BMS said,
I have already explained why I chop your sentences up, it is because you do not respond directly to what I write but introduce new words and concepts that I also challenge.
I am responding to your statements directly - I am simply not giving you the answer you are fishing for. If you are really interested in what I have to say rather than the preconceived answer you are looking for me to say, you would recognize this. Ever had a Mormon come to your door and ask you if God is a God of confusion? They are looking for the answer 'no' and then they say 'well, how can He be a Trinity? It's so confusing!' No only can the average Christian anticipate the entrapment, but the logic itself is infantile. That is how I feel when I read some of you posts - like I am being lead down a well worn path and no other reply, but the one you are looking for will satisfy you. The fact is, you may as well talk with yourself if you are not interested in my opinion.
Let me clarify. I can love a man, even as a close and best friend and live with him without any sexual activity or desire for each other. So of the traits you gave the only one that is different for homoSEXual relations is SEXual.
This is not logical. You can say it as many times as you like - it is still not logical. You are describing the difference between an intimate friendship and a sexual relationship - it does not matter if it is same sex or opposite sexes. Is the difference between a boy loving a girl without engaging in sex and a relationship with sex make the relationship heteroSEXUAL? No! All intimate relationships between opposite sexes are heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary. As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, physical or romantic attractions to persons of the opposite sex"; it also refers to "an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them".[sup]
[1][/sup][sup]
[2][/sup]
The term is usually applied to humans, but it is also observed in all mammals.
So you are not simply describing traits of all intimate relationships, and thus sexual activity with the sex/gender is the specific trait of the relationship that is described homosexual or heterosexual.
See definition above.
And you are using the same lgbt arguments, I cant help that you dont like it.
I am not complaining or denying it - like I said before, if I happen to be noticing the same problems in conservative christian apologetics that LGBT activists have pointed out, it just means the mistakes must be really obvious lapses in reason. Why would I be upset that other people have also noticed how unreasonable conservative christians can be when it comes to enforcing their understanding of God's laws on nonbelievers?
If we are to witness the gospel of salvation out of love for people then how can we not be concerned about their sin that leads to death and the truth that can save them?
Fishing. The answer you are looking for is 'No! Of course not! What kind of a so-called Christian would be so unloving to not even care if people were damned because they were not told the truth!'
Now, reality. Changing people's behavior through legislation does not lead them to Christ. Surprise! People are not saved because they follow laws they do not believe in, which stem from a god they do not believe in.
Instead of creating more laws like the Pharisees did for the Jews (even they were not legalistic enough to try an impose them on nonJewish people), we are called to love our neighbors through intimate relationships. Witnessing the deepest relationship you have by engaging in relationships.
Do you trust God and His word about what is correct or animals?
Fishing. The answer you are looking for is 'No! Don't be preposterous!
Now, reality. I did not bring up the issue of animal same-sex behavior to justify homosexuality in human beings. I brought it up to show how ridiculous your reasoning is regarding which parts fit and which parts do not fit. Your reasoning is stupid. Obviously, the idea that God hates homosexuality because homosexuals misuse the parts He design is just stupid. It is so stupid that not only humans find pleasure in same sex relationships - even animals do.
Is it worth giving such a ludicrously insane statement even a response? If someone has lost touch with reality then how can showing them reality make them realise?
I cannot help you with your comprehension skills, BMS.
What is anatomically dysfunctional is decided by the function of the anatomy, not a minority of animals who act anatomically dysfunctionally.
Apparently not, because most species of mammals include members who engage in homosexual behavior.
Now, the scripture says it is a renewing of ones mind according to God’s will. So if a mind is renewed it is changed, something cannot by definition be renewed from the state it was in, to the same state it was in. So in that respect one doesn’t ‘leave ones brain behind’ but one leaves ones own views and reasoning behind.
1. Our minds are certainly renewed. Rather than spending all our time making irrelevant judgments based on our likes and dislikes, we are now able to focus on serving other people. It is a huge shift in mindset.
2. Believing that we need to adopt a primitive mindset about the way the world works because the primitive people who wrote the Bible held these views is missing the forest for the trees. It is also demanding people to be anti-intellectual.
3. We were created to love, not make judgments about Good and Evil - that is what Adam and Eve forgot when they decided to eat from the Tree. Jesus told us not to judge because we are not able to do it apart from God.
This to me is a contradiction. Paul wrote that he preached what he received from the risen Lord, so and that it is what our minds should be renewed to. What are you referring to with ‘opinions of ancient Jewish and Christian people and calling it God'?
Paul preached love. A renewing of the mind or perception of the World - not customs of primitive people. You are getting caught up in the details and missing the larger point. It is not important to believe with a scientific mindset that the world was created in 6 days - it is important to see the larger picture - God lovingly and purposely made His creation Good and made us in His own image - therefore, He must be a Good God and He must care about His creation.
It means every bit as much as your statement, if one doctor/philosphist/scientist believes the Biblical testimony and another doesnt, what benchmark do you use to sasy who is right?
