Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
John
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 239 (27236)
12-18-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by funkmasterfreaky
12-18-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
zipzip, be careful what you say here, I think John likes to get Christians to blow up and freak out, in order to make you look the fool. Sorry John.
Very sweet of you to warn zipzip, but I don't want people to blow up and freak out. I just want people to stop making thoughtless assertions and start making arguments. This, it looks like zipzip has finally done.
quote:
God did do all the good stuff and man all the evil, it's true. Biblically anyway.
But, funk, this is exactly the part I contradicted, and posted verse after verse as support. How about one more?
God: Isaih 45:7 writes:
I make peace and create evil
quote:
I wouldn't say you don't assume what people think John, there have been plenty of times I've had to clarify because you've made incorrect assumptions.
Short of my learning to read minds, I am going to misunderstand things now and then. And so are you. And so is anyone else. That is not the same as that to what I was responding.
quote:
John this is a pride issue, you claim not to believe therefore we as believers attempt to instruct you in the TRUTHS of the bible.
There you go assuming that you know the truth. This is the problem. You don't, but think you do, and climb up onto this pedestal.
quote:
BTW I am not taking a stab at you here John, just trying to help you see were we are coming from.
I know where you are coming from, funk. Truly, I do. I have been around this posturing all my life.
quote:
John you are consistently taking old testament occurances and calling them condoned by God. Oh whatever I give up. I can't get this point through anywhere.
Some things God condemns. Some things God approves. Some things God lets go without comment. Now, a just God would let atrocities go without comment? A good God would reward those who slaughter whole cities, and say nothing? Come on, funk. Wake up.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-18-2002 1:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 239 (27251)
12-18-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by zipzip
12-18-2002 5:50 AM


