Christian hate & insanity

[Curious Atheist]

Not at my church. Not even at Westboro Baptist Church, even. Homosexuals can come, attend, and worship. Living an active homosexual life is something we'll call sin, but that's not the same as banning someone from church just because of an orientation.

But are those people not then questioned about a cure? Are they not seen as potential souls to be saved from their chosen sin? I liked the phrase that a church should be considered a hospital not a club (it was phrased better) so welcoming gays under the pretence of helping them isn’t really the acceptance I am referring to. Although I do hope you mean exactly what I do, but that would make your church a minority.

No, it is just an opinion. You haven't even demonstrated why the Christian view on homosexuality has severe impacts on innocent people, besides.

I cannot speak for the gay community about such harm. But I see it as scarcely different to the prejudice black people have faced and still face today. Even if they have the freedom they didn’t have before, that doesn’t mean they still don’t face prejudice and are made to feel unwelcome in many neighbourhoods. I hear that places like Texas and other Bible belt states are some of the worst for racist behaviour also. So although neither individual of either group may be physically or verbally attacked on a regular basis, the harm can be caused by being referred to as a sinner, as dirty and the feeling of segregation from the community. If you tell someone they are stupid every day they will believe they are stupid (or sinful in this case) and become depressed, being an openly gay individual opens you up to all manner of abuse and many become depressed and even suicidal because of this constant onslaught. Can you not feel compassion and empathy for what it must be like? I cannot imagine living that way, I feel very sorry for those that do and resent the persecutors for it and again I think history will condemn such behaviour and one day the church will have to change its stance.

Wrong. The ethic is timeless, but the penalty is not. Homosexuality is condemned very strongly in the New Testament, but nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to put homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter to death.

Why do you make that assumption? Here are a couple of quotes from Jesus in the NT:
[FONT=&quot]“For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I can only interpret this as Jesus advocating the death penalty for cursing the father, how do you read it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This following quote is also interesting, but I imagine you will tell me it is out of context or only for the Israelites. But still, it does seem Jesus did support putting people to death for minor sins in the NT and OT. [/FONT]
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"

LOLwut, genocide? Pedophilia? You'll have to give me church-sanctioned examples of both.

I would consider the story of Noah’s Ark genocide, wouldn’t you? I also remember that one of the plagues he sent to Egypt was the death of first borns, infanticide. Then there is this classic little gem, there are many variations but they are all equally repulsive:
[FONT=&quot] “Yes, a reward to the one who grabs your babies[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and smashes their heads on the rocks!”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I know of no Biblical reference that comments on paedophilia as a sin. Although it is a rather modern concept of the western world to have an age limit on sex and marriage, so it certainly would be common in Jesus’ times, but he made no effort to condemn it in any way. Yet we now consider it immoral, showing that Bible is out of date and we are all very capable of making our own moral judements. Then there are the many stories of paedophile priests that is hard to ignore, before even mentioning the forced castration and kidnapping by the Catholic church, but I understand this is nothing to do with scripture.[/FONT]

What do you think I said was a motivator here? The only time I used that word was in describing an earthly motivation as inadequate.

I thought your motivator was to please Jesus? Sorry that you can’t find enough reason on Earth and in reality to want to be a good person.

Christianity teaches that you can, since love is not just feelings, but love is an action which you can choose to do or not choose to do. If I can give somebody a lift who needs one and I choose not to, I am choosing not to love that person in that way. If I choose to give him a lift, I am loving him. You shouldn't have a bad attitude about loving actions, that can sabotage it, but yes - you can choose to love someone, and it is our responsibility to do so. Jesus is the only reason a lot of people need to step out of their selfish comfort zones and do acts of love, which grows the love in their hearts. If Jesus tells us that something is the right thing to do, that's the right thing to do. Period.

Ok well perhaps there is a confusion of terms. I would describe helping someone as just being nice, not necessarily love, but I would agree that yes you can choose to be kind to anyone even an enemy. But to me love is something more, but we are all different. If Jesus told you to murder babies and drink their blood, would you not question it at all? I think it is very odd to blindly follow someone else, especially if you believe Satan is the master of deception and could be tricking you. So therefore you need to rationalise for yourself if you believe Jesus would ask you to kill babies and drink their blood, to which I would imagine you would say he would not. So, what part of you made you think Jesus would not do that? I would say because Jesus is only good, you know what is good so therefore know if Jesus would approve. So if that makes sense, then does that not surely mean that you are using your own mind to decide what is right and wrong? Not actually following Jesus blindly, in the fundamental way you put it.

I think I answered most of this previously, but what I like about your statement is that it has to assume that Jesus is conscious and therefore can be pleased.

This confuses me, isn’t Jesus just one of the three parts of God? So Jesus is God and the Bible constantly references God as having emotion, it also quotes Jesus as being angry, happy and otherwise. Of course everything about the Bible has to be assumed, so..how’s about that my friend? J

The list I posted was far from exhaustive, it was simply a good counterpoint to your claim that we can't get morals from a book which is thousands of years old. I'm seeing some good morals in there which ought to be followed, and they should of course stand in the way to challenge people who wish to steal, kill, molest, perjure, cheat on their spouses, and so forth.

Yes, but again you are using your own judgement to decide what is a good moral or still applicable. You do not start reading the Bible like a robot and start following everything it says in the OT, you are making your own rationalisation of what is right, wrong, true or false. Apart from truly scary fundamentalists, every creed and every individual Christian follows a slightly different interpretation of the Bible using their own means.
Do you have a reference for rape being condemned in the Bible? Because of my ignorance I only really know of the parts suggesting it is OK to beat your wife etc which are apparently now out of date.

What you did not answer is my previous question - what is your basis for claiming a higher moral ground than someone else of your intellect hundreds or thousands of years ago? Someone who would have accepted several, if not many of the things that you reject now? Since you said you get your morals from social norms, what is your basis for claiming that one society is more moral than another?

That is a complex question, as you are almost pointing me towards the nihilistic direction of stating there are no applicable morals. But that is a bit too in-depth for the sake of this discussion, but I thought I had already answered this question in the simpler sense. If I was born in Biblical times I would most likely be as I described before, ignorant of science and would probably believe in a hoard of various mythical creatures and Gods. My morals would stem from the culture of the time, my upbringing and society in general for the most part. So I would consider myself moral whilst seeing women as second-rate and could murder if I thought my God told me to. My point was that society is now different, as it has become progressively less violent and brutal. There are parts of the world where religious rules still reign and these countries are still very violent, but growing up in the Western world I have been raised to treat others as I would like to be treated. To treat everyone as equal and be tolerant of those I don’t agree with, I personally believe this is a better way to be. If we can remove more pain and inequality from the world surely that is moral? Perhaps I am not more moral in your eyes, but to me it is a logical and rational argument that morals are stronger in modern times. I therefore see no benefit in reverting certain aspects back to pre-science times. Especially since much of the violence and hate was built upon ignorance and fear we no longer have, since we have factual scientific answers.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Again, Jesus ate with the tax collectors and the prostitutes. That doesn't mean he approved of the greed, corruption, and sexual immorality they practiced. Rather, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

But I am arguing that it is wrong to consider homosexuals as sick, or on-par with greedy corrupt tax collectors. They are human beings like you or I and don’t deserve any negative associations for being born.

No, it's a demon when there's a demon. They're involved in various deceptions, and in occult supernatural activity. I do not claim demonic activity when there's simply natural forces at work. There are so many more people these days, and the number of demons has not increased - they need to rely more on people doing themselves in anyway.

Why have these demons never been shown to scientists? Why is that all of those studied have indeed been the result of a natural force, when does it make it more likely to be a demon?

You don't believe that homosexual activity is bad, but I disagree with you. You asked me to demonstrate my beliefs about homosexual activity being a choice, and I answered them.

But that doesn’t answer my question, I asked what is it that you fear is the result of this ‘slippery slope’? If you imagine 50% of the population ‘catch’ this terrible affliction, what is the worst that can happen apart from sorting out the population problems?

In the defense of the Catholic clergy's practice of celibacy (which you won't see this Protestant do often) the rate of inexcusable abuse in this country by Catholic clergy was actually much less than the rate of the same abuse by public school teachers, who are not expected to be celibate. Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

I will need to check that source and see it if it reflects reality. Although, saying one group is worse is a terrible way to defend what has and still is happening to children in the church, I still find it more shocking coming from priests than those who don’t claim any special high-morality or closeness with God.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I would emphasize that you separate the idea from the people who advocate the idea. Yes, we have what Jesus preached and the idea of Christianity. Then we have Christians. All Christians (and I include me here) are human. As humans, we can make mistakes. So what you need to do is what we as Christians do: compare what the person said to the idea of Christianity. If they don't match, we discard what the Christian said.

