Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Ingledsva]

It depends on your definition of god. If super-beings can come here from other planets and force obeisance by using super-weapons, how can you say such super-beings are gods CERTAINLY do not exist? That seems unscientific of you.

Pure baloney!

Evolved beings - no matter how far beyond us - ARE NOT ACTUALLY GODS.

Also, you are being disingenuous here as you know perfectly well the definition of GOD being used when discussing the Bible.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It depends on your definition of god. If super-beings can come here from other planets and force obeisance by using super-weapons, how can you say such super-beings are gods CERTAINLY do not exist? That seems unscientific of you.

So Spaniards with superior education, weapons, and ships, arriving in the Americas, - is supposed to make it scientific to believe a God could exist?

NOT!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

The continuing omission is the one I mentioned--what Jesus called stone casting. You are continuing to say the problem is the Bible when the problem is human sin.

It is obviously NOT an "omission" when one is discussing a problem in the Bible, - and does not go on to mention every other problem in the Bible.

That is just ridiculous.

EDIT - Forgot to add that The "cast the first stone" story has nothing to do with what you are saying.

They wanted to stone her for her sin, while being sinners themselves, thus -

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
*
Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

*

 

[Sapiens]

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not in doubt among scholars: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia



If by "any number" you mean a lunatic fringe, very, very small in number, you are right. The article I cited has footnotes from hundreds of scholars on the matter.

The article says, "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain . . . " which is why you should recant your position.

Actually when you apply conventional historical research requirements, e.g., two contemporaneous references, the historicity of Jesus fades quickly. Theist scholars, defending their rice bowls and preconceptions, operate under an "exception" from such rules, because there are none, zero, zilch, which is why much of the field is dishonest and, if they want to be eligible for their heavenly reward ... they'd best recant ... oh, you too.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your last sentence makes no sense, but indicates that you have no clue as to what atheism is. No wonder all you have are strawman attacks.

Atheism is defined by a definition of god. It sounds like you are defining atheism as their may be space gods, but they are natural and not super-natural in nature. So what you are is a devotee of scientism and not an atheist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What in the world does other beings in the universe, that are evolved past us, - have to do with a God?

They obviously would NOT be Gods.

*

It sounds like you are saying there may be space gods but they are natural and not supernatural in behavior. You are a devotee of scientism, then, but not an atheist.

 

[Darkstorn]

Atheism is defined by a definition of god. It sounds like you are defining atheism as their may be space gods, but they are natural and not super-natural in nature. So what you are is a devotee of scientism and not an atheist.

Only you are making claims of "space gods." Stop putting words into peoples' mouths. You aren't actually arguing what people are saying, you are arguing what you wish they were saying so you'd have a point. But you don't.

It sounds like you are saying there may be space gods but they are natural and not supernatural in behavior. You are a devotee of scientism, then, but not an atheist.

You are not reading the arguments others present, you are putting words into their mouths and then arguing that. It doesn't sound at all like she's saying there might be space gods: The opposite. That no matter how "powerful" such beings would be, they still wouldn't be gods. THAT is the image i get from her post. But then again: I'm reading her post instead of inventing crap out of thin air.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is obviously NOT an "omission" when one is discussing a problem in the Bible, - and does not go on to mention every other problem in the Bible.

That is just ridiculous.

EDIT - Forgot to add that The "cast the first stone" story has nothing to do with what you are saying.

They wanted to stone her for her sin, while being sinners themselves, thus -

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
*
Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

*

You are persisting in the behavior typified by my remarks--throwing accusations regarding the Bible, Jesus and the followers of Christ without talking about or even contemplating your own sin.

You and I have a sin nature that will not go away through human effort. We need divine help.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are persisting in the behavior typified by my remarks--throwing accusations regarding the Bible, Jesus and the followers of Christ without talking about or even contemplating your own sin.

You and I have a sin nature that will not go away through human effort. We need divine help.

You JUST accused people of advocating space gods... And that people have sinned... No offence but your empty Christian proselytizing is greatly misplaced in a proper debate, and it is against the forum rules.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

I really don't want to be a wannabe moderator. But you agreed to these rules.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually when you apply conventional historical research requirements, e.g., two contemporaneous references, the historicity of Jesus fades quickly. Theist scholars, defending their rice bowls and preconceptions, operate under an "exception" from such rules, because there are none, zero, zilch, which is why much of the field is dishonest and, if they want to be eligible for their heavenly reward ... they'd best recant ... oh, you too.

You are missing two points:

1. The Wikipedia article actually says "applying the standard criteria of historical investigation," which refers exactly to the "conventional historical research requirements" and "contemporaneous references" you are denying.

2. The majority of scholars under discussion or as the article put it, "virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians" are writing as scholars, not theologians or hopefuls for an afterlife. I know many professors in colleges would love to deny the historical Jesus, but cannot to remain scholarly.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can't help but notice the fact that no one made such claims of certainty.

I think it's really unscientific to put words into peoples' mouths and argue that instead of what they actually wrote.

You will find several posts nearby where atheists assert exactly what I wrote.

 

[Darkstorn]

You will find several posts nearby where atheists assert exactly what I wrote.

No they don't. You are misrepresenting what they said, on purpose.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You lived as an evangelical and tithed the first 10% of your income, before taxes, to your local church?

We used to put money into the tithing plate every time we went to church on Sundays.

"Bible challenges are a waste of time to me if you can't demonstrate the existence of your God in the first place," is putting the cart before the horse, since the challenges are how to prove the existence of God!

