Christianity--Q&A

[pockyD]

...and that sort of format would also be an implicit recognition of him as some sort of authority on the matter, an assertion that I have yet to see any evidence supporting

 

[Deleted member]

You mean he's not a doctor?!?! Uh oh

 

[Hive]

Okay, I'll start it off:

Would a loving God make a world where people experience pain and die?



Since omnipotence is an aspect of Christianity, I fail to see why you're dismissing the paradox that attempts to refute it. It's entirely relevant.

I'll answer this right now....
"good and bad" can only exist if there is the choice/capacity to be able to do either and if there is intrinsic laws that dictate which actions are good and which are bad.....
therefore in order to be good god must allow people this capacity to be good or bad....
this choice existing accounts for evil existing.

the fact that you are admitting evil exists already means that you already admit there is a capacity to do both... @.@

think of it this way... you have the option to put your best friend in a coma until the rest of his/her life in which she will be drugged to be as happy as possible.... or you can let her live her own life and be subject to both good AND bad events. what loving caring person would allow his/her best friend to experience bad things?! lol

the assumption in the question usually is that the most happiness is the most meaningful...
however on closer inspection most people would agree that this isn't the case...

 

[Hive]

Why is all religion bull**** made to control and scare a society into working in a way a few select human beings want it to work because they limit the freedom of choice and teach discrimination upon many other human beings and advocate killing them in ways it would seem hell was already on earth?

you are an idiot...
the basis of most all religions is to find meaning in life and to have a reason to have empathy...
do you really think any of the things you just listed have anything at all to do with the core or the majority of any religion?
you need to be more tolerant.

 

[Eor]

You are giving us two options, and then trying to act like God only has those two options. He doesn't. He can do whatever he wants or desires. So he can make people have perfect lives, have free will, but not have evil exist, because he's God.

 

[Deleted member]

You realize I was being facetious, right Hive? His rules were silly and I was mocking them. Whatever, I'll play along briefly, because I'm not against you. By the way, don't strawman me. I never said I admit evil exists. I wouldn't classify an act of God like Hurricane Katrina to be evil. It happened, and people died. Christians claim their God loves them, yet this doesn't fully make sense to some people. If you can explain that, I guess I might care to read it, because I already know what Proverbs is going to say.

 

[Hive]

oh lol I'm sorry I thought you were being serious I'm sorry...

yea though... his rules are pretty silly lol XP

 

[Dash_Fox]

you are an idiot...
the basis of most all religions is to find meaning in life and to have a reason to have empathy...
do you really think any of the things you just listed have anything at all to do with the core or the majority of any religion?
you need to be more tolerant.

That may be the basis but that's now how it's used and it hasn't been used like that in ages. Yes the things I listed are relevant to most all religion on this world today. Unless their meaning in life is to degrade homosexuals and other religions while keeping our children uneducated by trying to ban certain science subjects. Also limiting free thought.

I'm not tolerant for intolerance.

I am not an idiot. That wouldn't matter anyways. There's no need to hypothesize other people's mental capabilities on an internet forum dedicated to 3 video games. I thought it was against the rules to attack someone in the debate hall.

 

[Hive]

but to answer your question I still think people can believe that god exists and loves them both logically and illogically.... as well as not believe god exists..

I'm not christian but I guess I believe in god still:
so to answer your question personally I suppose...

my "logical answer"- I believe god allows these sorts of things to happen because he allows free will to exist... and this has the capacity to be both good and bad....
I think allowing this choice and this dualty is what makes him good....
He could have stopped the hurricane I guess however I believe he doesn't interfere with the world physically... because if he interfered in the world to make everything "good/perfect" I don't see how you could draw the line to stop him from changing anything that can be considered bad or otherwise imperfect.... and this would destroy the concept of free will since there isn't a capacity to do either...
(wasn't it Descartes who said this?)

I guess my idea of god is that he isn't actually involved with the world physically... (deist in a way...)
even though he isn't involved in the world though I still believe he sort of "sets the rules," allows things like empathy to exist and handles justice and things after we die....
Its just a personal preference I suppose...
I realize this sounds weak to a lot of you... I usto be the atheist too I suppose... so I know where you are coming from...

I have a lot of friends deal with a lot of crap though... pushed to the brink of homelessness, drug problems, etc.... and believing in god helps them keep pushing through life... it sort of gives them a reason to believe that their suffering and hardships will have actually meant something in the end.... and that there is some sort of justice to it all....

anyways though my "illogical" answer then is this- whether or not you can prove that god can't exist or not I guess... we are all stuck in this world and we have the choice to believe that the world around us has some sort of value to it or we can believe that it doesn't... and I guess I choose to believe that there's something more...

 

[Eor]

I don't know why you keep on adding ellipses to every sentence but it's both boring to read and comes off as if you're trying to be "mystical".

You say "Free will is the capacity to do good or evil". But it doesn't have to be, not to an omnipotent, all loving God. He can make us have free will without evil, and have it be perfect, in every possible way. You can say "but that's not really free will", but if God made it free will then it is. Just because we might not understand how it's possible to have free will without the capability of doing evil means nothing, but God can do anything at all, and therefore he can do that.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Since when has it been about god? I don't believe in a god and I have no problems with anyone who believes in some sort of mystic spirit who watches them or motivates life. It's religion that's the problem, not any god that may or may not exist.

Super powerful beings like a god are still an open question, all religions want to close down the doors that lead to the real answers to questions like "What happens when we die?" or "Is there a Powerful Spirit or God(s) that watch us?". Using fairy tales to answer questions does not help our progression for human society and education.

 

[Ryusuta]

Huh. I've never heard them called "ellipses" before. It sounds like a fitting term, though.

 

[pockyD]

You say "Free will is the capacity to do good or evil". But it doesn't have to be, not to an omnipotent, all loving God. He can make us have free will without evil, and have it be perfect, in every possible way. You can say "but that's not really free will", but if God made it free will then it is. Just because we might not understand how it's possible to have free will without the capability of doing evil means nothing, but God can do anything at all, and therefore he can do that.

