Monday, December 21, 2009

>insert title here<

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students,'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly.'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues.'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters.'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued,'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet.'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing.'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats.'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies.'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room.'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues.'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds,'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied,'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor smiles and nods at his student. Albert Einstien.

150 comments:

  1. This isn't really on topic, but I find it interesting that you you have a category called "Truth". Are you trying to say that this is the absolute truth and that you are all knowing? Because this post doesn't seem to really to do with discussing truth, just trying once more to talk about religion. There is a lot of faith in atheism. The diffeence is there is just more evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alex, you talk about the evidence for atheism an awful lot, but you don't seem to have as much evidence for it as we do against it. You haven't said much about the evidence presented in the last few posts, either. What did you think of them?

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't really think anything of them. The research was not well done, the conclusions mostly based on opinion and the scientific process used was sloppy if even there at all. Why comment on biased and poorly done work? If you haven't noticed, it doesn't seem like anyone is really commenting. Is that because of the posts, or am I just that popular?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alex,

    Thank you for mentioning that atheism is a position of faith.

    It is interesting that you elaborated on your opinion of the evidence presented in the post, but failed to mention anything about the "more evidence" Kendra asked you about.

    What evidence? Atheism is roughly defined as "The doctrine or belief that there is no God." As a tenant of faith, this works, but the evidence required to prove it is near impossible. You would have to have a way to detect the existence og God, employ it, and get a negative result. Do you have such a test?

    Let me put it this way...you get a call from a man saying he was in your house waiting to kill you and you called the police. If the officer looked in the front door, walked around a bit, yelled "are you in here?", and then came out and told you nobody was in your house, would you feel safe?

    If you asked the officer how he knew and he said, "I checked in all the places in the house I would hide if I were going to try to kill you." Would you now feel safe? What if the man waiting to kill you thinks different than the officer? He might choose to be somewhere the officer wouldn't, and that is why the officer didn't find him.

    Atheism is a faith, and could even be classified as a primitive informal religion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trust me Alex, you are NOT that popular. I have commented on several of the posts, but very often the research is so THROUGH I have nothing to add. Do not mistake that for a fear of being incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These are great analogies. I got this discussion in an e-mail. It's far more profound than typical chain mail!

    Like all possible topics debated on the face of this planet, I'm having an internal argument about the message this sends. (Unfortunatley, theories of creation not included.) But I do appreciate the metaphor about the absence of God causing evil...AS LONG AS the absence of good can be interchangeable with the absence of God. Hey, I'm pretty picky.

    Either way, these are really good descriptions of faith.

    And I'm know I'm really bothersome about this, but I wish everyone would resist their urge to badger Alex. Not only does it seem like his opinions are responded to unfairly, but that he's being judged because of his decision about religion.

    My ideal setting for discussion is one where I don't have to censor my thoughts. We shouldn't be scorned for our opinions and we should discuss actual ideas instead of making personal attacks. Also, if any of us are trying to convert Alex, I do not think you're doing it right.

    Thanks for posting this, Kendra.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now Christopher, at the risk of sounding like a four-year-old, badgering Alex is FUN! And if he's right, there's not much other reason for life other than fun, now is there?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you get such a kick out of it, although you realize that that comes at the cost of looking like a complete idiot online and having your quotes read aloud for laughs by my liberal friends who have the "flaw" of intelligence. And my belief is that there is other reason for life than fun. Do what you've always wanted to. That's what I believe. Because you're not going to get a second chance after this. This is it. If all you want to do if life is have fun, go for it! But that's not very practical and will most likely result in failure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm going to fail to have fun?

    And what is another reason to live, if there's nothing else, and we weren't created for a purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A reason to live is to expierence the joys of life. To make an impact on this world if you choose. Some find atheism depressing, but that's just because you don't look hard enough.

    And I didn't say fail to have fun, just end in failure. Maybe you'll spend all your night partying, but when the bill comes, you're broke and out on the streets. All actions can have their consequences, good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But what is good? If you're right, what is good but my opinion? What's the point in making an impact in this world? And aren't "joys" the same as "fun"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joys can be fun. For instance, raising a child can be a joy, but it's not always fun. And good is just what humans believe is good. It's always been that way. Look back to ancient times. You can see all the terrible things they did that were excused because the definition of "good" was different. On earth, that's the way things always will be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know who's right, Alex, but your argument is kinda depressing me.

    I need some chocolate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alex, what do you mean by "Always"?

    And what do you believe is good? If I believe that killing you is good, and enough people agree with me, does that make it good?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have made this point many times, but it rarely gets through. Thank you for bringing it up Cavender, hopefully you will present it in a manner that is more convincing than I have.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Which point? The CREATION of time? or the relativity of good?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good is a human invention. There is no "divine good". Unfortunately, that is the world we live in. That's why it's so important to look out for "bad" deeds in the world and stop them, but peacefully.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why is it so important? Because we humans, we highly-evolved animals have given ourselves a false sense of worth? Looking at this from an Atheist point of view, we are like dollars. Our worth isn't based on any tangible thing. We Christians believe we have worth because of God, just like dollars have value based on trust in our government. Why do YOU think we have value? Shouldn't we all just die to get out of evolution's way?

    And you still haven't answered my other question, what is always to you?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow! I don't check in for a bit and BAM!

    Christopher, I don't badger Alex over his choice of faith. On the other hand, if he presents his faith in things such as evolution, genetic homosexuality, or life beginning at birth as scientific facts, I will ask him to provide evidence. He has a bad habit of not providing anything in the way of evidence and debating on pure passion.

    Great points CJ! If good and bad is left to us humans to decide then everything is good and everything is bad. There are no bad deeds if good is a human invention, deeds are like different makes of cars. You may like Ford and I like Chevy. You may believe it is a good deed to blow up a building full of infidels, I may think it is good to help folks recover from a natural disaster, both are of equal value to an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Alex, you still have to answer my questions. And listen to Bard.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Always for me means always. What does it mean for you? As for the rest, why don't you pick up a book by Gora? I'm getting tired of explaining everything. By the way Bard, I find it funny that in your analogy, I'm blowing up buildings and your helping people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bard: Simply three words:

    Are you SERIOUS?!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alex how long is always? When did always begin? Has time always existed?

    ReplyDelete
  25. And Alex you never answered my question from before Bard started talking. Why is it so important to look out for "bad" deeds? Is it because we humans, we highly-evolved animals have given ourselves a false sense of worth? Looking at this from an Atheist point of view, we are like dollars. Our worth isn't based on any tangible thing. We Christians believe we have worth because of God, just like dollars have value based on trust in our government. Why do YOU think we have value? Shouldn't we all just die to get out of evolution's way?

    ReplyDelete
  26. See Alex, that is exactly what I am talking about. You are tired of explaining everything to us? You have explained nothing.

    Why does it matter how I cast you in my analogy when all goods are equal? I didn't attach names anyways, I find it funny that you assume you are blowing things up. Who gets to decide what bad deeds are?

    Christopher: Simply three words:

    Yes I am!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh, so is there another "you" you were referring to? Good. That means I don't have to answer any of your questions. The other you can do it. and CJ, if you want to believe that, fine. I'm not going to explain you my view point just because you want me to. I have no obligation to you. You are asking me paradoxes like the beginning of time, and I'm sorry but I don't think anyone is 100% sure about things like that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe it's too complicated for you, let's try again. Why do you think we have value, Alex?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alex, sorry, just read my comment again, I did say you. I could have as easily reversed us in that statement, the point is the same.

    You rarely answer questions anyway, you mostly deflect and ask unrelated questions.

    I will bow out of this conversation and let CJ talk to you.

    Merry CHRISTmas all!

    ReplyDelete
  30. We make our own value, CJ. Humans, don't like doing that though, they want to believe that they already have it, instead of taking the time to look at themselves and assess yourselves, so we create a divine being for comfort and to kindle the belief that there is more than this. It's not really as sad as some people think, it just required you to look inside of yourself. But oh well. I take the fact that your so interested in my belief as a complement and a sign of possible conversion, so thank you! Happy Holidays!

    ReplyDelete
  31. First of all, are you saying you're not human?
    XD

    Second, How can we create value? Value must be inherent or given. How would you like it if everything I said was right, because I created my own value, and valued myself higher than everyone else? That doesn't work.

    Third, I apologize for that last comment, that outburst was uncalled for.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm sort of surprised to hear you say that, Alex. Happy Holy Days to you, too! You do know that where the phrase comes from, right?

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  33. We make our value through our actions. It's hard to explain, and the entire subject of value and worth is always a difficult one, but would you mind telling me what your trying to accomplish here? I mean, are you trying to convert me? Learn about my faith? Try to tear it down? Because if you are, I'm sorry, it's not working. Anyway, hapy holidays! I hope you are able to see that you are worth something!

    ReplyDelete
  34. He is trying to show you the flaws in your logic, but intentionally or not you are dancing around the issue and failing (refusing?) to see it. His point is that if there is no great standard that decided what actions have value and what aren't then anything could be determined as valuable!

