Not a sin anymore???

[metis]

Well the bible seems to suggest that homosexual behavior is sinful, in your opinion what are Christians supposed to do? // it is not intellectually honest to simply reject those verses just because one doesn’t like them

I know that this wasn't asked to me, but please let me chime in.

I think it's important for all of us in all faiths to realize that their scriptures also reflect cultural values from that place and at that time. If one is looking for objectivity, good luck finding it in the scriptures. It's not that the scriptures are invalid but that one needs to realize that they are predominantly subjective in nature.

 

[F1fan]

Well the bible seems to suggest that homosexual behavior is sinful, in your opinion what are Christians supposed to do?

Not all Christians are prejudiced against gays, meaning they aren't bigots. The problem is more conservative Christians who select a few texts from the Old Testament to justify their bigotry. Notice how many other laws in the OT that Christians ignore, why not about gays?

What are Christians supposed to do? Be loving. Don't judge.

// it is not intellectually honest to simply reject those verses just because one doesn’t like them

Yet that is exactly what conservative Christians do. Do they eat shellfish? Do they wear mixed fibers? You bet. That's because they reject the verses because they don't like them. They want their lobster. They want their doubleknit poly blends. And they want to feel superior to marginalized groups to help offset their hypocrisy and moral decline.

 

[InChrist]

The evidence believers offer for asserting that a god created the world doesn't support that conclusion. Believers request that skeptic keep reconsidering that same evidence until they come to a different conclusion, but that doesn't happen in critical analysis unless there is additional data to consider. One could ask the believer to reconsider the evidence, but that would be pointless, since he didn't come to his beliefs using it. He never considered the evidence at all before accepting theism. Unlike critical thought, with faith, evaluation of evidence FOLLOWS belief. It does not precede or inform it.



You have no evidence that is the case. The evidence you have is that many reject your argument that there is evidence indicating the existence of a deity. And this then would be a good example of you misinterpreting the evidence and coming to unsound conclusions upon examining it. You can only conceive of one reason why people don't agree with you - that they haven't given reasonable thought to the matter. Look at who you are saying that to. My profession, (internal) medicine, was analyzing evidence, and I was very good at it. That's what an internist does - collects a history, does a physical, orders lab and radiology, develops hypotheses (differential diagnosis - "the process of differentiating between two or more conditions which share similar signs or symptoms"), and does therapeutic testing (response to specific therapy) to confirm his diagnosis).

It's also the main thing we do in my passion, contract bridge. We listen to the opponent's bidding for clues about their strength and suit distribution. We notice their opening leads and discards. And from this and a working knowledge of probabilities, one formulates a plan and then tests that.

So, I'm going to defer to my own understanding of what theists call evidence for a deity, and also why they say it. It doesn't hurt that so many other competent thinkers here see it the same way, and that the people disagreeing believe things by faith, which impeaches their credentials as critical thinkers who use evidence properly (or even at all).

Your professional expertise doesn’t matter, nor make you more capable of comprehending the evidence that points to the existence of the Creator God. I am sure you are or were (if retired) an excellent, competent internist. But the scriptures indicate that knowing and understanding a Spiritual Being such as the eternal God, requires humility and seeking God as a child, with sincerity. As a materialist who has already made up your mind that there is no spiritual realm or Spiritual Being, as God, who created all things; you are blind to seeing the evidence. You have closed that door and ability of your mind to understand.

“Atheists are materialists. For them nothing exists except matter. Allegedly, man is no more than his physical body. The materialist thesis is easily disproved. Thoughts are not physical nor are ideas. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are filled with words for which there are no physical descriptions. What is the color of ethical? What does stupendous smell like? How much does remarkable weigh? Materialism is a stupid as well as a wicked philosophy. What is the texture of stupid, the sound of wicked, or the taste of philosophy, etc.?”
Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny (Part 1)

Yes, he did, with the status of OT law. Jesus was preaching to Jews. Paul expanded the target audience to those with little interest in OT law. It's a lot like how the anti-choice Republican candidates market themselves in primaries, where the target audience is registered Republicans, and how they market themselves when their target audience is all voters.

