If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

LightHorseman · May 18, 2009

No, but you see, I just showed you how you do use special pleading when you decide what laws are morally right and what aren't

Baloney. where have I ever used special pleading? Quote me?

Straw man. Address my argument, not my (supposed) character or some group of people I may or may not necessarily belong to outside of your notions about how I interpret scripture - which is based on the limited range of this topic.

Its not a strawman, its an apt description... I quite correctly pointed out another user's special pleading, and you turn around and say, "she isn't special pleading, you are!" you have yet to cite any example of such.

I already identified your special pleading, you ignored it, hopefully not willfully. You also said yourself how your feelings weighed-in on this matter. Your last statement here alludes to closed-mindedness rather than pride. You're seemingly somewhat open to changing your mind, but mostly not. It's like having the blast door mostly closed, there's only a small portion that isn't defensive.

Incorporating emotion into decision making is not special pleading. Either cite an example of me using special pleading, or retract your accusation please.

Now perhaps you'd like to cite the scripture that says "We are released from ALL OT laws under the New Covenant" so we can compare notes. If you already did, well I missed it. Do a search on http://blueletterbible.org if you need to.

Its paraphrasing, but thats the whole point of the new covenant, isn't it? To release us from blind observance of OT laws?

Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Quite so, and, since mutually consentual homosexual relationships are not contrary to loving your neighbour as yourself, then obviously condemning homosexuality is not legitimate law.

OllieFranz · May 18, 2009

TheLowlyTortoise said:
You can't throw chapter 18 in with dietary laws because it doesn't include any. You can't say all of Leviticus is the same either. Chapter 11 deals with cleanliness, breaking any of the regulations therein wasn't called defilement or perversion or detestable, and certainly didn't lead to an entire nation to be defiled. Really, it can be argued that ceremonial laws were only for the Israelites, but nothing about chapter 18 suggests anything ceremonial. Then again, the Israelites were called to observe these laws because they were sanctified unto God. Now since we are to be sanctified unto God, shouldn't we give credence to these laws as well?

OK, just sticking with chapter 18, it is sinful to sleep with a woman -- any woman, even your wife -- at any time other than the five days a month when she is most fertile. Why don't we ever hear you railing against those men?

Thekla · May 18, 2009

OllieFranz said:
OK, just sticking with chapter 18, it is sinful to sleep with a woman -- any woman, even your wife -- at any time other than the five days a month when she is most fertile. Why don't we ever hear you railing against those men?

In like manner, it should be noted that Paul only condemns mother-son incest;
why do we stigmatize loving sexual relationships between siblings ?
The condemnation of incest occurs also in Leviticus, and is thus argued to be the "old Law".

OllieFranz · May 18, 2009

Thekla said:
In like manner, it should be noted that Paul only condemns mother-son incest;
why do we stigmatize loving sexual relationships between siblings ?
The condemnation of incest occurs also in Leviticus, and is thus argued to be the "old Law".

The "incest" laws in Leviticus are actually adultery laws. Adultery against family was seen as a double betrayal. We can see that it is not consanguinity that is the issue because a brother's wife, or an uncle's is not related by blood. We can see that it is not simply that she is related by marriage, because the situation is completely reversed if the brother or the uncle dies childless. Then the man is obligated to marry her and give her children.

Thekla · May 18, 2009

OllieFranz said:
The "incest" laws in Leviticus are actually adultery laws. Adultery against family was seen as a double betrayal. We can see that it is not consanguinity that is the issue because a brother's wife, or an uncle's is not related by blood. We can see that it is not simply that she is related by marriage, because the situation is completely reversed if the brother or the uncle dies childless. Then the man is obligated to marry her and give her children.

This you'll need to explain - how is sibling love adultery ?

Jase · May 18, 2009

Nadiine said:
Inane junk?
You're the one posting we originate from animals not me.

Nadiine, we are biologically animals. Scientific fact ( as much as one can be).