Curious Atheist, we do this same procedure with every other idea around. When Richard Dawkins says that the unit of selection in evolution is the gene, I look at the idea of evolution and see if that is true. It turns out that Dawkins is wrong.

As another example, many people define evolution as "changes of allele frequencies over time". Again, I compare that to the idea of evolution and find that this is an incomplete and misleading definition. Ernst Mayr, Francisco Ayala, Douglas Futuyma and many other evolutionary biologists do also.[/FONT]

The first part makes sense, humans are fallible and often misguided. But what you say about Dawkins is opening a huge can of worms, I am not sure this the correct thread to get in to that conversation. But I would say that it is not just Prof Dawkins that would claim evolution to be true, it has been universal scientific fact for a long time now and is no more a theory than is gravity or how a plane flies. If you distrust science enough to claim evolution to be false, then why would you trust science to treat you when you are sick, why would you get in a plane use any modern technology for that matter? Or why do you trust the scientific theories that do not contradict the bible?

The briefest explanation for evolution I can give is that it is a non-random process of natural selection. As you know every time something reproduces it creates an in-perfect blend of the two parents. So a white cat and a black cat could have a litter containing black, white and gray kittens. If these cats happened to live in a snowy climate, the white cats might have an advantage catching food and more would survive. So over time the white fur would dominate the population. So that is a simplified version of how natural selection works, it is not random but only those with the best adaptations will survive over time. Yet, the surviving white cats also have random errors in the genes they inherit which can be quite random which can then lead to one cat having larger ears, feet, tail etc. So over a very very long period of time these small changes can add up to a great deal indeed, to the extent that it bears little resemblance to its former self. There is no example of any animal that cannot be explained using steps such as this, there is no evidence of ‘irreducible complexity’ yet we have many fossils showing the various stages. You may be confused if you have false assumptions, like evolution isn’t blind to the future, that intelligence like a human being is actually evolutionary stable and we are the ‘end result’. There is no end result, every living species is an intermediate specimen, constantly changing. Also bear in mind that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. What exactly do you disagree with, there is lab evidence of evolution…or just look at the domestic dog, where did it come from?

[FONT=&quot]Your first 2 examples (of rape and homosexuality) are people speaking ideas that do not fit the idea of Christianity. Yes, there is much discussion about homosexuality within Christian denominations. My denomination -- the United Methodist Church -- will bring it up again at their national conference again this year. However, the individual who started this board and controls it (and it is a private venture) has imprinted his personal opinion in this particular area of discussion. That's the way it is. We in the Wesleyan forum have protested this for our forum, on the grounds that our particular denominational forum should be free to discuss what we as a denomination are discussing. However, this is a private venture and the individual has set this particular rule. If you want to discuss homosexuality then go to Beliefnet or other forum.

So the question I have for you: are you really interested in exploring Christianity or are you just looking for things to beat Christians over the head with?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A bit of both. I am very interested in what people believe and why as it puzzles me. The beating over the head bit comes in when people believe something that is morally abhorrent, I see no reason to give un-due respect and to hold my tongue against that which I disagree with. So if someone claims the Bible is perfect and is the moral pinnacle, I see nothing wrong with cherry-picking some of the grotesque phrases to see how someone rationalises it. There is a great debate with Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens against Anne Widdecombe and a catholic priest on whether Catholicism is a force for good. My favourite part is when Anne says something along the lines of ‘how cliché, of course you would mention gay rights, condoms in Africa and paedophilia…blah blah blah”. To which the retort was ‘well OF COURSE I would mention that, are you starting to finally see the point yet?!’. Which sums up my feelings pretty well, sometimes people need to be challenged. On the other hand sometimes I am wrong about things and I need someone to tell me. So I think everyone should try to debate things, especially important topics like ethics as otherwise you can’t get a fully-formed idea and without challenging your own beliefs you could make poor decisions or be irrational. Often I pose questions hoping I am wrong, hoping someone can explain it to me in a way that convinces me. I have said it many times, but I would love to believe in God and the afterlife (even as a 100% atheist..well 99.999), I can appreciate why people want believe. But I can’t force myself to believe something that makes no sense to me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is a logical extension of the belief that God is the source of all morality. Since atheists don't believe that God exists, they don't have the source for morality. You can see this in the argument you posted:

An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."

As it happens, I as Christian have a counter argument to that, but you as an atheist need to come up with a "final reason or authority". Do you have one? How do you anchor your morals?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why would I need a final figure of authority in order to have morals? I am not a child who only behaves when my parents are watching, I am an adult and I can make my own decisions and know the difference between right and wrong. I would also argue that having anchored morals is dangerous, as there are too many variables when ethics are concerned. You cannot decide all killing is wrong for example, when there could be a situation when one death could save millions (like killing Hitler), an ethic that cannot be anchored to any absolute rule no matter how carefully worded. Although ‘thou shalt not kill’ is rather blunt and absolute in my opinion, so it doesn’t leave much leeway for euthanasia or my previous example.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I question I have about Pat Roberston, Rick Santorum and many others. Humans have a great ability to rationalize. Why should Christians (who are also humans) be exempt? Do you think that atheists never rationalize inconsistent positions?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Of course not, it just seems that there is far more hatred in religious circles. Fear might be a better term in a lot of examples though. Atheists are generally more rational and demand proof before believing, but atheist just means the rejection of faith and it isn’t a belief system so as a group are very varied and I cannot comment on anyone but myself. But I am not ashamed of atheists as a group, please check the prison statistics for the % of atheists compared to the population, also check who is more likely to be racist, well-educated or happily married and the secular community is ahead on all counts I am afraid. Check this article for comparisons for American teenage pregnancy and abortion numbers per 1000 compared to more liberal, secular countries 5 Countries That Do It Better: How Sexual Prudery Makes America a Less Healthy and Happy Place | | AlterNet[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Many Christians do this. You haven't talked to a lot of Anglicans and Methodists, have you?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Am I not doing this right now? Are you having a dig at me for no knowing the answer to my own question? Or am I taking that the wrong way? I have said I am not tarring all with the same brush, just that I think there is a worryingly high proportion compared to other groups.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Because some scriptures seem to say that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is always chosen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well using that logic, if sin is always chosen and homosexuality is not, then homosexuality is not a sin. Luckily I read your next point or I would have misunderstood. But this does seem an example of the inconsistent positions we are vulnerable to. If you do not believe being gay is a sin, then what makes the other said sins so believable? Is the Bible just wrong regarding homosexuality, could it not be wrong in many ways?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And right there you have evidence that ALL sexual orientation is hardwired! Congrats. It's a piece of evidence I have often used to people who claim homosexuality (sexual orientation) is a choice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Pope does not always preach hatred. In fact, most of the time he doesn't. Your statement implying the Pope does this all the time is an example of an atheist contradicting himself. Atheists are supposed to be rational and use reason, right? How can any person who claims to have those qualities make a statement that implies that ALL the Pope does is preach hatred? Sauce for the goose.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think you misunderstand, I did not say he always does or even does most of the time. Just that when a leader of any church says something then millions follow regardless of how insane it might be. The Pope has preached against condoms in Africa as well as condemned homosexuals and women priests, but I realise this isn’t all he does and I am sure also does some good.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[technofox]

Yes, I would prefer an egalitarian society where everyone can be free to be whoever they want to be and no-one infringes on other people’s right to do so. It is an impossible utopia though (I questioned how heaven can be perfect for all a while ago too, it is a puzzle) so I would just like to settle for universal empathy and as little ignorance as possible, although this is almost as ambitious. But without the bad there is no good, so what do I really know.
As an atheist I am not allowed to post on the other forums, so I haven’t actually had a look. That is interesting though that even straight couples thing anything but conventional sex is a sin. It rather shoots down the thoughts I have when people start calling gay sex disgusting and unnatural, as I can’t imagine many straight men finding the idea of oral or anal sex with Allessandra Ambrosio repulsive (if you were married of course). Nor anything less natural than no sex at all.





I don’t think that discovering homosexuality is a chemical imbalance or otherwise makes any difference. Even if it truly is a choice, it shouldn’t really matter. I can’t help feeling you are contradicting yourself by saying you don’t care if someone is gay and they should be equal, but then referring to it as an abnormality, a disorder that requires a cure. If fewer human beings are born then that isn’t a problem, we have no shortage of humans around so the species is not in danger so I really don’t understand the perceived harm. If you just assume it is a mental disorder, then gays should no sooner be condemned than a person with downs syndrome or learning disabilities, although I can’t stress enough that it is not a disorder in any sense.