This doesn't make sense; "free will" isn't a term defined by God. "Free will" is defined by US, and therefore whether God grants us our definition of "free will" or not is a question about a predefined concept, not about whether God considers us "free"

 

[Eor]

That doesn't matter. Omnipotent God, can do anything. He can change a predefined concept but have it still be the same. He could, say, have something be both black, blue, and brown, but without mixing the colors. Do whatever the **** he wants. Which is why any reasoning for why we have evil has to void either the "all loving" or the "all powerful"

 

[pockyD]

that doesn't make sense

obviously, god can, for example, make anything that is "blue" look "yellow"... but then, as humans, we would have never developed the concept of "blue" to discuss anyway

"can god misdfkjasd a sdkfjhase??" obviously he can, right? because he can do anything?

 

[Eor]

I'm not getting what point you're trying to argument. Sure, if he never "made" blue we'd have no concept of it. It wouldn't even be possible for blue to exist. But if someone tried to say "well there can be more colors", someone can't say "no because we don't understand more colors".

 

[Proverbs]

Why is it you have more 'proof' of the Christian God's existance than of any other God?

(Yeah, I know, one question at a time, but come on. You can multi quote, yeah?)

All right. Great example right here. This is why I set the rule in place ahead of time for one person to ask a question at a time. The first person who posted actually asked a great question which I would have loved to answer. Yours, BlackAdder, I likewise would have loved to answer and a have a lot to say to it. But once multiple people start posting I don't have time to keep up with all of you.

I know Christianity's a hot topic and a lot of people want questions answered. I figured having each of you wait to ask questions would not only allow me to answer more properly--because giving my attention to one question at a time is easier than 15--, but also so people who had questions might see theirs answered ahead of time by reading other people's questions. I assure you, most of your questions are pretty similar.

But once one person decides to break the rules because he doesn't understand the significance of them, everyone else decides to let all hell break loose too. And then we end up with questions like these:

Why is it painful to pee sometimes?

So yes, BlackAdder, this is proof that I can multiquote, but would rather not.

Wow, can you people read? He wants to give a decent answer, next person who asks a question without it being your turn is getting warned.

Thanks for your support, lonejedi.

So, I don't know what everyone else has been posting aside from the posts from BlackAdder to lonejedi, but what I'm going to do is this:

I'm going to take the first posted question and pretend like all of this never happened. If I find the time and desire to, I may take a few questions that were posted in the past few pages, but no guarantees. I may not even read them.

However, as it is late, I'm going to take the first question starting tomorrow morning. After that, if you want to repost a serious question, not one such as "Why is it painful to pee sometimes?" then I'll be glad to take it when it's your turn.

And if my responses are slow, I'm sorry, but I'm currently on my winter break from college and want to make get what rest I can. Besides that, I also have other responsibilities around the house and to people back home, but I'll make sure to take the first question early tomorrow.


EDIT:

That doesn't matter. Omnipotent God, can do anything. He can change a predefined concept but have it still be the same. He could, say, have something be both black, blue, and brown, but without mixing the colors. Do whatever the **** he wants. Which is why any reasoning for why we have evil has to void either the "all loving" or the "all powerful"

Really interesting that you posted this. I'm actually reading a book that touches on this subject by C.S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain. I think I'll take this question tomorrow too.


Oh, and remember that the reason why this is Q&A instead of a typical debate setting is because I am a Christian that has studied a decent amount of history regarding the Bible as well as philosophy and theology and after all of it have still maintained faith. The point of this thread is for me to help you understand what the Christian perspective is. Because currently, few non-Christians really understand what real Christianity's all about. I'll leave room for debate if people want to debate, but they'll have to do that on their own turn.

 

[Amide]

Sounds fair enough. I'm glad you made this thread, correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

According to Christian doctrine, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman created by god. However, according to scientific research, man and woman did not just suddenly appear. We evolved over the course of millions of years to our current form. So my question is, how can Christianity and science coexist?

 

[AltF4]

...so Proverbs finally posted in his own topic, only to not answer a single question?! Close please, ough....

 

[Peeze]

I really like the idea of this topic, so at the risk of being flamed to death, I've decided to help Proverbs out. I've chosen a few Q's at random.

Is this question considered impossible?

In Genesis 4, Cain is banished form Eden for killing his bother Abel. He goes to the town of Nod and gets a wife. How could his wife exist, and for that matter Nod, exist if Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain and Abel were their first born and second born respectively?

1), he went to the east of eden to the land of Nod, not the town. No town existed. The land had a name sure, but so did Eden, and no man was needed to name it eden. And his wife was his sister, as various translations(a not the very flawed king james version) says he knew his wife already.

How do Christians choose which sins are outdated, and which ones aren't? How do they choose which stories are 'truth', and which stories are 'fables'

Very simply put, your confusing Christianity with Christendom, Christendom makes up its own rules, and they choose whatever they want. It takes discernment to figure out what is literal and what is figurative(gasp a book that contains metaphors and similes? Unheard of!)

And no sins are outdated. Again Christendom makes up its own rules and goes against the bible. Malachi 3:6 says god has not changed, he still feels the same way towards all sins regardless of what the church says. If your asking why gays and adulterers arent still stoned, is because that law was given to jews and applies not to christians. Several scriptures say that christ was the end of the Mosaic law.

Why is it painful to pee sometimes?

You have AIDS.

 

[Proverbs]

...so Proverbs finally posted in his own topic, only to not answer a single question?! Close please, ough....

The reason it's taken me so long to finally make a significant post (this one), is because I've had to sift through about 4 pages of people not listening to me. What's the point of answering questions if they're not listening to rules? Anyway, today I'm finally starting to answer questions now that people have started listening.