Lets think about why I said what I did. Because my response exists in context as well. And the following is that context.
zipzip (post #150) writes:
in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder
Here is a direct comparison of Isrealite practise to that of the surrounding peoples. Apparently the aim is to elevate the Isrealites above their neighbors. This was, in fact, the aim of the OT-- ie. tribal glue. I maintain that this elevated status is false, and the Isrealites were in most ways indistinguishable from their neighbors.
A similar statement is here:
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest, prohibitions against eating raw meat, the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on.
This statement is simply untrue. Levitical law does not contain modern prohibitions against rape. Whatever prohibitions there are against incest are not unique. All cultures have prohibitions against incest. The same is true of raw meat to a lesser extent. The same is true of touching wounds, and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
1)It starts right off the bat with Adam n Eve's kids.
Well, you skipped this one, probably thinking it was included in the next point. Here we have Adam and Eve in an incestous-- well, stranger than that-- relationship. GOD made it this way. I don't think you can deny that. This is pretty much the same story you get with most mythology, pretty much world-wide, though I am sure there are exceptions. People apparently can't come up with a better story. The Isrealites, therefore, are just like their neighbors in this reguard.
John writes:
Lot's daughters take a ride on old dad in Gen. 19:30-38.
quote:
but in any case suggests that either the cultural and religious context of the events made such an opinion redundant or that the writer (and therefore God) is giving this event a pass.
You have a book in which God, supposedly, repeatedly complains and condemns the same things over and over again. Thus, your first option is nonsensical. Leaving only the second.
Read a novel. The characters are constantly being modified by just the sort of 'redundancies' which you claim are reasonably left out. It does not make sense. Skip a paragraph and we come back to this.
Another way to look at is that this book is supposed to be a guide given by God. Recounting the sins of the very founders of the culture but not taking any notice of it makes no sense. God does not hesitate to chastise and to punish even the prophets themselves, why does the actions of Lot's daughters not get a single tiny whimper? It doesn't make sense.
Yet another approach is to think about how people communicate. Choice of wording matters. Words not chosen, matter. That the account is 'dryly written' has meaning. How would you feel about a 'dry' account of the holocaust? Would YOU write a 'dry' account of such an event? Your analysis forgets such effects, or ignores them. Yet, such cannot be brushed aside if you want an honest analysis.
quote:
Since a number of OT passages are very clear on incest, drunkeness and whatever else went on here, and the audience was a Hebrew one, it is reasonable to assume that the automatic response would be strong disapproval.
We are talking about the actions of, or the tales of, those people from whom the Isrealites are supposed to learn these values, these reactions of approval or disapproval. We are talking about the source for this knowledge. Claiming that the knowledge ought to be there already and hence needn't be stated is contradictory.
quote:
The idea that God is giving this event a pass is not supportable given the local and/or global (textual) context in which this event occurs.
This has not been supported.
quote:
What we do note from the text is that this was a pairing of desperation rather than incestuous desire.
Obviously. I know of no civilization that practices incest as a general rule, and very few allow it in special cases. What you have done is argue that special circumstances make it ok. The same argument can be made for other cultures as well. Thus, the Isrealites are not special in this respect.
quote:
Lot's daughters were isolated from civilization after the destruction of Sodom, with no hopes for marriage or family.
This makes very little sense. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed, however, what happened to the rest of humanity? Now Gen. 19:30 has Lot leaving Zoar, a city to which he fled to avoid the destruction of S&G. So quite obviously there were people around. Not to mention that Abraham was near enough to see the smoke from the destruction. Gen. 19:28.
quote:
Their main concern is that they "preserve our family line through our father." Rather than waiting for God, they do this despicable and pitiful thing.
A despicable thing which in the midst of the mother of all morality tales, God doesn't bother to criticise. It is nonsense.
quote:
It is interesting to note that the outcome of this pairing takes the form of two sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi, which the text notes are the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites.
Yes indeed. The tale slander. Now that does make sense.
http://www.hobrad.com/andl.htm writes:
Thus Genesis, in the story of Lot and his daughters, pulls a rather sly little trick. It matter-of-factly presents two troublesome neighbors of Israel--Moab and Ammon, lying east of the Jordan River--as children of incest, without passing any judgment on the three incestuous Hebrew parents.
quote:
God has the power to transform the outcome of any sin to produce good.
Hand waving.
quote:
Although this is a difficult text, it is straightforward in the sense that understanding the intended audience and the scriptural context clears up any apparent discrepancies. This is why, for instance, the original authors who wrote this text and generations of Jews studying the Torah have not stumbled over this passage.
People do not stumble because people 1)originally had no problem with it which is why God said nothing and 2)people apologize for it as you have done.
John writes:
2)Rueben sleeps with his dad's concubine in Gen 35:22.
This brings the sons of Jacob to twelve. God does, in Gen. 49:4, state that Rueben will not excel because of this; right after, in Gen 49:3, lavishing some hefty praise on him.
This passage appears to me to be straightforward.
You've demonstrated that Reuben was punished for his romp. It isn't the proscribed punishment however, which is death, at least for wives. I don't see a specific mention of sex with one's father's concubine.
But this wasn't the focus I had intended. What struck me is the peculiar juxtaposition of this incestous union and the beginning of the count of Jacob's sons. It doesn't make sense unless the two are related. Otherwise it just comes from nowhere. I have to conclude that some part of the story is missing.
At any rate, I accept the explaination.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by zipzip, posted 12-18-2002 5:50 AM zipzip has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 239 (27257)
12-18-2002 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by zipzip
12-17-2002 11:55 AM