Had I not seen Transformers 3 and saw her name mentioned recently on the net, I would have never known of Allessandra Ambrosio, indeed I agree with you that very few men would ever turn down anal/oral sex with her, she is very attractive. I only mention the sex thing, because some couples were raised so conservatively that they think only vaginal sex or sex for procreation as the only good form sex. Unfortunately these people had been mislead, because of ignorance or misinterpretation on their church's/pastor' part; the Song of Songs is a very poetic story of sex between Solomon and his bride, that covers at the very least oral and vaginal sex; as for anal sex, I have no idea, but there is no passage against that either in scripture between husband and wife.

As for my post about homosexuality being a disorder, from an anthropological stand point it is, since we are talking about anatomy and sexual reproduction. I don't subject the scientific analysis to what I think is morally right or wrong, because that is like saying I hate green, it doesn't add anything to the reality of something being green; the moral belief has nothing to do with the reality of the subject. In other words, even though it may be considered a disorder, the facts remain that my beliefs do not change the reality of the subject. I choose not to concern myself with other people's sex lives, because I consider it a private matter, unless it is harmful (e.g. rape, incest, abuse, etc).

If you are still confused with my prior statement, just read "Everyday Zen" by Joko. She does an excellent job explaining practice (meditation). I am still learning how to remove myself (emotions, opinions, etc) from the equation to see the reality of the world around me. Its something I think we as Christians should learn, because sometimes our ideals and/or expectations are not matching up with reality of the world around us.

P.S. - green is my favorite color, that is why I used it in my explanation. Also, for those concerned of idolatry, Zen is a form of perception and meditation in regards to life; I would not recommend anyone to read up on Zen if it would lead one to sin, and/or if one thinks it is a sin for them. There are Christianized versions of Zen that can be found in bookstores at large for those who are worried that they may be practing Buhddism. I choose non-religious affiliated Zen books since I am only concerned with the philosphy, which oddly happens to pair well with Christianity. Remember Paul says to meditate and non-religious Zen teaches just that meditation and selflessness (or more aptly put removing one's self from the equation). I don't recommend this if you are young in Christ or if you have any doubts of who Jesus is.

 

[elman]

=

Curious Atheist;60302256]I thought I was replying to what you said, sorry if I am wrong. However I am just being honest, it is my honest opinion that if something can not be proven, then it is irrational to believe it. So any form of faith is by definition, irrational.

It is done all the time in science--come up with a theory and test it. A theory is by defintion unproven. Almost everyone would agree that in some cases believing the theory before it is proven is not irrational.

I do also believe that every claim of being psychic, a medium or God influencing the world is all far more reasonably explained by superstition. Like I said, if you begin with an assumption then look for only the evidence that backs this up you will inevitably find evidence.

I share your scepticisim. I don't believe in psychics or medium or evil spirits of any kind. I do believe God sometimes influences things, but there was a time when I did not think that, so, I did not begin with an assumption that He did.

If I think of someone and the phone rings, maybe I have a supernatural power. Or maybe I just conveniently forget about all of the times I think of them and the phone does not ring, or they call when I hadn't thought about them, yet since it is a relatively common occurence I can convince myself my power to be true. You cannot prove that it is not, but you can test the power and conclude what is more likely, being psychic or coincedence and statisitcs. If you can perform any supernatural ability in a lab then you can win $1million, no-one has ever come close.

Your examples would never have convince me either. My experiences have and they were such that it was simply not reasonable to assume coincidence. But I agree they would not be evidence to you.

I did think you were suggesting you can choose between two options, perhaps not. But I have no 'inability' to listen to you, please explain what you are trying to say and I will read it again. I hope I am clear myself, that if there is a far more likely answer then it would be foolish to believe something infinitely less probable.

When you assume I believe the Creator is described in the Bible and particularly the OT and all the other religions are wrong, you assume incorrectly. I think the Creator I believe in, is called Allah by the Muslims, and Great Spirit by the American natives, Yahweh by the Jews, Jesus and God by the Christians, etc. etc. None of us have a correct or complete understanding or view of God and our being connected to God and pleasing to Him is not about understanding HIm or having a correct view of everything about Him or Her or IT.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I like your rebuttal, because it reinforces the point of my rebuttal. What are your thoughts on my previous post?

I had studied anthropology; however, it was not part of major during my undergrad. Personally evolution shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, because we still end up with the same results of mankind coming into existance. I have studied human evolution and its very interesting; however, I always have this nagging question of why is it over the course of 3.1+ milliom years that only mankind develop sentience?

Dinosaurs had millions of more years to evolve and yet never resulted in sentient intelligence. Its one major flaw that I see for those that are evolution purists. How is that only mankind reach where we at today via evolution?

Indeed brain size increased, but the actual sentience is unmistakenably different from any other animal on earth. I can't see how we became the only sentient species on earth without some form of intelligent design. Dinosaurs should have, in theory, developed sentience well before mankind yet they didn't.

That is a good question, but I think it can be answered by taking a different view of how you understand evolution. Evolution is not leading towards being sentient, it is merely that those less well suited to the environment are less competitive, so over time their genes don’t get passed along. There is no inherent advantage to being sentient, the animals alive today are merely what has been able to survive and nothing more. Like I mentioned before, 99.9% of all species are now extinct, yet we are still have single-celled life only because it has been able to survive. You must understand that our genes have no ambitions outside of replicating themselves in to the next generation, it does not matter if that vessel is a human, insect or a plant. So if you think about your question logically, you could ask the same question regarding almost any unique feature of an animal “why is it that birds use feathers and light bones to fly, why didn’t dinosaurs get around to it after millions of years”. We are also talking about a process that has taken billions of years to show the complexity of life we have today, for the first few billions of years life was no grander than single-cells in the sea. It takes an incredible amount of time to create something as amazing as the primate brain, it can’t just happen in a few million years, 3.1 million years is enough to see changes in a single species but it couldn’t turn a reptile into a higher-mammal.
However with all of that said, I would also refute your claim we are the only sentient animal. If you are defining being sentient as being self-aware, implying having the intelligence to do so then you can include other animals too. Some examples would be our closest cousins the higher apes, but dolphins, whales and elephants also show the same signs of being sentient. I think what really makes us different is our use of complex language, which is quite a recent development and has acted as the catalyst in our development. It hasn’t been proven that we are any more intelligent today than we were tens of thousands of years ago (our brains are actually smaller, but considered more complex) so there are other factors involved in making us such a dominant species. By using language and being able to pass on knowledge and ideas, we can work together like no other. We began in Africa as nomads before finally farming our own animals and growing crops, which again I think was a catalyst as the new food sources let us live longer and spend more time developing other things. New challenges spurred us on etc, it’s all extremely fascinating to me. Please read a few books by Dawkins, start with ‘the God delusion’ and then ‘the selfish gene’ if you want my recommendations.

I hope my answer is good enough for your question. I also have a question for you about evolution though, at what stage in human evolution did God inject the soul?

 

[Curious Atheist]

Had I not seen Transformers 3 and saw her name mentioned recently on the net, I would have never known of Allessandra Ambrosio, indeed I agree with you that very few men would ever turn down anal/oral sex with her, she is very attractive. I only mention the sex thing, because some couples were raised so conservatively that they think only vaginal sex or sex for procreation as the only good form sex. Unfortunately these people had been mislead, because of ignorance or misinterpretation on their church's/pastor' part; the Song of Songs is a very poetic story of sex between Solomon and his bride, that covers at the very least oral and vaginal sex; as for anal sex, I have no idea, but there is no passage against that either in scripture between husband and wife.

As for my post about homosexuality being a disorder, from an anthropological stand point it is, since we are talking about anatomy and sexual reproduction. I don't subject the scientific analysis to what I think is morally right or wrong, because that is like saying I hate green, it doesn't add anything to the reality of something being green; the moral belief has nothing to do with the reality of the subject. In other words, even though it may be considered a disorder, the facts remain that my beliefs do not change the reality of the subject. I choose not to concern myself with other people's sex lives, because I consider it a private matter, unless it is harmful (e.g. rape, incest, abuse, etc).

If you are still confused with my prior statement, just read "Everyday Zen" by Joko. She does an excellent job explaining practice (meditation). I am still learning how to remove myself (emotions, opinions, etc) from the equation to see the reality of the world around me. Its something I think we as Christians should learn, because sometimes our ideals and/or expectations are not matching up with reality of the world around us.