No, Paul did not negate the OT laws. He was in perfect agreement with Jesus who said...
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-18. No one has ever perfectly kept the whole law, except Jesus Christ the Savior of the world. He alone fulfilled the requirements of the law. That is the reason why anyone outside of Christ, who does not trust Him as their Savior is still accountable to keep the entire OT law. Those who belong to Christ have His perfect righteousness and fulfillment of the law imparted to their lives.
( Galatians 3:19-25; Colossians 2:14)

 

[InChrist]

False. I see this accusation against critical thinkers by "true believers" quite often. It comes after belivers fail to present credible and valid evidence as required to support a claim. Believers aen't just making any old claim, they are claiming a supernatural phenomenon exists, and what we understand of reality is not consistent with these claims.


This isn't accurate. This is an ironic accusation against people who are actually using reason and objectivity. If there was such good evidence as implied in this paragraph then science would acknowledge it. Science doesn't. And as we know some extremist Christian websites, like this one, has contempt for science. Does this site accept evolution? Does it accept the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or does it misinform it's users about it?

Well I looked. And your source offers many answers that it cannot back up with evidence or reason, even though it claims it does. Nothing on your site will be adequate for a skilled critical thinker, but it will help reinforce believers who need to justify what they already believe. Your site even admits it's an apologetic. How embarrassing. That means it's propaganda.

There is nothing embarrassing about apologetic sites. Many do an excellent job of studying, researching and responding to critics of biblical truth. And, NO, they do not have a contempt for science. They simply prefer real science that is willing to ask questions, look at the larger view and acknowledge something beyond the material world.


“What is the origin of the universe and of the life found in such abundance on our tiny planet? What is life and what is its purpose? The undeniable order that the theistic founders of modern science had observed caused them to look for laws that must govern the phenomena. Having discovered these laws, they concluded that the universe had been created by a "God of order."

Thus was laid the theistic foundation of modern science, but that foundation is no longer accepted. Atheists have taken over and now claim the sole right to speak for science....”


Atheism

 

[metis]

"Thus was laid the theistic foundation of modern science, but that foundation is no longer accepted. Atheists have taken over and now claim the sole right to speak for science....”

False, as surveys of scientists indicate. In biology, about 50% are theists, and the lowest percent are cosmologists at around 10%.

 

[leroy]

That what other believers might say, but not my position. I don't think anything should be believed by faith, nor do I think it's healthy to force oneself to accept something that his conscience has rejected. There's an active thread in progress now between several Baha'i and several skeptics showing their inconsistency. These are people most of whom I believe harbor no ill will or malice for homosexuals, yet have to contend with their religion's homophobic doctrine. One should never be defending doctrine that his conscience tells him is wrong. To their credit, they refuse to overtly hate homosexuals, but they also refuse to repudiate that doctrine, and they can't see that it negatively colors their view of homosexuals.

Well I don’t accept the doctrine of divine inspiration on blind faith I accept it because I think this 3 premises are true

1 Jesus has authority to say what’s morally wrong and morally good (I grant this point because I believe in the resurrection)

2 Jesus said (or implied) that the scriptures are divinely inspired

3 what Jesus called “the scriptures” correspond to what we call the bible (the Old Testament at least)

And I think there are good reasons to accept these 3 points.

So as a Christian I can only reject those verses that seem homophobic if one of these 3 points is refuted………. Intellectually I shouldn’t reject them just because I don’t like them

Good morality in a humanist's hands is that which promotes individual and communal well-being, just like evolution.

Well that is the issue, under your view you have to believe (blindly it seems to me) that whatever evolved for the sake of survival and reproduction happened to be morally ok , seems like a big coincidence to me.

Bad moral values could have been better for our survival, (agree?) so why assuming that good moral values happened to evolve in our branch? Some animals rape, kill their offspring, kill their mates, have more than 1 sexual partner, etc. because those behaviors happed to be beneficial for their survivability So why assuming that in our branch (and just in our branch) the morality that helped us to survive was also “good morality”?

So my question is, if “bad morality” could have been selectively beneficial, why assuming that only “good morality” happened to evolve?

I disagree that that is an apt analogy. Man generating fiction (words) isn't like the laws of nature generating more complex biological forms. The former isn't constrained except by the limits of man's imagination. The latter is constrained by natural selection and its partiality for forms that reproduce more. You can imagine any path for evolution to take in a sci-fi novel, but only those changes that can arise spontaneously through mutation (and a few other things like the founder effect and gene shuffling that modify the gene pool without mutation) will be subject to natural selection, and only those that promote survival and reproduction will be selected for.