    I would give an example, but his was perfect, you just chose to ignore it because you managed to find something slightly offensive in it, something you do quite often.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Alex, why do you say you don't have to explain your values and ideas to us, if you're commenting on Kendra's blog telling her why she's wrong (and she's not) and trying to tear down our faith? If you don't want to explain yourself, or have us tell you you're wrong, GO AWAY. It's that simple.
    I'm not trying to convert you, but show you why you're wrong. If I was wrong, I'd be GLAD for you to show me how.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, anything could be considered valuable. Maybe you see my logic as "flawed" because it's not positive enough for you. The fact that value is a human invention that really means nothing is not a flaw, but truth. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To Bard: TWO words:

    Good comeback.

    To everyone else: IT'S CHRISTMAS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. To Christopher: Quit your little squabble with Bard, and either CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING, or QUIT WHINING about people not being polite to Alex.

    Alex: How can *anything* be considered valuable? Can you give specific examples?

    ReplyDelete
  39. HEY.

    CAVENDER.

    TONE IT DOWN. YOU ARE THIS CLOSE TO GETTING YOUR COMMENTS DELETED.

    IF CHRISTOPHER WANTS TO "SQUABBLE" WITH BARD, FINE. AFTER ALL, WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH ALEX?

    Sheesh ;)

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  40. And a Happy New Year!

    Anything can have value if someone wants it to.

    ReplyDelete
  41. To Cavender: I'm sorry if my squabbling with Bard bothered you. It may seem to you like my comments are an annoying obstacle between your and Alex's stimulating discussion of the utmost importance.

    But what I have never been able to understand is what you all are accomplishing. About 75% of your debate consists of criticizing your opponent, and VERY FEW users on this blog are open to new opinions. If "whining" is such a huge issue, than I'm the one at fault. But honestly, the endless and unproductive arguing that easily ignites at any topic presented on this blog seems about balanced with my "whining."

    And although I share a different perspective and slightly varied view of it, I do kind of agree with Alex's opinion on this matter. There. And I am ready to stop being bothersome if I really am.

    To everyone: One last try-

    Alex and I represent a challenge to all of you. Discussion of politics and religion is all very well when all of you AGREE! Well what about when new opinions and ideas are presented? That question has been answered through experience. Apparently Alex has come onto this blog and attempted to destroy your faith and ridicule you. Although I do not agree with his method of interacting about these topics with you, you are doing the same to him, if not worse! Not only are the conservatives ganging up on more liberal opinions, but they are essentially silencing them, considering they are not heard when no one with an open mind is willing to hear them.

    Ah, well. Just forget it. Anyways, I guess now would be a strange time to interject with a "Merry Christmas!"

    ReplyDelete
  42. Here's the thing. You don't go to someone's blog to ridicule their beliefs, and then tell them you don't have to explain your own.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And what new ideas have been presented? We let him tell us what he thinks, but he doesn't present new ideas. I'm pretty sure most of us know most of the information being presented... "Scientists say ______ happened _____ years ago" Blah Blah Blah. Is that new? No. How can we silence someone's opinion? He has a right to free speech, we can't silence that. We're telling him he's wrong. We may not do it in the politest way, but here's some news: Conservatives are rarely the politest people. He tells us his opinion, we tell him we think it's wrong, and then we all bring in our own information. If that's ganging up on him, I'm the latest to do it. (Since I've only recently started arguing)

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have to disagree CJ. Neither liberal nor conservatives corner the market on rudeness, but neither need be characterized as such. You seem to have lost your temper and have stopped your logical requests for clarification and have turned to telling all dissenters to "go away".

    I may be firm in my belief of the principles I hold true, but I am not closed minded and try not to be rude.

    On the other hand, I am not going to invest too much effort in tip-toeing around somebody who is oversensitive. I figure if you come to this blog, you come to discuss ideas, and that may mean you ideas being questioned. I know Alex has had no trouble questioning everyone else's ideas.

    Asking somebody to back their ideas with logic, evidence, or just admit it is their unfounded opinion is not ganging up on them.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why do you care though? Do you wish to understand my ideas? I don't think so. You certainly haven't showed that so far. The questions you've asked me are the questions that everyone ponders. Christians, atheists, Jews, ect. No one really knows the true answer. I think that the idea of value is like money. Sorry. It's a human invention. We give things the value we think they deserve, so everything can have value. And CJ, whenever you say "So according to your logic" it's usually true. Yes, according to my logic, this means this.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yeah, Bard. You're right. I don't even know where my conversation is going. XD Thank you all for putting me in my place.

    Alex, the question isn't why WE care. It's why YOU care. We (for the most part) agree with most of what Kendra says. We discuss what she posts, and that's that. You don't even try to understand our/her views. You just tell us we're wrong over and over.

    And if the idea of value is like money to you, you've contradicted yourself. Money is printed AND given value by a (generally viewed as) higher power.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Not necessarily. Plus, you also have accused me of thinking of value as money, so what's the probelm here? It's seems like you just wsitch around meanings when it helps you. And I do try to understand her posts. I read all of them. Plus, how can you discuss something if you all agree? And I don't just say "Wrong, wrong", but maybe that's all you hear as it seems you just skim over my comments. Why don't you go on my blog and beat up the ideas? Fine by me.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I've never accused you of thinking of value like money. I've been using it as an example. I haven't twisted anything around. I've been using the same logic I always was.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Listen, I'd really like to know what you want to accomplish. What is your problem with my beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Humans choose what they value. From a literal perspective, humans also choose what is good. This is easily proven by a single fact:

    Every person values something different, and every person has a different view of what is good.

    If there is only a SINGLE, DOMINATING truth, then that means that only one person on earth shares it with God or whatever Supreme Being you believe in who decides this ultimate truth. Think about it: if there is only one truth and it is know to you, doesn't that mean that everyone else is wrong? Because even those who seem to believe the same thing as you ACTUALLY believe in a slightly varied version of it?

    Because I am rather divided on the subject of truth, I can see why both sides of the argument make so much sense! But I totally fail to understand how you can think that humans do not choose what to value or deem "good."

    So before I can continue with my argument, can you explain yours?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Christopher: Thanks for bringing up real points now. Just kidding. But seriously, thanks. Also, I'm sorry for my previous posts.

    Why can only one person share the truth with God? More than one person can believe the same thing. Other people may believe something different, but if I know the complete truth, they ARE wrong. I don't understand where you're going with that, can you please explain what you were getting at?

    And the reason I think humans do not choose what is "good" is that the decision has been made. God knows what's wrong. Good is good, evil is evil. Man can't change that. Now, someone looking at it from a non-Christian view, people DO choose for themselves. But since there is a dominating standard of good and bad, no matter what they choose as "good" it's probably not right. So in short, humans "choose" what's good, but they're usually wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Okay, now I understand what you're explaining to me about good and how God chooses it. And in ONE way, I do agree. What I was attempting to express, (and I often enough have trouble expressing myself,) is that VERY FEW people believe the exact same thing. It might seem that many do, but really that's rather impossible with topics as complicated as religion and so many people on this earth! Certainly Christians don't all believe the exact same thing. But those within a single denomination don't either! Those within your church, even, have varying beliefs.

    Consider the number of people that have precisely identical beliefs as you about only the aspects of religion! How many might that be? Totally wild guess: a thousand? That's a very small group of people considered to be englightened to the truth. And what makes you any more right than your neighbor who believes something different?

    But I'm just fighting the other side of the argument.

    On the other hand, do you believe a similar thing about what is valuable? Does God choose what is valuable? Why then, do SO MANY people, including Christians,value different things?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I agree that Christians have differing views of what's right. Anyone who believes something other than the whole truth is wrong. The reason SO MANY people value different things is that God hasn't told us everything that is valuable. We only (usually) accept the Bible, and it doesn't tell us everything we want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  54. So you are saying that you and only several thousand other people are the only ones correct in your beliefs? You and this limited number of people are the only ones out of the six billion in the world that are correct, and everyone else is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  55. None of us are 100% correct about what is good and right. We all mess it up somewhere, but that is not the same as saying there is no such thing as good and right.

    From the perspective that humans create what is good, anything I do as a human is good. This is the same as saying nothing is good.

    It is interesting that people from different geographical locations and different cultures have certain common themes on what things are good. Truth is valued in most cultures for example.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Bard, yes.

    Christopher, If my views were right, then yes, I, along with that thousand people, would be the only ones who are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Christopher, when Louis Pasteur discovered microorganisms most people believed spontaneous generation caused bacterium. He was one of a very few that believed the truth, yet he was right. What is true has nothing to do with the number of people who believe it, no matter how many or few.

    We might agree on this related to microorganisms , but you might think that moral issues, such as abortion or homosexuality, are very different. This difference would be because of our belief in the Creator of all things, even truth, right and Good.

    If you do not believe in a creator, anything can be good or true, it really is your own human invention (to you). The thing is, just like people who believed in spontaneous generation, it doesn't actually make it true.