P.S. - green is my favorite color, that is why I used it in my explanation. Also, for those concerned of idolatry, Zen is a form of perception and meditation in regards to life; I would not recommend anyone to read up on Zen if it would lead one to sin, and/or if one thinks it is a sin for them. There are Christianized versions of Zen that can be found in bookstores at large for those who are worried that they may be practing Buhddism. I choose non-religious affiliated Zen books since I am only concerned with the philosphy, which oddly happens to pair well with Christianity. Remember Paul says to meditate and non-religious Zen teaches just that meditation and selflessness (or more aptly put removing one's self from the equation). I don't recommend this if you are young in Christ or if you have any doubts of who Jesus is.

This might damage my stance to some people, but I could agree that being gay does seem to contradict evolution. I thought about this a lot and came to the conclusion that it is not possible for a 'gay gene' to exist and be passed down, because who is passing them down? I also perceived that there are more gay people now than ever, which adds more confusion. However there is a convincing thesis or two that would explain this, one memorable one being coined the 'sneaky f'er', as gay individuals are not seen as a threat and has been witnessed in nature that some individuals take advantage of this and the non-alpha male can still breed this way. I really don't know as this left other questions unanswered. But then I thought about it a little longer and I have concluded that there are many genetic abnormalities. There are millions born disabled, mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], deformed or with genetic disease in the same that some are pre-disposed to be better atheletes, taller, stronger or beautiful. Are any of these people to be condemned for it? Or what about those that do not choose to be educated, are they inherently evil human beings? I do not think so, I think everyone can be tolerated and has the right to live how they want.


(very odd that the 'bless not curse' thing has been added. I did not use profanity, I think I said mentally r*etarded, but not in any offensive way!)

 

[Curious Atheist]

=[FONT=&quot]It is done all the time in science--come up with a theory and test it. A theory is by defintion unproven. Almost everyone would agree that in some cases believing the theory before it is proven is not irrational.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No, by definition a theory is a thesis (which is what you mean by theory, an idea but forward) that has been tested repeatedly and has not been falsified. This is a very common misconception, I wish scientists would just use ‘theory’ then ‘fact’ to stop this happening. ALL of science is ‘just a theory’ including every piece of technology, medicine, food, water and pretty much everything you use everyday to live. If you do not trust any scientific theory, I suggest Googling the Amish..using smoke signals…no wait fire is a theory….darn. Sorry to tease, but if the theory of gravity, electricity and fire is good enough then why not the theory of evolution which has been held to an even higher standard? After all there aren’t millions of people trying to convince people fire does not exist like creationists vs evolution.[/FONT]

=[FONT=&quot]I share your scepticisim. I don't believe in psychics or medium or evil spirits of any kind. I do believe God sometimes influences things, but there was a time when I did not think that, so, I did not begin with an assumption that He did.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is great, mediums really bother me in the way they take advantage of people at their most vulnerable. But the ones who believe do so because they want to, that is what I am trying to say about your belief in God’s influence. If you did not want to believe in God you would see a more likely answer to your questions. Here is a great story I have stolen from Derren Brown.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A man who worked as a breakdown callout chap (we have the AA here, nothing to do with alcoholics) was out on a call helping somebody who’s care had failed. On the way back to his van a pay phone nearby started ringing, so he answered it. It was his wife asking when he would be home. Now to skip ahead a bit, she had accidentally called his company registration number instead of his mobile phone by mistake and by chance called a pay phone exactly where he was. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The odds of this happening are astronomical indeed, but nothing supernatural. However can you imagine if you prayed for this to happen and it did? You would be a believer for life even when no other prayer was answered. So I understand these beliefs, but they just don’t make rational sense.[/FONT]

=[FONT=&quot]Your examples would never have convince me either. My experiences have and they were such that it was simply not reasonable to assume coincidence. But I agree they would not be evidence to you.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When you assume I believe the Creator is described in the Bible and particularly the OT and all the other religions are wrong, you assume incorrectly. I think the Creator I believe in, is called Allah by the Muslims, and Great Spirit by the American natives, Yahweh by the Jews, Jesus and God by the Christians, etc. etc. None of us have a correct or complete understanding or view of God and our being connect to God and pleasing to Him is not about understanging HIm or having a correct view of everything about Him or Her or IT.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are right, I assumed you were a Christian who followed the Bible. But where else did you come to form the idea of a personal, caring God if not from one of these religious texts? If you only base beliefs on observation then you are a scientist.[/FONT]

 

[elman]

=

Curious Atheist;60306257][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No, by definition a theory is a thesis (which is what you mean by theory, an idea but forward) that has been tested repeatedly and has not been falsified. This is a very common misconception, I wish scientists would just use ‘theory’ then ‘fact’ to stop this happening. ALL of science is ‘just a theory’ including every piece of technology, medicine, food, water and pretty much everything you use everyday to live. If you do not trust any scientific theory, I suggest Googling the Amish..using smoke signals…no wait fire is a theory….darn. Sorry to tease, but if the theory of gravity, electricity and fire is good enough then why not the theory of evolution which has been held to an even higher standard? After all there aren’t millions of people trying to convince people fire does not exist like creationists vs evolution.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT] I don't understand how fire is a theory. If something is a fact, I don't see it being a theory.

[FONT=&quot]That is great, mediums really bother me in the way they take advantage of people at their most vulnerable. But the ones who believe do so because they want to, that is what I am trying to say about your belief in God’s influence. If you did not want to believe in God you would see a more likely answer to your questions. Here is a great story I have stolen from Derren Brown.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A man who worked as a breakdown callout chap (we have the AA here, nothing to do with alcoholics) was out on a call helping somebody who’s care had failed. On the way back to his van a pay phone nearby started ringing, so he answered it. It was his wife asking when he would be home. Now to skip ahead a bit, she had accidentally called his company registration number instead of his mobile phone by mistake and by chance called a pay phone exactly where he was. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The odds of this happening are astronomical indeed, but nothing supernatural. However can you imagine if you prayed for this to happen and it did? You would be a believer for life even when no other prayer was answered. So I understand these beliefs, but they just don’t make rational sense.[/FONT

]

What does not make rational sense to me is to stubbornly insist there is no reality I cannot see and feel and detect even when things occur in which the odds are astronomical indeed against it being coincidence and when these occur again and again, one still refused to be open to the possibility it is not coincidence. There is a point in which rational sense would stop and say to one's self, wait a minute, something is going on here.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

You are right, I assumed you were a Christian who followed the Bible. But where else did you come to form the idea of a personal, caring God if not from one of these religious texts? If you only base beliefs on observation then you are a scientist.[/FONT]

I am a Christian that follows parts of the bible, not all of the bible. I believe part of the bible is incorrect, but I believe part of the bible is true and contains divine wisdom. Peter said in Acts 10:34-35 that God is no respector of persons and accepts people from every nation who do what is right. I think that is true. When Jesus said the will of God was summed up in loving God and man, I think that is true. When Ezekiel says in chapter 18 the righteous shall live and not die, but the wicked shall die and not live--I think that is true. I find things I do not agree with in all religious books I have read, including of course, the Koran. But I also usually find things I do agree upon in all the religions I have studied.

 

[technofox]

This might damage my stance to some people, but I could agree that being gay does seem to contradict evolution. I thought about this a lot and came to the conclusion that it is not possible for a 'gay gene' to exist and be passed down, because who is passing them down? I also perceived that there are more gay people now than ever, which adds more confusion. However there is a convincing thesis or two that would explain this, one memorable one being coined the 'sneaky f'er', as gay individuals are not seen as a threat and has been witnessed in nature that some individuals take advantage of this and the non-alpha male can still breed this way. I really don't know as this left other questions unanswered. But then I thought about it a little longer and I have concluded that there are many genetic abnormalities. There are millions born disabled, mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], deformed or with genetic disease in the same that some are pre-disposed to be better atheletes, taller, stronger or beautiful. Are any of these people to be condemned for it? Or what about those that do not choose to be educated, are they inherently evil human beings? I do not think so, I think everyone can be tolerated and has the right to live how they want.

(very odd that the 'bless not curse' thing has been added. I did not use profanity, I think I said mentally r*etarded, but not in any offensive way!)

Actually if homosexuality is genetic, it is possible for one to pass one the genes. Anthropologically speaking it is well known for gay men to marry and have kids, which would technically make them bi-sexual and vice versa for women. So its safe to assume that one is genetically predisposition to be gay due to a genetic abnormality; however, due to societal pressures an individual who has that predisposition could end up procreating and thereby passing on the abnormality.

