by His creation of nature). Apart from that, there is actually nothing wrong with homosexuality. So it is only to please God. If he is a perfect being of goodness, why is it necessary to please him over something that only he cares about?

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Interesting. Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No we didn't get that far in the discussion.

BTW Wicknight, It looks to me that you set it up so you could get the 2,000th post?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

BTW Wicknight, It looks to me that you set it up so you could get the 2,000th post?

A good point to ask (although I'm it's been asked before) whether anyone has actually changed their minds as a result of this (extensive) discussion!

I'm not expecting anyone to have changed their basic positions, but has anyone become more aware of the extent of the available evidence, or the extent of the missing evidence? Have people refined their positions in any way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not expecting anyone to have changed their basic positions, but has anyone become more aware of the extent of the available evidence, or the extent of the missing evidence? Have people refined their positions in any way?

I am mesmerized by it all. I have learned a lot of new stuff and I think that it is a very valuable thread.
I take my hat of to Wolfsbane, JC, pH, wicknight and your good self, plus all who have said their bit, for teaching me so many different things. Keep it up:)

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I understand it, I just don't think it makes very much sense at all, even within a theological sense. It is basically saying God has upset himself, since God made homosexuality part of nature.

Homosexuality is in no way "normal" in the statistical sense. Very few people are homosexual. I do not know what you mean by "part of nature". Are torturers or murderers "part of nature". Note I am not saying homosexuality is the same as murder.

Think of it this way. I would never ever in my life want to give another man a blow job, or even recieve a blow job from another man. I would find the whole experience completely disgusting. But my girlfriend doesn't mind and by God Ilove to recieve a blow job from my girlfriend. I don't understand the desire to give a man a blow job, but that doesn't matter.

This example may explain a lot about sex and christianity. In itself from a christian point of view it is placing desire above the ultimate reasons or motivation behind sex - according to most Christians - i.e. having children in a family in a monogamous hetrosexual relationship. Hedonistic lifestyle is not considered to be the Christian way to live no mare than homosexual lifestyle is. It does not contribute to society or to the next generation. As such The church would see nothing evil about hetrosexuality or homosexuality but on actions based on those dispositions.

Well that doesn't really make sense, since marriage isn't part of "nature", it is a human/societial construct.

what do you mean by this?

Humans were having sex before we could speak to each other, let alone agree to get married to each other.

And that was a preferable situation? Absence of all laws and inhibitions? Humans were also murdering each other before they could speak to each other. from a religion point of view God arrived at some point and had a hand in peoples having souls and concience.

So you can say that we aren't supposed to have sex unless we are married, which is fine, but then homosexual sex only becomes wrong because at the moment homosexuals can't get married.

Well it revolves about the question of "what is marriage?" It involves committment and it involves the procreation of children for a family. Homosexuals can thave children under such conditions. Indeed Isuppose infertile couples are olso not perfect families. The big problem as the church would see it is the debauched hedonistic lifestyle of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

So why not just let homosexuals get married, then it won't be wrong.

Because one can't have homesexual marriage given the above.

It seems to me that God have made heterosexuals and homosexuals in the same fashion and it is other humans, not God, who conspire to make sure homosexuality is always wrong. Sex before marriage is wrong, but homosexuals can't get married, therefore homosexuality is always wrong.

Wrong! Homosexual sex is always wrong as the church would see it. Indeed any sex not for love is wrong. Love suggests in committed marriage and for children.

So if God is neither heterosexual or homosexual, since He doesn't have sexual desire for another (since who could that other be), how can you say that heterosexual humans are made in His image, but homosexual humans are not, since His image doesn't include sexual preference?

I dont know where the Church says that. It says ALL humans are made in Gods image.

Again, that doesn't make sense. If he is perfectly just worthy and good why does he enslave humanity to his will, or require worship from us?

He doesn't! No arguement there.

No, actually you do, since I know men who do service for others and expect nothing in return, not even recongistion of this service. Following your logic of God these men seem more moral than God, since God does service for others but expects a lot in return.

No He doesnt! You are free to choose but you are warned of the consequences of the wrong choice. Now will you take the blue pill or the red one?

Simply saying he is perfect goodness yet ignoring what he actually does seems a bit illogical. Surely what He is should be based upon what He does.

this is a vry insightful comment. Is God a blind watchmaker who does not interact with his creation? Christians would suggest not.

Well, before we get into the theological discussion of why God had to do anything (why did he have to give his son so we could be forgiven, why not just forgive all sin?

One answer to that is in the insightful comment you made above. another is the "I am God I can do anything" excuse, but by actually showing "Though I an God you are human you can do this too without any Godlike powers" .

He is God after all. Are there external rules God has to follow?), that is no more than many humans have done throughout the ages.

this is just "isn't it turtles all the way dowwn" isnt it?

But what is wickedness? God says homosexuality is immoral (according to the Bible, seemingly contradicted by His creation of nature).

For Biblical counter examples try the godlovesfags website.

Apart from that, there is actually nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Yes that is exactly what the Church say as far as I know.

So it is only to please God. If he is a perfect being of goodness, why is it necessary to please him over something that only he cares about?

Only him? I dont know what you mean. But for the sake of argument say god knows about an alien race and cares about them. We should have morality enough to know that we also should care should we discover other worlds.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Homosexuality is in no way "normal" in the statistical sense.

Neither is having red hair. But having red hair is still a product of nature, and one assumes therefore God.

ISAW wrote:

I do not know what you mean by "part of nature".

Part of nature as in a naturally occuring phenomona, not a learned behaviour found only in humans.

ISAW wrote:

Are torturers or murderers "part of nature".

Depends on what causes them to be torturers or murderers. There is some forms of psychopathy can be present at birth.

ISAW wrote:

Hedonistic lifestyle is not considered to be the Christian way to live no mare than homosexual lifestyle is.

Possibly true, but then I imagine most straight Christians have no problem indulging in "hedonistic" behaviour when they want to. Does anyone seriously believe that there are a large number of Christians out there who only have sex, or indulge in sexual behaviour, to produce children?

ISAW wrote:

what do you mean by this?