    I am sure that Pasteur was told his ideas on microorganisms were crazy by people who did not understand them. The creator that created microorganisms also created everything else. If that creator tells us that homosexuality is wrong, it is, whether we understand why or not.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Okay, I understand now. You guys really made great points.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Bard, you just proved blind faith. "If that creator tells us homosexuality is wrong, it, whether we understand why or not." You don't even question? Why would a loving God think someone is wrong for just being who they are? You don't even have the curiousity to look at things and wonder? That's really sad. Not sarcastic sad, just sad. I really feel scared and sorry. Because if that's what we are going forward, then I really have to wonder what's going to become of us. Fortunately, there are a lot more people out there was disagree with you. And that number is growing everday.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Alex, Blind faith is what is required by God. Blind faith is something that must be taken, "that step of faith" in order to come into the proper relationship with God through Christ and his saving blood. And the numbers are actually growing the other way, Alex. As this culture becomes more and more depraved, more and more are starting to find Christ and become believers, especially in countries in China, Iran, and other places where Christians are persecuted. We are of God, and the Church will always be here.


    As to Christopher's comment on different denominations and such, I see what you're saying, but yet at the same time, no one agrees on everything. Those who are True Christians (who believe in the infallibility of the Bible, Christ's being fully-God and fully Man, death and ressurection, etc.) may have difference Convictions in the Spirit concerning different things. My conscience might say listening to rap music that has clean lyrics is alright. But another believer might think thats' not alright. That's fine. We are still united by our bond as brothers in Christ, just with some differing viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Alex: I do see what you're saying. However, the real problem here, with the idea that God is perfect and always knows best, is not whether or not to ask, "Is God right in saying this?"

    Rather, a Christian should ask, "Is this really what God is saying? Would a loving and perfect God make this decision?" And in this case that one interprets the Bible as God says that homosexuality is wrong and gays should be turned down, then NO. This is not God saying this.

    JT: God does always know best and we shouldn't put our judgement before his. But what you should really analyze is whether or not you interpreted the Bible and Scripture correctly. Is that God saying this? Is it really?

    In response to your second paragraph, yes, this is what Bard and Cavender were trying to say. On the other hand, I still don't exactly agree with it. But I see what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Christopher, this is a common misconception, homosexuals are not "turned down" by God. PEOPLE do discriminate unfairly sometimes, but God still loves them. It's just a sin, like any other.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Cavender, I think that as well is a common misconception.

    ReplyDelete
  64. What do you mean? Are you saying that God does turn them down? Or that it's not like any other sin?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Alex, I do question, as Christopher points out, whether or not I have understood God or not. The thing is, it is pretty presumptuous to think that we, the created, would be able to understand everything that the creator understands. This is why understanding why God defines something as good or bad can't be a requirement for accepting it once we believe we have understood what He is telling us.

    You claimed I am not curious why God says what he says. That is not true, I am. You asked, "Why would a loving God think someone is wrong for just being who they are?" A loving God knows who we are better even than we do, He created us. We are often tempted to be other than what we were created for, but those desires do not make it right for us to rebel against who we were made to be.

    I know the homosexual lifestyle is a personal cause for you Alex, so maybe I should have chose a different example to avoid derailing the conversation. The point is not to say God hates homosexuals, it was to say that, if God says something is right or wrong, it is. We should question whether or not we have properly understood God. We may want to try and understand how something works in God's creation. Questioning whether what we believe God has said is good is actually good is arrogant and blasphemous for a believer, not closed minded.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Cavender: I am saying that it is NOT a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The homosexual lifestyle doesn't exist. Why would someone choose to be gay? That just doesn't make sense. But then again, not many of the GOPs political stances do.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Why doesn't it make sense to choose to be gay?

    ReplyDelete
  69. First of all, it's very unlikely that ANYONE would want to choose to be homosexual because of the social consequences that come with it. And it is far more unlikely that one tenth of America would choose it. (Real statistics.)

    Also, consider using simply logic. How can someone choose their persuasion? I mean, to a certain point your reasoning could make sense, but to the point that they can't change their persuasion? They do not choose who they're attracted to anymore than heterosexuals do!

    Lastly, SOME gays--(not all I might add)--have certain genetic characteristics that accompany homosexuality. I am not referring to the gay stereotype. Unfortunately, many stereotypes are based on some truth...

    For instance, some gay men have speech impedements or feminine speech patterns along with their persuasion. Do they choose this as well?

    Alex's right. It really doesn't make sense to choose to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Christopher, your logic doesn't work. Just because you think there is no advantage to choosing the homosexual lifestyle doesn't mean others would feel the same way. They have their own sub-culture that has many attractive elements. It is not like you say you are gay and society makes you wear a scarlet H and live outside of town. That victim mentality is part of their culture, and like stereotypes, is based on some truth, but largely myth today.

    A persons "persuasion" is just something they are attracted to. People have all kinds of attractions they are not born with, and they change throughout their lives. A serial murderer may have an attraction (for as long as they can remember) to killing people, that doesn't mean they were born that way does it? There are certainly negative consequences to that choice, we even punish people for it, nobody would choose that....right?

    As for anecdotal evidence that there is "certain genetic characteristics that accompany homosexuality", please share some?

    Again, this is not what we were talking about. The conversation was about IF there is such a thing as good, or is it something we just make up for ourselves. It is interesting that Alex and Christopher started saying we all decide for ourselves what is good and there is no universal good for all (and conversely no universal bad for all). No right and wrong....except homosexuality, apparently believing it is a choice is wrong for all.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bard what advantages? The city that I live in has one of the largest gay populations in the country and I know some of them. There is not a single advantage. Nothing. There is no "gay district", they don't special privlidges, and now there is a movment to restrict them even more. CJ, the fact that it makes sense to choose to be agay in your mind only proves the fact that you really don't seem to think things through.

    ReplyDelete
  72. My logic may not work for you, Bard. Yours does not work for me. I'm going to use a line that I've been avoiding because it's been so often said:

    You've failed to answer my question. WHAT is attractive about being homosexual? You are usually good about supporting your ideas with evidence, but everyone has bent around this question in the past. Why would anyone choose to be gay? I think that you have the wrong concept about what it means to have a certain sexual persuasion. (And I DO have a homosexual church friend with a scarlet H sweatshirt. It's very nice.)

    Excuse me for my terminology. By mentioning someone's persuasion, I meant someone's sexual persuasion. I assumed that since we were discussing homosexuality, serial killers would not be of issue.

    And, in address to your third paragraph, once again I slipped up. I should not have said "genetic characteristics," but rather traits from birth. I mentioned speech impedements, but also this: Gay males tend to have varying preferences from straight males. It sounds like I'm assuring the stereotype, but I'm only being fair. Homosexual women, on the other hand, are often less feminine physically with certain physique and tone of voice. This is, as I said earlier, only in a fraction of the cases. But it is sometimes prominent.

    And lastly, no, the subject of homosexuality is not related to the post. That is our fault. Then again, when ARE the comments on subject anymore, beyond the first five or six? Although it's not exactly a pressing issue, I shall resist straying from topic in the future if it pleases you. You did seem more than happy to join the new debate...

    Right and wrong is actually irrelevant here, (at least from my point of view.) Americans are granted certain rights, and all Americans should be entitled to these rights, not just the ideal Americans. Gays should be able to marry if they wish. Definitely. Despite our perspective on who chooses what is good, we still aim for what we think is good. You make us sound like anarchists. Simply because humans choose what is good, should we live without boundaries? No!

    Thanks for replying. Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Alex, maybe Kendra will do a post for Homosexuality for us to talk about that specifically (or I can on my blog).

    Tonight is a family fun night for us, so I will have to respond later.

    I think this has been a good discussion so far.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Bard, relax. It's okay! I'[ve got great news! You don't have to fight! Neither do I! Because what we do is worthless. A SF politican said, "Gay marriage is coming, whether you like it or not. It's too late to try to close the door." and he was right. It's over. There's no point in fighting. You've already lost.

    ReplyDelete
  75. OK, Alex, thanks for letting me know. I wonder if that SF politician said that before or after they closed the door...repeatedly...everywhere it has been legalized (except DC...for now).

    If you remember my comments on this post, and others, I have said that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (allowing or disallowing).

    I also never mentioned gay marriage in the comments for this post, but instead talked about how choosing the homosexual lifestyle offends God. We can make gay marriage legal, but that doesn't make it right.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Actually, the only place marriage got turned down this year was Maine. Sorry. There are still 6 more states that have and figures predict that number to grow in the coming years. Also, how will gay rights affect you?

    ReplyDelete
  77. If government shouldn't be invovled in marriage, then fine.

    But for now, since government IS involved with marriage, then it should be legal for gays to marry as well.

    ReplyDelete
  78. OK, I HAD to respond after trying not to let the conversation get derailed...well done Alex, you have your gay rights talking points down pat. I was mistaken on the gay marriage is nowhere statement as well.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I'd just like to add to the fact that I'm really nopt sure how you think it will be taken down in DC. The only way they could do that is if congress challegened it after 30 days. The clock is ticking and congress has yet to have talk about making an action on it. Plus, all we have to do is fillubuster (if it should even come down to that which I doubt it will) if need be. But whatever. No one has chaleneged it so far, and many predict it will not be challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  80. We were talking about good...whether it is something humans create for themselves, or something that is created for us.