So with that in mind our own societal pressures on gays to conform, may be the very reason why such genetics continue to develop or carry forward. Bisexuales could also be another reason why said genes could be passed on, as they have a predisposition to have sex with both sexes.

I am glad you and I on the same page in terms of evolution. Personally studying human evolution and viewing materials on creationism, with a dash of astronomy and quantum theory can help allow one to have an open mind. To me evolution vs. creationism really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things and life is too short to debate it to death. I look at this way if God created mankind via evolution or exactly as the way we are today, then how does that change anything? Jesus did come to save us who believe in him, so why does it matter so much?

To me the whole debate is petty, because either way we end up where we are today and assuming evolution did happen, then it will allow us to read scripture a little less literally and more metaphorically. Scripture is meant to teach us how to live godly lives and how to be good loving people. Its unfortunate that we fight over petty things like how long did it take to create the universe and earth, etc. Does it matter? We are here and have to accept possibilities that God may have handed us Genesis to teach in a way we would understand, because we didn't have a real concept of what a billion years is like at the time.

Oh well enough ranting...

 

[oi_antz]

To be honest, I am not the best person to debate the merits of marriage since I don't have any real interest in the subject. I am just saying that if being married is important to other people, then there surely must be a very good reason to deny it. So far I have heard only faith and tradition based arguments that seem to spawn from bias and ignorance.

Well it is hardly our position to argue with the ways God has proclaimed. Why marriage though? Why not a civil union? Why would anyone want to be married if they didn't believe in God?

So tell me, if two of the same sex are married what terrible harm will be done?

It would be a false blessing.

Perhaps in your eyes they will be condemned to hell, along with billions of un-baptised children. But that is your opinion that your are welcome to as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's lives...

You are wrong, it isn't my opinion and I don't know what gave you the idea that it is.

the sad fact is that such a large population of people like Christians hold quite a lot of sway and can cause significant harm.

I agree. I still have an unanswered question: why holy matrimony and not a civil union?

 

[oi_antz]

I can answer from the USA perspective.

In the US, states have different laws regarding civil unions versus marriages. Some states give both civil unions and marriages equal rights, others have marriages retaining more rights than civil unions. My state is one where civil unions have fewer rights than marriages and that is why, I am assuming, gay marriage was passed.

Personally a small part of me hopes the gays have a smaller divorce rate, than heterosexuals, because of the high divorce rates here in the US (52%) to be exact, as a rebuke or awakening to have the church re-examine as to why marriages between men and women are no longer lasting like they once did. It sucks to say that, but those high divorce rates (especially when Christianity as a collective whole is above 30% of that 52%) shows that we need a rude wake up call to examine what exactly is causing this, especially amongst people of our own faith.


Please note: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The only reason for that small part bit that I have mentioned, is due to the fact that I want things to get better; especially for people amongst our own faith. Its one of many reasons why I see people objecting to accepting Christ

Thanks, I got my answer here

 

[oi_antz]

Both. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. Christians see it as something God established, and consider it religious. As far as I know, no one disputes that churches can recognize only heterosexual marriages. However there are practical advantages to having the State provide legal support for marriage. The State may or may not agree with the church. Indeed it can't agree with all churches, since there are at least some differences on who can get married (e.g. the Catholic position on remarriage after divorce).

If I were homosexual, I'd want recognition for marriage as well. "Separate but equal" is now understood as being a bad idea. It's basically legislating a public judgement that these relationships are second-class. Who could be expected to accept that? The legal consequences may be different as well. E.g. states are expected to recognize each other's acts. If you move to or visit a state without civil union what are their obligations? How about insurance policies, and other things written to give specific rights to spouses?

As I understand here in New Zealand, it is a lot more simple. The civil union law provides the same legal rights as marriage, but gays cannot be married. Further, after a couple has been living together for two years, they are automatically bound by the civil unions act and are mutually entitled when the relationship is broken.

 

[Sketcher]

But are those people not then questioned about a cure? Are they not seen as potential souls to be saved from their chosen sin? I liked the phrase that a church should be considered a hospital not a club (it was phrased better) so welcoming gays under the pretence of helping them isn’t really the acceptance I am referring to.

Everyone is a sinner. Everyone is sick and needs the church to be the hospital in this sense. Gays are no exception. Homosexual behavior is one of their sins, and we count it as such. Unlike many churches, my church does not consider this sin to be a special one.

I cannot speak for the gay community about such harm. But I see it as scarcely different to the prejudice black people have faced and still face today. Even if they have the freedom they didn’t have before, that doesn’t mean they still don’t face prejudice and are made to feel unwelcome in many neighbourhoods. I hear that places like Texas and other Bible belt states are some of the worst for racist behaviour also.

Race and sexuality are two very different things, first of all. Second of all, we do not see gay water fountains and gay bathrooms. Thirdly, Christians by and large reject both the violence against black people that used to be gotten away with, as well as violence against gays and whoever else. Fourth, you merely "heard" about the Bible belt, without actual data on 1) whether racism is worse there or not and 2) whether it's even Christians doing the abuse that does happen.

So although neither individual of either group may be physically or verbally attacked on a regular basis, the harm can be caused by being referred to as a sinner, as dirty and the feeling of segregation from the community. If you tell someone they are stupid every day they will believe they are stupid (or sinful in this case) and become depressed, being an openly gay individual opens you up to all manner of abuse and many become depressed and even suicidal because of this constant onslaught. Can you not feel compassion and empathy for what it must be like? I cannot imagine living that way, I feel very sorry for those that do and resent the persecutors for it and again I think history will condemn such behaviour and one day the church will have to change its stance.

I don't have to imagine how that felt, I grew up an outcast (and that was on the better days) myself. If not for God and my family, I honestly don't know where I'd be today. Some people have it worse than I did, I'm fully aware that there are sick parents out there who disown their children and whatnot. But I do feel compassion for the ill-treated. "If not for the grace of God, there go I" - again. But when a church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, that doesn't come within a hundred miles of abuse. There is no reason, and no need, for the church to change its stance on that. Churches that treat homosexuality worse than other sins need to repent of that. Churches that claim it isn't sin need to repent of that too.

Why do you make that assumption? Here are a couple of quotes from Jesus in the NT:
[FONT=&quot]“For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I can only interpret this as Jesus advocating the death penalty for cursing the father, how do you read it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This following quote is also interesting, but I imagine you will tell me it is out of context or only for the Israelites. But still, it does seem Jesus did support putting people to death for minor sins in the NT and OT. [/FONT]
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"

Jesus agreed with the Law, and disagreed with the Pharisees' interpretation of the law, and the abuse and corruption that came with it. However, the Law is fulfilled in Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus didn't go around putting people to death. He went about preaching, healing, and showing kindness. Furthermore, even if you take Jesus out of the picture, I as a Gentile am not bound by the Law, because it never applied to me in the first place. I would only be under the universal commands (Laws of Noah). It is no coincidence that Jesus did not teach that Gentiles must come under the Law itself either.

I would consider the story of Noah’s Ark genocide, wouldn’t you? I also remember that one of the plagues he sent to Egypt was the death of first borns, infanticide.

That's God doing it, not a command for people to do it, nor an excuse for people to do it. God has the right to take life, because life is created by him and for him. We cannot do that. The church recognizes this.

Then there is this classic little gem, there are many variations but they are all equally repulsive:
[FONT=&quot] “Yes, a reward to the one who grabs your babies[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and smashes their heads on the rocks!”[/FONT]

That's what a Jew was wishing upon his oppressors. That's not a command for Christians to follow.

I know of no Biblical reference that comments on paedophilia as a sin. Although it is a rather modern concept of the western world to have an age limit on sex and marriage, so it certainly would be common in Jesus’ times, but he made no effort to condemn it in any way.

Do you have evidence that pedophilia was an approved common practice by Jews in Jesus' time, or ever?

Then there are the many stories of paedophile priests that is hard to ignore, before even mentioning the forced castration and kidnapping by the Catholic church, but I understand this is nothing to do with scripture.[/B][/FONT][/B]

Yes, that has nothing to do with Scripture, and what a relatively few sinful priests and cardinals did has no bearing on what the Roman Catholic Church (let alone the universal church, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the universal church) teaches, or what it has taught.

If Jesus told you to murder babies and drink their blood, would you not question it at all? I think it is very odd to blindly follow someone else, especially if you believe Satan is the master of deception and could be tricking you. So therefore you need to rationalise for yourself if you believe Jesus would ask you to kill babies and drink their blood, to which I would imagine you would say he would not. So, what part of you made you think Jesus would not do that?