TLink, I actually meant that I was going to take Eor's first, but I'll answer both of yours now.

Why is it that God chose to only reveal himself to an insignificant population of people when history started instead of the entire world?

This depends on which 'insignificant population of people' that you're referring to. Are you talking about Adam and Eve who, biblically were the first people created? If that's the case then they were the only people to tell about God. So if you're taking that perspective, God made Himself known from the beginning, and we're the ones who have been forgetting Him, ignoring Him, not believing Him, or neglecting to tell our children about Him.

If you mean that the Israelites were the small group of people to hear about God, then I'd have to reference what I just said earlier. God made himself known from the beginning. After doing that, people forgot about him and began to do absolutely terrible things. The world was a complete mess because they had forgotten God. He only found one upright person in the whole world, and that was Noah. After that, He purged the world and let Noah's family survive to start anew. It was after much time later (People still knew about God during this in-between period. Note that the rest of human life stemmed from Noah's family--a man devoted to God. It was someone related to Noah--or many people related to him--who chose to neglect God) that God chose Abram to be the father of His people. It was probably because people had already deliberately forgotten about God--even though He was no mystery to anyone and people chose to forget about Him. Abram was a man of faith and God respected that. Because of that, He chose to carry His message through Abram's people, who later had his name changed by God to Abraham. The Christians and Jews believe that God's promise was carried through Abraham's son Isaac and not Ishmael. I won't give you the whole history lesson here if you're not interested in why it's Isaac and not Ishmael, but if you want to check it out, read up on Genesis 16-18. Biblegateway.com is a great site if you don't have the Bible handy.

[New paragraph for people with sore eyes] The reason why God chose Abraham was because of his faith and his covenant remained with Israel because the rest of the nations had forgotten Him and were incredibly evil (See Deuteronomy 9). If your question is why God only showed Himself to the Jews at this time and didn't give the people who had deliberately forgotten about God a second chance, I'd have to say that He did show Himself to the other countries. Egypt was plagued by Him and the entire land of Canaan (consisting of multiple pagan countries) were slain by God to give the Israelites a homeland. You might say "Well, yeah, He took down everyone He showed Himself to besides the Israelites!" Once again, this is because the other nations were so evil. If He were to allow them to continue, they would have left no hope for the future to hear of God and accept His message. It gets more complicated from here on out, but time and again God gives people His message. From the beginning, again with Noah, again with Abraham, and again with Jesus. Even in the time of Israel people who were not Jews who had faith could become Jews. For example, see the story of Rahab the prostitute (See Joshua 2 and follow it until her story is done, I'm not sure how long it follows). And the nations surrounding Israel were deathly afraid of Israel because God's power was behind them (although from time to time God allowed Israel to be defeated because they had disobeyed Him greatly, and it was later made clear to the nations that it was God who was dictating the battles and not the enemies. See basically the whole book of Judges for examples).

Everyone knew about God. He made Himself clear from the absolute beginning and still you have people going around inviting people to church or sharing about their personal stories about God. Me making this thread here is another example of how God's making Himself known. And even for the people who have not heard about God, Paul says about them in Romans 2 "Indeed, when Gentiles [Note: the Gentiles were anyone who was not Jewish--those who did not have God's Law], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (verses 14 and 15).

Let me know if this answers your question or not.

Sounds fair enough. I'm glad you made this thread, correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

According to Christian doctrine, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman created by god. However, according to scientific research, man and woman did not just suddenly appear. We evolved over the course of millions of years to our current form. So my question is, how can Christianity and science coexist?

To this I'd have to say that evolution is a theory. I'm not a scientist, but I've talked to people who have sat down and really looked at the proofs for evolution and everyone I've talked to who has really taken a look at the facts seems convinced that it is an incredibly unsupported theory. Let me remind you also that not too long ago anyone who didn't believe in spontaneous generation was considered insane.

Bottom-line, science doesn't have all of the answers. As it is they don't even understand the human brain fully--let alone the inner workings of the universe. Smell is something that they aren't sure how it functions in co-relation with the brain at the moment. I took at AP Psychology last year and the teacher had little to say on smell and basically said "We're not sure yet." Likewise, no scientist can accurately explain black holes. So, honestly, I'm not ready to say that science has all of the answers and can dictate my life just because they've managed to convince everyone else.

But as it is, I don't think science and God mutually exclude one another. One understanding of how science and God can co-exist is that science explains the how, but God explains the why. Most people see these two as answering two completely different questions. The fact of the matter is in Christianity that God created the world--and exactly how it was done isn't all too important. In fact, God could have created the world three seconds ago and implanted all of us with our current memories and we would never suspect it. However, I don't believe that's how things went down.

My problem with science is that they answer too few questions. If one is to take science to be the answer to everything, then how do you explain the rest of the universe that science can't explain? Or how does it explain how some people radically change their lives, claiming that God had something to do with it?

The thing is, science doesn't explain everything and doesn't claim to. It doesn't answer why we're here and doesn't even fully explain how we're here. In fact, the 'Big Bang Theory' is basically this: All of a sudden, everything sprang into existence. Sounds a lot like Genesis 1 if you ask me. Something coming out of nothing is scientifically impossible. And yet this is the popular theory. The problem with science is, we just don't know all of the facts.

So I'm not sure if I can fully explain to you everything given the time I have, but the beginning of Mere Christianity gives a pretty detailed argument for there being Something spiritual that is governing the world. You can probably find it on Googlebooks and get a preview of it. Unless you guys want me to explain all of C.S. Lewis' argument about the Moral Law right here, I'd have to end the answer now. I can continue with a ton more, but first let me know whether or not you're satisfied with the answer currently.

All right: I'll take a look at this later on today and take the next question as well as answer Eor's other question that I said I'd take a look at because it intrigues me.

EDIT:

I really like the idea of this topic, so at the risk of being flamed to death, I've decided to help Proverbs out. I've chosen a few Q's at random.