Rape:
Lev. 19:20-22 A very appropriate punishment for rape....
Num. 31
Duet. 20:14 Keep the women for yourselves. I guess it pays to be in God's army.
Duet. 21:11-14.
Duet. 22:28-29. Does this strike you as fair?
Judges 5:30
Judges 14:1-3
Judges 19:22-30 Probably the most vicious passage in the OT.
Okay John I'll take a run at these passages I'm sure you'll let me know if it's not sufficient. My knowledge of the law is limited, I admit but let's give it a try anyway. (I wish this forum had a pre-post function, where you could send your post to those who agree with you and have them help you with wording and such, before you post it on the board)
-First off I think this passage is out of context as far as applying to the heading rape.
Leviticus 19
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven. "
NIV (I usually use the old King James but this is easier for someone who doesn't read the KJV all the time)
-So I think this has to do with sleeping with a slave girl who belongs to someone else, has not been freed from their slavery or is otherwise married or pledged to someone else.
-They cannot be put to death for this crime because the woman is a slave. So this doesn't have directly to do with rape. Unless you have an objection.
-Also worth noting is that rape is not condoned, God doesn't say go ahead and rape young virgins.
What were you getting at with Numbers 31 ?
Deuteronomy 20
14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
(NIV)
Would you rather that they left them behind after they had killed all the men? In this particular point in time there were much more savage foes than the Israelites, who would definately take advantage of these defenceless women and children. Probably helped add to the gene pool too, avoiding deformities and all.
Deuteronomy 21
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
-Considering the culture I think this is pretty honourable. The women are provided for, they are given time to grieve their loss and offered a new beggining. If things don't work out then she is free, cannot be sold or treated as a slave. Again we see that God wants to provide for the children and the widowed.
Deuteronomy 22
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [1] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
(NIV)
-Okay for one thing this kind of crime can never really be attoned for, the pain and suffering of this woman and her family is something that a man cannot reverse.
-However he is now responsible for that girl, he has defiled her. The silver to the father is something like a dowry, considering his daughter is defiled and would likely not be married off otherwise. In this culture what would you do if you were not married and your father and mother died, you would be in a terrible position. So to kill the man for this crime would solve nothing. Better that he marry her and never be able to cut her loose. In this way he makes some atonement to the family and to the young woman.
Judges 5
30 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
a girl or two for each man,
colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,
colorful garments embroidered,
highly embroidered garments for my neck-
all this as plunder?
(NIV)
-In this particular case John I believe that this is speaking of Sisera's army. Sisera's husband is wondering where he is and her "wise women" are suggesting that he is gathering the plunder and that is why he has not returned. When in fact he will not return because in vs 25-27 it tells us that Jael has slain him.
Judges 14
Samson's Marriage
1 Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. 2 When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife."
3 His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?"
But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me."
-Umm what? Samson chose a Philistine woman for a wife, his parents understandably would rather he married an Israelite woman. However he wanted this Philistine woman, which turned out to be his undoing. What was your problem here? Sorry not sure.
The last passage you have there is Judges 19:22-30. I read the whole acount of the story, not just the passage you quote here. Now the first thing I noticed is that nowhere is God mentioned in this chapter. It's not his idea or doing. Seems just a historical account of a terrible thing. It is savage I agree completely. Still is not commanded by God, or condoned. It seems to be just history.
Does this help with any of those passages John? I tried to do the best I can personally do with this. I'm going to see what I can find about this last passage in particular. Judges is considered a historical book.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 11:55 AM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by John, posted 12-19-2002 12:23 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 239 (27302)
12-19-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by funkmasterfreaky
12-18-2002 6:22 PM


New thread, funk, this is going too far off topic.
EvC Forum: Biblical atrocities... ????
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-18-2002 6:22 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 202 of 239 (27358)
12-19-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by zipzip
12-18-2002 2:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
I don't understand, what is the point of taking this out of context? The beginning of the passage is earlier:
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in the safety in your land.
I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid....
...I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers and I will keep my covenant with you...
v.14: But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail t carry out all my commands, and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you...
v.18: If after all this you will not listen to me...
v.21: If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me...
v.23: If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me...
v.27: If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile to me...
v.40: But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers -- their treachery against me and their hostility toward me...
In other words, these people just would not get the picture and God removed his blessing from them.
The grand sweep of the history of Israel is one of a wayward child that continually cycles between desperate wickedness and disobedience (anywhere from sacrificing on the high places to sacrificing children to Molech like their neighbors) and acknowledgment of the one true God. Despite their incredible history of betrayal, forgetfulness, and ingratitude, God repeatedly takes Israel back.

Funk made the claim that God only did good.
God doesn't make that claim. God very much is the cause of suffering in the above passage, so I don't know why Funk thinks that God doesn't cause bad things to happen.
Why does it matter if it is a punishment for not following him? Bad is bad. Revenge and punishment is revenge and piunishment. God does it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by zipzip, posted 12-18-2002 2:30 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by zipzip, posted 12-19-2002 4:37 PM nator has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 239 (27398)
12-19-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by nator
12-19-2002 11:02 AM