It´s analogous on that the author of star wars was not trying to describe other planets in a reliable way, in the same way natural selection doesn’t “try” to produce a realible conciousness.

I think I explained this already. What humanists (and others, but not Abrahamics) say is that better morality and greater fecundity have mapped onto one another.

Why would one map the other?

I wrote, "This would be a good example of where I leave biblical ethics behind. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia specifically, but it forbids homosexuality. Why?"

I don’t know why and I don’t understand why is it relevant,

Why didn't you answer my question? I'll answer instead. Because the Bible doesn't recognize pedophilia as inappropriate, but condemns homosexuality for no good or fair reason.

Or maybe Pedophilia was not an issue; the bible doesn’t condemn chopping everyone’s head with knife ether, you would need and infinitely long book in order to have all the moral issues address

That was news to you? Communal well-being in times of underpopulation are different from those in times of overpopulation. This is why these ancient biblical values that aim to increase the birth rate are presently counterproductive, and a good example of how morality varies with context. Firing a shot at somebody unprovoked does not have the same moral status as returning fire in self-defense.

It´s news to me that ancient people where “worried” about increasing the population size, but i am lost, why is this relevant?

I had written, "That's what I mean about much of biblical morality being about another kind of life, and not only no longer relevant today." The problem is that they don't always do that.

Sure some commands are not relevant today, but I don’t feel honest by simply saying that the “homophobic verses don’t apply today” I need a good reason to make such a conclusion, many Christians have tried to make arguments in support of that claim, but I personally don’t find them compelling (but I could be wrong)

There are six Supreme Court justices in the States trying to force women to deliver unwanted babies, and people still persecuting homosexuals and fighting science.

Yea this moral monsters, don’t want to allow mothers to kill their sons, shame on them.

 

[InChrist]

False, as surveys of scientists indicate. In biology, about 50% are theists, and the lowest percent are cosmologists at around 10%.

There maybe varying percentages of scientists that are theists, nevertheless, the atheistic ones are loudly vocal with pushing their non- theistic narrative.

 

[leroy]

I know that this wasn't asked to me, but please let me chime in.

I think it's important for all of us in all faiths to realize that their scriptures also reflect cultural values from that place and at that time. If one is looking for objectivity, good luck finding it in the scriptures. It's not that the scriptures are invalid but that one needs to realize that they are predominantly subjective in nature.

Yes and most controversial verses can be addressed that way, “they applied back then but they don’t apply know”

It is just that it is not clear for me that those anti-gay verses are only applicable back then

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But how sure are you that you are receiving correct communication from a valid prophet? So far, you have only stated that it is because your prophet is from your church. That's only confirmation bias. What about other prophets from other churches and even other religions?

If I may please interject here? Please, please, please?

Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23 that He knew that some claiming to be his followers, i.e., Christians, really would not be. Notice that actions would be the key: Jesus called those falsely claiming to be, “workers of lawlessness.”

So what should one searching for truth, look for? Jesus gave us the answer in John 13 35….”all will know, if”…vs34, too.
And since Jesus stated his Father Jehovah / Yahweh is the One who accurately reveals His Word (Luke 10:21), it stands to reason that only those who are striving to be obedient — trying their best to love God and their fellowman (Matthew 22:37-39), despite race and nationality — would be given these revelations.

IMO, I’ve found a globally united & loving group like that. (Or i should say, they found me through their preaching.)

I can share it with you, later.

Take care my cousin.

 

[leroy]

Yet that is exactly what conservative Christians do. Do they eat shellfish? Do they wear mixed fibers? You bet. That's because they reject the verses because they don't like them. They want their lobster. They want their doubleknit poly blends. And they want to feel superior to marginalized groups to help offset their hypocrisy and moral decline.

Well that is not my case, I would like to have good biblical support for gay marriage,I personally hate the fact that the bible seems to be against homosexual behavior.


I think there are good reasons for why we can eat fish

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, he did, with the status of OT law. Jesus was preaching to Jews. Paul expanded the target audience to those with little interest in OT law

That's not contradicting anything Jesus said... it's following his Command to preach to every creature.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your category error is to say that laws can be fulfilled. They can't.

You are showing your complete ignorance of scripture.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We know a ton more about the psyche, the brain, etc. than people living thousands of years ago. Yes, we do.