1), he went to the east of eden to the land of Nod, not the town. No town existed. The land had a name sure, but so did Eden, and no man was needed to name it eden. And his wife was his sister, as various translations(a not the very flawed king james version) says he knew his wife already.

Very simply put, your confusing Christianity with Christendom, Christendom makes up its own rules, and they choose whatever they want. It takes discernment to figure out what is literal and what is figurative(gasp a book that contains metaphors and similes? Unheard of!)

And no sins are outdated. Again Christendom makes up its own rules and goes against the bible. Malachi 3:6 says god has not changed, he still feels the same way towards all sins regardless of what the church says. If your asking why gays and adulterers arent still stoned, is because that law was given to jews and applies not to christians. Several scriptures say that christ was the end of the Mosaic law.


You have AIDS.

Thanks.

So, the rules that have stayed are the ones that are truly from God, and the ones that haven't are just the result of a church's power play. That seems rather convenient.

Convenient? How so? It's rather more inconvenient if you ask me--for the church, anyway. It's taking away power from the church and giving it to God, saying that real sin or real righteousness is as it exists in the Bible, not as the church defines it.

Basically, I'm here to defend Christianity, not what you've seen other churches doing. No sin is outdated. Things were reformed in the New Testament, and if anything was 'outdated' it would be in there. But more often than not in the New Testament, things were made clearer or as Jesus said "fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17 NIV). Basically, it wasn't "Don't commit adultery" anymore, but became "Do not commit adultery AND lust is considered adultery of the heart and likewise is sin." See Matthew 5.

You're still confusing Christianity and Christendom. You're thinking that the churches are keeping or taking out what they want. They are, but that's Christendom.

Christianity is looking at the Bible and figuring out what it says instead of fitting it to what you want it to say. It is because of that that I take everything in the Bible seriously and thoroughly investigate anything I find in the Bible that I find which surprises me, catches me off guard, or that I didn't see before and don't understand so that I fully understand it. Christianity is about following the Bible and not picking and choosing what you like.

I believe that the Bible is correct and I look at the Bible to constantly try to get a clearer picture of who God is and what He intends for us.

 

[Ryusuta]

Very simply put, your confusing Christianity with Christendom, Christendom makes up its own rules, and they choose whatever they want. It takes discernment to figure out what is literal and what is figurative(gasp a book that contains metaphors and similes? Unheard of!)

And no sins are outdated. Again Christendom makes up its own rules and goes against the bible. Malachi 3:6 says god has not changed, he still feels the same way towards all sins regardless of what the church says. If your asking why gays and adulterers arent still stoned, is because that law was given to jews and applies not to christians. Several scriptures say that christ was the end of the Mosaic law.

So, the rules that have stayed are the ones that are truly from God, and the ones that haven't are just the result of a church's power play. That seems rather convenient.

 

[Peeze]

So, the rules that have stayed are the ones that are truly from God, and the ones that haven't are just the result of a church's power play. That seems rather convenient.

You missed the point, no "rules" have disappeared. The church wants people to believe they have, but the "rules" still exist, regardless of if the church follows them or not.

 

[Ryusuta]

You missed the point, no "rules" have disappeared. The church wants people to believe they have, but the "rules" still exist, regardless of if the church follows them or not.

No, I followed your point to the letter.

What you seem to be missing is that the Church and religious texts are supposed to be the medium for conveying these rules. So what good are they if they can simply decide as time goes on which ones are the REAL rules and which ones should be thrown out?

To this I'd have to say that evolution is a theory. I'm not a scientist, but I've talked to people who have sat down and really looked at the proofs for evolution and everyone I've talked to who has really taken a look at the facts seems convinced that it is an incredibly unsupported theory. Let me remind you also that not too long ago anyone who didn't believe in spontaneous generation was considered insane.

Alright. No. Stop. WRONG.

Don't recycle clichés and talk about things like this if you don't understand what you're talking about. And no offense, but you don't in this case.

This is a headache I have had numerous times... COUNTLESS times trying to pound a very important distinction into people's heads. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

A theory is a scientific statement that is SUPPORTED BY ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, yet cannot be tested in a laboratory environment. It is NOT a hypothesis, which in the context you're attempting to use it in would relegate it to the status of an "educated guess." See also: the Theory of Relativity.

Evolution is supported by ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO US. It's not just some word people like throwing around. Because people of science work a little differently. You see, they don't make an idea up and then desperately try to prove themselves RIGHT. They do, in fact, go the opposite way, and CONSTANTLY try to prove themselves WRONG in order to advance their own world perception. So far, evolution is the solution supported by the most available evidence. If another solution that made more sense comes along, people would embrace and accept it. That's how the advancement of knowledge works.

And see, this brings me to the thing that has bothered me the most looking throughout history. Religion as a whole (I'm not just picking on Christianity, here) has been a CONSTANT roadblock to the advancement of knowledge. The reason for this is that "God did it" has ALWAYS been used in religion as a placeholder for the unknown (check your history books if you don't believe me). Every time there's something unexplainable, it's because "God did it." And once the REAL explanation comes to light, people of religion find one less thing that God did, feel their religion losing just a little more impact, and feel threatened by it.

Inevitably what ends up happening is that the more... shall we say... "prevalent" religions end up adjusting their religious teaches to incorporate that new knowledge in such a way that it was part of the religion all along, or else that the previous lessons were simply archaic (see the above quote and response). And then a new breakthrough discovery is made and the process starts all over.

I know it's "not my turn" to ask a question, but how do you justify this?

 

[arrowhead]

To this I'd have to say that evolution is a theory. I'm not a scientist, but I've talked to people who have sat down and really looked at the proofs for evolution and everyone I've talked to who has really taken a look at the facts seems convinced that it is an incredibly unsupported theory. Let me remind you also that not too long ago anyone who didn't believe in spontaneous generation was considered insane.

evolution is observed. so it's a fact. and the people you talked to probably don't even know what evolution is. there are mounds of evidence that support evolution and common decent.