The fact that Jesus never taught anything within a hundred miles of that. However, since he taught various things that challenge my own sense of morality - forgiving others, generosity, self-sacrifice, and so forth - I can try to rationalize my way out of those things, but Jesus' commands to forgive, be generous, and to lay down my life for others are still staring me in the face. He taught them, and he led by example. This means I need to stretch myself morally and teach my heart to value all that he valued, because I naturally do not value many of the things that he valued. My nature isn't good enough, I need to have a Christlike nature, and for the Christlike nature to become dominant in me.

This confuses me, isn’t Jesus just one of the three parts of God? So Jesus is God and the Bible constantly references God as having emotion, it also quotes Jesus as being angry, happy and otherwise. Of course everything about the Bible has to be assumed, so..how’s about that my friend? J

What I was getting at there is that Jesus is alive and well, he rose from the grave and he is conscious, and thus he can be pleased. Atheists don't believe that.

Yes, but again you are using your own judgement to decide what is a good moral or still applicable. You do not start reading the Bible like a robot and start following everything it says in the OT, you are making your own rationalisation of what is right, wrong, true or false. Apart from truly scary fundamentalists, every creed and every individual Christian follows a slightly different interpretation of the Bible using their own means.

Actually, I use what you would consider scarier - I interpret Scripture with Scripture, and when I'm still confused, I read commentaries by Christians, most of whom died hundreds of years ago. My own judgement doesn't decide whether a Biblical command is good or not. If it did, I'd get rid of everything I find to be morally challenging, which is quite a bit.

Do you have a reference for rape being condemned in the Bible?

Yes. There's Genesis 34, Deuteronomy 22:25-26, 2 Samuel 13, and of course the good old "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Because of my ignorance I only really know of the parts suggesting it is OK to beat your wife etc which are apparently now out of date.

Where does it say that?

If we can remove more pain and inequality from the world surely that is moral? Perhaps I am not more moral in your eyes, but to me it is a logical and rational argument that morals are stronger in modern times.

Then what is your basis for either of these statements?

But I am arguing that it is wrong to consider homosexuals as sick, or on-par with greedy corrupt tax collectors. They are human beings like you or I and don’t deserve any negative associations for being born.

First, to say someone is sick or on par with a greedy tax collector is not to say that someone is not human. Second, the Bible doesn't condemn anyone "for being born." Third, it is homosexual behavior which is condemned.

Why have these demons never been shown to scientists? Why is that all of those studied have indeed been the result of a natural force, when does it make it more likely to be a demon?

You'd have to let me know which studies you are alluding to first of all, and second of all, demons are supernatural creatures which do supernatural things. Science is merely the study of the natural.

But that doesn’t answer my question, I asked what is it that you fear is the result of this ‘slippery slope’? If you imagine 50% of the population ‘catch’ this terrible affliction, what is the worst that can happen apart from sorting out the population problems?

What I mean by a slippery slope is that the more you do a bad thing, the more you are changed to be more prone to doing that bad thing. You asked me to explain how choice is involved, and I answered it. You are now changing the argument, but to answer your question, more people would be committing yet another sin. That's never a good thing.

I will need to check that source and see it if it reflects reality. Although, saying one group is worse is a terrible way to defend what has and still is happening to children in the church, I still find it more shocking coming from priests than those who don’t claim any special high-morality or closeness with God.

I'm not sure where you think I defended what happened to the kids in either case, I thought I made it clear that sexual abuse happening to children is inexcusable, and therefore indefensible. However, the practice of celibacy among the priests isn't a smoking gun as to why these awful things happened, since it happens more often among people who are not expected to be celebrate, and who are often married. Therefore, having a homosexual living a celibate life is not putting children in danger. That was my point.

 

[Curious Atheist]

= I don't understand how fire is a theory. If something is a fact, I don't see it being a theory.

Yes, that is what I was trying to explain because it is misleading. The scientific definition of theory does not mean unproven, it means that it is an idea that has been scrutinised, tested and tried to be disproved. So the theory of fire is a very strong theory, it is hard to deny that fire does not exist. When something has not been tested to the point of being confirmed it is called a thesis, which is a probable explanation but has not been rigorously tested yet, if it passes the scrutiny it is a theory and if it fails it is still useful in narrowing down the truth. So evolution is as much proven fact as fire, so unless you also deny the existence of fire then you cannot question evolution because equal evidence exists for both. Do you also question the speed of light, the combustion engine etc? I ask because even in the face of evidence, there are some that will still say something like ‘fire is an illusion elves use to trick you’ and you cannot disprove it so they won’t ever change their mind.

= What does not make rational sense to me is to stubbornly insist there is no reality I cannot see and feel and detect even when things occur in which the odds are astronomical indeed against it being coincidence and when these occur again and again, one still refused to be open to the possibility it is not coincidence. There is a point in which rational sense would stop and say to one's self, wait a minute, something is going on here.

On the contrary, I think it is the opposite of being open-minded to stubbornly say something is true (or false) without ever backing down in the face of proof. Have you ever read anything regarding quantum theory? Particles behave absolutely bizarrely at the quantum level to the point where some truly amazing hypotheses are required. One such suggests that nothing actually exists until it is viewed (google Schrodinger’s cat), which came about because particles behave differently when observed (double-slit experiment), which is very difficult to explain. You can actually build a quantum computer, that will stop working if you look inside it and I am nowhere near qualified to explain any such thing, but I do not deny that the phenomenon exists. So no, I do not accept I am suggesting that nothing can exist outside of the observable world. I am merely pointing out that you can say anything is true if you do supply the burden of proof. But something must lead you towards such an answer, as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” so if you wish to claim reality is the dream of an elephant, fine I would go along with that as long as there is proof of such things.
Regarding the coincidences reoccurring. Well if that is really true and you can predict the results, you are no longer working in the realms of coincidence. If you can pray for rain at 12:00 that will last for precisely 4.5 mins then snow for 1 min etc and it actually happens, well that would be fantastic. However all such claims are found to be wishful thinking and utterly false, as you agreed about psychics and mediums. Statistically, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time, so I don’t understand how you are linking cause and effect to make the assumption that these things point towards a supreme being acting sneakily, who has an interest on what happens to you, occasionally.


[font=&quot]I am a Christian that follows parts of the bible, not all of the bible. I believe part of the bible is incorrect, but I believe part of the bible is true and contains divine wisdom. Peter said in Acts 10:34-35 that God is no respector of persons and accepts people from every nation who do what is right. I think that is true. When Jesus said the will of God was summed up in loving God and man, I think that is true. When Ezekiel says in chapter 18 the righteous shall live and not die, but the wicked shall die and not live--I think that is true. I find things I do not agree with in all religious books I have read, including of course, the Koran. But I also usually find things I do agree upon in all the religions I have studied.[/quote]

But if you disagree with parts of the Bible, what makes you so confident the rest is divinely inspired? Doesn’t such inconsistency damage the reliability of the source, especially since the Bible was supposed to have been written by those in direct contact with God.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Well it is hardly our position to argue with the ways God has proclaimed. Why marriage though? Why not a civil union? Why would anyone want to be married if they didn't believe in God?

It would be a false blessing.

You are wrong, it isn't my opinion and I don't know what gave you the idea that it is.

I agree. I still have an unanswered question: why holy matrimony and not a civil union?