Knowing the location of planets tells us a lot about those planets, plus the planet we live on. I consider that to be valuable information.

How do you use information about where the planets are in your everyday life?

Knowing more technical stuff about the brain has not helped us to be wise.

 

[F1fan]

Well that is not my case, I would like to have good biblical support for gay marriage,I personally hate the fact that the bible seems to be against homosexual behavior.

Why do you think you need to rely on the Bible for anything? You can think for yourself, right? There's no Bible police with a gun to your head forcing you to believe. There are many millions of people who are religious and accept gays.

I think there are good reasons for why we can eat fish

Like it's the 21st century and we have ways to keep fish fresh and safe to eat.

 

[F1fan]

There is nothing embarrassing about apologetic sites. Many do an excellent job of studying, researching and responding to critics of biblical truth. And, NO, they do not have a contempt for science. They simply prefer real science that is willing to ask questions, look at the larger view and acknowledge something beyond the material world.

They pander to believers and their need to reinforce their beliefs, that as we progress in science there is less and less fo believers to think God causes. This is one reason why religious extremists reject certain results in science and have an unfavorable view of experts.

“What is the origin of the universe and of the life found in such abundance on our tiny planet? What is life and what is its purpose? The undeniable order that the theistic founders of modern science had observed caused them to look for laws that must govern the phenomena. Having discovered these laws, they concluded that the universe had been created by a "God of order."

Thus was laid the theistic foundation of modern science, but that foundation is no longer accepted. Atheists have taken over and now claim the sole right to speak for science....”


Atheism

Theists were so prevalent when the sciences began that it is just a basic fact that theists were scientists, there were no athelsts. Most everyone assumed religions were true. Educated people didn't have the broad knowledge we have today to understand a God is not a necesary assumption any more. It never was, but early scietists who were theists tried hard to make a God fit into science, and as time went on, it just didn't work. So God was left at a bus station, and science moved on. It hurts the feelings of believers, but that is just the way a fact-based systen works. There are no facts that suggest any gods exist, nor cause anything.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yet that is exactly what conservative Christians do. Do they eat shellfish? Do they wear mixed fibers? You bet. That's because they reject the verses because they don't like them. They want their lobster. They want their doubleknit poly blends. And they want to feel superior to marginalized groups to help offset their hypocrisy and moral decline.

The standard that Christians should follow, ie., the Bible, tells us in Acts of the Apostles 15 (the entire chapter is relevant), that the requirement of circumcision (a big part of the Mosaic Law) was no longer binding on Christians, therefore none of that Law code is a requirement for Christians. It applied only to the Israelites.

Not that you care, but you should know when you’re making arguments that lack merit.

IMO.

 

[F1fan]

The standard that Christians should follow, ie., the Bible, tells us in Acts of the Apostles 15 (the entire chapter is relevant), that the requirement of circumcision (a big part of the Mosaic Law) was no longer binding on Christians, therefore none of that Law code is a requirement for Christians. It applied only to the Israelites.

Not that you care, but you should know when you’re making arguments that lack merit.

IMO.

Well it's an irrelevant opinion because your post in no way addresses what I wrote.

I pointed out how Christians ignore what they want from the Old Testament but enforce just a few things about sex. There is no coherent argument for what they ignore and what they enforce, it appears to be based on what they can use against others outside a select and exclusive subset of Christians. Do they want to avoid lobster and mixed fibers? No way. But being gay? Condemn them.

I welcome you to address this issue directly.

 

[leroy]

Why do you think you need to rely on the Bible for anything? You can think for yourself, right?


at.

Because
1 I belive jesus has authority


2 jesus claimed / implied that the Scriptures are inspired

3 what jesus called "the Scriptures " correspond to what we call the bible (old testament)


Yes I can think for myself, and arrived at the conclusion that each of these points is probably true.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As a materialist who has already made up your mind that there is no spiritual realm or Spiritual Being, as God, who created all things; you are blind to seeing the evidence. You have closed that door and ability of your mind to understand.

Disagree. As an empiricist, I concluded after reviewing the evidence that it didn't support a god belief. I have closed the door to belief by faith.

