How Homophobic Are You?

[Polycarp_fan]

That's fine use your bible, but I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who appeals to authority.

Many secularists and atheists appeal to the authority of science, Humanist professors and book sellers. I'm thinking, actually every one of them.

Now, a lot of Christians and indeed the Vatican believes that science only reveals the truth about the bible.

"Duh," it's a word that can take on a scholarly application.

Which is why I'm interested in having a coversation with someone who believes that the same conclusions can be acheived through different methods, methods that don't merely appeal to an authority.

Research depends entirely on authority. Gravity, for example, has the authority of scientific use of cause and effect leading us on to the understanding of gravity.

Why would I want to have a convseration with someone about science who rejects science and places absolute blind faith and total ignorance in the Bible?

Christians have become extremely comfortable with science. What has science to do with the truth of scripture but to affirm it? Science is the freind of Biblical truth.

I clearly don't. I'm not interested in argument for the sake of argument.

Obviously, neither am I. I want to protect my brothers and sisters in Christ from malevolent people that use false teachings for ulterior motives. It's all about cause and effect.

I know there are people who have taken seriously the pursuit of knowledge and who have come to theologistic conclusions like Tom.

"Theologistic?" Is that a real word? I'm sorry, I have never heard it used before. I became a Christian based squarely on cause and effect. "Faith," the word, is better used as "trust." Things on earth don;t look like they are going according to the words of Sidhartha and his followers.

That's why I am here. I'm simply not gonna debate you on grounds of scripture when it relates to homosexuality.

Good choice, based on cause and effect.

If you have an ontological argument for choice or some such present it.

I choose not to believe in 0 x 0 = the seen and unseen universe. Ontologically speaking. Nonsense driving my choices used to be commonplace before I became a Christian.

Now, it's all about logic and reason, cause and effect.

You know, the Gospel. Science again, no enemy of God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Neuron,
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see - Hebrews 11
But on a Christian site you will find Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ because He has impacted their lives.
Someone who has impacted their lives is real enough, faith isnt science faith is
But faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Lets stick to the subject rather than the foundations of Christianity

 

[Andreusz]

Many secularists and atheists appeal to the authority of science, Humanist professors and book sellers. I'm thinking, actually every one of them.

The logical fallacy known as the argument from authority can be illustrated by a statement such as: "There is no God, because Dawkins thinks so," or "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

The authority of science rests ultimately on observable facts and repeatable experiments, not on what professor X or doctor Y has stated (simply because they stated it).

"Book sellers"?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The logical fallacy known as the argument from authority can be illustrated by a statement such as: "There is no God, because Dawkins thinks so," or "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

Jesus is God because the world proves it. The Gospel only declares observable facts. The world does not seem to be showing any cause and effect other than that.

The authority of science rests ultimately on observable facts and repeatable experiments, not on what professor X or doctor Y has stated (simply because they stated it).

The reason why I am a Christian. There must be proof. Now we have men demanding to marry men. The corruption of the world is going the way the Christian evidence showed it would. A some point evidence is important.

"Book sellers"?

Oh, and websites.

Dawkins knew his formula for wealth was in following the example of Marilyn Manson. Bash the Christians and you get fame and fortune.

Interesting that Pontius Pilate sought the opposite path. But that's what cause and effect does for a sound mind.

 

[Neuron]

I don't think you understand cause and effect Polycarp

Might I suggest reading Ted Honderich's CAUSALITY OR CAUSATION THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT PLAIN EXPLAINED?

Here is an excerpt:

[SIZE=+1]Causes, like the other conditions which enter into causal circum-stances, are at bottom conceived by us to be certain spatio-temporal items, individual properties. (1.1) So too are effects, and the elements of the nomic correlates of three classes. However, we typically use the whole (usually an event) to speak of the part (the individual property). The facts of necessary connection as we conceive them, having to do with causes, causal circumstances, effects, and nomic correlates, are those stated by certain conditional statements. (1.2, 1.3) Our conception of necessary connection cannot be said to require any facts other than those stated by these conditionals. The conditionals are of two kinds, and the second, independent nomic conditionals, are fundamen-tal. They are, in brief, of the form If A, even if X, then still B. (1.4) Certain facts stated by the latter conditionals, together with effects being taken as later in time, are all that is needed to explain the difference we find or make between causal circumstances and causes on the one hand, and, on the other, their effects. This difference distinguishes causal circumstances and their effects from the other instances of necessary connection, the nomic correlates. (1.5) All necessary connections are open to forms of mathematical expression, and typically are given it in science. Whatever may be true of the world, and, as follows from what has been said of necessitation, our conception of an effect is not a conception of an event that occurs if a usual background exists, or an event which follows on something required for it, but might not have occurred, or a merely probable event. (1.6)[/SIZE]

 

[camethodactor]

4 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

 

[onemessiah]

24 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."



Probably would've scored better if I didn't have an endless pile of gay jokes, but all in all, not bad...

 

[SallyNow]

17 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic

Yays!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus is God because the world proves it. The Gospel only declares observable facts. The world does not seem to be showing any cause and effect other than that.

I believe in Jesus because of Faith.

Can you give me just one single observable fact that proves that Jesus is God? Please?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I believe in Jesus because of Faith.

Can you give me just one single observable fact that proves that Jesus is God? Please?

How blest are they who have not seen and yet believe!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I believe in Jesus because of Faith.

Can you give me just one single observable fact that proves that Jesus is God? Please?

You.

Look in the mirror, then close your eyes, and then touch your forhead with one of your hands. Then open your eyes.

The odds of you not being in the room are quite amazing. Only one ovum could have ever been you, and only one sperm carried the other side of you. The two becoming one. Literally.

Hundreds, times hundreds of billions, and only one being you. Otherwise every brother and sister would be the exact same person. Literally.

There you are. A mathematical miracle. Your DNA assignment of identity.

My perspective.

I may not be voted The Advocate magazine's Man of the Year, but you are proof that the Creator created you, and the Gospels prove that Jesus is the Creator. The Gospels do not talk about faith in Jesus without showing the facts to do so.

 

[onemessiah]

I believe in Jesus because of Faith.

Can you give me just one single observable fact that proves that Jesus is God? Please?

No, but it's probably for the best that people rely on faith rather than rock solid evidence as their foundation for belief. If religion was about proof and facts, it would not exist. And that would be a sad day for many people. Religion gives its people hope and a sense of belonging, and comfort.
I just wish that some of those people would pass what they gain from religion on to others, rather than using it to cripple the gay community for the past couple thousand years.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

No, but it's probably for the best that people rely on faith rather than rock solid evidence as their foundation for belief. If religion was about proof and facts, it would not exist. And that would be a sad day for many people. Religion gives its people hope and a sense of belonging, and comfort.

Sounds like the exact same thing that atheism and humanism brings to the adherants of thos faith-based belief systems.

I just wish that some of those people would pass what they gain from religion on to others, rather than using it to cripple the gay community for the past couple thousand years.

Why HAVE so many civilizations, so many people, in so many societies and religions, pagan or otherwise, been so disapproving of the "gay community" since recorded history? He we are in the 21st century "from just Jesus and His followers) and including centuries upon centuries before Jesus and the Church era, and homosexuality is still repugnant to the majority of human beings.

Maybe the Gay Community with its "gay culture" should ask that question of the gay community?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Why HAVE so many civilizations, so many people, in so many societies and religions, pagan or otherwise, been so disapproving of the "gay community" since recorded history? He we are in the 21st century "from just Jesus and His followers) and including centuries upon centuries before Jesus and the Church era, and homosexuality is still repugnant to the majority of human beings.

You will find a very accurate answer to your question by looking in a mirror.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You.

Look in the mirror, then close your eyes, and then touch your forhead with one of your hands. Then open your eyes.

The odds of you not being in the room are quite amazing. Only one ovum could have ever been you, and only one sperm carried the other side of you. The two becoming one. Literally.

Hundreds, times hundreds of billions, and only one being you. Otherwise every brother and sister would be the exact same person. Literally.

There you are. A mathematical miracle. Your DNA assignment of identity.

My perspective.

I may not be voted The Advocate magazine's Man of the Year, but you are proof that the Creator created you, and the Gospels prove that Jesus is the Creator. The Gospels do not talk about faith in Jesus without showing the facts to do so.

Ah.

Well, thank you for the reply PC-F, I appreciate you taking the time.

I also appreciate your line of reasoning... but there is this thing called the "Anthropomorphic principle" which sort of deals with this. Its not that I don't think its a compelling argument, heck, I feel moved by God's creation everytime I see the starfield on a clear night... but thats an emotional response... its not actually empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence of real world facts from the Bible would be something like;

Genuine Biblical foreknowledge of scientific discoveries ahead of their time... not vague, after the fact interpretations mind you, but the Bible clearly spelling out the existence of protons, or extra solar planets, or the dark side of the Moon before they were observed, something like that.

Secular first hand accounts of Jesus' miracles

Archaeological evidence that withstands academic and scientific rigour that supports Jesus existance "ישוע was here 33 AD" or something.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bible looses significance for want of this sort of evidence, I just have a problem with claims that the Bible is supported with empirical objective evidence when it isn't.

I mean, at the end of the day, how is your idea of evidence (i.e. the wonder that is my biological existance, and yes, it IS a wonder, as is yours) any more evidence for the correctness of Christianity than it is evidence of, say, the correctness of Norse mythology? Both claim that our existance can be explained by the intervention of a supreme being, so, how does my existance prove the existance of Jesus, as opposed to, say, Odin?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

" 6 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic.""

 

[catlover]

Sounds like the exact same thing that atheism and humanism brings to the adherants of thos faith-based belief systems.



Why HAVE so many civilizations, so many people, in so many societies and religions, pagan or otherwise, been so disapproving of the "gay community" since recorded history? He we are in the 21st century "from just Jesus and His followers) and including centuries upon centuries before Jesus and the Church era, and homosexuality is still repugnant to the majority of human beings.

Maybe the Gay Community with its "gay culture" should ask that question of the gay community?

Actually The Greeks which by the way gave us our foundation for democracy, were accepting of same sex relations. In fact homosexual sex was encouraged amoung the warriors, it was the belief they would fight fiercly for a lover...

Some Native American tribes accepted homosexuality as well...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Actually The Greeks which by the way gave us our foundation for democracy, were accepting of same sex relations.

Not entirely. The receiver of gay sex was barred from becoming a citizen of Greece. There were laws keeping pederasts out of schools, or gymnasiums as the Greeks called them. Democracy has also been used to eliminate pederasty. It's never coming back. Legally anyway.

In fact homosexual sex was encouraged amoung the warriors, it was the belief they would fight fiercly for a lover...

That civilization is no longer with us. But warriors were expected to get married to women. What is Greece now does not promote pederasty.

Some Native American tribes accepted homosexuality as well...

Again, we have moved on from the debasement and lascivious use of children to respecting their personhood, thanks to Christianity and democracy.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not entirely. The receiver of gay sex was barred from becoming a citizen of Greece. There were laws keeping pederasts out of schools, or gymnasiums as the Greeks called them. Democracy has also been used to eliminate pederasty. It's never coming back. Legally anyway.

There was this thing called "Sparta"... you may be interested to look it up. As for "the reciever of gay sex being bared from being a citizen of 'Greece'".... um... "Greece" during the ancient period was a loose aglomeration of city states... there was no such thing as a "citizen of Greece". also, since "Gay sex" is a NEOLOGISM, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have discrimnated against people on the grounds of being a "reciever of gay sex".

Not to mention that the "symposium" was a key event in Greek society...

The Greek symposium was a key Hellenic social institution, one that was also adopted by the Etruscans. It was a forum for men to debate, plot, boast, or simply to party with others. They were frequently held to celebrate the introduction of youths into aristocratic society, much like debutante balls today. Youth would attend as the companion and eromenos of an adult with whom he was involved in a pederastic relationship. Symposia were also held by aristocrats to celebrate other special occasions, such as victories in athletic and poetic contests.
(emphasis added)

In short, you're talking through your hat.

That civilization is no longer with us.

Neither is the civilisation of the ancient Hebrews, yet you seem to think their cultural practices are still relevant. Double standard?

Again, we have moved on from the debasement and lascivious use of children to respecting their personhood, thanks to Christianity and democracy.

for the Nth time.... HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT EQUATE WITH PAEDOPHILIA!!!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Ah.

Well, thank you for the reply PC-F, I appreciate you taking the time.

I also appreciate your line of reasoning... but there is this thing called the "Anthropomorphic principle" which sort of deals with this.

I am very familiar with this. The errors of Moses Maimonides for instance, is why Judaism decries God as a man. And yet, Hebrews are called Israelites becuase Jacob got beaten in a fight with a man he wrestled with for a long time. A "man" that Jacob claimed was God. Not only claimed that, but Jacob who renamed "Israel" by this "man," that he "Jacob/Israel? called the place where the fight took place "Beth El." Either Israel was a psychotic, or God can be a man if He wants to be.

Its not that I don't think its a compelling argument, heck, I feel moved by God's creation everytime I see the starfield on a clear night... but thats an emotional response... its not actually empirical evidence.

How did they get there? Cause and effect is far more than just empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence of real world facts from the Bible would be something like;

Genuine Biblical foreknowledge of scientific discoveries ahead of their time... not vague, after the fact interpretations mind you, but the Bible clearly spelling out the existence of protons, or extra solar planets, or the dark side of the Moon before they were observed, something like that.

You're not joking are you?

Job 36:27-28
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.

The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier


Used from: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Secular first hand accounts of Jesus' miracles

The Gospels are a "secular" account. The disciples didn't write a religious treatise, they were just reporting things that happened in a real place at real times. They appear to be very confident about them in fact.

Archaeological evidence that withstands academic and scientific rigour that supports Jesus existance "ישוע was here 33 AD" or something.

You do realize that Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? It's amazing that even famous names like Pilate and Caiaphas were found. Jesus was just a guy executed like so many other criminals. The Gospels though, have great worth as history.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bible looses significance for want of this sort of evidence, I just have a problem with claims that the Bible is supported with empirical objective evidence when it isn't.

You need to take some time and study. There is no fear in questioning the veracity of the Biblical record. tektonics.org isn't a bad place to visit. Or, visit a Christian bookstore, or google "science facts in the Bible" and see what you get?

I mean, at the end of the day, how is your idea of evidence (i.e. the wonder that is my biological existance, and yes, it IS a wonder, as is yours) any more evidence for the correctness of Christianity than it is evidence of, say, the correctness of Norse mythology?

Odin is dated as a fact walking around, eating with people and being executed by real people that really lived? I didn't know that.

Both claim that our existance can be explained by the intervention of a supreme being, so, how does my existance prove the existance of Jesus, as opposed to, say, Odin?

Explaining our existence by means of deity is a very common mindset. So common in fact, that one has to ask oneself why? Even today, we have many Doctors and lawyers and journalists that "become" Christians. Our DNA holds the key. Origin wise that is.

Have you ever read anything by Hugh Ross?