I agree that bad things happen to certain people in the Bible that repeatedly disobey God after they have been warned. Punishment, justice, bad stuff, whatever you want to call it is fine with me. Most of the time, though, God is patient. That's the point of all those passages in Proverbs about the sun rising on the good as well as the wicked, etc.
However, I was only taking exception with you terming these punishments "evil". This passage describes people doing terrible, despicable things with the full knowledge that they are directly disobeying God's commands, even after being warned repeated by God to stop or face the consequences. (although actually, this passage is just the warning and not a record of what happened). Whether this makes them evil and stupid or just evil, I'm not sure. But I have little sympathy for them and have no problem with God warning people like this to shape up or allowing the awful repercussions of their deeds to catch up with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 11:02 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 2:55 AM zipzip has replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 239 (27452)
12-20-2002 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by zipzip
12-19-2002 4:37 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by zipzip:
[B]I agree that bad things happen to certain people in the Bible that repeatedly disobey God after they have been warned. Punishment, justice, bad stuff, whatever you want to call it is fine with me. Most of the time, though, God is patient. That's the point of all those passages in Proverbs about the sun rising on the good as well as the wicked, etc." -end of quote
Isn't it just possible that the "evil" that follows certain "ungodly" conduct is simply the natural consequence of a certain set of behaviors, and not at all the result of some divine justice?
If one does not think of God as actively involved in the daily affairs of mankind, many of these difficulties vanish. If one allows that the OT was written by an ancient, primitive people who understood the world through the eyes of their times and used the same justification systems people do today(i.e. God is on MY side so whatever I do is okay.), then these passages, along with many others, become far less of an issue. We are, however, left to examine our beliefs with a terrible honesty.
What if I, with no risk to myself, could go into a burning building and save the life of an innocent child, and yet stood by and allowed a needless, horrible death to occur? What would you think of me? I imagine I'd be voted the king bastard of the world.
Christian principle, which I highly honor, dictates that I act proactively to aid those in need. Yet every day we see children die in exactly such a way. My own conclusion, which I offer as simply that and no more, is that the notion of an actively involved God is faulty, or He would interfere. There is no justice in life (Check out Ecclesiastes.)in the OT or on 9/11 or today or, I expect, tomorrow.
Our spiritual lives have nothing to do with any of that, in spite of how we choose to relate to the scriptures of any faith.
As it directly relates to the threads stated topic of homosexuality, anything forced to grow in the dark becomes funky. But if people were free to pursue their own path without the fear of violence and sanction, we might be suprised at who we meet and value.
There is no point to the Law except to break us all. No one of us is even remotely good in all things. So why pick out a few verses and damn some folks? Maybe it keeps us from looking under our own beds at what hides there.
Of course, I could be mistaken.
(By the way, can any one tell me how to put the quotes into the proper format/indention, whatever? Sorry to bother, but I just don't see how you all do it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by zipzip, posted 12-19-2002 4:37 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by zipzip, posted 12-20-2002 5:33 AM shilohproject has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 239 (27462)
12-20-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by shilohproject
12-20-2002 2:55 AM


I agree with you on some points, I think. I think our actions have consequences, and that is supported in the Bible.
So one form of God's intervention is indirect -- the consequences of our own actions can be our undoing when we stray from God's will. He asks us to live a certain way, we don't on purpose and he allows us to face the consequences. I don't count dying heroically to save someone from a fire as an undoing, because our eternal well-being is God's first priority. In the Christian sense, life is eternal so no matter if you die if you know him (Paul says "for me to live is Christ, to die is gain"). It is just a matter of whether you choose to spend it with God or apart from him for eternity.
Another form of intervention is direct, and there are (like indirect) a number of examples in the Bible. This is where God actively intervenes. This includes the acts of Jesus and the Apostles.
As to why God does not always intervene to stop 'evildoers' before they do evil, that has been a matter of debate amongst theologians and laypeople for many years. My personal take is that free will plays an important role -- God allows us to make decisions and influence the lives of others. We will be judged on how we influence others.
That's a tough answer but from the numerous examples of God's mercy and compassion in the Bible, I accept that he will judge us fairly, including taking into account every possible thing in our hearts, which he knows more intimately than we do. The point is, he judges --not us. If you believe in him, you have to have faith in his wisdom because we cannot fathom his thoughts ("my ways are not your ways...")
That brings up the original point of homosexuality. God loves homosexuals an infinite amount, more than we could possibly imagine, the same as heterosexuals. Like everybody else, homosexuals are of infinite value as people. But the same as adultery, promiscuity, and a multitud of other ways we can disobey God, this is one behavior that we know from Scripture that God didn't intend for us.
So you can be a active homosexual Christian the same that you can be an adulterous Christian, or a Christian who lusts, or drinks too much. Or one bowled over by the insidious sin of pride, which blinds us to all others. God has mercy on us and forgives any sin if we seek him faithfully, and gives us the gift of introspection so we learn to see our own hearts in more detail.
But the NT is clear that we 'grieve the Holy Spirit' when we continually and willfully disobey God's instruction (def. of sin) and do not try to turn away (repent) from our disobedience, and this stunts Christian growth and keeps us from knowing him as we should and becoming the kind of people that he made us to be.
I don't think an active, teaching-others-its-okay homosexuality is okay in a Christian for that reason. If it is a struggle and you slip now and again, be open about it but continue to reach out to others for support, struggle, and pray -- don't teach others that because it is so hard to beat that it must be okay.
It is the same as any other willful disobedience that we all struggle with -- damn hard to kick (and maybe we never do), and requiring faith in God to make it happen. The answer is to trust God and persevere (see Hebrews ch.12), not give in and then rationalize. That is the basis of the Christian struggle and it is hard work for everybody. Often the weakness is the blessing because it makes it obvious to us just how much we need the Lord and we seek him all the more.
None of this is any excuse for someone, a Christian or anybody else, to judge someone else. The only think I think has a place is discernment, discrimination (in the good sense of determining what is spiritually edifying and what is not), encouragement and support. In other words, if somebody is just happy doing something that you think is wrong and doesn't want support or encouragment in their nonexistant struggle with sin, then move on and maybe later they will decide to change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 2:55 AM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 11:27 AM zipzip has replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 239 (27483)
12-20-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by zipzip
12-20-2002 5:33 AM