“Atheists are materialists. For them nothing exists except matter. Allegedly, man is no more than his physical body. The materialist thesis is easily disproved. Thoughts are not physical nor are ideas. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are filled with words for which there are no physical descriptions. What is the color of ethical? What does stupendous smell like? How much does remarkable weigh? Materialism is a stupid as well as a wicked philosophy. What is the texture of stupid, the sound of wicked, or the taste of philosophy, etc.?”

This is a comical caricature. Do you believe this? One might think the author is feeling a bit insecure and trying to reassure himself that those wicked atheists are also stupid.

No, Paul did not negate the OT laws. He was in perfect agreement with Jesus

Disagree. Circumcision controversy in early Christianity - Wikipedia

Well I don’t accept the doctrine of divine inspiration on blind faith I accept it because I think this 3 premises are true
1 Jesus has authority to say what’s morally wrong and morally good (I grant this point because I believe in the resurrection)
2 Jesus said (or implied) that the scriptures are divinely inspired
3 what Jesus called “the scriptures” correspond to what we call the bible (the Old Testament at least)

The first two of those must be believed by blind faith if they are to be believed at all.

So as a Christian I can only reject those verses that seem homophobic if one of these 3 points is refuted………. Intellectually I shouldn’t reject them just because I don’t like them

Intellectually, you should reject the two that are not supported by evidence.

under your view you have to believe (blindly it seems to me) that whatever evolved for the sake of survival and reproduction happened to be morally ok

No. I believe that the moral intuition evolved naturalistically in accordance with the effect of natural selection selecting for behavior that promoted communal well-being. Eventually, human beings with the gifts of language and reason appeared, and began to create civilizations, which changed the way life was lived and what was best for the tribe and then town. With time and cultural evolution, additional rules were generated by the application of reason to earlier moral intuitions.

Bad moral values could have been better for our survival, (agree?)

According to the theory of evolution, moral intuitions that diminished the success of the pre-human populations were selected against naturally.

if “bad morality” could have been selectively beneficial, why assuming that only “good morality” happened to evolve?

The word morality doesn't begin to apply until the advent of mankind, language, and human culture.

Why would one map the other?

Because evolution promotes what is good for survival.

maybe Pedophilia was not an issue

It apparently wasn't.

the bible doesn’t condemn chopping everyone’s head with knife ether, you would need and infinitely long book in order to have all the moral issues address

The Bible enumerates hundreds of commandments. If it doesn't call pedophilia immoral, it is because it doesn't consider it such, just like slavery.

It´s news to me that ancient people were “worried” about increasing the population size, but i am lost, why is this relevant?

Because societal needs, which vary over time, determine what man considers immoral.

I don’t feel honest by simply saying that the “homophobic verses don’t apply today” I need a good reason to make such a conclusion

My reason is because they are immoral.

Summary: morality is a human concept based in the moral intuitions gifted man by evolution and seen in the social behavior of the beasts. Once intellect and culture began, a concept of moral behavior became possible, and the behavioral decisions of populations went from determined strictly by natural selection to determined by human (artificial) selection.

Here's a place where we have gone astray in the past. It occurred then when you didn't like my answers, therefore kept asking the same questions previously asked and answered. I understand that as a theist, you reject the above. God did it because nature couldn't do it - an incredulity fallacy if one commits it. Fine. If that is the case, say so and let's be on with it. More how-can-this-have happened questions will get the same answer as last time, then eventually, if the same questions are asked again, no answer at all. We got there last time, and you were unhappy that I chose to refuse to answer them, although that was also in the context of where you weren't addressing the areas of interest to me in my posts. You have done much better with the latter here, and so my willingness to work with you is greater, but I ask you to simply look at the summary statement above and see if it answers your follow-up questions before asking them. Thanks for your cooperation and good cheer.

There is nothing more to add here - nature and then later human culture generated a set of impulses then rules to guide behavior. Nature did it using natural selection, and human culture using artificial selection - a different process, which has led to a world full of moral systems no longer guided by natural selection, but still subject to it. That is the complete answer to any question one might have about how morality has evolved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you use information about where the planets are in your everyday life?

When I check the weather report. When I use my GPS in my car.

Knowing more technical stuff about the brain has not helped us to be wise.

Knowing how things work doesn't make us wiser. Understanding how our brains work, doesn't make us wiser. Understanding human nature doesn't make us wiser. LOL Okay then. I disagree and I think you're out to lunch on that one.