I don't make Christianity look dumb when I give God all the credit
for making Adam IN GOD'S OWN IMAGE and making Eve from
the man.

Except this is a mythological story. 2 people did not originate the entire human race, i'm sorry. Please tell me you don't actually believe men have one less rib than women?

My understanding of creation is not dumb - it's also the vast majority
of Christianity that supports that view of Creation.
I stand by the brilliant Creationist scientists who refute your
statements as what is false.

Your view of creation is entirely innacurate, i'm sorry to say. And no, the vast majority of Christians do no accept your view of creation, it is only the fundamentalist, American Christians that tend to hold such a view.

Brilliant, creationist scientist is an oxymoron. One, there is no such thing as a creationist scientist, as creationism is not a field of science and never will be. Two, they have all been shown to be liars and have not produced a single piece of evidence supporting their position. They are neither brilliant, nor accurate.

Every creationist view has been shot down by science countless times. Every argument in support of your creationist view is riddled with holes. You can deny this all you want, I frankly don't care if wish to believe science is the spawn of the devil. <staff edit>

Jase · May 18, 2009

Nadiine said:
You'de be wise to heed the OT moral laws becuz the same laws
for morality continue today.

Most of them don't. Other than the 10 commandments, most the OT is a morality nightmare, and this is coming from a Jew who started learning the Tanakh in Hebrew as a child.

Unless bestiality which is right underneath the homosexuality law in Lev.
18 is also fine today now too? & incest & adultery.......
& the host of others.

How can you compare 1 instance in which no consent is possible, and 2 in which harm is done to homosexuality in which it is both consentual and harmless. Lest you forget, God allowed incest prior to Leviticus, so it wasn't always looked down upon.

I'm no hypocrite to relay God's moral laws as He gives them; I'm
under the same obligation to obey them like everyone else
and they carry on today as they did then; since they were and
are His standard of true Love.
What man has done is pervert His definitions of love and call that
love. They can get away with that down here, but there is a day of judgment on the way for rebellion & disobedience.

You aren't relaying God's moral laws, you are relaying your opinion on the ones you like and the ones you don't like. Wearing mixed clothing, eating, shellfish, not stoning rape victims, etc. were all morallly wrong in the Old Testament. You don't follow a single one. The only moral law you seem to follow is that homosexuality is an abomination, and that is why your arguments are based in hypocrisy.

Jase · May 18, 2009

TheLowlyTortoise said:
You're assuming she cares to understand it. Maybe she does understand it but chooses to reduce the idea to the extent of ridicule. Many Christians will never accept evolution, and it's not really important that they do, for them, or for science. I think evolution would be more agreeable to bible-believers if loud-mouth atheists in the field didn't go to great lengths to establish the ridiculous idea that evolution disproves God. Along with that is the idea that each step in the 'evolution' of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution of species all just happened without any cause, as if by chance.

Nadiine's post clearly prove that she does not understand evolutionary theory. A better approach would be to admit one doesn't understand, nor do they have any desire to, and not make claims against that which one does not understand ( such as creationism being science, or that most Christians agree with her view). There are certain militant atheists that do go out of their way to try and pigeon hole evolution into an anti-God platform, but as can be seen on this board in the origins theology forum, and throughout the world, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Those who accept both are known as theistic evolutionists - which make up the majority of Christians in the world outside of the United States.

Personally, I can see how God could have used evolution to create all the species of the world, but I can also see how evolution would make sense to most people even if a creationist view were true and evolution ultimately were not. To me, if evolution is God's mechanism for creation, he still did it in six days, but the relativity of time easily accounts for the discrepancy between the Genesis account and our observation today.

Evolution is an ongoing process that has taken billions of years. The whole of evolution certainly did not occur in 6 24 hour periods.

If evolution could produce one intelligent, creative, society-building species, shouldn't there be another different one by now?

Not necessarily.

