Let’s call the evolution debate off.

[Word of Peace]

I see no reason to stop the debate. Other issues are, of course, more important, but I also see good that can come from the debate.

That being said, I think that a) people are more hostile than they should be, and b) it would be nice if we also discussed something more than just Creationism/Evolutionism. To that end, I might post some scientific questions and discussions when I get the time.

 

[lucaspa]

I see no reason to stop the debate. Other issues are, of course, more important, but I also see good that can come from the debate.

That being said, I think that a) people are more hostile than they should be, and b) it would be nice if we also discussed something more than just Creationism/Evolutionism. To that end, I might post some scientific questions and discussions when I get the time.

What is "evolutionism"?

 

[lucaspa]

yea, like i said, you call sin aceptable,

One more time: I question whether homosexuality is a sin.

The issue of homosexuality reminds me of the issue of slavery. The Bible definitely condones slavery. In the OT there are rules about how you may treat a slave, but no doubt that you can own one. In Leviticus there are even rules about exactly how to sell your daughter into slavery and how much you can get for her! In the NT Paul condones slavery.

So, based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible, the abolitionists had no basis to say that slavery was wrong and that it was a sin to be a slaveholder. The Bible hasn't changed, has it? Those passages and verses are still there. But we no longer believe that slavery is right and acceptable. Why is that? Is it based on a broader understanding of the Bible, putting the Golden Rule first over individual passages, or has the Holy Spirit given us new insight into what God wants that God didn't put into the Bible?

this is simply an impass that will not be solved t'll you become humble unto the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Or until you do. Again, the underlying presumption of the correctness of your view shows thru. We are discussing whether you are correct. I suggest you try some of that "humble" you are urging on others.

i can only hope and pray you'll spread more salvation and humbleness than ignorance and pride.

I think tolerance and love of your fellow humans qualifies as salvation and humbleness. I am humble enough not to judge until I've walked a mile in another person's shoes. Intolerance and bigotry have always been associated with ignorance and pride. So I'm not worried. Perhaps you should be?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I question whether homosexuality is a sin.

using the same logic you can start questioning sexual morality of all kinds, NAMBLA uses an argument simaler to yours. We arn't talking logical proof, we're talking moral standards, when looking at a society's decodent decay moral standards need to apply. Disregarding the ovious view the bible puts forth leads us into disregard of all sorts of rebuke.

Perhaps you should be?

I'm no bigot, but that you resort to that argument shows the emotional base that you're intelectualizing from.

Or until you do.

that IS the point of this thread, to understand that we are people of different faith who need to stop the back-bigting and self-rigtiousness and spread the word of salvation through Christ.

In the NT Paul condones slavery.

this isn't true, he condones working whare the Lord has put you in life for Christ.

the OT Law freed the slaved every 7 years, something a lot better than the corperate surfs are stuck in today.

I think tolerance and love of your fellow humans qualifies as salvation

salvation without mention of Christ...

Matthew 10:14
`And whoever may not receive you nor hear your words, coming forth from that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.



Mark 6:11
and as many as may not receive you, nor hear you, going out thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony to them; verily I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in a day of judgment than for that city.'


Luke 9:5
and as many as may not receive you, going forth from that city, even the dust from your feet shake off, for a testimony against them.'

Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

 

[lucaspa]

using the same logic you can start questioning sexual morality of all kinds, NAMBLA uses an argument simaler to yours. We arn't talking logical proof, we're talking moral standards,

I don't think so. After all, adultery, rape and pedophilia violate the Golden Rule; they cause demonstrable harm to others. Now, the logic would allow consenting adults a wide range of behavior, much of what most of us would call "deviant" and not to our tastes.

when looking at a society's decodent decay moral standards need to apply. Disregarding the ovious view the bible puts forth leads us into disregard of all sorts of rebuke.

But the decadent standards Paul was ranting against were not homosexuals in stable, long term loving relationships. He was ranting against orgies, child rape, homosexual prostitution, and shallow, promiscuous relationships. Those apply equally well to heterosexuals as to homosexuals. So, you can make an argument against those independent of the sexuality of the individual.

I'm no bigot, but that you resort to that argument shows the emotional base that you're intelectualizing from.

LOL. You started the emotional base when you told me:
"i can only hope and pray you'll spread more salvation and humbleness than ignorance and pride." Now, it looks to me like you called me ignorant and prideful. That isn't emotional? At the least you were saying that I was spreading ignorance.

So I responded by saying
"I think tolerance and love of your fellow humans qualifies as salvation and humbleness. I am humble enough not to judge until I've walked a mile in another person's shoes. Intolerance and bigotry have always been associated with ignorance and pride. So I'm not worried. Perhaps you should be?"

Apparently that hit a little close to home for you. All I said was that I was tolerant and loving of my fellow humans, no matter their sexual orientation. I did hint that you might want to examine your own position to see if you were spreading salvation and humbleness.

I said "bigotry", not "you are a bigot". Sorry if the word offends you, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, just as you didn't choose to be heterosexual. It's hardwired into our genes, just as skin color, height, eye color, etc. are hardwired into our genes. When you attach other characteristics unrelated to those genes -- immorality, laziness, stupidity (all used for blacks like you are using "sin" for homosexuals) -- then that is bigotry. Are you doing that? Read back thru your previous posts and see for yourself.

that IS the point of this thread, to understand that we are people of different faith who need to stop the back-bigting and self-rigtiousness and spread the word of salvation through Christ.

You can't do that by using false witness. Notice that most of the time it is the creationists who do the attacking and theistic evolutionists who do the defending. Magus, you started out your participation in this thread attacking evolution and theistic evolutionists! You didn't reach this "stop the back biting" until your position got clobbered. Then suddenly it's not "I'm sorry, but I was wrong about evolution." -- the humble approach -- but "please stop".

Creationism is not the good guy. Creationism is the greatest danger Christianity is facing today. It hands the cultural war right to the militant atheists. Look at the "cranky" sites. It allows non-Christians to dismiss Christianity as "cranky" and all Christians as cranks. How many times on this forum have we seen the charge that anyone accepting evolution is not a "true Christian"? Crusadar just did it two days ago in his thread. You want to convince someone, talk to him. What it looks like to me is that you want people to stop critically examining creationism.

this isn't true, he condones working whare the Lord has put you in life for Christ.

And if that is slavery, then slavery is OK. He doesn't say slavery is an injustice.

the OT Law freed the slaved every 7 years, something a lot better than the corperate surfs are stuck in today.

The "corporate surfs" can quit at any time. They are free to find another job. Or they are free to starve. Slaves can't quit.

I think tolerance and love of your fellow humans qualifies as salvation

salvation without mention of Christ

Not in that sentence, but the sentence of yours I responded to didn't mention Christ either, did it? Where did Christ condemn homosexuality?

"i can only hope and pray you'll spread more salvation and humbleness than ignorance and pride."

Your words I responded to. No where in there did you mention Christ? Sauce for the goose.

Matthew 10:14
`And whoever may not receive you nor hear your words, coming forth from that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Mark 6:11
and as many as may not receive you, nor hear you, going out thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony to them; verily I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in a day of judgment than for that city.'

Luke 9:5
and as many as may not receive you, going forth from that city, even the dust from your feet shake off, for a testimony against them.'

BTW, did it occur to you that this is not 3 testimonies, but one? Same story told by 3 people. Retelling it 3 times doesn't give it more "authority".

Now, I know what Jesus was saying with the words, but what do you think you are saying?