    As a Christian I believe that good comes from obedience to God. This includes things that are God's will for all men (such as the Commandments), as well as things that are personal to me (God's will for me).

    As an atheist how can you say anything is good or bad? I can understand that you can judge things personally, but that is oppion and, well, everybody has them.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I've read this entire discussion so I wouldn't miss anything... whew. You fellas sure like to chatter. Since I also like a bit of chatter, I'm going to make just a few short comments on the topics discussed.

    (I notice that there is quite a bit of sniping too. My policy is to only snipe at my friends, so if you think I'm making a jab at you, it's either a joke, or you are my friend.)

    About value. I believe that the universe exists because God created it and he has complete say over its value. That said, God gives a ton of value, equally, to humans, because they are living souls he created with traits like his, including immortality and free will. He gives value to the animals and the earth in accordance with the way it reflects him. From the beginning, his commands include things that show the sanctity of life. One of the first and oldest dietary laws is to not eat blood, since blood represented the life of the animal. Humans also place value on things for themselves, but their opinions do not necessarily reflect God's opinion. Value is one of the things that dictates how we treat things and people. We also place value on values themselves. We can place value on things and treat them accordingly, but in all honesty, it's probably best to try to align our values with those of the Creator, including understanding that he is of infinite intrinsic value to everything in his creation.

    If the universe exists unto itself, then there is truly no standard of values and each human's (and one might argue even each animal's) values are as valid as that of any other. But even though some may profess that, they must amend that in order for society to exist, a common theme needs to be found in the majority and these values to be upheld. All in all, I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense, because you couldn't be both true to the belief that all beliefs are of equal worth as well as live in a functioning society. May I then make the case that faith in religion (a higher standard) is the foundation of all societies?

    About the denominations and the differences between Christians. I'd like to point out that not everything is a life or death issue. Yeah, that includes spiritual values. Paul says that ways of worship (like whether or not to follow the Law of Moses) are a matter of individual conscience, but that careful regard and understanding for each other are more key expressions of our devotion to God. Things that are "life and death" issues are key salvation things like the identity of Christ and baptism. Those are just a couple examples, there's more. My point is that no one is going to hell because they worship with musical instruments or any of those other nonsense, nit-picky issues which divide people.

    The Bible tells us everything we need to know about following God, including how to deal with situations that it doesn't talk about specifically.

    The Bible does talk specifically about homosexuality, saying that it is a perversion.

    I think that the government has no business being involved in marriage. Since it is, I think that the next best thing would be for it to make everything legal so it stops being an issue and people are free to make the choices. That said, I think that homosexuality is clearly forbidden in the Bible and that churches have no business performing weddings for homosexual couples.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Although I am glad that you at least support making it legal, I have to say that a lot of chuches may not be on your side about no weddings in churches. In fact, in California, several church organizations sued for not having the rights to marry same sex couples. Many high up priests (excluding catholosism and evangelicaism) do support gay marriage, and even though I really could care less what the bible says, many historical analyists have looked at the supposed "anti-gay" passages and have found alternate meanings. Things like it actually refering to rape and child molestation than homosexuals in general.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Lissy: I commend you for presenting a great argument! Your points are cleary expressed.

    Already I understand that you will not like this suggestion at all, BUT...

    I have read the passages that address the issue of homosexuality. A single wimpy attempt to counter that comes to mind, (that it might have been distorted in translation,) but my main thought is that the Bible did not descend directly from God, and I think it is unfair to say that God disapproves of homosexual marriage. The thought of a homosexual marriage was very foreign at that time, and ideas were far too primitive and strict to accept it.

    This will not apply at all to you, because I take the Bible not as a handbook to life, but as a key to religious inspiration. Now, if that's my ticket to hell, then so be it.

    I AM glad that you think that gay marriage should be legal, because really it shouldn't be prevented by law whether or not you think that government should control marriage.

    Great comment, though. I agree with much of it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Christopher, thank-you for your kind opinion of my comment.

    The only thing that could possibly upset me about what you said would be its short-sightedness. (Hear me out.) See, I didn't say homosexual marriage is forbidden in the Bible. I said homosexuality is, and that is indeed what the Bible says. I think it follows naturally that if homosexuality is wrong, then a marriage between two people of the same gender is wrong. I don't expect two men enter into a marriage sort of relationship while intending not to have sex. Let's be practical and realistic. What the Bible says about homosexuality applies to homosexual marriage, and saying otherwise is just unrealistic.

    Think of it this way too. A marriage is a covenant between two people in the sight of God. It is also recognised in our society, since as a christian-based society, we've been recognising what God recognises for countless generations. God does not approve of homosexuality in the first place, how on earth could we think that he will accept a union between homosexuals? The state can choose to recognise gay couples for the purposes of law and taxation, I couldn't care less. The state is separate from the church, as some people like to point out. They can even call it marriage if they want to. But God doesn't change his rules. I will never recognise gay couples to be in the sort of Biblical covenant that God ordained for men and women to enter.

    Many Christians believe that the Bible is directly from God and that he was involved in every step of its writing, including how it was passed down. The Dead Sea scrolls have demonstrated the extreme accuracy with which writings were copied by the Jews. Now, I think a religious book is pretty useless if you can't view all parts of it as inspired and useful. If you can't, then depending on who you listen to, you can take anything out of context and make the Bible support anything you want it to. For example, the Bible says, "There is no God." If you looked for this phrase in the Bible, you'll actually find it in many places. But for this example, look up Psalms 53:1. I think this will demonstrate exactly what I mean about context. Feel free to find all the other times. When you read the phrase in context, the Bible is not saying what this phrase says.

    The other reason I think gay marriage should be legal is that I'm tired to death of all the whining and moaning. I don't believe that law forces me to accept a certain standard of right and wrong, as some people say. If I were a preacher, I would still choose whether or not to perform a wedding ceremony. As long as preachers have the freedom to refuse to perform a ceremony, then nothing really has changed. As soon as they start passing laws that say that churches are required to perform any lawful ceremony they are asked to, then I will be the first of millions calling foul. Now, that would be a blatant interference of the state in personal and church affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  85. For Alex

    I've heard of church officials who advocate homosexuality, same as everyone else. They say that God just wants us to be happy. They say that God will accept everyone just as they are. They might even say that attempting to change who you are means that you aren't accepting God's grace. These are lies with a little truth in each. God wants us to be happy, but he knows what will make us happy better than we do. God accepts you as you are, but he loves you too much to leave you that way. A homosexual may come to Christ and be saved, just as a murderer or a liar. But when you become a Christian, you strive to put sin behind you. Practicing homosexuality is a sin, and it's one that can be stopped. God didn't save us just to let us then sit and do nothing. We are saved to grow, and if we don't, we won't stay saved. A clear flowing stream will support life indefinately, long after a pond has gone stagnant and died. In another metaphor, "If you don't use it, you lose it." I say all this to support what I say that there is a big difference between accepting a homosexual into a church because they want to be a christian and want to practice what's right, and accepting a homosexual into a church and saying that it's ok, he doesn't need to change his ways at all. Christianity is about change and growth *because of* grace.

    By the way, by "high up" do you mean spiritually strong or do you mean socially visible? The two are not at all related. I recognise no Christian as above me based on how many people know his name. I don't care how many humans think someone is all that, because humans can be wrong.

    I'm not sure how it is confusing. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"(Leviticus 18:22) seems pretty clear. To lie with a woman means to have sex, so men must not have sex with men. There's nothing in there like, "it's ok as long as its consentual." It's simple, no if's or but's about it.

    If you think the Old Testament is harsh and obsolete, fine, let's look in the New Testament. In Romans chapter one, we find:

    "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

    There is a lot of important stuff in these verses. All people have sinful desires in their hearts. Your heart is not a trustworthy guide to right and wrong. These people the verses refer to are those who exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They chose to ignore God and not obey him. God "gave them over" to what they wanted. They wanted to follow their sinful desires, they wanted to believe lies, so God let them. If you don't understand how this works, try talking to a parent. Sometimes with a headstrong child, the only thing you can do is let them go their way and let them learn on their own. Finally, homosexuality is clearly condemned as unnatural, indecent, and shameful.

    How else can these verses be interpreted? Tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Actually, many theologians believe that the passage was refering to rape and child molestation, which was common during pagan ceremonies. Also, the bible had been past down for so long, it is entirely possible some of it was added. But I really don't care. I'm not a Christian, so that whole argument doesn't matter to me. If you can think of a different reason besides a spiritual one, I'd be happy to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The Law deals with rape in a different section. Whatever was being described in the Leviticus verse is distinct from that. If you would, give me some names of the theologians who interpret this passage as referring to rape or child molestation. I would like to read what they have to say for myself.

    You didn't address the second scripture I mentioned. That one not only addresses both sides of homosexuality, but also gives theological reasons. It is also several hundred years more recent.

