Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[BilliardsBall]

No, my finite, ordinary knowledge is that we have no evidence of such intervention nor reason to believe there was such.



We fail primarily because we don't seem to agree on what properties a utopia should have. We usually find that our imaginations don't correspond with reality. People have 'faith' in certain political ideas and are misled by that faith into creating horrors. The same happens with faith in religious ideas.

Still not a reason to disagree since the truth is man is unable to get to any utopia due to his sinful, fallen nature. Jesus defined utopia and who could be there--those without the propensity to sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but that is only your strawman version of evolution. Evolution does not support any of those social issues. I know that you want someone to blame, but blaming it on reality is rather futile.




Again you make an extremely gross error, actually more than one. You not only assume that there is a God but the God that exists is yours. And I have no double standard. One more time, practice reasoning rationally.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who assumed there is any God? How do you know whether I grew up as a Christian or an atheist? (I was neither!).

And how did you come to assume, other than some arrogant assertion, that I presupposed the only God was the Christian God? This is especially grievous when you consider that no one starts out being born again and that all come to Christ reluctantly, to begin. You know a little about logic and presupposition, but apparently nothing about the scriptures, the true God, or how to conduct an interview with someone before you accuse them of presupposition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, that is a nonsensical argument against atheism. You claimed that atheism is irrational. You still have not shown that at all;



Do you not understand how both of these questions are bogus? A person that could think rationally would see this immediately.



So you don't even know what you are arguing against. That explain your inability to reason rationally.



You did not have that in your first question. You changed it, showing that you now see that it was flawed. Yes, if there is a beneficial god then the suffering in the world does not make any sense. By the way, by changing your question you tacitly admitted that it was wrong.



Yes, there is. You did not form your question that way. You made your first one into a gedanken, now you need to do the same with the second one. Once again, you admit that your question was poorly asked.

Since you make so many presuppositions in your arguments, let's slow down and keep you on one subject--the irrationality of the atheist's position. It would take special knowledge of creation and all spacetime to say there NEVER was any god anywhere. That's irrational on its face.

Personally, I've encountered hundreds of atheists who are quick to disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world on an irrational basis?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No offence but that doesn't sound very rational. Almost makes it seem like you don't understand what "irrational" means.

I notice you also used the Hitler card in a hilarious context for the sake of whatever point you're trying to make. Bravo, 8/10 I laughed.

It is irrational for either of us to assert as true something requiring near-omniscient knowledge of this universe, which is why the Bible says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God," a wholly unproven, unknown, untestable assertion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not, however, confusing demonstrable aids with theoretical abstract imagining, that most people don't get or believe exist.
Tom

Why not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nonsense.
Darwin didn't invent the concept of race or racism. And it's the scientific folks who followed him who demonstrated how superficial the concept of race really is.
Christianity teaches about God's Chosen People and such. Science is where "We're all God's children" comes from.
Tom

Kindly go back and read what I wrote, I said "Darwinists," not "Charles Darwin". It is a fact that Darwinian evolutionists cursed mankind with abominable, spiteful, charged notion of race. A black or Asian man is a MAN, not another race or subspecies!

 

[columbus]

Why not?

I don't understand your question. I see the demonstrable alleviation of suffering resulting from penicillin. Baptisms, not so much.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Kindly go back and read what I wrote, I said "Darwinists," not "Charles Darwin". It is a fact that Darwinian evolutionists cursed mankind with abominable, spiteful, charged notion of race. A black or Asian man is a MAN, not another race or subspecies!

That's demonstrably false.
EuroCHristian racism existed centuries before Darwin. Using his biology work to justify that racism is what happened afterwards.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who assumed there is any God? How do you know whether I grew up as a Christian or an atheist? (I was neither!).

And how did you come to assume, other than some arrogant assertion, that I presupposed the only God was the Christian God? This is especially grievous when you consider that no one starts out being born again and that all come to Christ reluctantly, to begin. You know a little about logic and presupposition, but apparently nothing about the scriptures, the true God, or how to conduct an interview with someone before you accuse them of presupposition.

That appears to be your problem. Do you have another explanation for your inability to get how life evolved correctly? And your comment about no one starts out born again does not support you. Now that you believe in your God you assume that he exists. And I probably understand the Bible better than you do. I drew a conclusion based upon your responses, and it appears that I am still correct.

Tell me, do you read Genesis literally? If that is the case it is no problem at all to show that you do not know anything about "the true God" either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you make so many presuppositions in your arguments, let's slow down and keep you on one subject--the irrationality of the atheist's position. It would take special knowledge of creation and all spacetime to say there NEVER was any god anywhere. That's irrational on its face.

Personally, I've encountered hundreds of atheists who are quick to disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world on an irrational basis?

What "presuppositions"? Do you even know what the word means? And you can't refute an idea that you do not understand. Since you got atheism wrong your argument fails. Here is a helpful hint. Learn what atheism is before you claim that it is irrational. You only make your own irrationality obvious to everyone when you make that error.

And no, the atheists are not in error regarding the genocide in the Bible. They do not make the error that you ascribe to them. They know that the people being killed were not perfect. So what? That is not a valid justification. Once again, you have a lot of studying to do. And if you think the killings in the OT were not unjust and evil, then your morals need a lot of work too.

 

[Darkstorn]

It is irrational for either of us to assert as true something requiring near-omniscient knowledge of this universe, which is why the Bible says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God," a wholly unproven, unknown, untestable assertion.

But you assert the existence of a specific deity. Because a book says so. If you want people to take you seriously, how about you stop using double standards? Right now my previous post is still valid. You did not manage to counter it.

You just say your source is near-omniscient knowledge. :/

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you assert the existence of a specific deity. Because a book says so. If you want people to take you seriously, how about you stop using double standards? Right now my previous post is still valid. You did not manage to counter it.

You just say your source is near-omniscient knowledge. :/

I didn't assert that the only reason to believe in the God of the Bible is because the Bible said so. I drew a line between believing in God, which is natural, rational, rooted in fact, etc. with the necessity of omniscient knowledge to prove a UNIVERSAL negative.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What "presuppositions"? Do you even know what the word means? And you can't refute an idea that you do not understand. Since you got atheism wrong your argument fails. Here is a helpful hint. Learn what atheism is before you claim that it is irrational. You only make your own irrationality obvious to everyone when you make that error.

And no, the atheists are not in error regarding the genocide in the Bible. They do not make the error that you ascribe to them. They know that the people being killed were not perfect. So what? That is not a valid justification. Once again, you have a lot of studying to do. And if you think the killings in the OT were not unjust and evil, then your morals need a lot of work too.

I wonder if you will address my question or not?

Skeptics disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That appears to be your problem. Do you have another explanation for your inability to get how life evolved correctly? And your comment about no one starts out born again does not support you. Now that you believe in your God you assume that he exists. And I probably understand the Bible better than you do. I drew a conclusion based upon your responses, and it appears that I am still correct.

Tell me, do you read Genesis literally? If that is the case it is no problem at all to show that you do not know anything about "the true God" either.

I'd like to reply but I see a number of shifting arguments here. Can you limit yourself to one? Perhaps the notion that "you understand the Bible better than I"?

I've a year of ancient Greek in university, some training in Hebrew as a Jew, have read the Bible completely through in multiple versions multiple times, have a Bachelor's in Religion with an emphasis on biblical studies from a secular university, and share Bible truths with people on a regular, interactive basis--having witnessed to thousands of persons.

Of course, all of the above is nothing since I know the author of the Bible, and you seem to despise the same author. So I'd say I have multiple advantages in discerning what the Bible teaches.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's demonstrably false.
EuroCHristian racism existed centuries before Darwin. Using his biology work to justify that racism is what happened afterwards.
Tom

You seem unaware of the etymology of the word RACE. I think you should 1) research 2) be more balanced instead of blaming all the world's problems on "Euro Christians".

Skeptics disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't understand your question. I see the demonstrable alleviation of suffering resulting from penicillin. Baptisms, not so much.
Tom

Penicillin has temporary effect. Jesus offers you and I eternal benefit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't assert that the only reason to believe in the God of the Bible is because the Bible said so. I drew a line between believing in God, which is natural, rational, rooted in fact, etc. with the necessity of omniscient knowledge to prove a UNIVERSAL negative.

You have not been able to support your claims at all. And since you have not been able to support your claims that indicates that your beliefs are not rational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to reply but I see a number of shifting arguments here. Can you limit yourself to one? Perhaps the notion that "you understand the Bible better than I"?

I've a year of ancient Greek in university, some training in Hebrew as a Jew, have read the Bible completely through in multiple versions multiple times, have a Bachelor's in Religion with an emphasis on biblical studies from a secular university, and share Bible truths with people on a regular, interactive basis--having witnessed to thousands of persons.

Of course, all of the above is nothing since I know the author of the Bible, and you seem to despise the same author. So I'd say I have multiple advantages in discerning what the Bible teaches.

Please, you don't "know the author of the Bible". For one thing there is not one author. It was written by men. You may believe in a god, but you have repeated demonstrated that you do not "know".

But very good, you have some training in languages. That does not make you an authority on the subject. I will trust those that have been able to support their claims in the real world when it comes to authorities.

And you demonstrate that you are not a scholar of any sort since you do not understand the concept of atheism. You continually post a strawman version of it. I can easily refute a strawman version of Christianity too. I try to avoid that. I know that there are many different varieties of Christianity. As an example that is why I ask Christians which version of the Noah's Ark myth that they believe in if they make the claim of stating that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder if you will address my question or not?

Skeptics disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world?

I probably did. But if you want a question answered you can't complain when you ask an improper question. You asked a question with an improper assumption in it. When you ask a question like that the correct action is to point out and respond to the error in the question first. An obvious example would be "Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

So let me do that, then you can ask your question properly. If you want to claim that skeptics are in error the burden of proof is upon you. You also assume that I am a "sinner". That is bogus term at best.

Can you ask your question properly? No false assumptions if you want an answer to it. By the way, pointing out the errors in your question is answering it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since you make so many presuppositions in your arguments, let's slow down and keep you on one subject--the irrationality of the atheist's position. It would take special knowledge of creation and all spacetime to say there NEVER was any god anywhere. That's irrational on its face.

Personally, I've encountered hundreds of atheists who are quick to disagree (in error) with what they feel is Bible genocide and rape, yet never seem to notice that God condemns skeptics for adultery, lust, greed, jealousy, lying, theft, unbelief . . . why do you think you also make this omission? Can it be that sinners like to find other sinners to blame for the ills of the world on an irrational basis?

What atheist in this thread is saying that?