I'm not sure most proponents of evolution understand the nature of science. (You mentioned something to the inverse effect.) They tend to present evolution as an established truth, but that goes against the fact that science is always re-establishing itself. Evolution cannot be proven, but it could be disproven by future scientific discoveries. The evidence may support evolution, but the same evidence means different things to different interpreters who apply it to Intelligent Design or even Creationism.

Most proponents of evolution do understand the nature of science, far more than those who reject it, because they tend to be far more educated on such matters. I can't think of a scientist who would ever claim any scientific theory is a fact. Theory is as good as it gets in science. From Gravity, to atoms, to germs, etc. - all are theories that can't be proven. The point taken on evolution is that evolution serves as the entire foundation of Biology, and biology is the least theoretical of all sciences. Evolution has far more evidence supporting it than any other scientific theory in existence. This includes the Theory of Gravity. Gravity is not a fact, regardless of what creationists might want to claim based on the current observation that dropping a rock in the air, will cause it to fall to the ground. It is a theory, with well supported evidence, but the complexities of it (especially related to astrophysics) are not nearly as well understood as those of evolution.

I guarantee you scientists would welcome the opportunity for evolution to be shown in error. They do not fear science being revised (like creationists do of creationism), because that is how it is improved. Science is not worshipped as a god by anyone.

But the fact remains, that based on the amount of evidence supporting evolution, the idea of it ever being proven entirely wrong is astronomically remote. Certain aspects of it will always be revised and further clarified. But to claim it isn't truthful would be wrong.

Rajni · May 18, 2009

Nadiine said:
Then according to this post, I CAN commit bestiality & incest, I can steal and lie and whatever else.

For someone to even suggest this illustrates how its not
what goes into us that defiles us, but what comes out. Why
are you listing these specific things as being attractive to
any God-loving human being, especially assuming that you
the one suggesting these things also love God?

Now, while you could engage in such behaviors as you
mentioned above, would you really want to? While all things
are permissible, not all things are beneficial (1 Corinthians
10:23).

Do you honestly believe that those who choose not to follow
or enforce any Levitical laws are running around committing
bestiality and incest?! If that were such an attractive idea,
dont you think they would find being on CF discussing these
things a complete waste of time when they could be out
there doing things which (youre seeming to suggest) are so
much more fun?

Why are you mingling ceremonial/dietary laws here?

Why insist there be any difference? Ceremonial, dietary, or
even traffic laws if its something God said Dont Do, ya
dont do it. You dont get to pick and choose which ones
others are going to obey and which ones youre going to
ignore. Law is Law. If God said no, that means no.
Therefore, if someone is going to pull God said dont do
this out of Leviticus, they had best better be sure theyre
following every single jot and tittle of that rulebook
beforehand, because otherwise they will (and do) end up
looking like a neon-bright hypocrite.

The LAW CHANGED thru Christ
Heb 7:12

Thank you. Amen.

WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE OF THE LAW WAS LOVE OF GOD
AND LOVE OF NEIGHBOR - THE LOVE LAWS which Jesus
directly reiterated in the NT - the love of neighborincludes ALL moral laws from the OT. Which I showed in Romans. Those moral laws display LOVE to others. They stand and continue.

True; love is good. I think we can all agree on that!

Unless you think I can murder anyone I want, or lie, cheat, steal abuse and commit adultery??

Well, I personally dont think that, but it seems you keep
insisting on it, which is a little unsettling. In any case, what
does lying, cheating, stealing, abusing, or committing
adultery have to do with the topic of the OP?

Also, it doesn't SUPPORT slavery, it gives instruction for proper treatment and the slavery wasn't even what we consider in our modern times.

Evidently the originators of our Christian Nation saw it as
supporting slavery taking the hideous form that it did. As
long as I live, Ill never get how Christians can insist that
our country was founded upon Christian principles with the
garbage they put slaves through.

I truly wish people would stop shoveling out these false and misinformed pretenses on what they THINK about scripture and actually look into the truth on what these things mean.