There you go again! Who is RIGHT? I must know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG and I must judge it. God is the only one who is right, regardless of our opinion. Humans form opinions about God's truth. Nothing a person says or thinks is going to change what is right. All we can do is form an opinion about the truth. IMO our opinions mean very little - they might provide us some cheap entertainment, but if you are spending all your time determining what has already been determined by God you are wasting a lot of time that you could be spending loving other people
So to answer your somewhat, irrelevant question. God determines which scientist is factually correct. We may not know the results until Judgment Day and by then, we could probably care less.
My point is the opposite. The Christian faith doesn’t do anything of the sort as people use their God given ability to think about the world they live in, and either decide the word of God is the truth or not.
Intelligent people were given their intellect by God. It is God who allows them to make important discoveries about His creation. All of these things are good. However, a scientist also needs a renewing of his mind - he needs to discover God's love through His Word and prayer so that he can also spend his time loving others. When he is asked to throw out his life's work and embrace ideas about the world that were held by humans who knew nothing about disease, the environment, creation, or a modern sense of how the world works - it is most certainly a stumbling block and that is putting it mildly.
But loving God includes accepting his word rather than the opposite in preference to ones own reasoning.
An example of this is homosexual practice. It is dysfunctional for reproduction according to anatomy, and against what God’s word says He created, yet people think because some want to have such relationships, it should be treated as normal. They then excuse it in deception by implying this is merely ancient cultural understanding.
People without God tend to be self centered and therefore hedonistic - God renews our minds by refocusing us on to Him and on other people. Nonbelievers who are engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are living normally for them. It is normal for a sinner to live in sin. Why should they even bother to excuse their behavior?
The eminent scientist I had in mind was Richard Dawkins, he is an atheist and not within 'conservative Christian circles'. Or were you once again addressing your own idea rather than what I wrote?
I was talking about conservative christians defending their anti-intellectualism by quoting verses, which describe God's wisdom as foolishness in the world's eyes. In reality, those verses are actually talking about how the world views love in the face of pain, death, and sin - it is not a defense for being stupid. And Dawkins is a perfect example of a brilliant man who is totally missing the point of Christianity. Rather than seeing Christianity as a transformation of the heart, he has been listening to literalists that demand him to throw out all kinds of truth and substitute it with stories written to exemplify God's omnipotence, instead of truth about how the world works. So, now instead of humbling his heart to God, he is on a crusade to prove that Christianity and all religion is actually evil because it demands us to live in denial about the world and has a tradition of suppressing human thought and killing those who believe differently.
I think the fact that a man had a mother by nature of the egg an his DNA is mainstream scientific opinion. I don’t think such an observable reality can justiably be called bigoted from a scientific pov.
But you were trying to claim that many scientists who are Christian reject evolution. It is simply not true. Most scientists - all scientists except creation scientists accept evolution as our best theory for the moment for the progression of life on Earth. Of course, it is just a theory, but all secular science is based on that theory.
Nope, millions have believed the same Biblical testimony for over 2,000 years, there have also been many who have not. Nothing to do with any modern mindset, when I read the Bible which was written about 2000 years ago and read preachers down the centuries I can see it definitely isn’t just a modern mindset.
You really need to take a class on Western Civilization and thought. You are failing to recognize how the Western mind has changed the way it views the Bible and reality over the past 3,000 years.
You might like to expand on that with examples please.
The entire progression of thought in the OT and NT from examples of God's omnipotence to a focus on love is my example. Primitive people responded to a god that was powerful and performed miracles - Jesus pointed this out. It is a wicked generation that demands miracles. As history progressed we have switched our focus from demanding a powerful God, to demanding God to give us wealth and power and especially knowledge. We want answers and proof of His existance. All He wants is transformation of our selfish hearts.
You might but I don’t. Science can help us understand the mechanisms of creation as well as pose some things which are contradictory,. but the issue is usually not science at all but a philosophy of science. .
Actually, this is exactly what you are trying to do. You are not happy with taking the Bible for what it is, a biography of the human relationship with God - instead you have to make it a substitute for everything - science, history, archaeology; all areas of human thought are covered by the Bible, in your mind, and anything that contradicts the Bible has to be wrong. Unfortunately, Protestantism is dialectic - you guys get your whole identity from opposition. This is why you have to spend all your time trumpeting that you are not Catholic, humanist, atheist. agnostic, worldly, whatever - as soon as you stop opposing someone or some idea, you cease to exist.
How? Jesus said if we do what He teaches we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. He doesn't say to reason and rationalise what he teaches with science, and by my logic, being set free is a transformation by definition.
The question is 'free from what'? Thought? NO! Free from selfishness! Free from brokenness! The truth is that we are not alone and separated from God! We no longer have to rely on ourselves like orphans - we have a Father who loves us and cares for our needs! So now, instead of trying to make it on our own - sin, we can look outwards - focusing on loving Him and our neighbor - that is Christianity, plain and simple. There is nothing within Christianity that dictates what we are supposed to know about how creation works or our opinions about truth - this tendency is actually part of the Fall. Instead of using our brains to survive like orphans or judge truth like Adam and Eve, we are called to love one another. However, there is nothing wrong with observing how creation works and documenting patterns - this is science. Our observations about the world are not in opposition to God.
Doesn’t answer my question. Sure people can have different interpretations of scripture but only if they are interpreting what scripture says in context, otherwise it is not 'interpretation' but denial. If you say the word halo use to be translated in a Bible version as horns please show. And please also show where belief in horns or halo is referred to regarding salvation.
Here is your original question: "But neither the evidence nor God’s word changes according to the interpretation, the interpretation is still based on the evidence or the word right?" Which you answered for yourself and then asked me to agree with you. I do agree that there is absolute truth, which is what you are really asking me to agree with you about; I disagree that we can always gain access to absolute truth. Sure, interpretations are based on evidence or the Bible, but often we have to extrapolate in order to provide a meaningful interpretation, which is no guarantee that it is going to be a 100% accurate refection of the absolute truth we are attempting to discover. I think you are placing sinister intentions on interpreters of evidence or the Bible when you use the word 'denial'. I think most people have good intentions. It is easy enough to let bias become apart of any interpretation without purposely trying to deny part of the facts uncovered.
Finally, the misinterpretation of the word 'halo' as 'horns' was found in the only latin translation accepted at the time - the Vulgate. It was an innocent mistake, but it was an an error that was illustrated for the world to see on the walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. I am sure many Christian scholars and theologians defended the 'holy horns' for a century before they were painted by Michelangelo. And no it has nothing to do with salvation - our knowledge of doctrine does not save us. Only a transformation of the mind and heart by Christ will save us. But, this does not mean that we are free from mistakes when we try to access absolute truth.
No it doesnt. What you mean is entirely different from what I think is important. You tell me what you mean and I’ll then tell you whether I think it is important.
Isn't that the problem? You are missing what is really important! The people and their relationships are the only things that are important in the Bible - everything else is scenery.
So what, I asked you for an example. The fact is Jesus did not abolish any of, but fulfilled all of the OT. So if you meant by the "ancient Hebrew scriptures" the OT, then why did you call what Jesus fulfilled arcane and does it matter whether you think they are arcane or not?
Huh??? Jesus did fulfill the law. Of course He did! The Father reached out to us in the OT, with His sovereignty (omnipotence and authority) and law, which were the requirements for us to fulfill in order to be back in relationship with Him. Of course, it was not possible for us to fulfill His law because we would have to stop focusing on ourselves (original sin) and focus back on Him. God knew this, but needed to reintroduce Himself to us and remind us what we once were and what might be possible for us again - sort of like we were kings in exile. Jesus came to us to fulfill the law - He loved the Father perfectly and He loved His neighbor - He is our perfect example of unfallen man - and it was then that we discovered that it took God, Himself, to fulfill and respond to God's perfect law, which is total focus on the Father. AMEN
Do you? I suspect not. Liberalism claims to but phrases the claim in deception. Which evidence do you go with, the scripture as imparted by God, or science? Could a God who by His word created the universe stop the earth rotating for a time? DO you go with the scripture or scientific evidence which quite reasonably cant explain or propose that? Because if you don’t believe what Jesus says about Noah then you don’t actually accept Jesus is the truth, you only believe He is the truth according to your own reasoning and experience, which is contrary to Christ’s NT about faith in Him
This needs to be cleared up. I go to God daily in prayer and I read the scriptures as the foundation of my life. Yet, if I become sick, I go to the doctor. If I am confused about a scientific term and need the latest research to help me make sense of my world, I go to a current scientific journal. These are not examples of a lack of faith - it is the ability God gave me to use my brain. People in the Bible didn't even know that germs existed - why would I go to the Bible to find out how to cure a case of strep throat? The people in the Bible thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sky was a fixed ceiling - why would I consult their knowledge of the world to learn the current understanding of climate warming?
No, Christ does say the Spirit guides in truth by reminding what Christ said and did, so it isnt a false dichotomy for a believer who has faith in Christ. It is however a false dichotomy for one who does not have faith in Christ therefore. The subject was Noah, not the fossil record, remember that not all geologists think that the fossil record disproves Noah and the flood. You have decided to side with the views of scientists who lack faith in God rather than scientists who have faith in God.
So the answer is that I am simply not a Christian? LOL, ok. 99.9999999999% of scientists believe the geological record as it is interpreted within the field of geology. Sure creation scientists reject it as it is interpreted by the majority of scientists, but they are not even viewed as scientists by the rest of their colleagues. Real scientists propose hypothesis and try to answer their question through observation. Creationists try to find evidence to support their interpretation of the Bible. There is no war between the truth uncovered through science and the Absolute Truth of God.
So it was a general comment about what the view is against what the scripture says. However if the scripture is what you call "conservative Christian mindset" then yes "conservative Christian mindset" is the Christian faith and ‘conservative Christian mindset’ is what false teaching call it to deceive people into thinking its the same thing.
You do not have the final word on the interpretation of the Bible - in fact, I fear that you are confusing blind allegiance to a narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible, with real Christianity, which is a transformation of the heart and mind - realigning our focus off of ourselves and back on to God.