Exactly what I said. The human concept of "marriage" is a construction of human society. It is a ritual, it requires a large number of complex higher societal functions to exist, such as complex language, concepts of community, concepts of ritual, concepts of long term planning. It is not a naturally occuring phenomona, we (humans) invented it.

ISAW wrote:

And that was a preferable situation?

Doesn't really matter, since the arguement isn't that God wants us to have sex within marriage because it is a better way to live, it is that sex outside of marriage is a perversion of his original plan, which seems strange to me since for hundreds of thousands of years that is all humans could do, since marriage hadn't been invented yet.

You would think that if it was God original plan He would give use the ability to understand marriage first, before He gave us sex, especially considering if humans didn't have sex outside of marriage thousands of years ago none of us would be hear right now. Did all our ancestors commit a serious sin just so we could exist? Did God forgive this sin because they new know better (kinda hard to get married when you have no concept of the ritual, or can't even speak to each other)

ISAW wrote:

The big problem as the church would see it is the debauched hedonistic lifestyle of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

So would the church would not marry a heterosexual couple if they knew they could not have children?

ISAW wrote:

Wrong! Homosexual sex is always wrong as the church would see it. Indeed any sex not for love is wrong.

Why is homosexual sex not for love?

ISAW wrote:

Love suggests in committed marriage and for children.

So you have to want children to be in love with someone? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since I've been in love and have no desire for children in my life right now.

Besides, there is a difference between not being able to children and not wanting to have children. I know a lot of homosexual couples who would love to have children together. Because it is not biologically possible doesn't mean neither want children.

So, as I said, homosexual sex is always wrong with in the church, because there is no way to make it "right", as there is with heterosexual sex. But this is not a property of homosexual sex, it is a consequence of the restrictions human society and religion places on homosexuals themselves

ISAW wrote:

I dont know where the Church says that. It says ALL humans are made in Gods image.

Well the argument being made by Wolfbane was that homosexual sex is a perversion of Gods image or love or something, where as heterosexual sex isn't. I assume it is based on a belief that homosexuals can't actually be in love with each other, and the sex is based on pure desire and lust.

Not really following his logic myself, so I'm probably not the best to explain the logic.

ISAW wrote:

No He doesnt! You are free to choose but you are warned of the consequences of the wrong choice. Now will you take the blue pill or the red one?

Yes and slaves in the Deep South were free to leave the plantation anytime they like, they would just be shot if they did.

ISAW wrote:

Is God a blind watchmaker who does not interact with his creation? Christians would suggest not.

Certainly true, which is why I find it strange that people ignore what He is supposed to have actually done, and instead base their descriptions of Him on some form of abstract notion of what a god should be.

I find it hard to understand how someone would believe God to be a being of perfect goodness if he incinerated an entire city because people were having sex with each other, something that has no logical immorality except that it displeases God.

ISAW wrote:

One answer to that is in the insightful comment you made above. another is the "I am God I can do anything" excuse, but by actually showing "Though I an God you are human you can do this too without any Godlike powers" .

Not following you. God gave up His son to die as an example to humans of how they too can give up their sins? That doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense in the context of the resurection or Old Testement laws.

ISAW wrote:

For Biblical counter examples try the godlovesfags website.

Well to be perfectly honest with you if I was a Christian I would tend to ignore the Bible all together when it contradicts nature itself.

ISAW wrote:

Only him? I dont know what you mean.

Only him as in no one else has a problem with it and there is no logical reason why it is immoral. It is only Gods hang ups about sex that are the reason why it is considered immoral.

Which goes back to a being of perfect goodness. Why would a being of perfect goodness decide something is wrong when there is no actual reason why it is wrong.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

A good point to ask (although I'm it's been asked before) whether anyone has actually changed their minds as a result of this (extensive) discussion!

I'm not expecting anyone to have changed their basic positions, but has anyone become more aware of the extent of the available evidence, or the extent of the missing evidence? Have people refined their positions in any way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

My position has been refined and the whole discussion has given me a lot to think about. My position on there being a creator has not changed. It has been fun to watch and hats off to all for remaining calm and respectful for the most part. Although I'm sure at times it was difficult.

ISAW

QUOTE=Wicknight]Neither is having red hair. But having red hair is still a product of nature, and one assumes therefore God.
[/quote]
Statistically "normal" I said

Part of nature as in a naturally occuring phenomona, not a learned behaviour found only in humans.

Like swans living in pairs and not pairing up after the mate dies?

Depends on what causes them to be torturers or murderers. There is some forms of psychopathy can be present at birth.

so some people are predisposed to rape and murder and just arent plain evil? I wil lremember that.

Possibly true, but then I imagine most straight Christians have no problem indulging in "hedonistic" behaviour when they want to. Does anyone seriously believe that there are a large number of Christians out there who only have sex, or indulge in sexual behaviour, to produce children?

Still wouldnt make it right.

Exactly what I said. The human concept of "marriage" is a construction of human society. It is a ritual, it requires a large number of complex higher societal functions to exist, such as complex language, concepts of community, concepts of ritual, concepts of long term planning. It is not a naturally occuring phenomona, we (humans) invented it.

i dont suppose you believe knowledge and molocules are "social constructs"
given what you siad law and social mores are social constructs. so if a cave man raped and murdered then he wasnt really doing anything wrong since the law or social convention against rape wasnt there?

Doesn't really matter, since the arguement isn't that God wants us to have sex within marriage because it is a better way to live, it is that sex outside of marriage is a perversion of his original plan, which seems strange to me since for hundreds of thousands of years that is all humans could do, since marriage hadn't been invented yet.

Nor had law against rape. So you think a cave man couldnt rape a woman?

You would think that if it was God original plan He would give use the ability to understand marriage first, before He gave us sex, especially considering if humans didn't have sex outside of marriage thousands of years ago none of us would be hear right now.

One can marry in a church and not sign the register. One would then be married but not legally.

Did all our ancestors commit a serious sin just so we could exist?

Look up "original sin"

Did God forgive this sin because they new know better (kinda hard to get married when you have no concept of the ritual, or can't even speak to each other)

Ah the pooor swans

see above re marriage without law.

So would the church would not marry a heterosexual couple if they knew they could not have children?

Probably not advised. it is certainly grounds for annulment.

Why is homosexual sex not for love?

Not wat I stated. I stated for that matter heterosexual sex just for pleasure is also viewed as wrong.

So you have to want children to be in love with someone?

Nope you have to want to have children in order to have your own family.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since I've been in love and have no desire for children in my life right now.

Then you will miss out. ever considered the clergy?

Besides, there is a difference between not being able to children and not wanting to have children. I know a lot of homosexual couples who would love to have children together. Because it is not biologically possible doesn't mean neither want children.

No matter how much they want them they CANT have offspring.

So, as I said, homosexual sex is always wrong with in the church, because there is no way to make it "right", as there is with heterosexual sex. But this is not a property of homosexual sex, it is a consequence of the restrictions human society and religion places on homosexuals themselves

And gaol is a consequence society places on people who rape minors. Even if they are "perdisposed" to rape statutory rape means they still ghave no defence.

Yes and slaves in the Deep South were free to leave the plantation anytime they like, they would just be shot if they did.

More like take the road North and be free take the road south back to slavery (unlikely they would kill a slave). Choice is yours.

I find it hard to understand how someone would believe God to be a being of perfect goodness if he incinerated an entire city because people were having sex with each other, something that has no logical immorality except that it displeases God.

If you refer rto Soddam and gomorrah (TWO cities) then
1. Teh sex bit was about a male being made to take on a subservient womans role.
2. the main story is about punishment due to refusing hospitality

Not following you. God gave up His son to die as an example to humans of how they too can give up their sins? That doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense in the context of the resurection or Old Testement laws.

REally ? How so?
Try this: "You can live just like me by following my way and you dont have to have any God powers. I am God telling you this and I am fulfilling a promise to you by telling you. Now you know I am God because I can come back from the dead, which is something I did AFTER I died . you cant do that bit but the message is about how to life up till death. Anything I did of myself ( and not for others) you can do. Yes I did miricales but never for my own benefit and you do not have to do miracles. Just living as I did is enough. Any human being can do it. I have shown you that. You will however die and only I can bring you back to life. But the living part is the important thing for now. "

Well to be perfectly honest with you if I was a Christian I would tend to ignore the Bible all together when it contradicts nature itself.

It isnt a science text. Where is the contradiction?
Please also not this is a Christian Forum. You must refer to what people believe and quote from that. Don't come here with a list of "I believe this and my book says this" You have to argue based on Christian tradition (written and oral) and practice as well.

Why would a being of perfect goodness decide something is wrong when there is no actual reason why it is wrong.

Teh reasons are listed above. Selfishness etc. They apply to heterosexuals also.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Statistically "normal" I said

I know

ISAW wrote:

Like swans living in pairs and not pairing up after the mate dies?

Sure, why not

ISAW wrote:

so some people are predisposed to rape and murder and just arent plain evil? I wil lremember that.

Some people are, they can be born with abnormal brain development. Psycopathic behaviour has been identifed in quite young children. Other people can become psycopathic after suffering damage or injury to certain parts of the brain. Others develop it due to environmental influences.

What this has to do with homosexuality I'm not sure, because the "bad" bit about being a psychopathic serial killer isn't the manner that you got to be like that, its the fact that you are killing people. If you are a potentially violent psychopathic but some how manage to go your entire life without ever hurting someone, then thats grand, no one cares.

Also I don't know what you mean by "evil". To me that is one of these abstract words that doesn't actually mean anything that we try to fit over events we don't understand. Being "evil" isn't a real condition, you aren't diagnosed with the "evil gene" (except in Simpsons episodes). People do certain things for certain reasons, and these actions can be immoral, hurtful, violent etc. You can call these "evil" if you like, but that doesn't actual explain what caused them. You aren't "evil" instead of something else. You are something (psychopatic for example), and if you want to call that "evil" thats fine, but "evil" by itself doesn't mean or example anything.

ISAW wrote:

Still wouldnt make it right.

No, just hypocritical

ISAW wrote:

i dont suppose you believe knowledge and molocules are "social constructs"
given what you siad law and social mores are social constructs.

Not quite sure what you mean. "Knowledge" is learned (stored) information or behaviour. It doesn't makes sense in that context to say it is or is not a social construct. Learning is not a social construct, it is a biological action. We learn and retain knowledge because of the way our brain is set up.

What you learn doesn't have to be social constructions, but it can be, as in the case of language. The concept of "marriage" is a social construct that is learned by new members of the society (ie children). That doesn't mean it necessarily has to be taught to them, they can learn of the ritual by simply knowing it exists.

ISAW wrote:

so if a cave man raped and murdered then he wasnt really doing anything wrong since the law or social convention against rape wasnt there?

Not quite sure how you can say that, I'm pretty sure the rest of the cave might have a problem with it, as would the woman who was raped and murdered.

ISAW wrote:

Nor had law against rape. So you think a cave man couldnt rape a woman?

Does the cave man have to rape the woman for the human race to survive? Has God set up the Earth so people have to kill and rape to continue the species? Not really.

He did set up the world so people had to have sex (out side of marriage, since marriage didn't exist) for the human species to continue to exist, so it seems a little strange that he would require hundreds of thousands of early humans to commit a sin for thousands of years until they could develop to a point where they could make up the idea of marriage.

ISAW wrote:

One can marry in a church and not sign the register. One would then be married but not legally.

Are you saying that early humans 50,000 years ago had churches, the concept of marriage or even language to communicate that concept?

ISAW wrote:

Look up "original sin"

I'm not talking about original sin, I'm talking about God requiring early "cave" men to have sinful sex just to make sure the species continues up to a point where they can invent marriage and then stop having sinful sex.

ISAW wrote:

Probably not advised. it is certainly grounds for annulment.

Would the church not allow it?

ISAW wrote:

Not wat I stated. I stated for that matter heterosexual sex just for pleasure is also viewed as wrong.

Not with in a marriage seemingly, as Brian has stated.

ISAW wrote:

Nope you have to want to have children in order to have your own family.

Whats that got to do with love then?

ISAW wrote:

Then you will miss out. ever considered the clergy?

I thought love didn't require children? Now I'm confused, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

ISAW wrote:

No matter how much they want them they CANT have offspring.

And neither can a lot of heterosexual couples, who are still allowed marry by the church.

As I asked before (and didn't get an answer) would a Christian Church refuse to marry a heterosexual couple if they couldn't produce offspring?

ISAW wrote:

And gaol is a consequence society places on people who rape minors. Even if they are "perdisposed" to rape statutory rape means they still ghave no defence.

Satutory rape is illegal (and morally wrong) because it damages the child. Who is damanged in adult homosexual relationships? Where is the harm/immorality in homosexual relationships external to religious loopholes. Or put it another way, is there any reason against homosexual relationships except that the Bible says they are wrong?

ISAW wrote:

More like take the road North and be free take the road south back to slavery (unlikely they would kill a slave). Choice is yours.

But God built the roads. He could have built both of them to freedom, he chose not to, instead he build one to hell and the other back to the slave plantation.

Which would you pick?

ISAW wrote:

If you refer rto Soddam and gomorrah (TWO cities) then
1. Teh sex bit was about a male being made to take on a subservient womans role.
2. the main story is about punishment due to refusing hospitality

Does it sound like a being of perfect goodness?

ISAW wrote:

It isnt a science text. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction (to me) is that people had already been shown exactly how to live. And as you point out, most of what Jesus did normal people couldn't do. So I still don't get how Jesus dying was an example to anyone or Jesus simply doing something else that didn't require him dying.

But you are right, this is a Christian forum. I'll take you word on it that it makes sense in the context of the Bible.

ISAW wrote:

Teh reasons are listed above. Selfishness etc. They apply to heterosexuals also.

And if it isn't selfish? Or in your mind are all homosexual relationships selfish?

Goes back to the human restrictions put on homosexuals. Homosexual sex and relationships are selfish because they take place outside of marriage. But then they only take place outside of marriage because homosexuals can't marry.

So just like all people had do 50,000 years ago, homosexual people are forced to "live in sin" because society stops them from being able to change that.

To me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Lunoma

Ok, I thought this was a thread discussing Creationism and Evolutionism, not homosexuality ! Anyway, I'm gay, Reform Jewish and believe in Evolution! I don't really care what others think of my sexuality as I think that love is same in any shape or form. Love is all that matters!

5uspect

Hey, long time watcher, this is my first post in this impressive thread.

Lunoma wrote:

Ok, I thought this was a thread discussing Creationism and Evolutionism, not homosexuality ! Anyway, I'm gay, Reform Jewish and believe in Evolution! I don't really care what others think of my sexuality as I think that love is same in any shape or form. Love is all that matters!

I think this is an example of the conflicts between the religious and the secular world. The main arguement here is about evolution vs creationism, but here we see the issues of homosexuality, abstract concepts such as good or evil and even the issues of enforced morals or self imposed morals.

I'm an athiest, i believe religion as a hypothesis for the origin of life and moral compass has had its day and should lie down and die. Unfortunately religious fundalmentalism is on the rise. People trying to force blind superstition on others in the face of all reason is plain ludricous and wrong.
The evidence supports evolution by natural selection, and the body of knowledge regarding this evidence in the scientific literature in growing daily. Researchers and refining and adding to the theory all the time.

Creationism clings to ever shakey ground with each of its incarnations.
We've gone from pure bible thumping Scopes era adam and eve rubbish to Intelligent design which selectively acknowledging aspects of evolution while diliberately being dishonest about other aspects to drum up a phantom contraversy.

The evidence for intelligent design (as for creationism) is non-existent. If anything the whole thing has shown public exasperation with science.
Hopefully this will change, allowing people greater insight into the scientific method.

I think people look for the "simple" answer to hard questions. "God did it" works for so many people as the concept of God is something that has been indoctrinated into most of us since we first learned to speak. Science comes much later unfortunately. which do you believe? the reassuring story bases on blind faith alone that you're special and if you're good you go to this wonderful place called heaven (and if you don't then you're in trouble) or the seemingly rather cold scientific theory (i said "scientific theory" as discussed so much) that says your a product of an impersonal process resulting in life which seems nothing more than some green scum growing on some small rock in the wastes of cold space where your sole function is merely to survive long enough to reproduce.

Religion attempt to provide an answer to why are we here, not how we got here and where we are going (that is for science and evolution). the validity of religions answer can be seen in the fractured nature of the worlds religions. People (not God) disagreeing over the rules. Morality, good, evil (even marriage) are all concepts of human society. Religion should not have a monopoly on these concepts. These concepts are useful because they can be used to ensure everyone gets a fair go at life. Thats why we have the UN charter of Human Rights and Civil law. The goodness or badness of something is decided by the majority of those people who live in those times. Religion tries to impose outdated and often clearly wrong morals on people. What is wrong with homosexuality in a society? who does it hurt? In a world where God is the supreme authority and the bible is his word, it only hurts God. otherwise no one we can actually prove exists is hurt. so why should we discriminate against real people that we know exist for fear of offending some supernatural being which we have absolutely no evidence of?

I think thats about enough of my incorherent ravings for now

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Complete and total nonsense. We've already shown you (several times) a few large-scale studies in which religious societies have consistently higher rates of crime and dishonesty than non-religious ones.

I wonder if that has anything to do with their relative prosperity? But more importantly, it assumes that the society is homogenous, ie, that religion informs the lifestyle of all its members. Of course it does not.

Where I live there are a big number of practicing religious folk, Christian and otherwise. From my knowledge of who appears before the courts, extremely few of them are from that group. The great majority are the godless sort.

How come, since Northern Ireland is so religious? Answer: only part of Northern Ireland is religious. We are not uniformly religious and it is the non-religious section that commits the great majority of crime ( of course, the non-religious community is also not homogenous; a part of them is just as moral as the religious sort). The bottom line is: non-religious types are much more likely to commit crime than religious types.

Within the USA, the states with the highest rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, abortions, divorces and domestic violence are the god-feerin', bible belt states.

Really? California better than Oklahoma? I'd like to see the stats. if you have them.

Last year, I referred to a good documentary from PBS about the pitiful state of teenage sex-ed in Lubbock, Texas, and what happened when a teenager tried to do something about it, and had to go up against the self-appointed religious leaders in her town, with the tacit backing of the local hospital who are the people who have to pick up the pieces left behind when the religious abandon people:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/

It's an instructive documentary on the blatant, and thoroughly cynical, amorality of religious leaders. If anybody's interested in this doc, PM me and I'll make it available.

I checked the site. Left me a bit confused. Do they not teach the kids the facts of life? One side seemed to suggest they did. Or was it that they did not teach them about contraceptives and which devices best protected against STDs?

I would certainly agree that all late primary school kids need to know the facts about sex. But they ought not to be advised on how to have illicit sex and get away with it: it needs to put in terms of warning against illicit sex, giving the dangers that flow from it. So the kid will be just as informed as those getting the full liberal 'have sex safely' routine, but with the wisdom of waiting for a faithful partner reinforced.

In my own software business, we deal with the Middle-East, the USA and Europe. I find consistently that people from the USA are difficult to deal with and never pay on time, and rarely by the means agreed (so we end up out of pocket). Within the religious Middle-East, it's even worse. The only county which consistently pays our invoice amounts, on time, are the atheistic Scandinavians. In the last few weeks, I've been out of Ireland and taxi drivers, hoteliers and restauranteurs in Malaysia (Islamic, with a heavy christian evangelist presence) and Dubai (Islam, Hinduism) have tried to screw me. The only folks who've not consistently not tried to screw me, are the good citizens of Singapore which is majority Buddhist.

Money is certainly a test of the reality of one's religion. You may well have encountered religious frauds; but remember my previous point - religious societies are not homogenous. Remember too that many societies are only nominally religious: people who observe the minimum of religion to maintain their social status and comfort zone, but have no real commitment to the morality of their religion.

Your assertion that you're likely to be harmed by a godless man than a godly one, is shown, yet again, to be completely false. Have you ever travelled anywhere and actually experienced anything of what you're talking about? Or are you simply restating a pious lie?

Yes, I have travelled a bit; Europe. I also keep in touch with friends throughout the world. I have the TV to inform me about many lands I will never visit. I have especially observed my own society (Northern Ireland) and to a lesser extent the Republic and G.B. In my trips to the latter two, I was very conscious of the need to beware of the godless youths in the estates and in the city centres. My friends in those places gave invaluable advice. Never once did they warn me about the folk coming out of the mid-week prayer meeting or from Mass.

That is my advice to you too, if you come up here from a visit: beware of the godless youths on the housing estates, coming out of the city centre bars, etc. Don't worry about the folk coming out of the many churches and chapels you may encounter.

You must live in a different world than I have ever seen, where you get mugged walking past the church, but welcomed and helped by the gangs of youths roaming the town!

Scofflaw

Lunoma wrote:

Ok, I thought this was a thread discussing Creationism and Evolutionism, not homosexuality !

Well, the scientific evidence has been under consideration, mostly, but the discussion is currently focused on the charge that "evolutionism" leads to or encourages immorality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wickknight said:

I agree 100% with you, but wolfbanes argument is rather self-fulling, because by definition anyone that does try and harm him is Godless, otherwise they wouldn't try and harm him

A good point. But it is slightly modified by the out-of-character offences even true Christians sometimes fall into. The difference is that of usual practice as opposed to exceptional occasion.

To explain this creationists like JC come up with ridiculous explinations, like the Earth was totally flat so the oceans could cover them, and then some how the ocean floor was pushed down and the land mass pushed up so all the water flowed into the ocean. That is ridiculous in the extreme, there is no know process that could cause that event, or known evidence that even suggests it happened or is even possible. Put simply he is just making that up. It is as valid a theory as asking a 3 year old where chocolate comes from.

You should have checked with Scofflaw before writing that. Here's his from post 1992: Interesting. Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date? It is well-documented that marine fossils are found high up mountain ranges.

It is interesting, but is it true? Can't find any references. If it was it would really blow the whole Young Earth out of the water (as if the theory can be blow ever higher out of the water).

No, the fact that a clay tablet records the history or myths of a society that lived before Moses does not mean that Moses dervived his account from them. It is perfectly reasonable to think that such an event - the world-wide Flood - would be remembered by many societies down the ages. That their accuracy in recalling it will differ is also reasonable.

BTW, where is JC? Is he in a cave somewhere praying to God for all our unholy heretic souls to shown the light?

I imagine he is a busy family man and has many spiritual and employment commitments as well. But I am sure he is indeed praying for you all.

since God made homosexuality part of nature.

That's like saying God made murder a part of nature. God did not make us sinful, we became so of our own choice.

Well paedophilia is a different thing all together. Also, I'm not too sure what you mean by "corrupting" influences. Do you mean sexual abuse?

From my talks with paedophiles, the same defence of 'That's the way I was born' is given as with homosexuals. But the same factors seem to be at work, contributing to a sinful choice being made: sexual abuse by others; unbalanced parental relationship; re-inforcement of unnatural behaviour.

how can you say that heterosexual humans are made in His image, but homosexual humans are not, since His image doesn't include sexual preference?

I never said such a thing. All sorts of sinners are made in His image. The image is not about sex - Adam and Eve were both in His image, even though of the opposite sex. It is the morally-aware part of our being, our spirits, that bear His image.

He is God after all. Are there external rules God has to follow?

He has to be true to His own nature. He cannot deny himself, deny His holiness.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:
I wonder if that has anything to do with their relative prosperity? But more importantly, it assumes that the society is homogenous, ie, that religion informs the lifestyle of all its members. Of course it does not.

That's not the case, since the statistics are specifically about the correlation between proportion of believers in each state and social indicators. The surveys don't make an assumption that "such and such a nation is religious".

wolfsbane wrote:

Where I live there are a big number of practicing religious folk, Christian and otherwise. From my knowledge of who appears before the courts, extremely few of them are from that group. The great majority are the godless sort.

How come, since Northern Ireland is so religious? Answer: only part of Northern Ireland is religious. We are not uniformly religious and it is the non-religious section that commits the great majority of crime ( of course, the non-religious community is also not homogenous; a part of them is just as moral as the religious sort). The bottom line is: non-religious types are much more likely to commit crime than religious types.

Do you consider those who commit sectarian crimes to be "non-religious"? That seems rather a strange way of looking at it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Really? California better than Oklahoma? I'd like to see the stats. if you have them.

Pointers to stats, or (apologies) pointers to pointers...:

1. Divorce: U.S. DIVORCE RATES:
For various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas from religioustolerance.org

2. Divorce: US Divorce Rates from a divorce reform group

3. Teen pregnancy: Rates state by state - appears to show this as mostly being a southern phenomenon, and Oklahoma is lower than California!

4. STD - top 10 states:

Rank Syphilis Chlamydia Gonnorhea
1 Louisiana (7.4) Mississippi (654.7) Mississippi (248.6)
2 Maryland (6.9) Alaska (609.4) Louisiana (234.4)
3 Georgia (6.3) Louisiana (485.7) South Carolina (221.1)
4 New Mexico (4.4) New Mexico (482.0) Alabama (182.3)
5 Florida (4.3) South Carolina (444.2) Georgia (181.7)
6 California (3.8) Hawaii (422.0) North Carolina (180.7)
7 New York (3.8) Michigan (409.2) Ohio (179.0)
8 Texas (3.7) Georgia (394.7) Michigan (172.4)
9 Alabama (3.7) Tennessee (385.4) Illinois (162.8)
10 Illinois (3.1) Missouri (373.7) Missouri (161.6)

5. Domestic Homicide: rates by state - is that the Bible Belt in red there?

I checked the site. Left me a bit confused. Do they not teach the kids the facts of life? One side seemed to suggest they did. Or was it that they did not teach them about contraceptives and which devices best protected against STDs?

wolfsbane wrote:

I would certainly agree that all late primary school kids need to know the facts about sex. But they ought not to be advised on how to have illicit sex and get away with it: it needs to put in terms of warning against illicit sex, giving the dangers that flow from it. So the kid will be just as informed as those getting the full liberal 'have sex safely' routine, but with the wisdom of waiting for a faithful partner reinforced.

What "dangers" flow from "illicit sex"? And while I'm asking, what is illicit sex? Is all sex outside marriage "illicit sex"? Does that mean I've had "illicit sex"?

wolfsbane wrote:

In my trips to the latter two, I was very conscious of the need to beware of the godless youths in the estates and in the city centres. My friends in those places gave invaluable advice. Never once did they warn me about the folk coming out of the mid-week prayer meeting or from Mass.

That is my advice to you too, if you come up here from a visit: beware of the godless youths on the housing estates, coming out of the city centre bars, etc. Don't worry about the folk coming out of the many churches and chapels you may encounter.

To be frank, I wouldn't worry about Nazi thugs if they were coming out of church, wolfsbane. Not because they're more godly, and therefore somehow more moral, as you like to claim, but because their actions are highly constrained by social norms in that context, where the opposite is true in the city centre at night.

wolfsbane wrote:

You must live in a different world than I have ever seen, where you get mugged walking past the church, but welcomed and helped by the gangs of youths roaming the town!

As above. It's clear that you are simply making an assumption that fits your prejudices. You have no way of knowing whether the godless are those coming out of church (as you've pointed out yourself), while the gangs of youths are actually Christian skinheads.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

3. Teen pregnancy: Rates state by state - appears to show this as mostly being a southern phenomenon, and Oklahoma is lower than California!

My experience in travelling throughout my neighbours country is that the midwest is far more Christian than the south. The south just has the mouthier ones.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You should have checked with Scofflaw before writing that. Here's his from post 1992: Interesting. Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date? It is well-documented that marine fossils are found high up mountain ranges.

Now don't be cheeky! JC's explanation bears no sensible resemblance to reality. The Archaean Period I refer to was prior to the production of the continents (early Archaean), and there are no known fossils from that time. There are fossils at the top of Mount Everest because the rocks the Himalaya are formed from are marine sediments, caught between India and Asia and squeezed up high (still rising).

None of the above should be taken in any way to even remotely resemble a global flood in human history!

wolfsbane wrote:

No, the fact that a clay tablet records the history or myths of a society that lived before Moses does not mean that Moses dervived his account from them. It is perfectly reasonable to think that such an event - the world-wide Flood - would be remembered by many societies down the ages. That their accuracy in recalling it will differ is also reasonable.

Except that the similarities are many - too many for coincidence. Therefore, they are talking about the same flood, with "Moses'" account being the datably later one, and containing many borrowings.

wolfsbane wrote:

That's like saying God made murder a part of nature. God did not make us sinful, we became so of our own choice.

Except that all our choices are (a) known by God, (b) encompassed by God, and (c) take place in a world created by God. Accessory before the fact.

wolfsbane wrote:

From my talks with paedophiles, the same defence of 'That's the way I was born' is given as with homosexuals. But the same factors seem to be at work, contributing to a sinful choice being made: sexual abuse by others; unbalanced parental relationship; re-inforcement of unnatural behaviour.

As maybe, but one is harmful in the eyes of both God and Man, one only in specific sectal interpretations of God.

I will specifically ask that no attempt is made to confuse or link paedophilia with homosexuality during this discussion. That is an old old accusation without any foundation in reality - heterosexual paedophilia seems to be a good deal more common, if rates of child abuse by men of female children are anything to go by.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

1. Divorce: U.S. DIVORCE RATES:
For various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas from religioustolerance.org

I would put this question to the interviewers as well. What is the background behind each divorce. We have a woman in our church who became a Christian yet her husband continued to play around on her while out on the oil rigs. They ended up divorcing without him ever coming to Christ. So is that a Christian divorce or no? Where would that stat go. Is the number higher because of one spouse becoming a Christian and the other not and leaving? Just some thoughts.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

My experience in travelling throughout my neighbours country is that the midwest is far more Christian than the south. The south just has the mouthier ones.

Possibly, but regrettably anecdotal! I don't intend to sound dismissive or offensive, but there's unfortunately no way of objectively checking that statement (unless someone can provide stats). The southern states are those normally referred to as the "Bible Belt".

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Possibly, but regrettably anecdotal! I don't intend to sound dismissive or offensive, but there's unfortunately no way of objectively checking that statement (unless someone can provide stats). The southern states are those normally referred to as the "Bible Belt".

cordially,
Scofflaw

True enough there isn't a way to check it out. Although it is referred to as the Bible Belt it would be interesting to know what percentage of the population in the midwest vs. the south would consider themselves Christian? Remember Ireland is known as a Catholic Country. How much is that statement still true?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Except for those who never heard of him.

Even those who never heard the gospel have enough witness of His existence to leave them without excuse:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

I note that there is in fact a large category of people who describe themselves as being of no religion, so clearly this is not a forced choice, but rather an indication of formal adherence.

If religion has the power to make men moral, then that formal adherence means something. If not, not.

It does indeed mean something: that God has left them (to date) in their rebellion. When He chooses, His power to radically change the worst of men is unleased in conversion: the rebel is convicted in his heart that he is a sinner, God is real, Christ has died to pardon him, and he responds in repentance and faith. He is saved and begins a new life as a servant of God.

I can tell that you wish to say that true Christians are moral, and I cannot disagree, since you have defined them that way - you have discounted both self-described adherence and formal adherence as indicators of Christianity, except where in addition they meet your criteria of being moral by your definition of the term. This is a closed circle, and I can only stand back and admire it!

Yes, except as I said to Wicknight, even true Christians fall occasionally. The difference is the normal practice as opposed to exceptional failure.

Tell me instead - are there any true Christians in prison for criminal actions (as opposed to, say, witnessing in China)?

Yes, but few. I am unable to think of any I encountered in my time who were Christians and then committed an offence that brought them to prison. But there will certainly be some. A reckless moment in a car; a heated argument that ends in a punch that kills someone when they hit the pavement; a desperate attempt to avoid bankrupcy by fiddling the VAT man. What I don't expect is a career as a swindler; a rapist; a drug-dealer. All of these are lifestyles, a practise rather than an exceptional fall into temptation and sin.

I can't deny this either, for the reason given above. I would simply say that, since most describe themselves as of a religious persuasion, it is clear that following a religion by itself does not make men moral.

Depends what we mean by 'following a religion'. I would define that as making sincere attempts to abide by that religion's precepts, not just saying one follows it. Same for a Humanist as a Christian: anyone can say they are one, but their practice will reveal the truth.

This is the case. Man is no more "worthy" of dominance than insects, or dinosaurs, or blue-green algae. Is the biggest bully in school the most worthy person? Is the con who runs the prison the most worthy person?

No to the latter, for they are both men. But I find it strange you hold that a chicken has the same rights as a child. The Bible teaches that all that has breath in it is deserving of respect, but that Man is the ruler and has rights over the rest. God has even given us chicken to eat.

Yes, and he sent it (in effect) to Europe (and by extension the colonies). How neatly that dovetails with Social Darwinism!

Not really. Most Christians are/will be non-white, non-European. If Christians wanted a white European church they would not be evangelising Africa, Asia and native Americas.

Social Darwinism, to me, was/is an application of a misunderstood scientific paradigm to the age-old question - "how come we're so special?" - by people in whose minds was already firmly entrenched the idea that Northern Europeans were God's chosen people. It was taken up, not because it represented any actual part of Darwinism, but because it is convenient to pretend that your personal theories have a scientific imprimatur they are almost certainly lacking.

I can agree that it seems likely as a motivation. The sinful pride adopted whatever was convenient to justify its end. It corrupted the Christian message, and when that seemed out-dated, the latest 'truth' was also used.

Consider "moral relativism", and the phrase "it's all relative, isn't it?" - tell me, what have these to do with Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Nothing - but the idea of man arriving where we are by evolution certainly implies the former stages were inferior, that we have improved with age. Therefore any who have more of the former characteristics than us could be deemed lesser humans.

Wouldn't one just say "there was no land to be seen"? After all, what were the chances that after a year in the greatest inundation the world has ever seen, Noah would land such a small distance from his origin (but nevertheless not at his origin)?

The physics for such a year long flood are just as fantastic as for a world-wide flood. Can you suggest how a local flood would have submerged the locality from horizon to horizon for a year?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would put this question to the interviewers as well. What is the background behind each divorce. We have a woman in our church who became a Christian yet her husband continued to play around on her while out on the oil rigs. They ended up divorcing without him ever coming to Christ. So is that a Christian divorce or no? Where would that stat go. Is the number higher because of one spouse becoming a Christian and the other not and leaving? Just some thoughts.

A good point. In addition, "Christian couple" will cover a Wee Free married to a nominal Catholic, as is the case for my younger brother.

However, that is a foreseeable bias in the data, and I note that the Barna study specifically covers "conservative Christians". In order to make that a meaningful statement, they would have to include only marriages where both partners fit that profile.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

A good point. But it is slightly modified by the out-of-character offences even true Christians sometimes fall into. The difference is that of usual practice as opposed to exceptional occasion.

It also ignores those that believe they are good Christians, but are acting a manner you think makes them a bad Christian.

wolfsbane wrote:

In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date?

Groan ... ok lets put things in perspective. The Haedan and Archaean periods were 4-2 billion years ago. A lot has changed in 2 billion years. If JC wants to claim there was a world wide "flood" in the Archaean period, go ahead. I would find it a little strange since there was no breathable air, but maybe Noah had gas masked. Hell 6.5 billion years ago the Earth was a big cloud of gas, before that it was atoms inside a sun. Maybe thats when the flood happened.

But he wasn't, he was claiming there was a world wide flood in modern Earth history, and in the space of a few months the Earth had gone from flat smooth surface to all the mountains we see today. That, as I said is impossible.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is well-documented that marine fossils are found high up mountain ranges.