Nadiine, youre doing it again. Elevating what you think the
Scriptures mean as pure gospel while dismissing as invalid
those views which dont line up with your own. If you think
thats a virtue, guess again.

If you think this is actually true, then you SHOULD have a huge problem with God becuz you're using it negatively as if He's cruel. If He is, then why follow such a God? Last I checked, I thought we were all supposedly supposed to be on the same side of God?
Yet you use attack speech against Him.

Now it seems youre rambling. I dont even know which it it
is that youre referring to that were supposedly using
negatively.

Maybe it's a means to discredit the Bible & then claim to follow the same god? who knows anymore w/ people's loose theologies that ignore scripture or hack it to bits.

Nadiine, Ive said this before and Ill say it again. Simply
because someone doesnt agree with your concepts of what
Scripture is saying does not mean that theyre ignoring
scripture and hacking it to bits. Your tendency to demonize
those who disagree with you is very unchristian. Your
interpretation is not tantamount to Gods Word. If you truly
think it is, however, then perhaps you need to let the Pope
know hes been relieved of his duties.

OllieFranz · May 18, 2009

Thekla said:
This you'll need to explain - how is sibling love adultery ?

Consider this passage from the middle of the "incest" laws:

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.
Leviticus 18:8-10

Leviticus 20 is even more explicitly about adultery. The first command is against adultery. The "incest" verses and even the man-lying verse are clearly closing loopholes that someone might want to dig up.

The reason given for not "uncovering the nakedness" of the wife of a relative is that it shames the relative. "Uncovering the nakedness" of an unmarried woman similarly shames her father if he is your relative.

I am not quite as cynical as those who claim the Bible sees all women as property, but this does seem to be at least be related to whatever the actual underlying assumptions about the purpose and status of women were that give rise to such a reading.

A ban on marrying close relatives, even siblings, does not seem to appear directly anywhere in the Bible. In fact, Amnon seemed to believe there would be no problem getting David to approve of a marriage between him and his half-sister Tamar. After all, Sarah is described as Abraham's half-sister.

The problem in Leviticus is that an affair without a marriage contract (or the intention of contracting one), or adultery or even rape within the family unit does not show love and consideration for the family. As the old saying goes, "charity begins at home." If a person disrespects and dishonors his own family, how can he be trusted to respect anyone else?

Edited to add: This is getting to be off-topic and a distraction from the more important issue. If you wish to continue, either PM me or start a new thread

Thekla · May 18, 2009

Now, while you could engage in such behaviors as you
mentioned above, would you really want to? While all things
are permissible, not all things are beneficial (1 Corinthians
10:23).

What's the problem with a consenting, loving marital relationship between siblings ?

Thekla · May 18, 2009

OllieFranz said:
Consider this passage from the middle of the "incest" laws:
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.
Leviticus 18:8-10

Leviticus 20 is even more explicitly about adultery. The first command is against adultery. The "incest" verses and even the man-lying verse are clearly closing loopholes that someone might want to dig up.

The reason given for not "uncovering the nakedness" of the wife of a relative is that it shames the relative. "Uncovering the nakedness" of an unmarried woman similarly shames her father if he is your relative.

I am not quite as cynical as those who claim the Bible sees all women as property, but this does seem to be at least be related to whatever the actual underlying assumptions about the purpose and status of women were that give rise to such a reading.

A ban on marrying close relatives, even siblings, does not seem to appear directly anywhere in the Bible. In fact, Amnon seemed to believe there would be no problem getting David to approve of a marriage between him and his half-sister Tamar. After all, Sarah is described as Abraham's half-sister.

The problem in Leviticus is that an affair without a marriage contract (or the intention of contracting one), or adultery or even rape within the family unit does not show love and consideration for the family. As the old saying goes, "charity begins at home." If a person disrespects and dishonors his own family, how can he be trusted to respect anyone else?