Bottom-line, science doesn't have all of the answers. As it is they don't even understand the human brain fully--let alone the inner workings of the universe. Smell is something that they aren't sure how it functions in co-relation with the brain at the moment. I took at AP Psychology last year and the teacher had little to say on smell and basically said "We're not sure yet." Likewise, no scientist can accurately explain black holes. So, honestly, I'm not ready to say that science has all of the answers and can dictate my life just because they've managed to convince everyone else.

so a completely wrong answer is better than a useful answer consistent with observation?

But as it is, I don't think science and God mutually exclude one another. One understanding of how science and God can co-exist is that science explains the how, but God explains the why. Most people see these two as answering two completely different questions. The fact of the matter is in Christianity that God created the world--and exactly how it was done isn't all too important. In fact, God could have created the world three seconds ago and implanted all of us with our current memories and we would never suspect it. However, I don't believe that's how things went down.

so you admit religion is all in what you believe? then why advertise it as the truth?

The thing is, science doesn't explain everything and doesn't claim to. It doesn't answer why we're here and doesn't even fully explain how we're here. In fact, the 'Big Bang Theory' is basically this: All of a sudden, everything sprang into existence. Sounds a lot like Genesis 1 if you ask me. Something coming out of nothing is scientifically impossible. And yet this is the popular theory. The problem with science is, we just don't know all of the facts.

not according to this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our-universe.html

 

[Xsyven]

Why is homosexuality a sin? Are condoms and birth control a sin?

When you say that God is love, what does that mean when I fall in love with another man? If that's not true love, then am I incapable of feeling love? And if that's the truth, then am I incapable of feeling God? And if that's the case, then why should I live by his commandments?

I feel like I'm God's biggest practical joke.

 

[RDK]

Every time someone says "Evolution is just a theory" and actually expects that to be a sufficient argument, I die a little inside.

 

[cF=)]

The problem with science is, we just don't know all of the facts.

Wrong. YOU don't know all the facts because YOU never bothered opening a book on the matter. Talking to pseudo-scientists won't give you a correct answer on the mechanics of evolution, especially how researchers came to think about Natural Selection as an explanation. The gibberish you fill the Debate Hall with is a poor attempt at bringing down science.

 

[Xsyven]

Ignorance is bliss.

Christians, have you ever wondered why Australia has completely different animals than America? And if you say "because god chose where they should live", you might just kill RDK.

 

[Oracle]

Why is homosexuality a sin? Are condoms and birth control a sin?

When you say that God is love, what does that mean when I fall in love with another man? If that's not true love, then am I incapable of feeling love? And if that's the truth, then am I incapable of feeling God? And if that's the case, then why should I live by his commandments?

I feel like I'm God's biggest practical joke.

No, homosexuality is not a sin. The bible never actually condemns homosexuality. The translations were just a little off. If someone cares to point out the passages where it says that, I'll point out what they actually meant.

My hypothesis on homosexuality is that it used to be a psychological condition caused by various factors as a man grew up and learned that caused him to not be sexually attracted to women. However, recent evidence points to it being actually a genetic trait, so it may have "evolved" (i know that's not the right word) into a genetic mental trait.
It's kind of hard to explain.

 

[pockyD]

No, homosexuality is not a sin. The bible never actually condemns homosexuality. The translations were just a little off. If someone cares to point out the passages where it says that, I'll point out what they actually meant.

My hypothesis on homosexuality is that it used to be a psychological condition caused by various factors as a man grew up and learned that caused him to not be sexually attracted to women. However, recent evidence points to it being actually a genetic trait, so it may have "evolved" (i know that's not the right word) into a genetic mental trait.
It's kind of hard to explain.

do you have access to the original texts and comprehensive understanding of the languages (hebrew, aramaic, latin, greek, whatever... i dunno)? or something

 

[LordoftheMorning]

The deathknell of atheistic evolution.

Every time someone says "Evolution is just a theory" and actually expects that to be a sufficient argument, I die a little inside.

To this I'd have to say that evolution is a theory. I'm not a scientist, but I've talked to people who have sat down and really looked at the proofs for evolution and everyone I've talked to who has really taken a look at the facts seems convinced that it is an incredibly unsupported theory. Let me remind you also that not too long ago anyone who didn't believe in spontaneous generation was considered insane.

Well guys, I'm back and I'd like to elaborate on this.

Let's look at the nature of a mechanism. Many differentiated parts that interlock to form a construct that achieves a purpose that the individual pieces do not. Such constructs include computers, cars, and so on and on.

Now let's consider bodily mechanisms, organs one could say. Look at my eye. It consists of multiple parts that work together in incredibly complex ways in order to allow me to see. Let's establish two things.
1. Eyes are very complex systems.
2. A part of an eye without the rest of the parts is useless. If I just had a cornea and nothing else, I couldn't see.

The eye is far too complex to have "evolved" all in one go, right? right. This means that multiple mutations must have led into the evolution of the eye. But wait..... If an eye must be evolved piece by piece, each piece would have to be constructed by individual mutations. But a piece of an eye is useless. A useless piece of an eye would not help an organism in any way, and so it won't be likely to survive the test of Natural Selection. Thus, the only way for an eye to have evolved is that a member of a certain species mutated a part of an eye, then his offspring miraculously mutated the rest of the parts, and all survived the test of natural selection by sheer luck.
This is ridiculously improbable. I'm sorry but I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution could have possibly occurred without the supervision of a powerful designer. Natural selection cannot explain the formation of an organ that is built from parts that would be useless by themselves, because they do not make an organism more likely to survive and pass on mutated traits.

This means that the only still-standing creation theories are those that include a Designer.

On a less-important note, have you heard of Theistic Evolution? It works the same with the way we build things.

