The GOP, GLTB, and Evolution

Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
The GOP, GLTB, and Evolution

Hi all,

 

Just thought I'd post something to address some misconceptions. We all have the freedom to choose who or what we believe in, but I think its important that we base our decisions on facts vs falsehood (even very entertaining falsehood). I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way, just so there are no misconceptions there.

 

1) God and the GOP: There are people who identify themselves as Christians in the Republican party. There are also people who call themselves Christian among the Democrats. Neither is the 'Christian' party, and the idea of some people that all Christians must be Republicans is deeply flawed. God may care deeply about life (the pro-life lobby) and sin (the anti-gay lobby... see next item), but he also cares deeply about the poor (Health Care reform) and all life (anti-war lobby). Limiting God or Christianity to a few issues to the exclusion of others is not Biblical, though it is very 'political'.

A useful story is that of Joshua outside of Jericho. Joshua saw 'a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"

"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." '(Joshua 5:13-14)

 

2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though, and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

 

3) Evolution: What about it? It explains 'how' organisms change, but it does a less thorough job of explaining how life began. It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action. Quite simply, science cannot answer that question (...to my knowledge. If anyone knows of a  scientific experiment that would prove/disprove God, please let me know).

A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

I welcome all comments, and I'll probably get some negative comments from Christians as well. If you're a Believer and take issue with anything I've posted, please cite scripture to support your argument.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:2) GLBT:

Dragoon wrote:

2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though, and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

As long as you're not planning on inserting some prohibition into secular law, you're free to think what you wish. What religion thinks about ordaining LGBT people as priests isn't of any great relevance to me as an atheist. If religion starts throwing it's weight around to make life difficult for LGBT people in day-to-day life, then I'll be upset.

Dragoon wrote:

3) Evolution: What about it? It explains 'how' organisms change, but it does a less thorough job of explaining how life began. It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action. Quite simply, science cannot answer that question (...to my knowledge. If anyone knows of a  scientific experiment that would prove/disprove God, please let me know).

A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

Evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life. Various theories of the origin of life include abiogenesis (the theory that organic chemistry on Earth arose from inorganic chemistry) and panspermia (the theory that organic chemistry arose somewhere not-on-Earth and made it's way here, probably on a comet impact). There are experiments which support the theory of abiogenesis.

Whether or not god exists is a whole other thingy. No scientific experiment can prove or disprove the existence of god. There are a whole load of logical problems with the existence of god, and scientific reasoning suggests that given the lack of evidence for god we can safely assume that there is no god.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:The issue with

Dragoon wrote:

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

 

Just another reason to tell God to fuck off.

WTF is God's justification for being opinionated about your sex life?

Oh wait a minute... it isn't God, right? It is the watchmen that he placed here on earth to make sure that each and every human being stays miserable with feelings of guilt and anxiety, each to their own kind, for as long as they shall live, right? OK, I get it now. Good work! I am sure God will pat you on your head and say "good little doggie". Then you can wiggle your ass and look up at your Lord and Master with cute puppy eyes, free of sin.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:As long

Indeterminate wrote:

As long as you're not planning on inserting some prohibition into secular law, you're free to think what you wish. What religion thinks about ordaining LGBT people as priests isn't of any great relevance to me as an atheist. If religion starts throwing it's weight around to make life difficult for LGBT people in day-to-day life, then I'll be upset.

No problem Inde, as I said, I'm just trying to clarify some of the ground.

 

Indeterminate wrote:

Evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life. Various theories of the origin of life include abiogenesis (the theory that organic chemistry on Earth arose from inorganic chemistry) and panspermia (the theory that organic chemistry arose somewhere not-on-Earth and made it's way here, probably on a comet impact). There are experiments which support the theory of abiogenesis.

Whether or not god exists is a whole other thingy. No scientific experiment can prove or disprove the existence of god. There are a whole load of logical problems with the existence of god, and scientific reasoning suggests that given the lack of evidence for god we can safely assume that there is no god.

The words 'safely assume' are interesting. Since no scientific experiment can prove or disprove God, how then does it logically equate into 'safely assuming' the negation? 

The point I'm trying to make is that belief/unbelief in God is certainly a valid choice for every individual, but that neither the acceptance or rejection of God are 'more scientific'. The idea that science has somehow disproven God is one without basis... in the end, both are the results of personal subjective choice based upon the best available evidence. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Hi all, Hullo,

Dragoon wrote:
Hi all,

Hullo,

Dragoon wrote:
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way,

That can mean pretty much anything.

Dragoon wrote:
1) God and the GOP: There are people who identify themselves as Christians in the Republican party. There are also people who call themselves Christian among the Democrats. Neither is the 'Christian' party, and the idea of some people that all Christians must be Republicans is deeply flawed.

Okay, so there are religious nutbags in both parties. Not really something to be proud of.

Dragoon wrote:
2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

Okay, so what about those openly proud shrimp-eating pastors then ?

Dragoon wrote:
There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though,

I guess you don't need to hate someone to "surely put them to death".

Dragoon wrote:
and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

Yeah, let's be honest.

Dragoon wrote:
A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

More like one-eye leading the blind, imo.

Dragoon wrote:
3) Evolution: What about it?

It's a whole bunch of facts, that's what it is. The amount of time and money that religious groups have wasted, trying to pretend that it isn't, is mind boggling.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
There's safety in assumptions

Dragoon wrote:

The words 'safely assume' are interesting. Since no scientific experiment can prove or disprove God, how then does it logically equate into 'safely assuming' the negation? 

The point I'm trying to make is that belief/unbelief in God is certainly a valid choice for every individual, but that neither the acceptance or rejection of God are 'more scientific'. The idea that science has somehow disproven God is one without basis... in the end, both are the results of personal subjective choice based upon the best available evidence. 

We can safely assume that god doesn't exist in much the same way that we can safely assume there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter. There's no reason to think there is, and extrapolating from all previously observed phenomena if we're wrong it makes no difference anyway.

Science does not and never has claimed to have disproven the existence of god. Excitable fundamentalists claim that science claims to have disproven god, presumably seeking a scapegoat to distract from their own untenable philosophical position. Science does not allow for that form of disproof. Science operates in exactly the same way whether god exists or not. The question of gods existence is beyond the scope of science.

However, many of the same reasoning techniques can be applied to the question. The rules of induction and abduction are particularly important. Belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion. I cannot choose to believe a statement after I have deduced that it is false, and I cannot choose whether any given statement will be deduced to be true or false.

You are asserting the existence of something. The burden of proof is on you. By scientific standards you must offer a selection of evidence supporting your hypothesis, and there must be no valid evidence or arguments opposing it. Ideally your hypothesis should allow you to make testable predictions for experiments which anyone can, at least in principle, perform. Care to try?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Actually, science can

Actually, science can disprove gods. It can't disprove ALL of them, but if god is defined in a testable way (ie: christian god), then failing the tests means the god cannot exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The words 'safely

 

Quote:
The words 'safely assume' are interesting. Since no scientific experiment can prove or disprove God, how then does it logically equate into 'safely assuming' the negation?