Zip-
Certainly you have done a fine job of outlining the standard, churched response, but I fear that in doing so the central point of my post was missed: there is no reason to believe that God intervenes directly in the lives of men and women, except for the unobservable and unproovable reliance on often contradictory understandings of scripture.
It is often asked if the age of miracles is past. Jesus Himself is quoted as having said that it is an evil generation that seeks a sign. Too often we attribute anything good to a divine involvement and yet avoid the nasty conclusion that bad must also be under the control of God, if He indeed is actively involved the lives of mankind.
Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that we are piloting our own ships and should sail them toward God, as a reasonable reading of scripture requires, rather that expecting a blessing or a curse to influence our lives?
A tornado is no more an "act of God" getting the bad guys in tornado ally any more than the child born with HIV disease is the punishment on the mother for using IV drugs; in both cases the innocent are hurt, and that is a clear violation of Deut. 24.16 which demands individual punishment for "sin."
All of the things I have seen in life have a reasonable, natural explaination. They are not the unexplainable, unfathomable "ways of God."
One exception: Love. Who can explain to me why my heart soars when my daughter tells me that I have a thin spot on top of my head?
Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by zipzip, posted 12-20-2002 5:33 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by zipzip, posted 12-20-2002 7:39 PM shilohproject has not replied
 Message 233 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 9:47 AM shilohproject has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 239 (27532)
12-20-2002 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shilohproject
12-20-2002 11:27 AM


Shiloh, I agree mostly about bad things happening and it not being God's direct action. But almost any Christian will tell you that God has intervened directly in their lives, and is a real presence to them. Remember the scripture where Elijah waits for God and the storm and the earthquake pass, but he is not in either of those? Instead he is a quiet voice; I think that is how God is most evident in the lives of most people.
I don't think the huge catastrophic interventions we like to think about when we hear the word 'miracle' happen very often. But at some point they will again -- the Bible says Christ is coming back in person, and if he does that should qualify as direct intervention.
I agree that love is a miracle.
[This message has been edited by zipzip, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 11:27 AM shilohproject has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 9:53 AM zipzip has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 208 of 239 (28261)
01-01-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by John
12-17-2002 8:10 PM