Like I said, I am not very interested in marriage so I don’t really understand why it is important to people. But the fact is, it is very important to some people so I think there should be a good reason for denying it and I do not see discriminating against homosexuals as a moral act, any more so than suggesting that black people are forbidden or those born in Canada. If God didn’t want people to be gay, he shouldn’t create people that way.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]Everyone is a sinner. Everyone is sick and needs the church to be the hospital in this sense. Gays are no exception. Homosexual behavior is one of their sins, and we count it as such. Unlike many churches, my church does not consider this sin to be a special one. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Crikey, that must be a self-esteem killer. That must scare children half to death![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Race and sexuality are two very different things, first of all. Second of all, we do not see gay water fountains and gay bathrooms. Thirdly, Christians by and large reject both the violence against black people that used to be gotten away with, as well as violence against gays and whoever else. Fourth, you merely "heard" about the Bible belt, without actual data on 1) whether racism is worse there or not and 2) whether it's even Christians doing the abuse that does happen. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes they are different, but prejudice is the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nor do we still see segregated black/white but prejudice remains[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Well most people should reject such violence, but more Christians are violent and racist than the secular community. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have read many articles regarding Texas in the news. I understand the states in the Bible belt are the ones who fight hardest to teach creationism in schools, with the highest percentage of fundamentalist Christians. The statistics show these areas are also the most racist, homophobic with a higher percentage of teenage pregnancy. In general, the least liberal and least tolerant states. Your last point is a bit silly when 90% of the US population is Christian, certainly when you look at the prison statistics.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don't have to imagine how that felt, I grew up an outcast (and that was on the better days) myself. If not for God and my family, I honestly don't know where I'd be today. Some people have it worse than I did, I'm fully aware that there are sick parents out there who disown their children and whatnot. But I do feel compassion for the ill-treated. "If not for the grace of God, there go I" - again. But when a church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, that doesn't come within a hundred miles of abuse. There is no reason, and no need, for the church to change its stance on that. Churches that treat homosexuality worse than other sins need to repent of that. Churches that claim it isn't sin need to repent of that too.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But do you not understand that if everyone is telling you that you are a sinner, that even subconsciously they are being rejected? Many Christians would think twice before socialising or allowing their children to socialise with homosexuals, so this prejudice shines through and can lead to depression, low self-esteem all due to something they cannot control. If you felt like an outcast, did that not make you unhappy and possibly resentful? Anyway I am not using specific examples, I am just asking regarding Christianity as a whole.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You must be blind to not see that Gay rights are winning, slowly the church is being eroded with more and more legislation going against the prejudice the church wants. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus agreed with the Law, and disagreed with the Pharisees' interpretation of the law, and the abuse and corruption that came with it. However, the Law is fulfilled in Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus didn't go around putting people to death. He went about preaching, healing, and showing kindness. Furthermore, even if you take Jesus out of the picture, I as a Gentile am not bound by the Law, because it never applied to me in the first place. I would only be under the universal commands (Laws of Noah). It is no coincidence that Jesus did not teach that Gentiles must come under the Law itself either. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Did my quote not come from Jesus’ mouth, in the NT? It seems pretty black and white to me, the punishment is death which seems to clearly be what Jesus wanted. I also was under the impression that NT laws do apply to every Christian, but the OT laws were for the jews only so I don’t really understand the ‘Laws of Noah’. It is extremely complicated to work out why people ignore parts of the Bible, which is what I am really struggling with the most.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That's God doing it, not a command for people to do it, nor an excuse for people to do it. God has the right to take life, because life is created by him and for him. We cannot do that. The church recognizes this. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So God is a hypocrite, flaunting his powers to prove he is better than his creations? That doesn’t make sense, it just makes him sound very insecure and cruel. I do not think a parent owns their children, although I know you will say they are inevitably made by God too but you must see my point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But take Jesus as an example then, you just said in the last paragraph that “Jesus didn't go around putting people to death. He went about preaching, healing, and showing kindness.” As if this showed he disapproved of the death penalty for sin. But Jesus IS God according to the Bible, so..so what if he did go around murdering babies surely he is allowed to, being the creator? This just doesn’t add up, I don’t understand.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That's what a Jew was wishing upon his oppressors. That's not a command for Christians to follow. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why was it included in the Bible? Why were these following verses that I believe are supposed to be directly from God:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...They shall fall by the sword: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]their infants shall be dashed in [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]pieces, and their women with child [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](pregnant) shall be ripped up!" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]direct quote from YHWH -- Hosea 13:16 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
"Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes! There houses spoiled, and their wives raped...Dash the young men to pieces...have no pity on the fruit of the womb, the children shall not be spared" -- Isa 13:16-18 [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.” -- 2kings2:23-24 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”“And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee,...” -- Deuteronomy 28:53 [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The list goes on and on, where God has committed terrible crimes or forced others to do so. Just read the last quote, eating your own children? How do you suggest this is OK and God is loving?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you have evidence that pedophilia was an approved common practice by Jews in Jesus' time, or ever?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t have evidence that the Bible is more than firelighter, what a weird thing to ask me. I was making the point that the Bible misses out many rules that we now follow. We believe paedophilia is wrong, yet it is not mentioned in the Bible so therefore have the ability to decipher morals for ourselves. I don’t think you are refuting this point at all with your question. Also, does it not seem odd to you that something so important would just be ignored, considering how many other petty things are covered like wearing cotton or not eating pork etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, that has nothing to do with Scripture, and what a relatively few sinful priests and cardinals did has no bearing on what the Roman Catholic Church (let alone the universal church, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the universal church) teaches, or what it has taught. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well who can blames them really, we can only decide what is right and wrong if the Bible tells us so, so they didn’t know any better since being a rapist pedo isn’t mentioned at all. Right?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The fact that Jesus never taught anything within a hundred miles of that. However, since he taught various things that challenge my own sense of morality - forgiving others, generosity, self-sacrifice, and so forth - I can try to rationalize my way out of those things, but Jesus' commands to forgive, be generous, and to lay down my life for others are still staring me in the face. He taught them, and he led by example. This means I need to stretch myself morally and teach my heart to value all that he valued, because I naturally do not value many of the things that he valued. My nature isn't good enough, I need to have a Christlike nature, and for the Christlike nature to become dominant in me. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How can you decide it is a hundred miles of it? How can you have any score-rating for morals if you are just learning ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from what the Bible says. If Jesus did say to eat babies how would you have any idea if that was right or wrong? You just don’t seem to be able to accept that human beings have their own inherent morals.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I was getting at there is that Jesus is alive and well, he rose from the grave and he is conscious, and thus he can be pleased. Atheists don't believe that.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes, I do use wording that makes it seem like I find any of it plausible sometimes, sorry for the confusion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Actually, I use what you would consider scarier - I interpret Scripture with Scripture, and when I'm still confused, I read commentaries by Christians, most of whom died hundreds of years ago. My own judgement doesn't decide whether a Biblical command is good or not. If it did, I'd get rid of everything I find to be morally challenging, which is quite a bit.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So there is nothing inside you that would give you any hint that say, stoning your slave to death for disobeying you is wrong? You have no comprehension of empathy to understand slavery is immoral, stoning is cruel etc? If that is true then you are the definition of a psychopath, but I do not believe that.[/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]Yes. There's Genesis 34, Deuteronomy 22:25-26, 2 Samuel 13, and of course the good old "Love your neighbor as yourself." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sorry but I am not familiar and when I searched there is an awful lot to read. Do you have any direct quotes like ‘rapists will be condemned’. Because the only parts I know that directly refer to rape just say that a rape victim must marry her attacker or a man who rapes another man’s wife is to be put to death.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where does it say that?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I was wrong I think, I confused that wives must submit to their husband, but it being OK to beat your slave:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ephesians[/FONT] 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
[FONT=&quot]Exodus[/FONT] 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Does it say anywhere in the bible that women are now equal by the way? Or should they still be subordinate to their husbands?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If we can remove more pain and inequality from the world surely that is moral? Perhaps I am not more moral in your eyes, but to me it is a logical and rational argument that morals are stronger in modern times.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then what is your basis for either of these statements?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ok, well look at the world as it is today. It may seem like a violent place, but we now have less war, genocide and barbarism than at other point in history. I see this as a good thing, don’t you? We have more equality for women, less racism and less starvation and poverty in the western world. So again, I believe that this is a GOOD thing and I don’t understand why this isn’t obvious to you. Do you not want equality, peace and love like you claim? Therefore, since I value these things in a way that they were not valued in biblical times I would say we have a higher moral standard than our ancestors, which I think is a good thing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First, to say someone is sick or on par with a greedy tax collector is not to say that someone is not human. Second, the Bible doesn't condemn anyone "for being born." Third, it is homosexual behavior which is condemned. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am just repeating myself now, but what gives anyone the right to choose a random proportion of society and say ‘you can never be in a loving relationship or ever have sex’. Why not just pick out random school kids and brand them with this burden, why only pick on one group because of an out of date book with no moral bearing on the modern world? It is insanity, evil and wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You'd have to let me know which studies you are alluding to first of all, and second of all, demons are supernatural creatures which do supernatural things. Science is merely the study of the natural. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Science is the study of anything that can be measured. By definition if demons existed in our reality, they would be part of the natural world too so therefore not ‘supernatural’ so that makes no sense. If demons existed, they could be in some way be detected. If they cannot be detected or known in any way, then what are you basing your assumption that they exist on? As you already said sometimes it is definitely a demon not a mental illness and can tell the difference, whatever it is you use to tell the difference is surely in existence?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I mean by a slippery slope is that the more you do a bad thing, the more you are changed to be more prone to doing that bad thing. You asked me to explain how choice is involved, and I answered it. You are now changing the argument, but to answer your question, more people would be committing yet another sin. That's never a good thing. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well use that with the specific example of homosexuality. Two men or women love each other, they live together and live as any other married couple. Apparently this is a sin, but what is this actually leading to? How does this damage society? This couple will just be more inclined to do what exactly, be even MORE gay? What are you even talking about?? They have already sinned, they have nothing to do with your life so why does it matter if they sin more? They are already aware of the churches intolerance and it makes no difference, so why not just accept it as part of life?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm not sure where you think I defended what happened to the kids in either case, I thought I made it clear that sexual abuse happening to children is inexcusable, and therefore indefensible. However, the practice of celibacy among the priests isn't a smoking gun as to why these awful things happened, since it happens more often among people who are not expected to be celebrate, and who are often married. Therefore, having a homosexual living a celibate life is not putting children in danger. That was my point[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Celibacy amongst priests is a factor for their crimes. However let’s just revert this back to my earlier question, why are you even suggesting paedophilia is wrong when we have already established it is not mentioned rightly or wrongly in the Bible? Are you really making up your own mind on this, or being influenced by society? [/FONT]