Henry Ford could not have made any of the marvelous SUVs with built-in computers back in the day, but through a great deal of trails (done by designers might I add) they were able to make progress because the advantageous additions appealed to the market (which plays the role of natural selection in this allegory). Eventually they ended up with our modern ford cars. That is the real evolution. Trials done by a designer that succeeded. Ofc with God the trials would have been made simply for biodiversity's sake.

Did you guys know that Darwin didn't know anything about cells?

EDIT:
Oh, and with regards to homosexuality. God would not allow his Word to be mistranslated to the extent of making something moral look immoral. I would guess that it is immoral because it doesn't produce offspring, it's merely sensual pleasure for the sake of itself (which also is why condoms and birth-control are frowned upon). It's not really the way it was meant to be naturally.
That's my assumption though. The reason I think it's immoral is because God said it was, and God knows a lot more than I do so I'll let him do the dictating. He has a reason, however. The above is just what I think the reason is.

 

[Ryusuta]

The eye is far too complex to have "evolved" all in one go, right? right. This means that multiple mutations must have led into the evolution of the eye. But wait..... If an eye must be evolved piece by piece, each piece would have to be constructed by individual mutations. But a piece of an eye is useless. A useless piece of an eye would not help an organism in any way, and so it won't be likely to survive the test of Natural Selection. Thus, the only way for an eye to have evolved is that a member of a certain species mutated a part of an eye, then his offspring miraculously mutated the rest of the parts, and all survived the test of natural selection by sheer luck.

Your problem is that you're taking the eye as it is NOW and trying to break it down. You're also making a gross oversimplification of the sensory reception of countless living beings.

Did you guys know that Darwin didn't know anything about cells?

Yay ad hominem! He also didn't know about cell phones, either.

Oh, and with regards to homosexuality. God would not allow his Word to be mistranslated to the extent of making something moral look immoral.

Oh, come on. Even the most hardcore of Christians can't actually believe this. People commit atrocities in the name of God all the time. It's unbelievably easy to skew The Bible to make it say what you want it to say.

 

[RDK]

Well guys, I'm back and I'd like to elaborate on this.

Let's look at the nature of a mechanism. Many differentiated parts that interlock to form a construct that achieves a purpose that the individual pieces do not. Such constructs include computers, cars, and so on and on.

You're not honestly bringing that irreducible complexity garbage into this thread, are you? *SIGH*

Now let's consider bodily mechanisms, organs one could say. Look at my eye. It consists of multiple parts that work together in incredibly complex ways in order to allow me to see. Let's establish two things.
1. Eyes are very complex systems.
2. A part of an eye without the rest of the parts is useless. If I just had a cornea and nothing else, I couldn't see.

You're looking at the eye as it is now, not in evolutionary phases, or steps. What you're not understanding is that, unlike creationists, evolutionists never claim that structures magically pop out of nowhere; we know that it takes time, and lots of miniscule changes before structures begin to evolve.

You're looking at the finished product when you should be looking at the process used to make that product. Everything that went into making the eye, or the blood system, or what have you served some other purpose before it began to serve the purpose you see today.

The eye is far too complex to have "evolved" all in one go, right? right. This means that multiple mutations must have led into the evolution of the eye. But wait..... If an eye must be evolved piece by piece, each piece would have to be constructed by individual mutations. But a piece of an eye is useless. A useless piece of an eye would not help an organism in any way, and so it won't be likely to survive the test of Natural Selection. Thus, the only way for an eye to have evolved is that a member of a certain species mutated a part of an eye, then his offspring miraculously mutated the rest of the parts, and all survived the test of natural selection by sheer luck.

No, actually, that's not how it works at all. Congratulations on failing high school biology.

This is ridiculously improbable. I'm sorry but I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution could have possibly occurred without the supervision of a powerful designer. Natural selection cannot explain the formation of an organ that is built from parts that would be useless by themselves, because they do not make an organism more likely to survive and pass on mutated traits.

..and yet you have enough faith to believe a naked, bearded man created the universe out of absolutely nothing, based on....absolutely nothing? Yeah, you're right, the mountians of evidence for evolution seems pretty shaky when compared with the evidence for god.

Read my response to the above paragraph about irreducible complexity. Natural selection does explain how the formation of organ is built from parts that served other or similar functions. It's your faulty interpretation of natural selection that is the problem here.

This means that the only still-standing creation theories are those that include a Designer.

False dichotomy. How arrogant of you to presume that either evolution is correct or you're ridiculous pseudo-explanation is correct. Back to the barn with you.

On a less-important note, have you heard of Theistic Evolution? It works the same with the way we build things.

Henry Ford could not have made any of the marvelous SUVs with built-in computers back in the day, but through a great deal of trails (done by designers might I add) they were able to make progress because the advantageous additions appealed to the market (which plays the role of natural selection in this allegory). Eventually they ended up with our modern ford cars. That is the real evolution. Trials done by a designer that succeeded. Ofc with God the trials would have been made simply for biodiversity's sake.

We're just arguing semantics here. Replace "designer" or "god" with "natural selection" and there's really no problem.

Because you see, evolution on a cellular level is random, but natural selection is anything but. It's the epitome of a guided process; organisms adapt, and the ones best suited to survive are selected to pass their beneficial genes onto the next generation.

And why would God need to go through trial and error? I thought he knew everything. He can't possibly screw up, because then he wouldn't be God. Hmm.

Did you guys know that Darwin didn't know anything about cells?

Unlike you, we don't worship a man. Darwin isn't the messiah of atheists, he was a scientist. The cool thing about science is that it can be wrong sometimes, and can admit it's wrong, because that makes way for better understanding--which is apparently an adaptation creationists weren't born with. Natural selection at work!

Oh, and with regards to homosexuality. God would not allow his Word to be mistranslated to the extent of making something moral look immoral.