    Hey, in earlier comments on this blog, didn't you say that you believed in God? I might be mistaken, but I thought that was you.

    Ok, a different reason besides spiritual for not being homosexual? Well, from a physical standpoint, no gays are going to be passing their genes on. That's why I still think the idea that homosexuality is genetic is a big joke. I mean, we are talking about something which predisposes a person to not reproduce. You would think then that this trait would quickly become very rare in the gene pool, yet homosexuality has existed for millenia. I have a great idea. Let's legalize gay marriage. Then all the gay people can pair up, not have kids, and the whole issue will be history in a couple generations. C'mon, let's do it, it will be a great experiment to find out once and for all if this is genetic. If gay people are still being born three or four generations after the gays stop forcing themselves to have babies, you'll have to admit that there's some other reason.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Okay, obvious you don't know any gays. They don't "force" themselves to have babies. Homosexual gentics appear whether you like it or not. It just happens. and some gays have kids because they want to. Why would anyone choose to be gay? Answer that and I'll stop.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hm..."Short-sightedness" You seem to have picked up on the drift of this blog rather quickly.

    First of all, you must recognize that although our society is a Christian-based one, it is also secular. Marriage is not legally seen as a covenant between two people in the sight of God. It is seen as a legal contract. That sounds depressing, but really it's good, because it means that Christians didn't create marriage. Christians don't hold the right to marriage. Marriage has been practiced in all societies of all ages for quite a long time, you must know. That is why gays have the right to marriage, despite the Bible's arguments against it.

    I have little doubt that the several passages in the Bible that address homosexuality are correctly translated. (Now the validity of your interpretation of them is more debatable. Some passages describe them as unnatural and unconventional, but not wrong.) I stated my perspective on the Bible, and my opinion on the matter: that the Bible did not descend directly from God.

    And I support my position fully because I trust the underlying concepts of Christianity more than the one-liners that conservatives toss at their opponent like it means everything. At my church, we were discussing it and one person wisely said, "In the Bible, it says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.' It does not say 'Love thy neighbor as thyself unless they're gay.'" And they were very right.

    If you trust those solitary verses more than the love that Jesus teaches, then so be it. According to one verse, God supposedly says that homosexuals should be put to death. Is that God speaking?!? Is it?

    You have to choose. Can God be so wrathful and moody while also being the most loving and caring Being in the Universe? Choose.

    The end.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Alex:

    Why do people choose to be Gothic? They are treated strangely and there are no benefits to that. But there is no "Gothic" gene for that either.

    ~Kendrabelle

    ReplyDelete
  91. Christopher, we've said basically the same thing, though I guess I made my point a bit sideways. See, we agree that marriage, as it functions in american and world society, is rather different then being purely a God-ordained covenant. As long as that distinction is made, I am relatively content. What I object to are gay marriages that are said to be blessed and God-ordained.

    Yes, marriage is older than Christianity. It is also older than Judaism. That doesn't eliminate the truth that God instituted it between the first man and woman.

    If you and I can not agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we will find it harder to discuss things. The Bible is obviously central to my beliefs. However, you advocate the principles of the Bible, including Jesus' teachings about love, so perhaps we can yet have common ground. So listen to this teaching. In the Jewish society, marriage was little more than a legal contract. It was based in religion, yes, but in practice, it was no more to them then a legal contract. They debated the grounds on which a man could divorce his wife. Some said only in the case of unfaithfulness, others said it was enough if she so much as burned dinner. When asked what he thought, Jesus answered that God had created marriage between men and women, and that men should not separate what God had joined. He means that marriage is more than a legal contract to be created and broken on our whims, but that there is more to it. (incidentally, this teaching of his is very protective of women compared to some of his peers. a slightly humorous note is added when his disciples exclaim that if you shouldn't divorce at all, then it is better not to be married.) Jesus was all about the "underlying concepts." And it isn't just "love." The underlying concept of all Jesus' teachings is reverence for God, including love.

    Do you understand how the underlying concept of love is reverence for God?

    No, you do not have to choose between a loving God and a wrathful God. Both are true. You will have to stretch your mind to understand this, because it is a paradox. I am not making this up to justify or apologize for what the Bible says. There are paradoxes in life, and embracing them leads to fuller understanding. In the same way, there are paradoxes with God, and understanding them leads to a richer and truer knowledge of him.

    See, God is holy. God is also loving. Both of these contribute to his rage against sin. His anger has not subsided either. Jesus became the perfect sacrifice of blood to pay the cost of sin. Thus, God's love was expressed and his justice and holiness upheld to the fullest in one mighty act. This was planned from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  92. The character of God may SEEM like a paradox from our perspective. We can't understand God, we can only know Him.

    We can understand His word.

    It is amazing how I can go away for a bit and come back to Alex saying the same old thing. As if the fact that I can't tell him why his gay friends choose to be gay has anythin gto do with anything.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Lissy: Yes, we seem to have the same basic beliefs about the legal face of marriage.

    And I do think I understand what you're saying about God, but I still disagree. Let's, as has been said far too often, agree to disagree. I will never believe in a God who sends people to eternal torture in the literal fires of hell, nor a God who floods an entire earth because of his displeasure. I will never believe in a God who loves all his children but only "saves" a selected few, nor a God that cannot accept a person because of something as simple as their sexual persuasion. But you do. And I know there are a hundred details of my version of God that seem honestly ridiculous to you. This, again, you will disagree with, but I don't think that ANY humans have the right image of God. As you and Bard put, he is beyond our understanding. I agree, but would go further to say that none of us are even right, but that being right doesn't matter as much as we think.

    Bard: Very true! I guess I shouldn't spoil it by bringing up the fact that I don't think any people DO understand God's word.

    And I very seriously think that you and Alex should settle things with one big and final fist fight.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Actually Bard, if you think it's a choice, you should be able to say why. Murder is a choice, but it's usually caused by a psychological condition or a sudden burst of emotion. Being "goth" may just be part of one's personality or a result or mixed hormones interacting with the brain. But it still doesn't make sense why someone would choose to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Christopher:

    I would even agree with you that there is nobody who COMPLETELY understands EVERYTHING in the Bible. There are many that understand much of the Bible. If God wanted to give us a book that we could understand everything about the first time we read it, I suppose He would have. I think (my opinion) that the idea was to create a book that we (God and us) would read together. From His Word I do not get the idea that God created us, gave us the Bible, and left, He desires relationship with us (go figure). The Bible requires revelation to gain wisdom, not understanding so much.

    As for the God you describe above (saving only some, throwing others to be burned, etc.) This is not a description of God I have ever used.

    Let me use one of my famous analogies (please let's stick to the pertinent points and not attack the fringe incompatibilities, I am trying to make a point)....

    Let's say your father owns a company and he offers you a job. You take the job and he says, "Now don't worry about a thing, just do everything on this list and you will always get paid. Don't bother thinking about it or trying to come up with anything original because I have laid it all out for you." On the one hand it would be very comfortable to know that it was all worked out and you couldn't fail. On the other hand, it might be really boring.

    God created us with a desire to discover, to overcome challenges, to be creative (in his image). He also gave us freewill and a unique personality to pursue these things. How boring would it be if we knew everything and nothing challenged us to be creative?!? This doesn't change the truth though. We can creatively say that the earth is really a disk being held up by elephants riding on the back of a huge turtle, but that doesn't make it so.

    Let me give a different example of the difference between method (how we achieve something using our creativity and personality) and truth (arriving at a good/right conclusion via our method). When I was in elementary school out teacher showed us a new way to do addition. She was very excited because the method was developed by a student's brother who was in a lower grade by watching his brother do addition and creatively figuring out how to find the truth. Instead of starting with ones first this kids was starting with the largest place and working "backwards". The thing is he got the same answer as the traditional method for addition, the same truth was the conclusion. If he had used a different method, no matter how creative, and come to the conclusion that 10+10=21, I am sure I would have never heard about it because his method would result in untruth.

    This concept may be easy to see with addition, but not so much with subjects such as "how did we come to be?" or "What types of sexual behavior are good?" We have no emotional investment in 10+10=21 (unless we are playing Blackjack), so we can easily admit that it is incorrect no matter how creative the method. Other issues may be harder for us to determine truth, and so God provided us with both direct declaration or truth (laws) and direction towards truth (guidance) . In addition to these God gave us the amazing gift of freewill.

    Freewill means we are not God's little robots being remote controlled. He not only allows us to be creative in our methods to truth, He loves us finding our unique way to the truth. But it is still the truth He created. There may be many ways to the truth of 20 (10+10, 4x5, 100/5, etc.), but God created them all. If I say, "For me 9+10=20 is the truth, it is my personal truth.", it doesn't change the truth that God created.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I know you must be thinking, "Well, that may be your truth Bard, but it isn't mine.", or maybe, how do you know your truth is right and mine is wrong?" Both very good questions, and the answer from me would be, "We do understand different things to be the truth, and I could be wrong, but my faith is what directs me." God has given me the direct truth in things like the commandments, and the guidance throughout scripture that I seek his revelation to be able to benefit from.