 

[technofox]

Sorry but I am not familiar and when I searched there is an awful lot to read. Do you have any direct quotes like 'rapists will be condemned'. Because the only parts I know that directly refer to rape just say that a rape victim must marry her attacker or a man who rapes another man's wife is to be put to death.

I was wrong I think, I confused that wives must submit to their husband, but it being OK to beat your slave:
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Does it say anywhere in the bible that women are now equal by the way? Or should they still be subordinate to their husbands?

Ok, well look at the world as it is today. It may seem like a violent place, but we now have less war, genocide and barbarism than at other point in history. I see this as a good thing, don't you? We have more equality for women, less racism and less starvation and poverty in the western world. So again, I believe that this is a GOOD thing and I don't understand why this isn't obvious to you. Do you not want equality, peace and love like you claim? Therefore, since I value these things in a way that they were not valued in biblical times I would say we have a higher moral standard than our ancestors, which I think is a good thing.

I am just repeating myself now, but what gives anyone the right to choose a random proportion of society and say 'you can never be in a loving relationship or ever have sex'. Why not just pick out random school kids and brand them with this burden, why only pick on one group because of an out of date book with no moral bearing on the modern world? It is insanity, evil and wrong.

Science is the study of anything that can be measured. By definition if demons existed in our reality, they would be part of the natural world too so therefore not 'supernatural' so that makes no sense. If demons existed, they could be in some way be detected. If they cannot be detected or known in any way, then what are you basing your assumption that they exist on? As you already said sometimes it is definitely a demon not a mental illness and can tell the difference, whatever it is you use to tell the difference is surely in existence?

Well use that with the specific example of homosexuality. Two men or women love each other, they live together and live as any other married couple. Apparently this is a sin, but what is this actually leading to? How does this damage society? This couple will just be more inclined to do what exactly, be even MORE gay? What are you even talking about?? They have already sinned, they have nothing to do with your life so why does it matter if they sin more? They are already aware of the churches intolerance and it makes no difference, so why not just accept it as part of life?


Celibacy amongst priests is a factor for their crimes. However let's just revert this back to my earlier question, why are you even suggesting paedophilia is wrong when we have already established it is not mentioned rightly or wrongly in the Bible? Are you really making up your own mind on this, or being influenced by society?

I agree with your statement in regards to certain denominations requiring priests not to marry as a leading cause of church scandals; however, I disagree with your statement of the bible not mentioning pedophilia. Jesus clearly states that it is better to tie a millstone around one's neck and be tossed into the sea (or river, don't remember which off hand) than to cause one these little ones (children) to sin. Also please be aware that back in Roman times and likely before that woman were usually married by age 12, some cultures may have allowed marriage as early as the first time a woman has a period. In ancient times any woman having kids after the age of 21 was considered a death sentence; please also be aware that the twenty something back then was also considered middle age for most people, as the average life expectancy was 50 years.

People age differently now thanks to modern technology and therefore women actually sexually mature later in life than in prior times. So you have to take historical societal issues into account in regards to human sexuality.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I agree with your statement in regards to certain denominations requiring priests not to marry as a leading cause of church scandals; however, I disagree with your statement of the bible not mentioning pedophilia. Jesus clearly states that it is better to tie a millstone around one's neck and be tossed into the sea (or river, don't remember which off hand) than to cause one these little ones (children) to sin.

Yes but if they were married, it would be not be considered sin would it? Or if they were the victim of rape, they would then be forced the marry the rapist to avoid damnation.

Also please be aware that back in Roman times and likely before that woman were usually married by age 12, some cultures may have allowed marriage as early as the first time a woman has a period. In ancient times any woman having kids after the age of 21 was considered a death sentence; please also be aware that the twenty something back then was also considered middle age for most people, as the average life expectancy was 50 years.

Yes I am very aware, this is also still the law in Muslim countries where a girl is considered old enough when she had her first period, hence why Mohammad married a 6 year old. However, this is exactly what I am trying to say as the rules and laws of Roman times aren’t generally applicable anymore and I would never want to live under Sharia law. Islamic countries seem to be much the same today as they always have but with more technology, do you think they are preferably to the West? (As sharia law is similar to the OT rules)

People age differently now thanks to modern technology and therefore women actually sexually mature later in life than in prior times. So you have to take historical societal issues into account in regards to human sexuality.

People live longer due to breakthroughs in medicinal science, but I don’t think girls become sexually mature later in life than only 2,000 years ago. Unless it is linked with the chemicals/hormones in the food we eat, I don’t see how this is possible. But can I also point out a major point here, that all of the things that we can agree have improved our lives are 100% due to secular, scientific thinking and nothing to do with following ancient scriptures.

 

[technofox]

Yes but if they were married, it would be not be considered sin would it? Or if they were the victim of rape, they would then be forced the marry the rapist to avoid damnation.

Yes I am very aware, this is also still the law in Muslim countries where a girl is considered old enough when she had her first period, hence why Mohammad married a 6 year old. However, this is exactly what I am trying to say as the rules and laws of Roman times aren't generally applicable anymore and I would never want to live under Sharia law. Islamic countries seem to be much the same today as they always have but with more technology, do you think they are preferably to the West? (As sharia law is similar to the OT rules)

People live longer due to breakthroughs in medicinal science, but I don't think girls become sexually mature later in life than only 2,000 years ago. Unless it is linked with the chemicals/hormones in the food we eat, I don't see how this is possible. But can I also point out a major point here, that all of the things that we can agree have improved our lives are 100% due to secular, scientific thinking and nothing to do with following ancient scriptures.

If a woman does not marry a rapist, from my understanding of OT law, it was not considered a sin; however, I believe the sin does fall on the rapist. You may want to ask a Jew about this, as they are more equiped to handle OT questions than the majority of Christians out there.

As for the sharia law versus western law, its hard to compare as I am not knowledgable in sharia law. I hazard a guess that some of sharia law is based upon some of the OT laws due to the fact that they are both, along with Christianity, Abrahamic religions. Most of today's laws for western civilization is based on German oral law (common/English law), civil law (Roman law), and Abrahamic law, as well as laws/customs from local origin (e.g. danish laws, etc). Basically western civilization is a shmorgasboard (buffet) of laws picked and choosen to be used by various western cultures.

Christianity, dependent upon the individual's views and the collective whole, is very dynamic yet retains specific core value based upon the original 10 commandments. The 10 commandments itself are actually basic principles to live by that can be found in just about any culture western/eastern; however, native american cultures didn't have a real concept of property as far as I know since they were/are more communal (ie - native american cultures are likely as close as one can get to true communism, just an observation/opinion not a fact). So with that in mind the laws we have for today are still founded up Christian/Jewish laws combined with the laws of each respective culture, plus through cultural diffusion. So in away you can't escape any religious law without losing some of the most important protections. As for sharia law, I believe it is legalism to the extreme, even Jewish law provides far more freedom than sharia law, as well as more protection for women; this is from my current understanding of how muslims treat their women. On top of that, I believe sharia law is the very reason why the lands of Islam had been held back in terms of technological advancement and Christianity allowed Europe to go into the Renassance era, thanks to the protestant reformation.

As for your last statement, it is a fact that women sexually mature later in life now, because the aging process has slowed, at least in western civilizations. One observation by scientists and anthropologists is that women in your country (the UK, I believe) are actually remaining fertile into their late 40s and beyond. It has also been noted in other western countries as well, and is believed to be related to gradual changes in our life expectancies and advancements in technology.

I also believe that science and Christianity/Judism complement each other, but that requires one to have an open mind.