Actually, the Bible is a lot like a man; if you torture it hard and long enough, you can get it to say whatever the hell you want.

 

[Xsyven]

Why did god invent the appendix and gallbladder?

 

[RDK]

Why did god invent the appendix and gallbladder?

Or why did god make the pipe for breathing also the pipe for chewing food? If the Christian God were an architect, he'd be fired for incompetence.

Because what you Christians don't see is that the human body is anything but wonderful. In fact, in a lot of cases, it's a textbook example of how not to make a good organism. Any other biologist will tell you this. Luckily, we as humans have our intellect and sentience, because we're very physically unable when compared to a lot of other organisms.

If anything, if the human body is the Christian God's magnum opus, then your God is an incompetent boob.

 

[Ryusuta]

Actually, the Bible is a lot like a man; if you torture it hard and long enough, you can get it to say whatever the hell you want.

I'm within a hair's breadth of making this my signature. Very well-said.

 

[Amide]

@LordoftheMorning

Theistic evolution (at least in the Christian sense) falls apart when you realize that research and Christianity don't agree on the beginning of man.

Also, since when the science are condoms bad?

@Sir 0rion

You get points for saying ad hominem earlier.

 

[Eor]

This depends on which 'insignificant population of people' that you're referring to. Are you talking about Adam and Eve who, biblically were the first people created? If that's the case then they were the only people to tell about God. So if you're taking that perspective, God made Himself known from the beginning, and we're the ones who have been forgetting Him, ignoring Him, not believing Him, or neglecting to tell our children about Him.

If you mean that the Israelites were the small group of people to hear about God, then I'd have to reference what I just said earlier. God made himself known from the beginning. After doing that, people forgot about him and began to do absolutely terrible things. The world was a complete mess because they had forgotten God. He only found one upright person in the whole world, and that was Noah. After that, He purged the world and let Noah's family survive to start anew. It was after much time later (People still knew about God during this in-between period. Note that the rest of human life stemmed from Noah's family--a man devoted to God. It was someone related to Noah--or many people related to him--who chose to neglect God) that God chose Abram to be the father of His people. It was probably because people had already deliberately forgotten about God--even though He was no mystery to anyone and people chose to forget about Him. Abram was a man of faith and God respected that. Because of that, He chose to carry His message through Abram's people, who later had his name changed by God to Abraham. The Christians and Jews believe that God's promise was carried through Abraham's son Isaac and not Ishmael. I won't give you the whole history lesson here if you're not interested in why it's Isaac and not Ishmael, but if you want to check it out, read up on Genesis 16-18. Biblegateway.com is a great site if you don't have the Bible handy.

[New paragraph for people with sore eyes] The reason why God chose Abraham was because of his faith and his covenant remained with Israel because the rest of the nations had forgotten Him and were incredibly evil (See Deuteronomy 9). If your question is why God only showed Himself to the Jews at this time and didn't give the people who had deliberately forgotten about God a second chance, I'd have to say that He did show Himself to the other countries. Egypt was plagued by Him and the entire land of Canaan (consisting of multiple pagan countries) were slain by God to give the Israelites a homeland. You might say "Well, yeah, He took down everyone He showed Himself to besides the Israelites!" Once again, this is because the other nations were so evil. If He were to allow them to continue, they would have left no hope for the future to hear of God and accept His message. It gets more complicated from here on out, but time and again God gives people His message. From the beginning, again with Noah, again with Abraham, and again with Jesus. Even in the time of Israel people who were not Jews who had faith could become Jews. For example, see the story of Rahab the prostitute (See Joshua 2 and follow it until her story is done, I'm not sure how long it follows). And the nations surrounding Israel were deathly afraid of Israel because God's power was behind them (although from time to time God allowed Israel to be defeated because they had disobeyed Him greatly, and it was later made clear to the nations that it was God who was dictating the battles and not the enemies. See basically the whole book of Judges for examples).

That was a bad question on my part. I forgot people believed in the literal truth of the creation story. I use that question for religious debates with my friends that don't, but I just never really thought that much about using it here.

Everyone knew about God. He made Himself clear from the absolute beginning and still you have people going around inviting people to church or sharing about their personal stories about God. Me making this thread here is another example of how God's making Himself known. And even for the people who have not heard about God, Paul says about them in Romans 2 "Indeed, when Gentiles [Note: the Gentiles were anyone who was not Jewish--those who did not have God's Law], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (verses 14 and 15).

Let me know if this answers your question or not.

America doesn't equal the world. The entire eastern half of the world had no contact with Christianity for (in your biblical timeline, which I disagree with but I'm going to mention that later in the post, and I'll play along) about 4,600 years. Even if we accept that the first generation to move there that had "forsaken" God, all their children are innocent, yet still ****ed to Hell for not believing in Christ (as the bible states). The Bible never mentions the far east. I know there is a believe that one of the disciples went and preached as far as China, but there is no way his word could of been heard by everyone, and the fact that there is no indigenous Chinese church shows that even if the man ever did get there, it failed.

To this I'd have to say that evolution is a theory. I'm not a scientist, but I've talked to people who have sat down and really looked at the proofs for evolution and everyone I've talked to who has really taken a look at the facts seems convinced that it is an incredibly unsupported theory.

This is rediculous. Please state who these people are, because I doubt they are scientists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm shows that research done into the subject find that around 95% of scientists (people that actually look at the facts and are capable of understanding them) believe in Evolution. Your high school teacher or bible buddy is not a scientists

Let me remind you also that not too long ago anyone who didn't believe in spontaneous generation was considered insane.

Two hundred years ago is not that long, and it never had the scientific proof to back it up. It was the idea of Aristotle, and it had little scientific backing at all. It wasn't until later that we had the scientific reasoning to test it that we realized it was a false theory. Evolution is not the idea thought up by a philosopher. It is a theory that has such enormous scientific backing that it is impossible for it to be false.

And you don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory. Use this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Bottom-line, science doesn't have all of the answers. As it is they don't even understand the human brain fully--let alone the inner workings of the universe. Smell is something that they aren't sure how it functions in co-relation with the brain at the moment. I took at AP Psychology last year and the teacher had little to say on smell and basically said "We're not sure yet." Likewise, no scientist can accurately explain black holes. So, honestly, I'm not ready to say that science has all of the answers and can dictate my life just because they've managed to convince everyone else.

No, they don't have all the answers to life, they're still working on it. But please explain what the Christian answer to smell is? Because "God made it so"? That just explains everything, I guess. Like disease. Throw out germ theory, the Bible says that God created plagues!

But as it is, I don't think science and God mutually exclude one another.

I'd like to say that I agree with this. While I don't believe in your idea of God, I'm open to the idea of there being a sort of God.

My problem with science is that they answer too few questions. If one is to take science to be the answer to everything, then how do you explain the rest of the universe that science can't explain?

Just because we haven't explained it yet doesn't mean it's unexplainable. A thousand years ago Germ theory was never even though of, but that doesn't mean diseases were unexplainable. Or that gravity was unexplainable, or that we'd never have answers for it. We continue to build off of our knowledge and go forward.

Or how does it explain how some people radically change their lives, claiming that God had something to do with it?

Placebo, generally.

The thing is, science doesn't explain everything and doesn't claim to. It doesn't answer why we're here and doesn't even fully explain how we're here. In fact, the 'Big Bang Theory' is basically this: All of a sudden, everything sprang into existence. Sounds a lot like Genesis 1 if you ask me. Something coming out of nothing is scientifically impossible. And yet this is the popular theory. The problem with science is, we just don't know all of the facts.

You don't understand what you are talking about, which is pretty common for someone with your beliefs.

First, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution. And yes, the Big Bang Theory is not proven. Scientists have simply looked at all the evidence that we have and came up with the most likely scenario that supports it. New evidence can come up that can change the theory, but it can't override the old evidence.

And the Big Bang Theory is not that everything came from nothing. It's that the entire universe was condensed to a single primordial hot point, and that it started to expand, and that the universe is still expanding. Not "bang look here everything is", everything was already in existence.

You're still confusing Christianity and Christendom. You're thinking that the churches are keeping or taking out what they want. They are, but that's Christendom.

Not to the Catholic church it's not, and that's the largest denomination of Christianity in the world. If you're simply going to debate from a protestant standpoint that's fine, but it should be clarified.

Now let's consider bodily mechanisms, organs one could say. Look at my eye. It consists of multiple parts that work together in incredibly complex ways in order to allow me to see. Let's establish two things.
1. Eyes are very complex systems.
2. A part of an eye without the rest of the parts is useless. If I just had a cornea and nothing else, I couldn't see.

The eye is far too complex to have "evolved" all in one go, right? right.

Wrong

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

This means that multiple mutations must have led into the evolution of the eye. But wait..... If an eye must be evolved piece by piece, each piece would have to be constructed by individual mutations. But a piece of an eye is useless. A useless piece of an eye would not help an organism in any way, and so it won't be likely to survive the test of Natural Selection. Thus, the only way for an eye to have evolved is that a member of a certain species mutated a part of an eye, then his offspring miraculously mutated the rest of the parts, and all survived the test of natural selection by sheer luck.

Wrong

http://toarchive.org/faqs/vision.html

This is ridiculously improbable. I'm sorry but I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution could have possibly occurred without the supervision of a powerful designer. Natural selection cannot explain the formation of an organ that is built from parts that would be useless by themselves, because they do not make an organism more likely to survive and pass on mutated traits.

Wrong

http://toarchive.org/faqs/vision.html

I'm aware I already linked to it, but I figured I might as well do so again

This means that the only still-standing creation theories are those that include a Designer.

A designer is not mutually exclusive with evolution
http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-god.html

On a less-important note, have you heard of Theistic Evolution? It works the same with the way we build things.

Henry Ford could not have made any of the marvelous SUVs with built-in computers back in the day, but through a great deal of trails (done by designers might I add) they were able to make progress because the advantageous additions appealed to the market (which plays the role of natural selection in this allegory). Eventually they ended up with our modern ford cars. That is the real evolution. Trials done by a designer that succeeded. Ofc with God the trials would have been made simply for biodiversity's sake.

Good thing we're not cars

Did you guys know that Darwin didn't know anything about cells?

He knew a little about cells, the Cell theory being developed fifty years before he died. But yes, he did not know much about cells, certainly not as much as you and me do right now. But the thing is, Darwin did not "invent" evolution. Evolution was thought of by the Greeks, and was even included in several indigenous religions (though not nearly as we know of it now, and generally it was humans being transformed into the animals). Darwin simply wrote about what he discovered, and didn't have all the answers to evolution. Later scientists have expanded on it. Darwin actually thought traits were passed down through inheritance, as in "if I work out a lot my children will be born stronger", which we know to be false. Darwin is not the "head guru" of Evolution. A lot of his ideas were wrong.

EDIT:
Oh, and with regards to homosexuality. God would not allow his Word to be mistranslated to the extent of making something moral look immoral. I would guess that it is immoral because it doesn't produce offspring, it's merely sensual pleasure for the sake of itself (which also is why condoms and birth-control are frowned upon). It's not really the way it was meant to be naturally.
That's my assumption though. The reason I think it's immoral is because God said it was, and God knows a lot more than I do so I'll let him do the dictating. He has a reason, however. The above is just what I think the reason is.

But people used the bible to defend slavery, and used the bible to defend burning heretics, and used the bible to defend a lot of immoral things. It already has been used for that, so I don't know why you seem think that God would act in the case of homosexuality, but not the rest.

 

[Ryusuta]

@Sir 0rion

You get points for saying ad hominem earlier.

Sadly, I find myself having to say it all too often on Internet forum debates.