It is well documented that mountain ranges can't form in a few days. Those marine fossils formed under the water, and tectonic activity, taking hundreds of thousands of years, eventual moved the rock to high mountains. That fact proves JC's young Earth theory wrong, not the other way around.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, the fact that a clay tablet records the history or myths of a society that lived before Moses does not mean that Moses dervived his account from them. It is perfectly reasonable to think that such an event - the world-wide Flood - would be remembered by many societies down the ages.

Er, not if they were all killed in the flood

wolfsbane wrote:

That's like saying God made murder a part of nature. God did not make us sinful, we became so of our own choice.

No, its like saying having red hair (a genetic abnormality) is part of nature, which it is. God places homosexual nature in the genes of some people. They have no choice, they are the way God made them. Therefore God has made homosexuality part of nature, part of the natural, since we are made in the image of God, and God is perfect (I'm told).

wolfsbane wrote:

From my talks with paedophiles, the same defence of 'That's the way I was born' is given as with homosexuals. But the same factors seem to be at work, contributing to a sinful choice being made: sexual abuse by others; unbalanced parental relationship; re-inforcement of unnatural behaviour.

Well no offense wolfbane, but there is only so many different ways I can say this, you are wrong. It has been scientifically proven that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, in human species and other species. It is genetic, and as such the way God made you.

wolfsbane wrote:

He has to be true to His own nature. He cannot deny himself, deny His holiness.

Does God not control his nature?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Even those who never heard the gospel have enough witness of His existence to leave them without excuse:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

If you follow that logic, you come to one of two conclusions:

1. the uncomfortable (or comfortable, depending on your level of racism) conclusion that everywhere that did not originally receive the Bible was populated by people who utterly failed to appreciate these things, being, presumably, unregenerate sinners

2. the ecumenical conclusion that many of the other "native religions" in the world were inspired by God, and are at least as valid as Christianity.

However, Christ appeared only in the Middle East, which rather messes up the neat picture you present.

wolfsbane wrote:

It does indeed mean something: that God has left them (to date) in their rebellion. When He chooses, His power to radically change the worst of men is unleased in conversion: the rebel is convicted in his heart that he is a sinner, God is real, Christ has died to pardon him, and he responds in repentance and faith. He is saved and begins a new life as a servant of God.

God chooses who to save, then. Fair enough - I shall simply wait until he so decides in my case (or not, in which he'll presumably send me to Hell).

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, but few. I am unable to think of any I encountered in my time who were Christians and then committed an offence that brought them to prison. But there will certainly be some. A reckless moment in a car; a heated argument that ends in a punch that kills someone when they hit the pavement; a desperate attempt to avoid bankrupcy by fiddling the VAT man. What I don't expect is a career as a swindler; a rapist; a drug-dealer. All of these are lifestyles, a practise rather than an exceptional fall into temptation and sin.

I would accept that, in general, someone who considers themselves as being saved will find it difficult to reconcile their salvation with such lifestyles. However, that it is not impossible is shown clearly by a number of fraud cases amongst evangelists.

I will mention specifically Peter Sutcliffe, the Yporkshire Ripper, who believed he was ordered by God to kill prostitutes. You would deny that he was actually saved, I would argue that he certainly believed he was, and why would you know better than he?

wolfsbane wrote:

Depends what we mean by 'following a religion'. I would define that as making sincere attempts to abide by that religion's precepts, not just saying one follows it. Same for a Humanist as a Christian: anyone can say they are one, but their practice will reveal the truth.

Fair enough, although see above.

wolfsbane wrote:

No to the latter, for they are both men. But I find it strange you hold that a chicken has the same rights as a child. The Bible teaches that all that has breath in it is deserving of respect, but that Man is the ruler and has rights over the rest. God has even given us chicken to eat.

I didn't actually say this. I did say that a child is in no way "better" than a chicken. Given the choice, which one would I save from the burning house, and which one would I make into curry (note: I'm not German)? Clearly, my choice is made by my humanity - my compassion extends more easily to the child - given enough time, I would prefer to save both. Admittedly, I might still eat the chickens afterwards, but then I don't claim to be perfect!

wolfsbane wrote:

Not really. Most Christians are/will be non-white, non-European. If Christians wanted a white European church they would not be evangelising Africa, Asia and native Americas.

Except that while this is now the case, this was not so when Social Darwinism was dreamed up.

wolfsbane wrote:

I can agree that it seems likely as a motivation. The sinful pride adopted whatever was convenient to justify its end. It corrupted the Christian message, and when that seemed out-dated, the latest 'truth' was also used.

Aye. that's humanity for you.

wolfsbane wrote:

Nothing - but the idea of man arriving where we are by evolution certainly implies the former stages were inferior, that we have improved with age. Therefore any who have more of the former characteristics than us could be deemed lesser humans.

Well, that's a misinterpretation of evolution, which does not claim any idea of "superior" or "inferior". There is no special place for humanity, or for modern humanity, in evolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

The physics for such a year long flood are just as fantastic as for a world-wide flood. Can you suggest how a local flood would have submerged the locality from horizon to horizon for a year?

I can't, but then I don't believe that to be the case. You assume the inerrancy of the Biblical account - I could be said to "believe" in its "errancy". Eye-witness accounts are famously unreliable, particularly if they get written down a long while later!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well no offense wolfbane, but there is only so many different ways I can say this, you are wrong. It has been scientifically proven that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, in human species and other species. It is genetic, and as such the way God made you.

Or, in this case, made a duck - a gay necrophiliac duck:

The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Top 20 or so states for juvenile homicides (descending rates):

Missouri 142 16.54
Louisiana 103 13.82
Maryland 138 11.12
Mississippi 25 10.2
Michigan 208 9.39
Wisconsin 118 8.87
Arkansas 48 7.59
Texas 367 7.33
California 621 7.27
New York 264 6.91
Florida 205 6.9
Georgia 91 6.11
North Carolina 96 5.8
Oklahoma 43 5.04
Virginia 77 4.84
Rhode Island 11 4.82
South Carolina 43 4.64
Arizona 46 4.53

cordially,
Scofflaw