    So when you think about a God who only saves some, or judges somebody for choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle, understand that I see a God that created all truth, allows us via freewill to pursue it, but doesn't change the truth to match or methods if we get it wrong. God loves people who choose homosexual behavior, but he doesn't approve of the behavior. Choosing homosexual behavior is no worse than choosing to fornicate or act adulterously, and Christian's who are saved make all of those choices (unfortunately), and they are forgiven when they repent.

    There is one thing that keeps God from saving you from the consequences of your sin, and that is rejecting the forgiveness made available by the sacrifice of Jesus. I can't tell you if your friend at church, who you said is a homosexual, will go to hell or not. I do believe that God has made it obvious that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I see it as no worse than the behavior of say, Tiger Woods, Jim Baker, or me. Our particular type of sin is not the issue related to eternal separation from God, it is our repentance of it and acceptance of forgiveness from Christ that matters. We should all be seeking God and struggling against whatever sin is part of our nature, not accepting it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Alex:

    We can argue about why you think they wouldn't choose homosexual behavior and I think they would, but that proves nothing. We would both be guessing at what is motivating their choice and could be wrong.

    So the logic of "If you can't tell me why they chose it they must not be choosing." is broken.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Christopher: I could not, in good conscience, agree to disagree with you on this point. When it comes to the reality of God's judgment of sin, a wrong viewpoint could have dire consequences. You may disagree with me if you choose to, but let the record show that I upheld the truth and did not agree to simply let you believe something in error.

    I don't believe in a God who loves all people but only saves a select few either. I believe in a God who loves all people, but tragically, only a few of them seek salvation from him.

    Alex, let me define "choose to be gay" for us. I am a heterosexual, but that does not mean I must do exclusively heterosexual acts. It does not even mean that I MUST have sex with a guy during my life. Our inclinations do not dictate our actions. One of my friends has had the inclination to kill. This doesn't define him as much as the fact that he has not killed anyone.

    So when I say, "choose to be homosexual," what I mean is, "choose to live a homosexual lifestyle." Inclinations are not the same as actions. What effects the development of either one may be nature or nurture, and probably a compex interaction of both. However, I think we can all agree that our actions and lifestyles are under our control to the extent that we choose to control them. Jesus was tempted. The bible says this unappologetically. If temptation were the same as sin, then he wouldn't be the perfect, sinless sacrifice that the Bible also unappologetically claims he was.

    Now, let me give a simple guess as to why a person with homosexual inclinations would choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, in spite of social image issues. Because he (or she) thinks he has no choice.

    I've had this discussion with my boyfriend. He wondered why so many lovely young women degrade their image by dressing immodestly, when it really isn't necessary. As a girl, I answered that it could be because they feel that they don't have a choice. Well, of course you have a choice about what you wear. Yes, but we don't choose what other girls are wearing, and if we choose to dress in a way that shows our body less, then we fear that we will not be able to win the attention of males. Girls dress to compete with each other, and tend to do whatever is necessary to at least be on an even playing field. That is a rather mild example of what happens when people do not think outside the box. More often than not, a full picture of the truth opens up new options. The truth is that a person who wants to kill does not have to kill, and a person who has homosexual inclinations does not have to be homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Ha! What you are expierencing is perfectly normal. At every point during a normal persons life, they have homosexual thoughts. However, ta does not make them gay. Your sexuality is based on your chemistry and genetics. Some people are more attracted to the same sex than the oppiste sex. They have rarer thoughts about the opposite sex. And, after talking to many gay people about it, they have said that if they could, they would be straight. Many even did the stupid church courses about before finally realizing that they are who they are. The American Psychological Association has banned conseling on the basis of trying to change one's sexuality. Instead, they suggest coming to terms with it. It's bigot thoughts like this that keep us close minded and ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Oh, spare me your kind, understanding attitude of my experiences. Did I even say that I have had homosexual thoughts? I don't believe I did. I'm not sure you even heard my point. The APA banned counselling of homosexuality as a correction to the mistake of viewing it as a disease. That the APA stopped counselling people for it does not prove anything about its morality. A person can be gay and a christian, but that will mean accepting the difficult truth that they have to resist the temptations toward homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Lissy: I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree. Just from hearing you speak, I can easily conclude that you will probably never adopt anything close to my beliefs. And, in MY good conscience, I know that I will never adopt your beliefs.

    And I'll try to remember to mention to God after I die that you did try to save me from eternal damnation. I'm sure he'll put it in his Big Record Book of Good Christians.

    Open your mind. Not my beliefs, but to give your faith a little fresh air.

    And if you will allow me to admit that I read your address to Alex, then I might comment on that as well. First of all, you're right--actions define a person far better than thoughts and urges. But in this case, homosexuality does not apply. I will repeat that I do not think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. And I think it is sad that you do.

    Second of all, I'm Episcopalion, so this hurts for me to hear. I can't imagine you have anyone other than straight whites flowing into your church, but I assure you that often times in my experience, gays are the most faithful Christians.

    I'm sorry everyone here has reason to fight, and even sorrier that we do fight.

    ReplyDelete
  102. [..]gays are the most faithful Christians.

    Chistopher,

    How so?

    James 2.10

    Matthew 5.27-28

    It doesn't say lusting after men is the sin of adultery.?

    Is that your answer?

    ***

    Alex,

    In the objectivity of a scientist, I cannot prove anything existed before I became aware of it. All past events are the realm of philosophy to one extent or another. Science is observations. Scientific theories can only be disproved, they cannot be proved.

    I never could be an atheist--I tried, but it doesn't make sense. Origin of matter, from nothing: not philosophy--not science.

    ***

    Nice blog.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Christopher, if we really can not agree on the validity of the scriptures, then there is little more here that we can agree on. I will retire from this discussion and save my attention for discussions in which we share common ground. Let me just make one comment on the Episcopal Church. The current controvercial viewpoints on homosexuality, among other things, within that church have been in widespread effect for less than 40 years, and in some cases, less than 10 years. And I repeat, they are controvercial. Not all the members of your own church will agree with you on your beliefs. If I were you, I would give some thought to this.

    You would rather put your trust in a set of standards which not only flies in the face of the values which christianity has stood for for thousands of years, but is also are barely a generation old. This is a shaky position, at best. Just think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Christopher,

    Mark 7.13

    The traditions of man rather than the commands of God.

    That's what Lissy just said.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Tragedy101: Well, I can't say that you made a clever move--countering my argument against the Bible with Bible verses, but I guess you're used to it. I can't fairly blame you.

    By no means am I saying that gays are all better Christians. (That just proves my idea that every bit of banter or examples on this blog are used against the commenter. Instead of dissecting my words, try listening to them.) In my experience, as a person who is actually around gays intead of constantly scolding them in God's name, many gays put forth the reputation of being faithful, kind, and very Christian.

    I did read the verses. The first was very true and I got your point. The second I have no comment on. The last verse seems rather irrelevant, really.

    You can keep throwing verses at me. My answer will remain the same. If it makes you happy, you and Lissy can continue to try to convert me to a proper Christian. Most likely, my position will remain firm. The Bible is not a handbook to life, to follow every word strictly and literally. It is a tool for inspiration.

    Lissy: You're probably right. We're not making any progress in this area. I do not use the Bible in the same way that you do. That's that...

    Undoubtedly you dislike the Episcopal Church! In the kindest way I can say this, the latter half of your comment was really pretty amusing.

    On a different note, I certainly did some "thinking about it." I have no problem with the fact that other Episcopalions might be divided or against gay marriage. Unlike many other Christians, I'm more concerned with my own spiritual life. (You may find this selfish, but it also means I'm rarely bothersome!) My claim was meant in a light-hearted way, but like I said: nothing light-hearted CAN be said during political debate.

    The strength of the ideas and values within my denomination are far stronger than the number of how many people believed in them a thousand years ago. For the record, people of the past often had much wisdom, but typically made a whole bunch of mistakes! Your accusations of the Episcopal Church being shaky was a bit insulting, but mainly it is just false.

    Unlike you, I will not resort to saying that your faith is weak. It is certainly very strong. But you need to realize that mine is as well.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Geez, I'm gone for a few weeks and everything explodes from a debate on truth to more homosexual debate.

    woof.

    Alright, I'll saw now what I've said before and will say again. I agree with Tragedy101, and I believe that Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. I'm sorry Christopher, but if you say that God says it isn't, then you're wrong, and it not just my interpretation. The Scriptures clearly say that it is wrong in numerous places, Romans chapter 1 especially.
    As for God "turning down" people, He does. Sorry. Does God want everyone to be saved? Yes. Is everyone going to be saved? No. You have to choose to follow God, therefore giving Him the glory. If you choose your own path, you are not of God, and therefore when you stand before His judgment seat, He will say, "I never knew you."

    That's the Truth, which is what this whole thing started out as.

    JT

    ReplyDelete
  107. Note: No Bible verses.

    Christopher: You agree with the argument on the post: "Evil is the absence of God." "AS LONG AS the absence of good can be interchangeable with the absence of God."

    Given: Absence of God is absence of good.
    Thus: God is good.
    Given: Evil is the absence of God.
    Given: Evil is the absence of good.
    Given: Good is interpreted by you.
    Thus: Evil is the absence of your interpretation.
    Thus: Your interpretation is God.

    That is dissecting what you say. And using it against you.

    Did I miss something? Am I wrong?

    I have this eerie feeling JT and I agree on very few things.

    ReplyDelete
  108. This isn't specifically on topic, but just for the fun of it and after reading several comments, I want you to challeneg me to believe in God. But convince me. If he is the almighty creator as you say, you shouldn't have too hard of a time. I will be open minded, but remember, I was once a very dedicated Christian like yourself and know some of tecniques (I probably swpeeled that wrong. Sorry, spelling has never been a strong point for me). Please, try.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Alex: I don't want to convince you to believe in God--I think you'll find the truth on your own. I just want to help you see that your faith in Evolution isn't quite as justified as you like to believe it is. I know you said that the research shown in the previous posts was spotty and flawed, but I was wondering if you could tell me, specifically, how and where?

    I honestly think that if you will look into Evolution, you'll see it for the flawed hypothesis it is.

    At least in my mind, the gaping holes in Evolutionary science is one of the biggest fingers pointing to God.

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  110. Sorry about that, JT, the fresh debate is probably my fault, I'm new here, so everything had to be rehashed.

    Christopher, I didn't say your faith is shakey, in terms of your level of conviction. I said that the basis of these convictions seems shaky in comparison to the basis of my beliefs. Let me explain it again. The beliefs that you hold have been acceptable in your church for only a short time in history, and they are still not accepted everywhere within that church. How do you know that these are the ideas that God meant all along? Have christians been hearing the wrong thing for 2000 years? Or has God changed his mind? Has there been a divine revelation? Listen, I'm not saying that the minority is automatically wrong, I'm asking for your reasons to believe that this isn't just the result of some humans reinterpreting the Bible to suit themselves. Jesus changed the worship of God (which had stood for 1500 years) immensely. Why did people believe him? Because of the miracles he did. The apostles also did miracles to show that their message had power behind it. People saw the signs and believed, and then passed those beliefs down. This is what I am talking about. Your beliefs on homosexuality stand or fall on whether or not they are the truth of God. I believe in the message that came with power, and was recorded and passed down. What do you believe in?

    (Tragedy101: Hey man, I didn't mean it that way. The above paragraph explains what I meant there. Now, I also believe that tradition has its place in the working of community, but for doctrine, the Bible is the only standard.)

    "Unlike many other Christians, I'm more concerned with my own spiritual life. (You may find this selfish, but it also means I'm rarely bothersome!)"

    Yes, I think this is selfish. It suggests that you think that Christianity is about you and Jesus. Well it isn't. It's about you and Jesus and everyone else in the Church. That's why it's called the Body. Many members, one body. If a forty-pound weight fell on your foot, your hands wouldn't say, "well, I'm glad it wasn't me." Why not? Because it is "me." Your whole body is connected as a single unit. In the same way, there is no solitary Christian, and it isn't enough to make sure your own life is right with God.

    Rarely bothersome, eh? In other words, you would be too busy running out of a burning house to wake up your siblings and tell them that they need to get out. And what if they don't believe the house is burning? Ah, but you don't believe the house is burning either. What else could I compare it to? Your friend's girlfriend is cheating on him, but he loves her and wants to marry her. You decide to not get involved and not try to help them be honest with each other, because your friend is happy and he might get upset with you for meddling. Really smart! So noble too, to keep your hands out of other people's lives! But truth is more important than making sure everyone is smiling at each other. I don't know anyone who would rather not know they have cancer. Truth hurts, and it will set us free. If you are afraid of the uncomfortable truths of the Bible, like sin, accountability to each other, God's judgment, and hell, then you will go through life thinking that the house isn't burning.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Alex: Do you believe in truth?

    Lies and falsehoods are the absence of truth.

    A possible reason everyone has differing beliefs concerning God is: God is so big no one can veiw all of Him at one time. Or no one can believe all of Him at one time.

    Perhaps Atheism is just attempting to understand all of God at one time? Trying to understand an infinite god with a finite mind... Say! is that the sound of insanity, I hear?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Kendra: You are really creepy smart.

    Alex' argument concerning your articles not being complete is [somewhat] correct they [like any book/textbook/essay/paper] are written from a particular perspective to a particular audience. However, they cite many unspecified other opinions/theories. These citations give the appearance that the article is incomplete and at the same time give more information [than is found in most articles for or against said topic.]

    ReplyDelete
  113. Tragedy: Hmm, I'm going to take that as a compliment? XD

    That's true, but I was more looking for Alex to tell me which parts of the research he thought were inaccurate. I know the sources were not stated, but I'm curious as to what leads Alex to assume that because the sources are not stated, the information is false.

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  114. No problem Lissy, I was just amazed. When I left there were like 40comments, and I come back to find over a hundred. :)

    I'm not sure how much we agree on, Tragedy101, I visited your blog and I didn't find much that says what you believe in.

    And I'd like to clear up something from my earlier comment. There is a difference between what God wants, and what He will do. Just because God wants everyone to be saved and everyone will not be saved doesn't mean He isn't sovereign, it means that Man, who is 100% responsible, turned their back on Him and refused to give Him glory by turning to Him and submitting.

    Just thought I'd rehash that, I looked back and realized I didn't explain that as well as I could have. Hope this makes more sense.

    To Alex for challenging you to believe........

    How can you look at the world around you and say "it all happened by chance." ?

    Just the question I ask myself when I have my moments of doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  115. JT: It's really easy to say "It all happened by chance." as long as we're not looking at and explaning probabilities.

    Just as it is really easy to look at the world around you and say, "God cannot be good, if he exists."

    How can you look at the death and suffering in the world and say "God is love."?

    Most people prefer no god to a god who inflicts this kind of suffering on his creation.

    A different perspective yields different insights.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I used to ask that same question, because the world is perfect, right? Well, not really. the flaws we call mountains make the soil hilly and unstable. Also, all the natural disasters! Plus, it took millions of years for us to get the atomsphere just right so we could actually breathe! Perhaps this is just one great, great probability, but then again, we are one lucky planet!

    Kendra, what I meant was that you had no sources. No works cited, nothing. It was all based on one article that stretched its limits.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I disagree. How could the exact balance that allows us to breath happen by chance. Sure, the odds can be beaten. To a point.

    And let me ask you something that is asked in the original post topic.
    If evolution and all this is something that has been happening for the past few billion or million years, why haven't we even seen the slightly thing in the past few thousand years of recorded history? There is no credible missing link or credible case for evolution. There's nothing. And that's not just me. If you actually look at the evidence, it agrees more with the Biblical account than the evolutionary account. I'm no scientist, but I know the evidence and I know both sides of the story, because I've studied both sides.

    As for all the natural disasters and everything, that's because man chose to disobey God. We chose our fate when we let evil into the world. That's why Christ had to die. Because we chose to disobey and die.

    Tragedy101, same thing. God did not inflict this on us. We inflicted it upon ourself. This is the same general principle that is talked over in the post. Evil is not from God. It's the absence of God in one's life by disobeying and refusing to submit to him.

    ReplyDelete
  118. JT: "We chose our fate when we let "the absence of God" into the world."

    How do you let in an absence?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Tragedy101,
    We let "the absence of God" into the world by choosing to disobey. We let the evil in because we chose to disobey, and therefore estranged ourselves from God, and caused the absence, the evil. The evil was the source of the disobedience and the end result.
    I don't pretend to understand all the mysteries of God, because I don't, and never will in this life. Is it possible to let in an absence? In human terms, yes and no. It's possible, yet impossible. The whol thing is a paradox. Some things have to be taken by faith. I could argue this for a long time, but in the end you have to look at yourself and you have to say, "what do I believe?"

    Because in the end, every knee will bow to Christ. Some will bow willingly and joyfully because they served Him in life. Others will bow not because they want to, but because they MUST. Because of the Power of Christ they now see, but had refused to believe in life.

    Now just because I said this whole thing is a paradox don't jump on me and say that you now have the proof that the Faith is flawed. Because if we are talking about flaws and paradoxes, the Evolutionary theory and all the humanistic "faiths" that are out there are truly flawed.
    God and His Word are not flawed. Sometimes they just can't be understood by a finite mind.

    ReplyDelete
  120. JT:

    Alex said:

    "This isn't specifically on topic, but just for the fun of it and after reading several comments, I want you to challeneg [sic] me to believe in God. But convince me. If he is the almighty creator as you say, you shouldn't have too hard of a time. I will be open minded, but remember, I was once a very dedicated Christian like yourself and know some of tecniques [sic] (I probably swpeeled [sic] that wrong. Sorry, spelling has never been a strong point for me). Please, try." January 17 [emphasis added]

    I asked Alex if he believed in truth. So far he hasn't answered, not very open minded in my opinion.

    I was hoping you would change perspectives.

    You said:

    "As for all the natural disasters and everything, that's because man chose to disobey God. We chose our fate when we let evil into the world. That's why Christ had to die. Because we chose to disobey and die.

    Tragedy101, same thing. God did not inflict this on us. We inflicted it upon ourself. This is the same general principle that is talked over in the post. Evil is not from God. It's the absence of God in one's life by disobeying and refusing to submit to him." January 19 [emphasis added]

    Yes!

    We don't let in an absence. We didn't let in evil. We shut out a presence. We shut out God. Once we shut Him out, we cannot even find Him. This is our fallen nature. He must find us.

    God convicts our hearts of sin. He is the only one who can convince anyone. He opens our minds, or He doesn't.

    ***

    May God open my eyes that I may see.

    ***

    Alex:

    No one, but God, can convince you of His existance or His love. You can't open your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Tragedy101,
    thanks, that actually was a great point. I believe it to be the flipside of the same coin I was on. We did make the choice to let in the darkness by disobeying God, and yes, we did shut out God from our hearts, making it impossible to find Him through anything but His power.

    thanks. :)

    JT

    ps. I agree with you about Alex. Alex, only God will convince you, if that is His will. We are just the vessels of the Holy Spirit. Nothing we or you can do will change that.

    ReplyDelete
  122. JT: Kendra has mentioned that we need better articulation. [big word! : )] This requires us to adjust our perspectives. Not say things that are in essence untrue because we've flipped an idea.

    Alex: I'm not saying we can't discuss, debate, and exchange ideas and information. But the convincing is something that is internal. If we, for a moment, [suspending disbelief on my part,] assume God is not: "I convince myself."

    From reading your comments, I conclude: You have carefully examined the evidence and found it lacking. What first caused you to consider the question of God's 'existance'? [I mean: We all know God doesn't exist; but the idea of Him being versus not being.]

    ReplyDelete
  123. I suppose being is the wrong word, too.

    Alex: What caused you to change your mind from God is to God is not?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Goodness! It took me all morning to read through these comments, and I just skimmed!

    Okay, I really do hope that inserting another voice in here won't add to the confusion. And I totally agree--God is the only one who can change your mind, Alex.

    But which makes more sense, evolution or creation?

    The fact that we evolved from monkeys after a huge explosion made random molecules form into our world?

    Or that we were created by a wise God?

    You probably know how complex our world is, but let me just review.

    If our world was balanced slightly off, we would not be able to survive on Earth. Millions of cells--put together in a mind-bogglingly complex design--make up the simplest things. A blade of grass, or a leaf, to name two.

    And that was done by an explosion?

    ReplyDelete
  125. A better question would be to ask where the explosion came from, or where the random molecules came from. The Basis of any God-denying theory requires that you put your faith in something all the same, the only difference is you are having faith that matter existed without a creator, rather than simply having faith in the Creator himself.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Answering Tragedy's question, I woke up. I have never believed in Hell, Satan, Creation a literal Heaven with pearly gates and all. Then one day, just for fun, I imagined a secular view of the universe, and it made sense. NO, we do not know how this universe as a whole got started, but science hasn't reached that far. I believed someday it will. Maybe there is some kind of divinity out there, but not the Christian God.

    And for all those who keep saying, "the odds that this all happened by coincidence are huge!" I'll keep saying it. We are just one lucky solar system that fell in that 0.0000000001% chance.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Alex: Now you are claiming you have not examined the facts. "[You] woke up. [You] never believed [...]Then one day, just for fun, [you] imagined a secular view of the universe, and it made sense."

    Using your imagination is not using your reason. You use imagination rather than reason. It explains, everything. Thank you.

    I'm sorry. I never had much imagination, and there is no discourse in it. An intrigueing discussion, but since you would rather hide in childish fancy than engage in reasonable discussion, there is no room for the further discource of ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I did examine the facts, and it made sense. I never said I didn't. But it started with that view on the world. I thought you wanted to know how it start, didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  129. So your belief that God does not exist came from: Imagining facts and then examining them? "[A]nd it made sense."

    Hard to argue with a guy, who claims that.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I never said I imagined the facts. Where did you get that? Also, it's very hard to argue with a guy who believes some random person was the messiah and some how was able to rise again without anyone questioning it.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Alex:

    My question: From reading your comments, I conclude: You have carefully examined the evidence and found it lacking. What first caused you to consider the question of God's 'existance'? [I mean: We all know God doesn't exist; but the idea of Him being versus not being.] January 21, 2010

    You said: I never said I imagined the facts. Where did you get that? Also, it's very hard to argue with a guy who believes some random person was the messiah and some how was able to rise again without anyone questioning it. January 31, 2010
    ***
    Where Did I Get That?

    I said, "you have examined the evidence" and continued into a question.
    Which, in rational dialogue, implies: What evidence... continue into question.

    You implied the evidence that caused you to change beliefs was: "I imagined a secular view of the universe."

    I said: "Now you are claiming you have not examined the facts."
    Implying my interpretation wasn't correct.
    I thought the question remained: What facts caused you to change beliefs?

    You said: "I did examine the facts."

    But you never gave a single fact, except something you imagined.

    I suppose I was unclear: What facts first caused you to question whether God is or is not?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Basic theory of evolution for starters. Also, where is this "heaven"? Why would a loving God create so much evil? And everytime a "miracle" happens, two things just as awful happen somewhere else. what facts are in God's favor? And don't say "the odds that . . ." because odds don't mean much to me.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Theory of evolution is not a fact, hence the word theory.

    Heaven is the firmament between the waters of the earth. See Genesis 1
    Did you mean "kingdom of heaven?"

    God created evil? He didn't, see Kendrabelle's Post.

    "And everytime a "miracle" happens, ..." Is this a fact? or an opinion?

    I'll post some facts, later.

    -"A Social Retard"

    ReplyDelete
  134. Fact: The complexity of life in any creature, behemoth or viral, is "finely tuned," meaning even slight variations in internal functions result in sudden death.

    -"A Social Retard"

    ReplyDelete
  135. Fact: The complexity of life in any creature, great or small, is "heavy duty," meaning massive environmental variations can occur without any adverse effect on the creature.

    -"A Social Retard"

    ReplyDelete
  136. Fact: Science cannot study the past.

    -A Social Retard

    ReplyDelete
  137. Fact: Religion is a set of beliefs that dictate how a person lives and thinks about things.

    -A Social Retard

    ReplyDelete
  138. Fact: Atheism is a religion.

    -A Social Retard

    ReplyDelete
  139. Fact: Evolutionary theory is not science. It is, however, part of Atheist dogma. (A religious belief of Atheism affecting how Atheists view the world.)

    -A Social Retard

    ReplyDelete
  140. Fact: Facts can be proven. Opinions cannot be proven.

    -A Social Retard

    ReplyDelete
  141. Alex: Where are your facts?

    Thus far, only opinions and questions have come from you.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I believe that evolution IS a fact. That is just me. A better question would be what are YOUR facts? If Christianity is so true, you should be pulling them out of a hat by now.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Alex:

    You win! You win! I surrender! Your logic is so clear. Your facts that are facts because you "imagined" them and you "believe" they are fact - so much so - they must be. So clear, so lucid, I have no choice but to believe evolution is the cause of all things, and God is not, because Alex imagines and believes it.

    Alex you are the cleverest, most intelligent, most logical person I have ever met. Please, come and share your wisdom with me, fool, that I am.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Glad you agree! I think so as well and remember that admitance is only the first step in the healing process. Just saying your a fool isn't enough. But in time, you'll get there I have faith in you.

    In the meantime, I might as well explain myself again since you seem to love me so much! I believe that the evidence for evolution proves it to be a fact. You don't believe so. You want to see it happen in front of you, which is impossible. Then again, I would like to see real legitamate proof in God, but that seems to be impossible as well.

    ReplyDelete
  145. A whip for the horse,
    A bridle for the donkey,
    And a rod for the fool's back.
    Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    Lest you also be like him.
    Answer a fool according to his folly,
    Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
    He who sends a message by a fool
    Cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.
    Like the legs of the lame that hang limp
    Is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
    Like one who binds a stone in a sling
    Is he who gives honor to a fool.
    Like a thorn that goes into the hand of a drunkard
    Is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
    The great God who formed everything
    Gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages.

    As a dog returns to his vomit,
    So a fool repeats his folly.
    Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
    There is more hope for a fool than for him.


    Proverbs 26.3-12

    I am a fool to attempt reason with those who lack reason. May God forgive my transgression.

    -Tragedy101

    ReplyDelete
  146. Ha! Talk about lacking reason! You believe in a magical man in the sky, who, for no apparent reason, decided one day he would make an infinite universe and choose one tiny planet to have life on. Did I mention that he would snap his fingers and create this life? Oh yeah, here's my favorite part. Eventually, he'll get mad and for some reason destroy the world with an armageddon. Hm. Guess he just doesn't love you enough.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Alex,

    Define 'magical', 'reason', and 'armageddon'.

    ReplyDelete