quote:
Pretty much anything COULD have happened.
That's reasonable. It's also kind of my point.
To give a real world example.
Once I was sitting around in a campside conversation about geology. A professor was recounting some of the more interesting experiences he had had teaching historical geology through the years. I mentioned something not terribly charitable about Young-Earth Creationism. Much to my surprise, my instructor, perhaps mildly hammered at the time, sharply rebuked me: (paraphrasing of course)
Wait a minute! The world might actually be ten thousand years old. All we can say is that decades of data collecting and everything we know contradicts the assertion. But if you were one of the young Earth types and do as they tend to do and infer some kind of creator, doing what Supernatural Creators do, it is entirely possible that the world is only ten thousand years old and all the evidence was deliberately made to look old as part of the design. Why I don't know. But even in that case you still need lots of Old Earth geologists to understand resource distribution and geologic hazards, and you need to pay them all very high salaries.
I've seen similar attitudes time and again amongst the scientists I've been around, even when they are sober. You would think a professional geologist with years of experience would reject even the most remote possibility of Creationism, but this one drew the line with "no comment" when faced with the unfalsifiable. That's a scientific attitude. To agree with me would have been unscientific because I had no evidence, no way to test my assertion that the world was not created to look old, just like there would be no way to prove that the world wasn't made fifteen minutes ago and created to look old.
quote:
I'm talking about trying to determine what actually did happen.
But you can never determine what happened. An agnostic, by the definitions I have seen, does not have adequate information to judge the existance or non-existance of God. If you're of opinion that you can justify the belief that there is no God, that's atheism.
quote:
And, like I said, I really don't care.
So you will concede that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:10 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by John, posted 01-02-2003 9:40 AM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 239 (28288)
01-02-2003 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by gene90
01-01-2003 6:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
That's reasonable. It's also kind of my point.
Kinda meaningless too.
quote:
but this one drew the line with "no comment" when faced with the unfalsifiable.
I can imagine a thousand unfalsifiable things, but that doesn't make any of them rational beliefs. This is what you are trying to do-- use the unfalsifiability of a claim as a wierd sort of justification for the claim. It is mind-bending.
quote:
That's a scientific attitude. To agree with me would have been unscientific because I had no evidence...
Notice he didn't disagree either? But pointed out that you have no evidence. In other words, you geologist as per your story, didn't leap into belief because the story was unfalsifiable and hence may be true. This is the leap you appear to be defending. The leap TO belief is unreasonable so long as the claim is unverifiable.
quote:
But you can never determine what happened.
Really? Then you possess all knowledge? The only way one could make this claim is if one possessed all knowledge. Forgive me if I don't believe you.
quote:
An agnostic, by the definitions I have seen, does not have adequate information to judge the existance or non-existance of God. If you're of opinion that you can justify the belief that there is no God, that's atheism.
And you still cannot shake this mental block? I haven't tried to prove anything about God's existence. This is about reasonable belief. Sure, God could exist imperceptibly somewhere just as the world could have been created five minutes ago, but is it reasonable to believe either proposition? Nope. There are countless unverifiable assertions and being unverifiable there is no way to choose among them. You may as well pick one at random. Is that rational? Hardly. All of these propositions can sit in limbo until something comes along to differentiate them. Until that time, the belief in one over the other or in any one of them at all, is silly.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 6:59 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 1:33 PM John has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 239 (28294)
01-02-2003 10:14 AM


chimpanzees have gay sex all the time, it's almost like shaking hands. Is this 'wrong'? They must be possessed or something.

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 1:36 PM Gzus has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 211 of 239 (28310)
01-02-2003 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by John
01-02-2003 9:40 AM


quote:
can imagine a thousand unfalsifiable things, but that doesn't make any of them rational beliefs.
How do you (as an agnostic) claim to know what is "rational" and what is not?
quote:
You may as well pick one at random.
Including your own.
quote:
Until that time, the belief in one over the other or in any one of them at all, is silly.
Much as it is silly to claim that any one of them, or all of them are wrong.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by John, posted 01-02-2003 9:40 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by John, posted 01-02-2003 7:32 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 212 of 239 (28311)
01-02-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Gzus
01-02-2003 10:14 AM


So if chimpanzees do something, that must make it "natural", and therefore, "right"?
Therefore if chimpanzee practice gay sex gay sex must be ok?
Chimpanzees kill each other in turf fights all the time. I guess murder must be ok too then huh?
Well chimpanzees are also known for cannibalizing infants of other tribes. I guess that means that I could start eating children and that would be ok as well?
I think it is ridiculous to look to animals for moral guidance. I would think that after millions of years of evolution and the development of sentient thought we would look to philosophers or theologians or gods themselves rather than parasite-eaters for a definition of moral values. After all we have already been there, done that, and got tired of living in the tress. Or is this an unintended side-effect of the Theory of Evolution, that when we have placed men on the Moon and built cities and written poetry, we have gone beyond "humanizing" animals and are now looking to them for moral authority? Really now.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Gzus, posted 01-02-2003 10:14 AM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Gzus, posted 01-04-2003 8:48 AM gene90 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024