It's called the "Burden of Proof," and it's the foundation of empirical observation and scientific reasoning.  For knowledge to be reliable, we must assume claims to be false until proven true.  

You need to understand something very important at this point, and that is the reason why scientific experiments cannot prove or disprove God.  It's not because a real, existing God is beyond the ability of science to address.  It's because the God hypothesis has never been articulated coherently enough to give scientists anything to look for.

In other words, scientists searching for "God" have exactly the same kind of task as if we had asked them to search for "Invisible Green Looking Myself."  Those words don't form a coherent concept.  The only thing a scientist can do is say, "Gee... I have no idea what you want me to look for.  Come back when there's something to test."

All of the definitions of god that have been proposed thusfar (excluding pantheist deities) are incoherent.  They don't describe anything that makes any sense.  Scientists can't prove or disprove them because there's literally nothing to prove or disprove.

Now... with that out of the way, you also need to understand that any god which could theoretically exist would necessarily be a scientific hypothesis.

READ THIS

Then,

READ THIS

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuming to know what god

Presuming to know what god does or doesn't think or mean is your first mistake. It's an arrogant position most theists take, that they have some kind of direct information hotline with their god and what they think god is telling THEM is correct, while what god tells the next person is NOT.

Secondly, you must have decided for yourself that god forbids priests/pastors from having sex. I was raised Lutheran. Lutheran pastors can freely marry and express their love sexually (probably why they're not off molesting little boys as much). I'm not aware of any passage that forbids this, but I'm not a biblical scholar.

If you've instead decided that god does permit church leaders to have sex, then you've decided that god thinks some kinds of sex are better than others. That is, heterosexual sex is "better" than homosexual sex. And why? Because it leads to reproduction? So would an elderly married couple who deeply love each other but can no longer conceive be in the same category as the filthy homos? Would a loving heterosexual couple with fertility problems, who don't care to detour from god's will by taking fertility drugs be forbidden by your god from having any sexual relations with each other? Most importantly, who the hell gave YOU the authority to make those kind of judgements?

Sexual orientation is no more a "choice" than skin color or who your parents are. Don't use that term.

Furthermore, how on earth does sexual orientation have anything to do with the strength of one's faith or the ability to inspire a congregation with the teachings of Jesus? Jesus, by the way, whose beloved friend was a prostitute.

I could go on and on and on.

Also please don't even get me started on the "Adam & Steve" argument.

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Sexual

smartypants wrote:

Sexual orientation is no more a "choice" than skin color or who your parents are.

 

And... if it was? Would it be wrong then?

Who gets to decide who's going to have sex with whom? The Ass Police?

(Assuming, of course, that we are speaking about consenting adults who understand what they are doing.)


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Who gets to

Marquis wrote:

Who gets to decide who's going to have sex with whom? The Ass Police?

Wouldn't the job of the ass police be to ensure all asses are nice?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:smartypants

Marquis wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Sexual orientation is no more a "choice" than skin color or who your parents are.

 

And... if it was? Would it be wrong then?

Who gets to decide who's going to have sex with whom? The Ass Police?

(Assuming, of course, that we are speaking about consenting adults who understand what they are doing.)

LMAO @ "Ass Police."

Yes, they frisk first, ask questions later, and carry VERY large nightsticks.

Actually, some of the *cough* activities are illegal in some states, along with dildos and vibrators and a lot of other ridiculous things that are no one else's beeswax but the user and his/her partner(s).

 

I've come to reject any explanation of "choice" so completely that honestly, it's difficult to answer your hypothetical question. But I can think of no reason "choosing" to have relations with whomever you want could be a problem, except on religious grounds.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Marquis

Indeterminate wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Who gets to decide who's going to have sex with whom? The Ass Police?

Wouldn't the job of the ass police be to ensure all asses are nice?

Where do I enlist?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I've got a ten second

 I've got a ten second mental exercise that should divest us from the silly little notion that "choice" is a pretty nonsense concept.  Here's what you do:  If you honestly believe that anyone can choose to believe what they want, choose to believe that you have no hands.  I don't mean act like you believe, or want to believe, or imagine what it would be like, or anything like that.  I mean [i]genuinely, deeply, and with complete intellectual and emotional conviction believe that you have no hands.

Can't do it, right?

Of course not!  Because any "choice" is simply opting for what you believe is true, and we can't help but do that.  The information available to us determines what we believe.  Not some magical "free will" that allows us to believe anything at all.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:The issue is

Dragoon wrote:

The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings.

Wow, they are in direct disobedience to God?! Like the way that a man is in direct disobedience to God if he marries a woman, finds out that she isn't a virgin and fails to kill her?

 

I know that you think that everyone is disobedient to God at least part of the time. So why single out the gays as a special group of sinners to be treated worse than all of the other groups of sinners? Denying them the ability to be a church leader is special worse treatment for them. I think it was in the Barna Group's book "UnChristian" that they reported that most young Americans are befuddled by the way the Christians announce that everyone is a sinner without exception and then focus what appears to be thinly-veiled hate on the gays while ignoring far worse sins. If you are going to get all worked up over a sin, get worked up over rape or murder or child abuse. Homosexuality appears to be such a mild thing. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend your energy and efforts denouncing torture and murder rather than denouncing homosexuality. Hell, Deuteronomy 22 announces that transvestitism is an abomination to the Lord, why is there not such effort put out by Christians to denounce straight transvestites? There are arguably more straight transvestite men than gay men in the US. Yet there is no culture war over men wearing skirts. Of all the things in the world to focus your attention on and devote effort to and engage in a culture war over: Christians picked homosexuality. Seriously? Why?

At least, from an atheists perspective this could be a good thing. According to the Barna group (they are a Christian research ministry, so they gather a lot of good statistics on people's perceptions of Christianity in America), the younger generation is largely pro-homosexuality and that makes them percieve Christian churches as being bigoted and backwards. This is driving young Americans away from what seems to be Churches full of bigots. That is in some sense a win for atheists since it swells the numbers of non-believers.

 

As a bit of a side-note, I advocate that everyone here read through the Barna group's studies on the opinions of 16-29 year old Americans:

"Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality."

"Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians."

"Simply put, each new generation has a larger share of people who are not Christians (that is, atheists, agnostics, people associated with another faith, or those who have essentially no faith orientation). The new book refers to this group as "outsiders" because they are describing what Christianity looks like from an outsider’s perspective. Among adults over the age of 40, only about one-quarter qualify as outsiders, while among the 16 to 29 segment, two-fifths are outsiders. This represents a significant migration away from the dominant role that Christianity has had in America. As pointed out in the Barna Update related to atheists and agnostics, this is not a passing fad wherein young people will become "more Christian" as they grow up. While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the spiritual allegiance of America’s upcoming generations."

That culture war had better be worth it, because it is very effectively driving my generation away from Christianity.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
God vs the Great Jupiter Teapot

 

Indeterminate wrote:

We can safely assume that god doesn't exist in much the same way that we can safely assume there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter.

The difference is though, that a large number of very diverse people did not claim to have seen, walked with, talked to and been spoken to by a orbiting teapot. Biblical accounts have Jesus appearing to and speaking to hundreds of people after his resurrection, not to mention the thousands he lived in front of during his life.

We may question the reliability of the gospel accounts (as well we should with anything so radical), but what is apparent is that this group of followers;

1) believed so strongly that they went on till violent death espousing that Jesus was God. Their life-long devotion was neither accompanied by great wealth or power, but rather with persecution and hardship, so the idea that there was material benefit for them is implausible.

2) this is especially troubling given that these were Jews, and the whole idea for a Jew of a man claiming to be God would be blasphemy

3) yet not only did this initial band follow him, but many other Jews did so as well... what exactly happened? 'Mass Hysteria' might be a possibility, but then we have the problem that the claims of these early followers of Christ could easily then have been disproven by those who were contemporaries given that the events they portray were public, yet they were not. So again, the question is, why not?

4) there is much more of course, but the most compelling fact is that all of this happened AFTER Jesus was hung from a tree, which would normally be the end of any God claims... yet was not

 

Simply put, the Teapot has not spoken to us, and so logical arguments saying there is no teapot should be met with cries of, "Of course there is no teapot!"

But Jesus did live, and he did claim to be God, and after his crucifixion his followers did not fade away, but rather grew in strength... based upon what they claimed to be clear indicators of his God status. To 'safely assume' non-existence of God here would require a much higher burden of proof than mere supposition. There is 'evidence' that needs to be dealt with. 

 

 

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

For knowledge to be reliable, we must assume claims to be false until proven true... 

...the God hypothesis has never been articulated coherently enough to give scientists anything to look for...

Now... with that out of the way, you also need to understand that any god which could theoretically exist would necessarily be a scientific hypothesis.

HI Hamby,

The problem I see with the first statement is that it is an assumption. It is a working assumption for the purposes of scientific inquiry, but it does not say that something 'does not' exist... merely that we currently have no reliable evidence. Thus to say that God 'does not exist' would be incorrect. To say that we have no 'scientific proof' for God would be more accurate.

On the last two points... are 'you' a hypothesis? What hypothesis is a living organism? One would think that an omnipresent, omnipotent life form would by nature be difficult to encapsulate in some neat finite hypothesis. In the end, science is unable to address the existence of God because it was never intended for such a purpose.

Perhaps one of the reasons that arguments for God have been 'untestable' for science (please also let me know what some of these have been. It seems like it would make an interesting story.) has been because God himself is beyond finite human understanding? I think there is also gross misunderstanding about what Christianity itself claims, and this has largely been aided by 'Christians' themselves, many of whom do not really think about or understand what it is they profess. 

Bottom line point: science has not and cannot either prove or disprove God, ergo the claims that science has 'disproven' God are unfounded. 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Dragoon

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way,

That can mean pretty much anything.

 

Exactly, which is why I use it. It gets rid of a lot of preconceptions and allows 'me' to be defined by our interaction vs what people have garnered from a Hollywood film.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: I know

Jormungander wrote:

 

I know that you think that everyone is disobedient to God at least part of the time. So why single out the gays as a special group of sinners to be treated worse than all of the other groups of sinners? Denying them the ability to be a church leader is special worse treatment for them. I think it was in the Barna Group's book "UnChristian" that they reported that most young Americans are befuddled by the way the Christians announce that everyone is a sinner without exception and then focus what appears to be thinly-veiled hate on the gays while ignoring far worse sins. If you are going to get all worked up over a sin, get worked up over rape or murder or child abuse. Homosexuality appears to be such a mild thing. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend your energy and efforts denouncing torture and murder rather than denouncing homosexuality. Hell, Deuteronomy 22 announces that transvestitism is an abomination to the Lord, why is there not such effort put out by Christians to denounce straight transvestites? There are arguably more straight transvestite men than gay men in the US. Yet there is no culture war over men wearing skirts. Of all the things in the world to focus your attention on and devote effort to and engage in a culture war over: Christians picked homosexuality. Seriously? Why?

Thank you so much for this insightful paragraph. As someone else pointed out, the bible only even mentions homosexuality seven times, although I think some of those mentions are misinterpreted, taken out of context, or just flat out erroneous. Meanwhile, Adultery is sited as a mortal sin many HUNDREDS of times. I don't have actual statistics, and the ones I've seen have been conflicting, but safe to say, a far larger percentage of straight Americans have admitted to having engaged in extra-marital activities than any of the numbers practicing homosexuality. If the Bible Beaters really want to go on a crusade, I suggest they--I dunno--READ the book they're beating their fists on for guidance as to what is a worthy (i.e. God-sanctioned) crusade. The bible leaves very little question that homosexuality is not it.

This is just Bigotry, plain and simple. The bible only gives a half-assed excuse for people to act like the assholes they already are, with or without it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:The difference

Dragoon wrote:

The difference is though, that a large number of very diverse people did not claim to have seen, walked with, talked to and been spoken to by a orbiting teapot. Biblical accounts have Jesus appearing to and speaking to hundreds of people after his resurrection, not to mention the thousands he lived in front of during his life.

"Because the book told me so" is not valid. If a book told me "unicorns are real because unicorns wrote this book and they say they are real," that doesn't make it any more true.

Dragoon wrote:

We may question the reliability of the gospel accounts (as well we should with anything so radical), but what is apparent is that this group of followers;

1) believed so strongly that they went on till violent death espousing that Jesus was God. Their life-long devotion was neither accompanied by great wealth or power, but rather with persecution and hardship, so the idea that there was material benefit for them is implausible.

2) this is especially troubling given that these were Jews, and the whole idea for a Jew of a man claiming to be God would be blasphemy

blah blah blah

Just because a bunch of religious zealots 1500 years ago decided they liked this story enough to die for it does not make the story true.

Dragoon wrote:

But Jesus did live, and he did claim to be God, and after his crucifixion his followers did not fade away, but rather grew in strength... based upon what they claimed to be clear indicators of his God status. To 'safely assume' non-existence of God here would require a much higher burden of proof than mere supposition. There is 'evidence' that needs to be dealt with.

Actually, no, he most likely wasn't a real person. If he was, he was nothing more than a great (political) speaker and a convincing magician. More likely his story was Astrology dressed up in a fancy outfit so Pagans would accept the ideas put forth by a few, very human, very mortal philosophers with delusions of grandeur.

I can go into all the ways the fictional story of Jesus is based on astrology if you really need me to, but for now I'm done.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:The difference

Dragoon wrote:

The difference is though, that a large number of very diverse people did not claim to have seen, walked with, talked to and been spoken to by a orbiting teapot. Biblical accounts have Jesus appearing to and speaking to hundreds of people after his resurrection, not to mention the thousands he lived in front of during his life.

Yet not one historian from that time period says anything regarding jesus, the only accounts are the bible, which is no more truthful then the hindu books speaking about their deities talking and walking among humans, which puts the hindu gods/deities in the same league as jesus, as well as any other deity/god from any other religion in which their holy text speak of walking and talking to humans.

Quote:

We may question the reliability of the gospel accounts (as well we should with anything so radical), but what is apparent is that this group of followers;

1) believed so strongly that they went on till violent death espousing that Jesus was God. Their life-long devotion was neither accompanied by great wealth or power, but rather with persecution and hardship, so the idea that there was material benefit for them is implausible.

So have others of different religions, including Buddhists, Hindus and various other religious followers from different sects/religions around the world.

Quote:

2) this is especially troubling given that these were Jews, and the whole idea for a Jew of a man claiming to be God would be blasphemy

Jews still consider it blasphemy, so what jesus never really claims he is god, the church decided on his divinity about 400 years after the fact.

Quote:

3) yet not only did this initial band follow him, but many other Jews did so as well... what exactly happened? 'Mass Hysteria' might be a possibility, but then we have the problem that the claims of these early followers of Christ could easily then have been disproven by those who were contemporaries given that the events they portray were public, yet they were not. So again, the question is, why not?

David Koresh made similar claims of divinity and his followers died for him as well and they came from various walks of life, so what, being charismatic and being able to convince people you are speaking the truth is nothing new to humanity, it happens throughout history.

Quote:

4) there is much more of course, but the most compelling fact is that all of this happened AFTER Jesus was hung from a tree, which would normally be the end of any God claims... yet was not

Hmmm various other mortals/gods/deites have died and been resurrected, from Ancient Greece Achilles, Asclepius, Artisteas of Proconnesus, from Zen Buddhism is the story of Puhua and Gesar the savior of Tibet.

Quote:

Simply put, the Teapot has not spoken to us, and so logical arguments saying there is no teapot should be met with cries of, "Of course there is no teapot!"

But Jesus did live, and he did claim to be God, and after his crucifixion his followers did not fade away, but rather grew in strength... based upon what they claimed to be clear indicators of his God status. To 'safely assume' non-existence of God here would require a much higher burden of proof than mere supposition. There is 'evidence' that needs to be dealt with. 

Supposedly lived, no one knows for sure and outside of the bible there is no evidence that he did, jesus is no more real than the hindu deities. What evidence are you speaking of that needs to be dealt with? Hundreds of people seeing him? Where are those accounts? In the bible? how about outside of the bible?

Hamby can deal with the rest of it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Latincanuck:

 Thanks for covering all the problems I didn't...LOL


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Dragoon

Jormungander wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings.

 I know that you think that everyone is disobedient to God at least part of the time. So why single out the gays as a special group of sinners to be treated worse than all of the other groups of sinners? 

Hi Jormungander,

Absolutely, which was my point. To single out GLTB individuals as 'special' sinners is entirely unbiblical. I would say this especially in the face of modern Christianity's failure to address their own sexual sins.

How does a person condemn another for homosexuality, and then engage in sex outside of marriage? Many Christians do exactly that, and we should be condemning that entirely the same as we should deal with homosexuality... speaking the truth with love, so that it builds up the person spoken to, and brings glory to God. All sin is  equally sinful.

I wouldn't say that we are disobedient at least part of the time though. I would say that in our words, thoughts and deeds we wage a constant war to do what we know is right vs what looks attractive but which we know to be wrong.

 

smartypants wrote:

...you must have decided for yourself that god forbids priests/pastors from having sex

Marquis wrote:

WTF is God's justification for being opinionated about your sex life?

 

Hi Smarty,

 

If I've said anything that is not in accordance with the bible, please do correct or question me, because I would then be in error Eye-wink

It isn't sex that is wrong, and you're right that the bible does not prohibit sex from priests/pastors. The distinction between priests/pastors and 'laity' is actually completely un-biblical, as we are all to be 'priests' (be set apart for service, able to petition, offer our lives as a spiritual act of worship, come into the presence of God, and to generally 'speak' to Him).

Marquis' question cuts to the heart of it. God does not tell us that any sex outside of heterosexual married relationship is beneficial, not because he is trying to limit us or restrict our pleasure, but because he created us and knows what is to our deepest and truest good.

Allow me to explain;

1) biblically, in marriage both a man and a woman become one flesh, and in this very special union we are to mutually submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21)

2) in talking about prostitution, we are told that we become 'one with her in body' (1Cor 6:16)

In essence, in sex we 'join' ourselves. When I am with my wife, we are in a situation that is grossly unfair for her. In my life before I followed Christ, I slept with many women. When I am with her sexually, those other people are in my mind and my body still remembers the 'union' we had. I am not able to fully and completely give myself to my wife... in the way that she deserves and in the way that I promised at marriage.

She came from a Christian family and was a virgin when we married. What she can freely offer and give to me is so much more than what I can offer in return. This inequality is one of the tensions in our marriage, because we are not equally yolked in this regard.

My sex outside of marriage gave me temporary pleasure, but in the end it really was a selfish pleasure. It did not expand me, but made me 'less' for the woman I love the most.

In essence, God's commandments are not out of spite, but because he loves us, and truly desires us to live life to the fullest. All of scripture is based upon our love for God, because he first loved us.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Yet not

latincanuck wrote:

Yet not one historian from that time period says anything regarding jesus, the only accounts are the bible, which is no more truthful then the hindu books speaking about their deities talking and walking among humans, which puts the hindu gods/deities in the same league as jesus, as well as any other deity/god from any other religion in which their holy text speak of walking and talking to humans.

Hey Latin,

I've gotta run, but you may be mistaken here. Some of those who mention Jesus include;

Pliny the Younger

the Emperor Trajan

Flavius Josephus

Suetonius

Tacitus

various apocryphal, Gnostic and pseudopigraphic sources 

 

Also, please note that the Bible is not one book, but rather a collection of letters from a large number of people.

 

As to Hindu gods (avatars actually); yup. So we need to read up on things, make sure our sources are as factual as possible, and come to a personal decision on whether we believe in any of these. I'm not saying anyone 'must' believe in Christ. I am saying that we should base our choices on truthful things.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh Em Gee

Dragoon wrote:

How does a person condemn another for homosexuality, and then engage in sex outside of marriage? Many Christians do exactly that, and we should be condemning that entirely the same as we should deal with homosexuality... speaking the truth with love, so that it builds up the person spoken to, and brings glory to God. All sin is  equally sinful.

Oh. "ENTIRELY the same?" Are you sure about that? Because the bible says something else. But maybe god told you differently on your special bigot hotline.

Dragoon wrote:

I wouldn't say that we are disobedient at least part of the time though. I would say that in our words, thoughts and deeds we wage a constant war to do what we know is right vs what looks attractive but which we know to be wrong.

I don't need a magical book to tell me what's right or wrong and neither do you. I know that loving another person is a good thing, and murdering other human beings is wrong, even if people site a magical book to justify behaving otherwise--which they have countless times.

Dragoon wrote:

1) biblically, in marriage both a man and a woman become one flesh, and in this very special union we are to mutually submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21)

This is true no matter the gender of your partner.

"Mutually submit" is a morbid and frightening joke coming from the bible.

Dragoon wrote:

2) in talking about prostitution, we are told that we become 'one with her in body' (1Cor 6:16)

If this and only this is your reason for not paying someone to compromise their moral well-being to your pleasures, rather than some normal human sense of decency, then you're a freaking psycho with problems.

Dragoon wrote:

In essence, in sex we 'join' ourselves. When I am with my wife, we are in a situation that is grossly unfair for her. In my life before I followed Christ, I slept with many women. When I am with her sexually, those other people are in my mind and my body still remembers the 'union' we had. I am not able to fully and completely give myself to my wife... in the way that she deserves and in the way that I promised at marriage.

Wow.

 

Wow.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this. If you're not fully sexually attracted to your wife, maybe you shouldn't have married her. 

Dragoon wrote:

She came from a Christian family and was a virgin when we married. What she can freely offer and give to me is so much more than what I can offer in return. This inequality is one of the tensions in our marriage, because we are not equally yolked in this regard.

Oh, and being a virgin is such a prize? Why? The guys I've met over the years who wanted virgins were some of the most selfish, inexperienced, sexually insecure bastards. On top of it all, taking a woman's virginity is painful for her, which suggests you think sex should be painful and unpleasurable for her. It's just sick, Sadistic, and rampantly misogynistic. God forbid you should be with a woman who knows what she wants sexually and has something to compare to your lame-ass performance. Learn how to please a woman, ask her what she wants and listen to her, and then maybe you won't be so concerned about whether she's a virgin or not. The fact that you don't feel "equal" is actually you realizing that she's a slave to you and your religious ideals of how "pure" she should be.

Dragoon wrote:

My sex outside of marriage gave me temporary pleasure, but in the end it really was a selfish pleasure. 

And in sum: you've had extramarital sex and you have the NERVE to pass judgement on me??? Well, as the bible says, in entering heaven, you'll encounter the same judgement you passed on me. So I guess that's some justice.

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi Smarty, I'm more than

Hi Smarty,

 

I'm more than happy to discuss issues, including difficult ones, with you. I will treat any questions or comments I receive as intelligent comments reflecting real concerns by the individuals involved.... so kindly keep your comments intelligent and respectful as well.

I'm not your dad though, so if you choose to be disrespectful, that's your choice, but please do not be offended if I then ignore you Eye-wink

---

smartypants wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

How does a person condemn another for homosexuality, and then engage in sex outside of marriage? Many Christians do exactly that, and we should be condemning that entirely the same as we should deal with homosexuality... speaking the truth with love, so that it builds up the person spoken to, and brings glory to God. All sin is  equally sinful.

Oh. "ENTIRELY the same?" Are you sure about that? Because the bible says something else. But maybe god told you differently on your special bigot hotline.

If I've been 'bigotted' in any of my comments, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to apologize. James tells us that 'whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). Essentially, there may be different 'crimes' and relative results, but regardless of which 'crime' you committed you would still be considered a criminal. So also the Bible teaches on sin.

 

As to most of your other comments (on prostitution, loving my wife, extramarital affairs, virgins, etc), I haven't said any of those things, so please don't put words in my mouth. I do find it pretty offensive though when you speak in such ways about a person I love. If anything I said was unclear to you, then I would be happy to clarify.

Example: I was speaking of sex before marriage... not after (pre-marital sex vs extramarital)

  

Happy New Year everyone Eye-wink

 

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Oh, and

smartypants wrote:

Oh, and being a virgin is such a prize? Why? The guys I've met over the years who wanted virgins were some of the most selfish, inexperienced, sexually insecure bastards. On top of it all, taking a woman's virginity is painful for her, which suggests you think sex should be painful and unpleasurable for her. It's just sick, Sadistic, and rampantly misogynistic. God forbid you should be with a woman who knows what she wants sexually and has something to compare to your lame-ass performance. Learn how to please a woman, ask her what she wants and listen to her, and then maybe you won't be so concerned about whether she's a virgin or not. The fact that you don't feel "equal" is actually you realizing that she's a slave to you and your religious ideals of how "pure" she should be.

I was actually not 'looking' for a virgin. In fact, we both spent the first few months of our relationship trying to avoid each other, because we both saw there was a strong attraction, and neither of us thought it was a good thing. I was a nice, friendly, pagan Goth, she was a horrible 'fundamentalist' Christian... my thoughts were largely "run away! run away!"

 

Gotta ask though, you seem pretty quick to judge my view on virgins based on... well nothing, but what did you say to those people you knew who actually were chasing them? You seem to say there were several, so did you call them on their actions? If not, why not?

 

As to your comments on my sex life... go peep in someone else's bedroom you sick puppy! You'll get no candid details about my sex life here lol!

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Hey Latin,I've

Dragoon wrote:

Hey Latin,

I've gotta run, but you may be mistaken here. Some of those who mention Jesus include;

Pliny the Younger

the Emperor Trajan

Flavius Josephus

Suetonius

Tacitus

various apocryphal, Gnostic and pseudopigraphic sources 

 

Also, please note that the Bible is not one book, but rather a collection of letters from a large number of people.

 

As to Hindu gods (avatars actually); yup. So we need to read up on things, make sure our sources are as factual as possible, and come to a personal decision on whether we believe in any of these. I'm not saying anyone 'must' believe in Christ. I am saying that we should base our choices on truthful things.

Pliny the Younger and Tactius talk about christians and whom they follow, which is Christ, which is no more evidence than saying that those that believe in Mithra follow Mithra, that is not evidence, that's just pointing out whom these people follow. As for Emperor Trajan Pliny wrote the letter to him, still not evidence of jesus.

Josephus passage has been considered a forge by many historians because it doesn't fit the rest of the text properly, it is believed that christian scribes added the text later on.

Suetonius talks about Jewish and getting expelled from Rome by Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome" now Chrestus is also a common name amoung slaves meaning good or useful. As such still not evidence that jesus existed.

As for the bible, you mean the New testiment, the old testiment has no mentions of jesus, it's the torah is what it is. Now most of the authors are unknown, Mathew is named mathew because it mentions mathew, the apocryphal are almost all dated to mid second century, again no evidence no one actually witness jesus alive, most of the gospels are dated between 35AD to 150 AD, yet no actual evidence outside of the bible exists that jesus actually did anything or said anything. Luke and Mathew use the gospel of mark that provides the general chronology for the other two synoptic gospels from Jesus' baptism to the empty tomb. Even then Luke changes things as well, for example when jesus recruits his first disciple. Even worse Luke is believed to been a disciple of Paul not even of jesus so it's even more hearsay.

Again what evidence do we have again?

 


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Hi all, Just

Dragoon wrote:

Hi all,

 

Just thought I'd post something to address some misconceptions. We all have the freedom to choose who or what we believe in, but I think its important that we base our decisions on facts vs falsehood (even very entertaining falsehood). I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way, just so there are no misconceptions there.

 

1) God and the GOP: There are people who identify themselves as Christians in the Republican party. There are also people who call themselves Christian among the Democrats. Neither is the 'Christian' party, and the idea of some people that all Christians must be Republicans is deeply flawed. God may care deeply about life (the pro-life lobby) and sin (the anti-gay lobby... see next item), but he also cares deeply about the poor (Health Care reform) and all life (anti-war lobby). Limiting God or Christianity to a few issues to the exclusion of others is not Biblical, though it is very 'political'.

A useful story is that of Joshua outside of Jericho. Joshua saw 'a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"

"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." '(Joshua 5:13-14)

 

2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though, and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

 

3) Evolution: What about it? It explains 'how' organisms change, but it does a less thorough job of explaining how life began. It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action. Quite simply, science cannot answer that question (...to my knowledge. If anyone knows of a  scientific experiment that would prove/disprove God, please let me know).

A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

I welcome all comments, and I'll probably get some negative comments from Christians as well. If you're a Believer and take issue with anything I've posted, please cite scripture to support your argument.

I've only skimmed the rest of the thread but I would just like to respond number 3. You seem to be confused about what evolution is. It seeks to explain the diversity we see in life today. It has nothing to do with how life began, at all. As for god/intelligence having a part in it, try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It lays out arguments for how evolution works without any sort of overarching "supervisor".

 

If you want a scientific experiment to prove/disprove god then you have to define god in a way that it can be tested. This means that it must be plausibly falsifiable and be the hypothesis to an observed phenomenon, Perhaps there are other requirements (I don't know, maybe someone else can answer this).


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Stosis, I don't

Thanks Stosis,

 

I don't THINK I'm confused about evolution, but it never hurts to check our presuppositions. I'm actually trying to address what I consider a common misconception... that the theory of evolution disproves the existance of God.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi Latin, If you're looking

Hi Latin,

 

I'd encourage you to look up more on Josephus... the debate is not so much whether he writes about Jesus, but whether his accounts have been modified slightly (from 'He was believed to be the Christ' to 'He was the Christ').

If you're looking for eye witness testimony to the existance of Jesus though, then I believe you are correct. Outside of sources included in the Bible, there are no other first person accounts of Jesus (to my knowledge).

Is your exclusion of the four gospel accounts fair though? Normally, when we have several different accounts all varifying the same person's existance, we would say that we have pretty solid proof. I'm also not clear where you're getting this idea of Luke being a disciple of Paul. Could you explain?

While there is some disagreement on exactly when each gospel was written, it is generally accepted tht all 4 are the views of whom they purport to be. The hypothetical 'Q' gospel is an interesting idea, but we're getting into serious theological naval gazing by that point.

As to the Old Testament, one of the key features in the acceptance of Jesus by the Jews of his time was the fact that he DID fulfill the 'references'/prophesies about the Messiah in the Old Testament. He definitely did not fulfll them in the way people had expected though. Those that did not accept him obviously disagreed Eye-wink

 

In some senses though, does it really make a difference? Even if I could prove Jesus was a 100% authentic living breathing historical person... would you suddenly jump up and down shouting 'Hallelujah! Jesus is my Lord'?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
For Luke it comes from the

For Luke it comes from the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which states  “Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a physician by profession. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years"

As for your several sources none which were written within his life time at all. They basically are written after he has died and most of those that wrote it were not old enough, basically where children or babies or had not even been born at the time of jesus supposed existence.

He didn't fulfill a bunch of them, the most important is reigning over the jews, taking them back to israel and building the third temple, so no he was never and will never be accepted by the jews as the true messiah because jesus never fulfills the prophecies.

Even then Josephus wasn't born until when again? about 37 years after the supposed death of jesus or 3 years after depending on how you view the time line, and doesn't write origins until CE94. So yeah still no eye witness, and still disputed on the exact statements, be it writing about the emergence of christians or about jesus it make a huge difference.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Thanks

Dragoon wrote:

Thanks Stosis,

 

I don't THINK I'm confused about evolution, but it never hurts to check our presuppositions. I'm actually trying to address what I consider a common misconception... that the theory of evolution disproves the existance of God.

All depends if the bible is considered to be truthful in history and description as some christians believe and have believed throughout history, then yes, adam and eve were never created as is and from dirt with a breath from god to bring them to live, evolution disproves this part.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I don't THINK

Dragoon wrote:

I don't THINK I'm confused about evolution, but it never hurts to check our presuppositions. I'm actually trying to address what I consider a common misconception... that the theory of evolution disproves the existance of God.

I don't think that has ever been claimed. Evolution removes the necessity for an intelligent designer, and contradicts a literal interpretation of biblical genesis.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Dragoon

Indeterminate wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

I don't THINK I'm confused about evolution, but it never hurts to check our presuppositions. I'm actually trying to address what I consider a common misconception... that the theory of evolution disproves the existance of God.

I don't think that has ever been claimed. Evolution removes the necessity for an intelligent designer, and contradicts a literal interpretation of biblical genesis.

 

I sincerely hope it has never been claimed as a scientific fact, but it is certainly a common misconception in the popular mind. Does evolution remove the need for an intelligent designer though?

Stosis (post 289) noted that, "It (evolution) has nothing to do with how life began, at all."

If Stosis is correct, then it says nothing about 'who' (if anyone) is behind creation/design.

 

'Literal' interpretation is a deceptive word though, often used as a perjorative for extreme interpretative disconnect. I think each of us would say we try to interpret text 'accurately', both in terms of following the literal text and in considering related factors (time, author, context, culture, etc.).

Those that hold to a 'literal' 6 human day creation of the Earth tend to ignore other 'literal' biblical passages that clearly imply that time for God is not the same as time in a human sense. Examples of this would be;

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:Cool

"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)

What this implies for me is that God is outside of time. If time/space are also creations, then it would seem logical for me that God would not be limited by the restrictions of time.

 


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I sincerely

Dragoon wrote:

I sincerely hope it has never been claimed as a scientific fact, but it is certainly a common misconception in the popular mind. Does evolution remove the need for an intelligent designer though?

Stosis (post 289) noted that, "It (evolution) has nothing to do with how life began, at all."

If Stosis is correct, then it says nothing about 'who' (if anyone) is behind creation/design.

 

'Literal' interpretation is a deceptive word though, often used as a perjorative for extreme interpretative disconnect. I think each of us would say we try to interpret text 'accurately', both in terms of following the literal text and in considering related factors (time, author, context, culture, etc.).

Evolution removes the possibility that god was directly involved in the creation of humans or any other known species. Abiogenesis is a related theory which allows the formation of life and beginning of the evolutionary process without the involvement of god. While these two theories do not eliminate the possibility that someone designed the laws of chemistry in order to allow evolution and abiogenesis, they do imply that no species was designed, in direct contradiction with biblical genesis. God may be sufficient but is not necessary for any of these processes.

Dragoon wrote:

Those that hold to a 'literal' 6 human day creation of the Earth tend to ignore other 'literal' biblical passages that clearly imply that time for God is not the same as time in a human sense. Examples of this would be;

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:Cool

"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)

What this implies for me is that God is outside of time. If time/space are also creations, then it would seem logical for me that God would not be limited by the restrictions of time.

The passage of time in genesis is a bit of a red herring. It is the actions themselves (even if we're generous enough to say that whoever wrote it down wouldn't have had modern concepts of these things and would have grossly simplified the account, and interpret accordingly) and the order in which they were performed that contradict scientific knowledge.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:For Luke

latincanuck wrote:

For Luke it comes from the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which states  “Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a physician by profession. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years"

Thanks Latin.

Which part of Canada you from? Could you check your sources as well? The original Latin text I'm showing is;

"discipulus apostolorum, postea vero Paulum secutus est usque ad confessionem eius, serviens domino sine crimine, nam neque uxorem unquam habuit, neque filios procreavit." (http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

which would translate as;

"He was a disciple of the apostles, and afterward followed Paul until his confession, serving the Lord undistractedly, for he neither had any wife nor procreated sons." (ibid)

 

latincanuck wrote:
 

As for your several sources none which were written within his life time at all. They basically are written after he has died and most of those that wrote it were not old enough, basically where children or babies or had not even been born at the time of jesus supposed existence.

Jesus wasn't born 0 AD (and most certainly not on Dec 25th), but I think it is generally accepted that he was born roughly plus/minus 5 years from AD 0. If we just use AD 0 for convenience, then he began his ministry about 30 AD (see Luke 3:23) and was crucified roughly 32-33 AD.

The 4 letters of the Gospels are normally dated 50-70 AD (though some think it may be up to 100 AD), which would place thm 15-35 years after Christ died. I think that is well within a 'lifetime', but you are absolutely correct that Jesus was crucified prior to any Gospel. I guess they wouldn't be 'gospels' if Jesus had not died yet, since the central message was that God has sent an atoning sacrifice for sin.

If we want true 'eye witness' though, I think we would have to visit CNN and check their archives Eye-wink

latincanuck wrote:

He didn't fulfill a bunch of them, the most important is reigning over the jews, taking them back to israel and building the third temple, so no he was never and will never be accepted by the jews as the true messiah because jesus never fulfills the prophecies.

God has a way of not being or doing things the way man expects though. I would say that Christ definitely rules over the 'chosen people' (those that God both predestined and foreknew would serve Jesus... Jew and Gentile alike), which does not mean that the Jews are forgotten, but rather that salvation has come to all men through them and that true Israel will one day be grafted back into the tree which Gentiles are now 'ingrafted' into.

As to the temple, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)

I think you are absolutely correct that not all Jews will accept this, nor will all people. In the end, it's our choice on what we will believe, follow or serve.

I may disagree with your choice, just as you may disagree with mine, but I would hope that we all make our choices based on solid facts and truth. Whatever you choose, my response should be the same... love for you.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Anonymouse

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way,

That can mean pretty much anything.

 

Exactly, which is why I use it. It gets rid of a lot of preconceptions and allows 'me' to be defined by our interaction vs what people have garnered from a Hollywood film.

Uhm...if I have any preconceptions at all about christians, I certainly don't get them from Hollywood films.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Apologies for hijacking

Apologies for hijacking someone else's reply.

Dragoon wrote:
If I've been 'bigotted' in any of my comments, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to apologize.

Okay. That would be your comments about the out and proud glbt pastor. Hiding behind the bible only adds hypocrisy.

Dragoon wrote:
James tells us that 'whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). Essentially, there may be different 'crimes' and relative results, but regardless of which 'crime' you committed you would still be considered a criminal. So also the Bible teaches on sin.

Indeed it does. So about those shrimp... (I'm obsessed with shrimp. The way some christians are obsessed with homosexuality), ever eaten one ?

Dragoon wrote:
Happy New Year everyone Eye-wink

Same to you.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi again Indeterminate,Does

Hi again Indeterminate,

Does evolution truly "remove the possibility that god was directly involved in the creation of humans or any other known species"?

As I understand it, evolution describes a process... it does not address whether the process has any 'intelligence' behind. I'm afraid I also don't see how abiogenesis really addresses formation of life 'without a god'. Once again, I understand it as describing a possible process... but not whether that process does or does not have an intelligent cause.

Let me rephrase;

An intelligent designer (whether it is the Christian Gods or not) is not required for either evolution or abiogenesis, but neither does it proscribe an intelligent desgner behind or authoring the process.

 

Oh... and referring to an earlier post, I absolutely agree that Christians have wasted too much money, resources and time over 'battling' evolution. The issue is an interesting side-line, but has largely been driven by fear that it undermines the Bible. If the Bible is false, then we should not cover it up with fictions to protect our pride. The Bible and God are only worth following IF they are fully real.


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
 The issue with people who

 

The issue with people who urinate is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly urinate, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions urination 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Does evolution

Dragoon wrote:

Does evolution truly "remove the possibility that god was directly involved in the creation of humans or any other known species"?

Yes. Note that I said directly involved. God did not create man or any other species, but this does not necessarily mean that god did not design the evolutionary process.

Dragoon wrote:

As I understand it, evolution describes a process... it does not address whether the process has any 'intelligence' behind. I'm afraid I also don't see how abiogenesis really addresses formation of life 'without a god'. Once again, I understand it as describing a possible process... but not whether that process does or does not have an intelligent cause.

If there is a molecular biologist round here they'll be able to explain this far better than I can.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise from a series of chemical interactions which are unrelated to life. It is supported by the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated that if you put certain inorganic chemicals under certain conditions organic chemistry will arise from that. The chemicals and conditions used in the experiment are those which existed naturally on Earth some 4 billion years ago, shortly before life first appeared.

Since this process is governed entirely by the laws of chemistry, god is not necessary for it to occur. 

Dragoon wrote:

An intelligent designer (whether it is the Christian Gods or not) is not required for either evolution or abiogenesis, but neither does it proscribe an intelligent desgner behind or authoring the process.

That is pretty much what I mean when I said that god is sufficient but not necessary.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Apologies

Anonymouse wrote:

Apologies for hijacking someone else's reply.

Dragoon wrote:
If I've been 'bigotted' in any of my comments, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to apologize.

Okay. That would be your comments about the out and proud glbt pastor. Hiding behind the bible only adds hypocrisy.

Dragoon wrote:
James tells us that 'whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). Essentially, there may be different 'crimes' and relative results, but regardless of which 'crime' you committed you would still be considered a criminal. So also the Bible teaches on sin.

Indeed it does. So about those shrimp... (I'm obsessed with shrimp. The way some christians are obsessed with homosexuality), ever eaten one ?

Dragoon wrote:
Happy New Year everyone Eye-wink

Same to you.

Is it biggotry to say, if you call yourself a Marxist, follow Marx? If you call yourself a Vegan, do not eat animal protein. If you call yourself a Christian pastor, then follow Christ's teachings. I am simply saying that any Chistian should follow the teachings of Christ, and I would say that to any person (GLBT, straight or otherwise), though I would hope that I would always say it with respect, politeness and love for the person.

 

Have I ever eaten a what? ...a shrimp or a homosexual?


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Dragoon

Indeterminate wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Does evolution truly "remove the possibility that god was directly involved in the creation of humans or any other known species"?

Yes. Note that I said directly involved. God did not create man or any other species, but this does not necessarily mean that god did not design the evolutionary process.

Dragoon wrote:

As I understand it, evolution describes a process... it does not address whether the process has any 'intelligence' behind. I'm afraid I also don't see how abiogenesis really addresses formation of life 'without a god'. Once again, I understand it as describing a possible process... but not whether that process does or does not have an intelligent cause.

If there is a molecular biologist round here they'll be able to explain this far better than I can.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise from a series of chemical interactions which are unrelated to life. It is supported by the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated that if you put certain inorganic chemicals under certain conditions organic chemistry will arise from that. The chemicals and conditions used in the experiment are those which existed naturally on Earth some 4 billion years ago, shortly before life first appeared.

Since this process is governed entirely by the laws of chemistry, god is not necessary for it to occur. 

Dragoon wrote:

An intelligent designer (whether it is the Christian Gods or not) is not required for either evolution or abiogenesis, but neither does it proscribe an intelligent desgner behind or authoring the process.

That is pretty much what I mean when I said that god is sufficient but not necessary.

Ahhh I see. The problem with our communications is that we are both using English Eye-wink

About abiogenesis though, even if the process is governed by chemistry, if God created all things, then he (masculine merely for conversational convenience) also created the laws of chemistry. Given unlimited knowledge/power/insight those laws might have been put into place precisely to create life... intelligent design. Given unlimited knowledge/power/insight those laws might have been put into place precisely so that we could have this conversation today.

My apologies for missing 'directly' though. I'm definitely getting tired lol.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Ahhh I see.

Dragoon wrote:

Ahhh I see. The problem with our communications is that we are both using English Eye-wink

That can cause no end of trouble you know.

Dragoon wrote:

About abiogenesis though, even if the process is governed by chemistry, if God created all things, then he (masculine merely for conversational convenience) also created the laws of chemistry. Given unlimited knowledge/power/insight those laws might have been put into place precisely to create life... intelligent design. Given unlimited knowledge/power/insight those laws might have been put into place precisely so that we could have this conversation today.

Which brings us back to: Is there any reason to think god was involved, or even exists?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Is it biggotry

Dragoon wrote:
Is it biggotry to say, if you call yourself a Marxist, follow Marx? If you call yourself a Vegan, do not eat animal protein. If you call yourself a Christian pastor, then follow Christ's teachings. I am simply saying that any Chistian should follow the teachings of Christ, and I would say that to any person (GLBT, straight or otherwise), though I would hope that I would always say it with respect, politeness and love for the person.

The teachings of christ can be interpreted in many ways. Just ask a glbt pastor. Unfortunatly, it's also possible to interpret them as a justification for bigotry, which is what you did there.

Dragoon wrote:
Have I ever eaten a what? ...a shrimp or a homosexual?

A shrimp. Uhm....you have read the bible, right ? You're not allowed to eat lobster either, btw. Sorry.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Dragoon

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Is it biggotry to say, if you call yourself a Marxist, follow Marx? If you call yourself a Vegan, do not eat animal protein. If you call yourself a Christian pastor, then follow Christ's teachings. I am simply saying that any Chistian should follow the teachings of Christ, and I would say that to any person (GLBT, straight or otherwise), though I would hope that I would always say it with respect, politeness and love for the person.

The teachings of christ can be interpreted in many ways. Just ask a glbt pastor. Unfortunatly, it's also possible to interpret them as a justification for bigotry, which is what you did there.

Here's what I wrote about GLBT pastors;

Dragoon wrote:

2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though, and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

I think you're confusing 'bigotry' with disagreement with someone's position/choice Eye-wink

If you would like to discuss any arguments that you think support GLBT pastors, then I'd be happy to discuss them with you. You can decide yourself whether they are merely a matter of interpretation.

 


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I think you're

Dragoon wrote:

I think you're confusing 'bigotry' with disagreement with someone's position/choice Eye-wink

This implies that you think sexuality is a choice. Care to either support or refute that?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Here's what I

Dragoon wrote:
Here's what I wrote about GLBT pastors;

Yes, I read it the first time.

Dragoon wrote:
I think you're confusing 'bigotry' with disagreement with someone's position/choice Eye-wink

You're taking issue with them being openly and proud glbt. Why ? Because it's in the bible. But there are quite a few other abominations in the bible that you seem quite happy to ignore. I've already given an example. In other words, you're cherrypicking, so your real reasons for "disagreeing" with a pastor for being openly and proudly GLBT has yet to be revealed.

So what other reason, apart from bigotry, could you have for disagreeing with them being openly and proudly glbt ? I'd love to find out.

Dragoon wrote:
If you would like to discuss any arguments that you think support GLBT pastors, then I'd be happy to discuss them with you. You can decide yourself whether they are merely a matter of interpretation.

I'm not a christian, so I don't do theological arguments (But if bible-based arguments are your thing, you might enjoy this : http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian ). Lucklily, in this case, none are needed.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:real

Anonymouse wrote:
real reasons for "disagreeing" with a pastor for being openly and proudly GLBT

 

Oh come on! Isn't it obvious?

You don't need mind control when you've got crotch control.

If you wanted to create a mind fuck operation that was about wielding political power over ignorant people, where would you place the leverage? Of course in some area of the human nature that is notoriously difficult to both predict and manage. If you can successfully install feelings of guilt, shame and remorse into people, then suggest that YOU can absolve them and give them peace of mind, you pretty much own them. Most of these Christian cretins are little but a bunch of confused masochists in denial who are seeking to materialize that authoritarian principle that they so desire. Some good old S&M is really all that they need.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Oh come on!

Marquis wrote:
Oh come on! Isn't it obvious?

To me, yeah. To him, apparently not. He doesn't seem to have given it much thought.

Marquis wrote:
Some good old S&M is really all that they need.

They certainly seem to like fantasising about it. What with that hell business and all that.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:fantasising

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com