So indeed, there is no real problem with siblings marrying !

Nadiine · May 18, 2009

Thekla said:
So indeed, there is no real problem with siblings marrying !

Oh thank God for that !!!!!!!!!!!!

Now if they can just get manage to get bestiality removed, we'll be all set!

Honestly, I wonder if people haven't come in the middle of
the night and switched bibles on everybody

Clearly the one I have isn't the one others seem to have.

Who knew Christianity would be such a breeze?
Do anything you want as long as the postmodern world
doesn't think it's "negative" and you'll have eternal life.
(Oh ya, and claim you believe Jesus).

Tissue · May 18, 2009

You are a very good fundamentalist, Nadiine, but you need to realize that the theological world you inhabit is not for everyone. We are sincere, we are intelligent, and we are trying to be as fair to Scripture as possible. Just because you do not understand our efforts doesn't mean you should imply we are deceitful, or false, or unintelligent.

There, I said it.

Nadiine · May 18, 2009

Tissue said:
You are a very good fundamentalist, Nadiine, but you need to realize that the theological world you inhabit is not for everyone. We are sincere, we are intelligent, and we are trying to be as fair to Scripture as possible. Just because you do not understand our efforts doesn't mean you should imply we are deceitful, or false, or unintelligent.

There, I said it.

God's TRUTH is for everyone - manipulation of scripture won't make
something true for someone. Or anyone for that matter.

I think I do understand your efforts - but I'm pretty sure CF might
not let me air them here.

The Bible says what it says very plainly in many subjects, esp. sin and how to be saved. People do a fairer job with interpreting
science fiction than bible verses and I think the reason why is
obvious, fiction doesn't tell us what we can't do in real life
or judge us.

But we are told that the natural man cannot understand scripture
becuz it's spiritually discernable... so many won't be able to
interpret it for what it says (most likely becuz they don't want
the truth).

Additionally, if you want to attribute nearly everything to
metaphor and analogy, then none of you guys can claim I'm
wrong becuz metaphor and analogy render scripture relative
to the reader's interpretation....
so...... either way I'm in pretty good shape =D

Tissue · May 18, 2009

The Bible says very few things 'plainly'. I am always being re-educated in things that I thought were excessively clear when I was younger, but that a new understanding of the original text has moved to a different light.

Nadiine, there are people who make the same claim that you do (that is, that Scripture is common sense), yet read some verses completely differently than you do. If you grant them sincerity, doesn't that give you reason to pause for thought?

PeacaHeaven · May 18, 2009

Nadiine said:
I LOVE the overwhelming evidence

What's proven false is that great, great grandpappy was
a baboon

Thekla · May 18, 2009

Although I posted from this essay in another thread in this subforum, it seemed appropriate to do so here as well.

As I have only "clipped" from the article, it is recommended to read the piece in its entirety (linked below).

If the ‘image of God’ cannot and should not be restrained to the ‘soul’ what else may this concept refer to? The ‘image of God’ is, on one hand, unity in diversity (horizontal dimension), and on the other hand, a constant dialog between God and man (vertical dimension). By its horizontal dimension, the ‘image of God’ connects us to one another as a large family whose unity is dynamically supported by the diversity of the human persons. By its vertical dimension, the ‘image of God’ sets us in a living, hardly predictable, yet always wonderful, relationship with our Creator.

“And God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image, according to our likeness. It shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth and all creeping things that creep on earth.’ And God created humanity in his image, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them.”

