How Homophobic Are You?

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution is nothing more than a very good guess.

And Creationism is nothing more than a religious myth. So why not believe the former?

A scientific endeavor to figure out how "it" all began and where life came from.

Where does one begin? The theory of common descent is the explanation for species, for biodiversity. It says nothing about where life came from, and has absolutely nothing to do with how 'it' all begin (those are explained by the theory of abiogenesis and the big bang theory, respectively).

I do not desire to debate evolution, until atheists that use evolution to bash Christians can come up with something from nothing.

Why? The theoretical physics that describes what one could clumsily call "something from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution (nor the theory thereof).

0 x 0 = 0.

Except there's no such thing as '0' in reality.

Not exactly an endorsement for un-itelligent design. Accidents bumping into accidents are going to need far more than a few trillion years to come up with you and I debating on the internet.

And your justification for that is...?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_chlld,

So why not believe the former?

why not believe the latter, if humans can only guess why not believe in a ‘higher power’? Makes sense.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To Wiccan_chlld,
why not believe the latter, if humans can only guess why not believe in a ‘higher power’? Makes sense.

Humans can do more than guess... they can evaluate evidence and draw logical conclusions based on the available evidence.

And in every single case, evaluating evidence and drawing loogical conclusions based on it gives us more correct information than guessing ever does.

Thats why not.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not to mention that the whole "Why not just believe anyway cos you can't prove there isn't a God" argument works equally well for Budha, Islam, Hinduism, Norse, Celtic and any other form of spirituality as well as it works for Christianity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

why not believe the latter, if humans can only guess why not believe in a ‘higher power’? Makes sense.

No: both are as likely as each other. You are adamant that it is the latter, and not the former. Why?

As EnemyPartyII said, logic and evidence allow us to do more than guess. Logic tells us about Occam's Razor, and there is thus far no evidence for the existence of a supernatural Creator (i.e., creation deities).

 

[brightmorningstar]

Humans can do more than guess... they can evaluate evidence and draw logical conclusions based on the available evidence

No: both are as likely as each other.

I know God exists I spoke to Him this morning

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

To Lovebirdsflying,
Thanks for your post, and I agree.

PS. Had you considered that in a democracy a government can contain religious people in which case it isnt entirely secular?

You make a good point, but I believe in separating the two entirely. I don't think it's right to have an established national religion, for example, and I also don't think matters of religious conscience should be made law.

I'm not speaking here about laws against harming our fellow human beings. That is not only religious conscience, it is also coexistence. Secular laws exist (in an ideal world) to promote peace and protect everyone from wrongful actions. It's the old expression that goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." By religious conscience, I'm talking about things ranging from, say, restricting what can and cannot be done on Sunday (or Saturday), to the larger matter of legislating homosexual behavior. This is a matter of religious conscience, I believe, since if you ask anyone who objects to it why they object, they will inevitably point to the Bible. The practice of homosexuality (again in an ideal world) affects only those involved, provided it is discreet and behind closed doors, as all acts of a sexual nature should be.

Therefore it is frankly none of my business if my neighbor is gay. I can believe it to be a sin all I want, I should even be free to tell him/her I think it's a sin, but I should not be allowed to decide for him/her, via the law, whether or not he/she can get married. Marriage is a covenant between the couple and God, not including anyone else. I don't know why the secular government even wants in on it, but that's a different topic.

Government should be involved only to protect religious freedom. As believers we would live by our convictions, which is a different thing from the law of the land.

Of course, as believers we also live by the law of the land, but only so far as it lines up with Scripture. If one contradicts the other, I'm going to follow the Lord's instructions, not the government's.

For Scripural backup, I submit Romans 14:5b, in the NIV reading "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." You don't legislate conscience. Also Acts 4:19, "But Peter and John replied, 'Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.'" If the two contractict, follow God.

Putting the two principles together, I conclude that government should not forbid homosexual behavior or rights to their relationship, including marriage. However, churches should not be made to perform such unions against their conscience.

That's all. Down off my soapbox now.

 

[Andreusz]

To answer the OP, and only the OP:

I scored a 26, non-homophobic. I believe the practice of homosexuality to be contrary to Scripture, which is another way of saying it's a sin, but I also believe we are all sinners. This is only one sin among many. I don't single it out for persecution, and I don't treat homosexuals any differently from any other sinner.

I also believe it to be strictly a matter of religion, which the secular government has no business meddling in. Churches should be free to do their conscience in regard to joining or not joining same-sex couples, based on their interpretation of Scripture. However, secular government should stay out of the bedroom. JMO.

I don't believe in sin, but I agree with you that homosexuality appears to be contrary to scripture (if taken literally), and that secular government should stay out of the bedroom.
Strength to your arm!

By the way, not all churches take scripture literally.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

And Creationism is nothing more than a religious myth. So why not believe the former?

Christians do not believe in myth. Our "faith" is founded on facts.

Where does one begin? The theory of common descent is the explanation for species, for biodiversity. It says nothing about where life came from, and has absolutely nothing to do with how 'it' all begin (those are explained by the theory of abiogenesis and the big bang theory, respectively).

According to the book sellers and skeptics, Evo solves all and knows all. Excuse me if I dissent of the guess work to absolutism theory dispensed by so many atheistic evolutionary pundits.

Why? The theoretical physics that describes what one could clumsily call "something from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution (nor the theory thereof).

Keep going backwards from the ooze and you get to 0 x 0 = everything, of the common nongodian evolutionist.

Except there's no such thing as '0' in reality.

I only believe in reality. That is why I am a Christian. Thank you, BTW.

And your justification for that is...?

My mind is still disease free. Something does not come from nothing. I have worked in a lab.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Christians do not believe in myth. Our "faith" is founded on facts.

While much of our faith contains facts of what happened, faith is IN NO WAY founded on fact. Science is founded on fact. Faith, by its very definition, requires no evidence.

You also have much to learn about 'myth.'

Do not fall into the trap of thinking Myth is the same as fiction.
Myth may not be literally true, but points to larger truth.

I only believe in reality. That is why I am a Christian.

This is not one of the tenets of Christianity - so it doesn't follow.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Christians do not believe in myth. Our "faith" is founded on facts.

Some do. Some believe in atomic theory, a theoretical set of particles which have quite a substantial amount of evidence supporting their existence. The same goes for the theory of common descent, germ theory, big bang theory, quantum mechanics, etc.

But then you have those poor fools who disbelieve what reality tells them, instead clinging to the creation myths of Bronze-age nomads.

But as ChaliceThunder points out, a myth is not necessarily fiction. I mean, the Biblical Creationism myth is fictional, but this isn't the case for all myths.

According to the book sellers and skeptics, Evo solves all and knows all.

Please, name one author who believes in common descent and espouses this view.

Excuse me if I dissent of the guess work to absolutism theory dispensed by so many atheistic evolutionary pundits.

Again, cite examples. I mean, I hear such claims from Christians and Creationists all the time (I was watching a video on GodTube about how atheists believe in the "many-worlds" hypothesis, and that this is tantamount to belief in a deity), but no atheist I've talked to or hear of has ever espoused anything of the sort. And believe me, I scour the interwebs for good debates involving atheists (they're just so witty).

Keep going backwards from the ooze and you get to 0 x 0 = everything, of the common nongodian evolutionist.

Debatable, but you realise that "going backwards from the ooze" requires one to leave evolution and enter into other theories (abiogenesis, etc)? Even if your non sequitur was correct (which it isn't, but there you go), it would have nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

I only believe in reality. That is why I am a Christian.

Non sequitur.

Thank you, BTW.

For what?

My mind is still disease free. Something does not come from nothing. I have worked in a lab.

As have I. You might want to check out the Casimir effect sometime: it's direct evidence of 'something from nothing', regardless of your philosophical whining. That's what I love about science: reality is just so much more convincing that nebulous phrases and hand-wavey metaphysics.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I know God exists I spoke to Him this morning

But did he speak back?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

My mind is still disease free. Something does not come from nothing. I have worked in a lab.
​

As have I. You might want to check out the Casimir effect sometime: it's direct evidence of 'something from nothing', regardless of your philosophical whining. That's what I love about science: reality is just so much more convincing that nebulous phrases and hand-wavey metaphysics.

Hawking Radiation also is an example of "something from nothing"

 

[KCKID]

I know God exists I spoke to Him this morning

My 'gay' friend believed that God exists and he spoke to God regularly. He would occasionally preach God in his home church and he would defend to the hilt the word of God if need be. He also prayed to God every single day to ask for help to overcome his struggles with a sexuality that he never asked for.

Guess what?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know God exists I spoke to Him this morning

Then perhaps you could explain with the paradox that arises: there are a large number of people who claim to speak to the same god you do, yet there are any number of theological inconsistencies. Why would God tell different people different things?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hawking Radiation also is an example of "something from nothing"

I wonder why it makes a black hole evaporate, though? It's like the universe senses a loophole in its laws .

 

[Neuron]

Physicists often lament over the fact that the net outcome of all their work is zero.

 

[Neuron]

Big Bang theory is not a theory of "something from nothing".

The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time. Cosmologists generally say that there was nothing before the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that there was a place in which nothing existed. It means that our language can't describe it and our intellect can't comprehend it. There was no space for nothing to be and there was no time for nothing to exist in.

Ultimately the God model of the universe is a model wherein God came from nothing analogous to the Big Bang model. The difference is proponents of the God model simply don't scrutinize their own theory in the same regards, asserting that God always existed. But this still doesn't answer the question and is equivalent of an infinite universe theory. Like that of Giordano Bruno a 16th century latin philosopher and former Catholic priest who was immolated (burned at the stake) for his theories about the universe.

 

[Neuron]

Christians do not believe in myth. Our "faith" is founded on facts.

You may want to consider that facts are often considered to be the least important. What is of utmost importance is the theory which explains the facts. That is where the real challenge is. Of course ignorance is the easy, blissful option and is precisely what "Faith" represents. When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts?

 

[KCKID]

Then perhaps you could explain with the paradox that arises: there are a large number of people who claim to speak to the same god you do, yet there are any number of theological inconsistencies. Why would God tell different people different things?

I don't want to disbelieve the word of God but I guess the main 'struggle' I have is reconciling logic, experience, answered prayer (?), unanswered prayer (?), opposing or/and inconsistent 'messages' from supposedly the same source (God?) with the mainstream brand of Christianity we see on the subforum which is very bent on the 'words from a book' more so than real actions or/and experiences of an individual. Occasionally I visualize what it would be like to be sharing the same pew with some of these folks. I'd be afraid of doing or saying the 'wrong' thing - expressing opposing scriptural viewpoints with them, having the freedom to 'think outside the box', for instance - in case I was accused of being a follower of Satan.

As for the real 'hardliners' on the 'anti-gay' issue, they appear to be totally lacking - either by choice or by sheer ignorance - in their understanding of the issue of homosexuality. They have closed their minds to this matter and they instead allow the words from a book (and, at the end of the day, words are ALL they are!) to take precedence over the very REAL and PERSONAL and NON-THREATENING characteristics of some of their fellow human beings. It's THIS example of Christianity - one's personal and dogmatic interpretation of 'the word of God', the lack of humanity shown by professed Christians toward others who might be 'different' that I see so consistently on debate boards such as this - that I personally can't come to grips with.