You shouldn't need the Bible to demonstrate the existence of God(s). The Bible is just a series of claims - not actual evidence. Essentially you are just using the Bible to show that the Bible is true, which is much too circular of an argument for me.The claim that if I donate money to the church, God will do something for me, hasn't panned out. Do you have another Biblical claim to test out?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are persisting in the behavior typified by my remarks--throwing accusations regarding the Bible, Jesus and the followers of Christ without talking about or even contemplating your own sin.

You and I have a sin nature that will not go away through human effort. We need divine help.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Sapiens]

You are missing two points:

1. The Wikipedia article actually says "applying the standard criteria of historical investigation," which refers exactly to the "conventional historical research requirements" and "contemporaneous references" you are denying.

2. The majority of scholars under discussion or as the article put it, "virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians" are writing as scholars, not theologians or hopefuls for an afterlife. I know many professors in colleges would love to deny the historical Jesus, but cannot to remain scholarly.

You are selectively quoting wiki (that is not always accurate anyway). Here is a piece of the other sides of the story: The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present - Wikipedia

Wiki notes that:

In his final conclusions ("English summary" of the book, by Klaus Schilling), Drews emphasized that deniers (radicals, mythicists) do not form a movement (a so-called "denial party") trying to “unite” them against an entity called “Christianity”:

Drews describes the social consequences of a denial of historicity, and explains why so many theologians and secular researchers stick to historicity, though the ahistoricity of Jesus is scientifically as sure as that of Romulus and Remus, or the seven legendary kings of Rome. The consequences are generally underestimated.

It is quite understandable that the denial party is unique only in that point [of the non-historicity, Ahistorizität], and otherwise offers a variety of diverging explanations [each denier has his own independent hypothesis]. The church has done everything for 2000 years to obscure and hide away the origins of Christianity, so that there’s no way to get any further without speculative hypotheses.

It is obvious that no serious researcher could claim the historicity of Jesus, unless it were the savior of the dominating religion of the prevailing culture. So there’s nothing but Christian prejudice which keeps even secular researchers from admitting non-historicity...

The wiki author is incorrect in claiming application of the "standard criteria of historical investigation," especially with respect to contemporaneous references. Can you cite even just one contemporaneous reference? If you can't, your argument moves from rational scholarly historical analysis to mere Christian apologetics and your claim is naught but an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You JUST accused people of advocating space gods... And that people have sinned... No offence but your empty Christian proselytizing is greatly misplaced in a proper debate, and it is against the forum rules.





I really don't want to be a wannabe moderator. But you agreed to these rules.

We need divine help to overcome the sin nature. Is that proselytizing salvation? Even a particular religion?

Please stop proselytizing your atheism to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Only you are making claims of "space gods." Stop putting words into peoples' mouths. You aren't actually arguing what people are saying, you are arguing what you wish they were saying so you'd have a point. But you don't.



You are not reading the arguments others present, you are putting words into their mouths and then arguing that. It doesn't sound at all like she's saying there might be space gods: The opposite. That no matter how "powerful" such beings would be, they still wouldn't be gods. THAT is the image i get from her post. But then again: I'm reading her post instead of inventing crap out of thin air.

Not sure where you're going with all this. I find it ludicrous that skeptics claim there are no superior beings in the universe unless such superior beings obey all of mankind's present understanding of natural law. Bit shortsighted of you!

 

[BilliardsBall]

We used to put money into the tithing plate every time we went to church on Sundays.


You shouldn't need the Bible to demonstrate the existence of God(s). The Bible is just a series of claims - not actual evidence. Essentially you are just using the Bible to show that the Bible is true, which is much too circular of an argument for me.The claim that if I donate money to the church, God will do something for me, hasn't panned out. Do you have another Biblical claim to test out?

Who is we? Sounds like you were a child and your parents did it. Was it ten percent? Are you claiming you moved in evangelical faith and the Bible and prayer and saw nothing? Or were you simply religious as a child?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are selectively quoting wiki (that is not always accurate anyway). Here is a piece of the other sides of the story: The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present - Wikipedia

Wiki notes that:

In his final conclusions ("English summary" of the book, by Klaus Schilling), Drews emphasized that deniers (radicals, mythicists) do not form a movement (a so-called "denial party") trying to “unite” them against an entity called “Christianity”:

Drews describes the social consequences of a denial of historicity, and explains why so many theologians and secular researchers stick to historicity, though the ahistoricity of Jesus is scientifically as sure as that of Romulus and Remus, or the seven legendary kings of Rome. The consequences are generally underestimated.

It is quite understandable that the denial party is unique only in that point [of the non-historicity, Ahistorizität], and otherwise offers a variety of diverging explanations [each denier has his own independent hypothesis]. The church has done everything for 2000 years to obscure and hide away the origins of Christianity, so that there’s no way to get any further without speculative hypotheses.

It is obvious that no serious researcher could claim the historicity of Jesus, unless it were the savior of the dominating religion of the prevailing culture. So there’s nothing but Christian prejudice which keeps even secular researchers from admitting non-historicity...

The wiki author is incorrect in claiming application of the "standard criteria of historical investigation," especially with respect to contemporaneous references. Can you cite even just one contemporaneous reference? If you can't, your argument moves from rational scholarly historical analysis to mere Christian apologetics and your claim is naught but an appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm not "selectively quoting" Wikipedia. I'm reminding you, in case you don't have time to read the whole article, as I did, that it opens, "virtually all NT and other scholars accept as fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person."

You find this fact upsetting somehow? How strange.

There are 27 NT books. Scholars argue whether some or all of them are contemporaneous--but first--please tell me why it makes you upset that Jesus was a real person.

 

[Polymath257]

**** Moderation Post ******

Towards clarification, the rule on proselytism (Rule 8), is as follows:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.