This short fragment speaks about God’s deliberation and humanity’s creation in the image of its creator. The plural ‘Let us make humanity…’ was variously interpreted by the ancient interpreters. From the onset, the explanation of the plural as a royal ‘we’ should be avoided because this kind of plural is not quite frequent in biblical Hebrew. The singular ‘our image’ instead of ‘our images’ is a strong argument in defending the thesis that God spoke those words to an equal-in-rank person rather than to his servants. Ephraem the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 1:28) explains, “The Father commanded with his voice; it was the Son who carried out the work.” As for our proposed rendition of Hebrew adam with ‘humanity’ instead of ‘man’ as some of modern translations choose to do, an observation is appropriate at this juncture. This translation is not determined by the author’s desire to be politically correct regarding the gender issues raised by the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis. It is rather dictated by the peculiar character of the Genesis creation account which insists on humanity rather than individuals. While the extra-biblical evidence, and I am referring here to the most important ancient Near Eastern myths, proclaims in unison that gods created from the very beginning humans in one-act creation, the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 1-2) proposes a more complex view, first a genderless entity, then a male-female polarity. Gen 1:27 is supported by Gen 5:2 where the two humans, male and female, are called with the collective adam ‘humanity’: “Male and female he created them. He blessed them and gave them the name ‘humanity,’ when they were created.”

The text of Gen 1:26-27 deals with the notion of ‘image’ under its horizontal dimension as diversity in unity of humans. In short, we are informed about the content of the diversity and how this diversity may be kept under control by the primordial unity. The diversity mentioned in v. 27 may be defined as a gender distinction. This is the only distinction willed and designed by God with respect to humans. As one knows, the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ labeled the text of Gen 1:26-27 as belonging to the Priestly Source due to its ‘majestic’ or ‘abstract’ outlook. Yet such a source-critical conclusion is contradicted by the presence of two graphic terms in v. 27 for defining the polarity male-female. One might want to mention that Hebrew has several pairs of words with respect to the man-woman distinction, as for instance, ’ish ‘male’ (perhaps from ’-sh-sh, Arabic ’atta ‘to grow profusely&#8217 and ’ishsha ‘female’ (perhaps from a root *’-n-sh ‘to be weak&#8217, underscoring the social difference between man and woman. In our text, the author uses another pair, zakar ‘male’ (basic meaning ‘phallus’, perhaps from z-k-r II ‘to be strong&#8217 and nekeba ‘female’ (Latin perforata, as sexual being, from n-k-b ‘to make a hole, to perforate&#8217 with emphasis on gender distinction. The clear cut division of the text into ‘sources’ advocated and performed by the proponents of the literary (source) criticism does not work in this pericope where graphic terms defining the male-female distinction coexist with God’s ‘majestic’ description. At any event, the unity seems to precede and put its print on the gender differentiation.

Moreover, the humanity has had a strong personal / dialogical tendency since its first breath, hence its imperious longing for dialogue. The second step of humanity’s creation translates into the fashioning of an opposite help from inside the humanity that will fulfill both needs.

The humanity is created as a person by God, in a face-to-face dialogue of ‘breathing of life’ (Gen 2:7). So when this humanity is reshaped as male and female, the gender distinction enriches itself with a personal dimension. The other living creatures do not have such a personal distinction because they are brought into existence by a simple creative word/act of God without his personal involvement as in humanity’s case (compare Gen 2:7 with, for instance, Gen 1:20-21). If the living creatures have a unity, this is a unity of species and not a unity of nature God intended for humanity.

The Web Site of Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc

What is worth noting, is that the Judeo-Christian understanding locates the being of "human" in marriage. The Christian understanding goes further; human is created in the image of God, the Trinity.

Marriage is blessed in Christ, and Christ is the ultimate "head" of the marriage. Roughly speaking, to "halves of humanity" in marriage become "one human" who as one become whole in relationship (face to face as one) with God.

The single person becomes "whole" face to face with God. God is the Creator; the "half-humanity" of the single person (ie not completed by its other or opposite) is filled by Christ, the Saviour who makes whole.

JediMobius · May 18, 2009

Jase said:
Nadiine's post clearly prove that she does not understand evolutionary theory. A better approach would be to admit one doesn't understand, nor do they have any desire to, and not make claims against that which one does not understand ( such as creationism being science, or that most Christians agree with her view). There are certain militant atheists that do go out of their way to try and pigeon hole evolution into an anti-God platform, but as can be seen on this board in the origins theology forum, and throughout the world, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Those who accept both are known as theistic evolutionists - which make up the majority of Christians in the world outside of the United States.

So we've moved from the assumption that one cares to understand to the assumption that one, if understanding, would care about the better approach. This isn't an evolution forum, there's no point in an actual evolutionary debate.

Evolution is an ongoing process that has taken billions of years. The whole of evolution certainly did not occur in 6 24 hour periods.

Who said '6 24-hour periods'? I didn't. Man wasn't created until the sixth day, and only man regards a day as 24 hours on earth. God regards a day as something more like a thousand years, not literally a thousand years, so that could conceivably mean millions or billions of years. Even then, I still hold that scientific observation of time-frames is subject to incongruity with the actual time frame according to the relativity of time.

Not necessarily.

If evolution is true, its results will be repeated. That's science.

Most proponents of evolution do understand the nature of science, far more than those who reject it, because they tend to be far more educated on such matters. I can't think of a scientist who would ever claim any scientific theory is a fact. Theory is as good as it gets in science. From Gravity, to atoms, to germs, etc. - all are theories that can't be proven. The point taken on evolution is that evolution serves as the entire foundation of Biology, and biology is the least theoretical of all sciences. Evolution has far more evidence supporting it than any other scientific theory in existence. This includes the Theory of Gravity. Gravity is not a fact, regardless of what creationists might want to claim based on the current observation that dropping a rock in the air, will cause it to fall to the ground. It is a theory, with well supported evidence, but the complexities of it (especially related to astrophysics) are not nearly as well understood as those of evolution.

I guarantee you scientists would welcome the opportunity for evolution to be shown in error. They do not fear science being revised (like creationists do of creationism), because that is how it is improved. Science is not worshipped as a god by anyone.

Oh, I can't think of a scientist who would claim it's fact, but I've seen many non-scientist evolution proponents treat it like one, even if they don't use the word fact explicitly, though many have. Just a note, you really don't need to explain science to me. The only thing I didn't already know is that evolution has more support and understanding than gravity.

But the fact remains, that based on the amount of evidence supporting evolution, the idea of it ever being proven entirely wrong is astronomically remote. Certain aspects of it will always be revised and further clarified. But to claim it isn't truthful would be wrong.

There it is! That's not a fact, that's an opinion. The only factual assertion in that paragraph is of revision and clarification. It is entirely possible that evolutionary science has missed one crucial piece of evidence that, once discovered, would dismantle the entire model. So, to claim it isn't truthful is only to see the evidence from a different perspective, and that's not wrongful.

JediMobius · May 18, 2009

OllieFranz said:
OK, just sticking with chapter 18, it is sinful to sleep with a woman -- any woman, even your wife -- at any time other than the five days a month when she is most fertile. Why don't we ever hear you railing against those men?

Oh, is that verse 19.5? I don't have that. Seriously, where do you find that?

Thekla said:
In like manner, it should be noted that Paul only condemns mother-son incest;
why do we stigmatize loving sexual relationships between siblings ?
The condemnation of incest occurs also in Leviticus, and is thus argued to be the "old Law".

Why would Paul need to address any other sin than what is relevant to the church he is addressing?

Tissue said:
The Bible says very few things 'plainly'. I am always being re-educated in things that I thought were excessively clear when I was younger, but that a new understanding of the original text has moved to a different light.

Nadiine, there are people who make the same claim that you do (that is, that Scripture is common sense), yet read some verses completely differently than you do. If you grant them sincerity, doesn't that give you reason to pause for thought?

Who said common sense? Analytical thought is not a common sense, and spiritual discernment seems equally uncommon. If she and I can independently arrive at the same conclusion, maybe that should give you reason to pause for thought.

If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Thekla

Guest

Senior Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Senior Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Thekla

Guest

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency