 |
|
|
|
 Some Christian denominations have officially welcomed gays and lesbians in recent years.
October 25th, 2011
12:09 PM ET
My Take: Why Christians are embracing their LGBT neighborsEditor’s note: Ross Murray is director of religion, faith and values at GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. By Ross Murray, Special to CNN America is embracing its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens. Don’t believe me? Just look at the progress being made in faith communities. The Christian church was once considered the final holdout for those who oppose equality for LGBT people. Staunch believers could gather in worship with people who thought just like them to hear sermons affirming the anti-LGBT beliefs they held in common. For those of us who identify as LGBT, church was a place of fear and secrets. We had to figure out how to hide ourselves or how to find a more welcoming community. But that is changing. Although there is still a variety of scriptural interpretations, an increasing number of Christians are reading scripture and understanding that God’s design for the world includes LGBT people. It follows, good Christians believe, that if God made them, then I am called to love and support them. Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians have formally accepted LGBT people within their denominations. Even within denominations and faith groups whose policies don’t fully welcome LGBT people, there are growing numbers of people who have learned to love and accept their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters. The Public Religion Research Institute found this year that as many as 71% of Catholics in America support lesbian and gay people, even up to the point of civil marriage, despite the Roman Catholic hierarchy telling them otherwise. Of course, there still are Christian groups who work actively against equal protections for LGBT people and their families. Indeed, as more Americans get to know and love their LGBT neighbors, the messages and vocal misinformation of anti-gay activists become even more shrill. And yet more and more Christians are now living out the message of 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” How did this happen? More Christians now know someone who is LGBT. They probably even know someone from their church. There are countless faithful Christians who identify as LGBT. These are folks who have found their faith in God to be stronger than the opposition of vocal anti-gay activists. These LGBT Christians have shared their lives and their stories that build up love and break down fear, leading to tangible progress, especially with young people. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, there is at least a 20-point gap between those ages 18 to 29 and those ages 65 and older on every public policy measure in the survey concerning equality for gay and lesbian people, with younger Americans gravitating toward equality. Even Christian-identified young people increasingly support protections for lesbian and gay people, the same survey found. Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others. That attitude doesn’t rely on fear or lies, but on caring relationships and trust. It lives out the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians that someday we will know fully, even as we are fully known. It is a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ross Murray. soundoff (2,403 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next »
« Previous entryJewish chaplains honored at Arlington National Cemetery
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Can anyone give an example of how gay marriage harms America in any way?
Please only logical, rational and factual responses.
These people are helping tofulfill the prophecy what our LORD has said about Sodom and Gomorrah.
@Acushla (below)
“This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God’s eyes.” Ezekiel 16:48-49
If you are going to use the Bible to support your point of view at least read it first.
Oops I meant above
aculsha: endthehate asked for logical and rational reasons, not whether it conflicts with your BELIEF system
@ Rick: so you don't consider belief systems rational or logical? Does that include your own belief system?
@Russ
You said, "so you don't consider belief systems rational or logical?"
There isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of any gods. Without this evidence, it is no more reasonable to assume there are any as it is to assume there are Pink Unicorns.
Believing in a god is unreasonable.
We can establish without a shadow of a doubt that the christian god can't exist as he has mutually exclusive traits. Being both omnipotent and omniscient is impossible, ergo, as described, the christian god can't exist. Christians are most certainly incorrect.
Believing in the christian god is irrational.
@ LinCA: on the contrary, existence itself is evidence of an architect. The existence of 'laws' at all assume some greater rational existence. Why does physics even 'work'? It is equally (if not a greater) a leap of faith to assume no rational mind came up with the order of existence, especially in the face of entropy.
Being all-powerful & all-knowing are not contradictory categories. Omnipotence & omniscience easily coexist. The much scarier idea is that either would exist without the other...
Russ: I do not consider all belief systems to be equally logical and rational. Do you?
"existence itself is evidence of an architect"
So who is the architect that made God or doesn't God exist?
"existence itself is evidence of an architect."
how is evidence of a judge of human interaction?
how is existence evidence that the creator judges human interaction?
So I guess no one can g
@ Rick: no, I don't believe all systems are equally logical. But logic is a key component in why I'm a Christian.
@ Observer: OUR existence is evidence of an architect. We are dependent beings. And, as the Greeks noted, it's an infinite regress unless there is a completely independent being.
Russ,
Once again you haven't answered the question. You did quote the Greeks who didn't believe in God.
If you accept that "infinite regressions" aren't that and have to end, that supplies ZERO proof that God (as you claim him) has to exist.
@Russ
You said, "existence itself is evidence of an architect."
Provide verifiable scientific evidence for the existence of your god. Mind you, not just any god, provide evidence for yours.
You said, "The existence of 'laws' at all assume some greater rational existence. Why does physics even 'work'? It is equally (if not a greater) a leap of faith to assume no rational mind came up with the order of existence, especially in the face of entropy."
Bullshit. Just because you are incapable to comprehend it, doesn't mean your imaginary friend caused any of it.
You said, "Being all-powerful & all-knowing are not contradictory categories."
A being that is all-knowing knows its own future actions. It therefor loses the ability to change them and is not all-powerful. If on the other hand this creature is all-powerful, it can't know in advance what it will do and therefor not be all-knowing.
One more time- skip if you have seen it before-
"Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.
To wit:
o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "
"Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8
Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.
And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sorry posted in the wrong place
MD
consistent- often, reproducible- often. Provable– I think that is stretching things- Science is based on observation I see this ergo that must have happened. it is a logical fallacy called proving the antecedent- really all that is happening is you are placing your faith in a pragmatic paradigm. statistically probable but not provable
The laws of physics are pretty reliable. If I drop something, I can be pretty confident that it will fall downward at a reliable, predicable speed.
I can't however, produce a talking snake or a unicorn.
Your logical fallacy is pretending that I can't predict what will happen when I drop an object.
@ Observer: as Nietzsche said: "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." ("The Gay Science")
5 major philosophical reasons why that is deeply problematic beginning at about the 1:15 mark (most notably: that science fails it's own scientific method; it presupposes itself):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
Russ,
Some people believe in the laws of physics which enable us to reliably land spacecraft on targets millions of miles and years away.
Some people believe in talking snakes and unicorns.
I'll stick with the scientists.
@Observer: that's a false dichotomy, and I think you know that.
Using science as observable learning is fine. Pretending it answers metaphysical questions is not.
That's why I keep giving you Nietzsche's quote. Take it from a leading atheist mind: that sort of faith in science is "still a metaphysical faith."
As William Lane Craig points out: there are several major imperatives of life which science is completely unable to address, including why its own existence.
Russ,
"@Observer: that's a false dichotomy, and I think you know that."
Absolutely not. The Bible's version of "science" includes talking snakes, talking donkeys, and unicorns. It also includes a flat earth, a universe that can be instantly stopped, pi equal to 3, people living in whales for days, etc.
@Observer: I disagree with some of these straw men you're throwing out.
But to be fair, consider this: the claim you are making that those things are absolutely not possible can only be made if you have omniscience. So, either God has revealed that truth to you, or you are claiming god-like status in excluding those possibilities. Again, taking it "on faith."
Is it inconceivable that the God who made all this stuff would interact with us? Possibly even reveal himself to us?
Russ
"@Observer: I disagree with some of these straw men you're throwing out."
If you disagree, apparently you haven't read much of the Bible. Everything came from the Bible.
Like I said earlier: if it is illogical, then claim that only God can understand it. That's quite a cop-out. Equal to no answer.
@ Observer: talking snakes, donkeys... yes. flat earth: that's a failure to read literary genre/figurative language. unicorns? i'd be interested to hear what verses you think are referring to that.
3 days in a whale, yes. And why would God do that? Jesus tells us: it's foreshadowing for his 3 days in the ground (Lk.11; Mt.12).
a universe that can be instantly stopped (assuming you're referring to Joshua). Not that far-fetched considering he spoke it into existence. I've still yet to hear a good argument for something coming out of nothing.
pi equal to 3? i'm also interested in where you got that. that & the unicorns are probably the main things I think you are stretching. but i'm curious to hear where you're deriving that.
As to your main & final point: I didn't say only God could understand it. I said ruling out the possibility of the miraculous required infinite knowledge. We don't even know what's beyond quasars. We just call this soup we're hanging out in 'space.' And yet we act as if science addresses all the big questions. It is a religious-like confidence in science (that science is omniscient as Dr.Atkins claimed above) that leads people to conclude the miraculous is impossible.
Honestly, I think Nietzsche nails it: that is a faith. And that's why he criticizes other atheists for relying on science as such.
Russ,
I will leave these with you. Looks like there's a lot of the Bible you haven't read. Good chance now.
I Kings 7:23 “And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circ-mference.”
Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns:
with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of
Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”
Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land
shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”
Job 39:9-10 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn
with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”
Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” [KJV]
Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat
up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows”
Psalm 22:21 “Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”
Psalm 29:6 “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”
Psalm 92:10 “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”
I will leave you to convince yourself logically that the earth and its atmosphere, moving 1,000 mph, can suddenly stop without any damage like from wind, etc. (It involves those "theoretical" laws of physics)
– Joshua 10:12-14 “So the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel. On that day Joshua spoke to the Lord while
the people of Israel were listening. He said, “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley
of Aijalon." So the sun stood still. The moon stopped. They didn't move again until the nation won the battle
over its enemies. You can read about it in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky. It
didn't go down for about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since.”
Any common sense at all will agree with the statement "There has never been a day like it". That's the only thing that makes ANY sense.
@ Observer: these are weak examples.
Your Pi argument: you are assuming they couldn't measure (it was round; they weren't dividing for Pi but giving their measurements of something circular), which discounts the much more likely notion that they were speaking generally. Why not instead allow for general measurements, much like modern engineering's use of "significant figures"?
Your unicorn argument: the Hebrew is "one-horned animal." That is not the same thing as a unicorn. That's like saying "two-winged animal" means fairy.
And I already said I agreed with Joshua's account. Christians believe God spoke the universe into existence. Miraculously intervening to "hold the sun in place" on that day is easily within his ability & prerogative.
Again, the main problem: you assume the miraculous is impossible. That makes your view of science not merely observation, but faith. You're asking science to answer questions that it inherently cannot, as Lane Craig pointed out above.
Which metaphysical answers truly even deserve answers? A lot of questions presuppose a lot of nonsense. Also, even if we agree that some metaphysical questions are legitimate and that science is inadequate to answer them, how do you get from that to "some stuff written by ancient people and cobbled together into a canon by certain other ancient people IS an adequate source of answers"? Some non-believers may oversell what science can answer definitively ever, let alone right now. But their excessively large leaps of faith and reasoning don't excuse the even greater absurdities of religions like Christianity and their apologists like this Lang clown.
@Russ Ruling something out doesn't requite any knowledge, let alone infinite knowledge. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics basically are different ways of creating an understanding of some bizarre phenomena and each was developed in large part in order to avoid, ie rule out, the stranger aspects of alternative interpretations. They are all, as far as anyone can tell at this point, internally consistent and consistent with established experimental results. At some point down the road, some clever person or other may discovery and prove a real inconsistency in one or more of the interpretations and/or establish new experimental results that are consistent with some but bot all of the interpretations. At that point, some of the now viable interpretations will be truly ruled out. But we aren't there yet. At this point, people are developing models and in doing so HAVE to rule some things out.
Most scientists rule out the miraculous because allowing it in would make it impossible to know the difference between an experimental result that refutes a theory vs god intervening to tweak everyone;s nose by suspending the laws capriciously. Since nature does as a matter of observed fact seem overwhelmingly amenable to explanation in terms of laws that aren't capriciously suspended, scientists proceed under the assumption that no laws are being capriciously suspended during their experiments because the alternative makes a mockery of the entire enterprise and does so for no empirically compelling reason.
If you insist on believing in a god that spoke the universe into existence and therefore can hold the sun in the sky, that's your prerogative, Just don't demand that that viewpoint be taken seriously by scientists or science teachers, who are engaged in serious business that has reaped huge results under the guiding philosophy that natural laws don't get suspended, and certainly are under no obligation to concede that there are exceptions to the hugely successful philosophical underpinnings of science just because some ancient text said so. You are free to believe in pegasus, leprechauns, Thor, UFOs or Jesus walking on water as you see fit. Just don't waste the time of scientists and science teachers by clamoring that they take your and ONLY your supposed exceptions to the scientific model of reality seriously in the doing or teaching of science.
@ I.K. & R.O.E.: science as a discipline of learning that admits (by nature) it is limited to human observation is wonderful. I'm pointing out that when you appeal to it in this way, it no longer functions merely as observable science, but it becomes a faith.
See the video above. Some of the basic assumptions of science require (at the very least) commensurate "leaps of faith" in explaining the nature of existence – which is the very thing you are criticizing in my faith. I do not object to science, but science as a faith.
"but science as a faith"
Science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists. One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you. Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end. Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false. Consolation is harder for science to provide. Unlike religion, science cannot offer the bereaved a glorious reunion with their loved ones in the hereafter. Those wronged on this earth cannot, on a scientific view, anticipate a sweet comeuppance for their tormentors in a life to come. It could be argued that, if the idea of an afterlife is an illusion (as I believe it is), the consolation it offers is hollow. But that's not necessarily so; a false belief can be just as comforting as a true one, provided the believer never discovers its falsity. But if consolation comes that cheap, science can weigh in with other cheap palliatives, such as pain-killing drugs, whose comfort may or may not be illusory, but they do work. Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.
@huh: see the video above @ 1:15 & following. You've missed my point. Science used in that way is making the same metaphysical leaps you are criticizing.
As Nietzsche said: "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." ("The Gay Science")
"@huh: see the video above "
Can't see video – connection too slow.
@huh: here's a summary:
5 major flaws in regarding science as omniscient (able to answer metaphysical concerns):
1) science cannot prove math & logic – it presupposes them – to do so would be a circular argument (faith)
2) metaphysical truths (i.e., there are other minds than my own, the external world is real, or that the past was not created 5 minutes ago w/ an appearance of age) are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven
3) ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method (you can’t show whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies)
4) aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific process (b/c the beautiful, like the good, cannot be proven)
5) & finally (most remarkably) would be science itself: science cannot be justified by the scientific method – it presupposes itself
"science cannot prove math & logic – it presupposes them – to do so would be a circular argument (faith)"
Here's a challenge for you? If you so firmly believe that logic and mathematics are unnecessary or invalid, then I call upon to you prove your faith in that premise. Find the tallest building you can find wherever it is you live and jump off of it. I mean logic and math would tell you that would be the height of stupidity, no pun intended, but you've already disavowed logic and math, right?
@huh: I did not say I don't believe math & science work. I think they are great tools. But I don't put metaphysical faith in them.
You are criticizing that Christians have circular logic as their point of departure (aka, faith). I'm merely pointing out that you are guilty of the same thing. We all begin with faith, but I'm admitting mine baldly, and pointing out that science cannot carry the weight of metaphysical questions.
Do you recognize that you are making the same metaphysical leaps of faith that you are criticizing?
"Do you recognize that you are making the same metaphysical leaps of faith that you are criticizing?"
Nope, cause of the evidence leading up to those theories I can see and understand. You have no evidence of your god today. The other big difference is we don't promote the discrimination of a minority group, your cult does.
Russ's point seems to be that there is nothing in life that doesn't depend on some kind of "faith". Therefore, since everything depends on "faith", having faith in consistent, reproducible results doesn't count anymore than faith in non-reproducible events. So you might as well ignor faith in gravity, for instance, and accept failth in talking snakes.
@ Observer: no, I'm saying that your refusal to allow the possibility of the miraculous fails to recognize that the mere existence of the laws to which you appeal is miraculous in & of itself. your argument is self-refuting.
that there are laws of physics at all is a miracle in the first place. citing the *results* of the laws of physics does nothing to further the discussion of WHY the laws work & exist in the first place.
If we were talking about cars, I'm talking about who made the car/why it's here in the first place. You're simply saying "it runs" – that does not answer the question. And then, to go on & say, "see, there's no such thing as a manufacturer, much less manufacturers making other stuff or continuing to work on the car," misses the entirety of the discussion. It's answering an ontological question with teleology. It's not the same category, and it misses the most basic assessment of the situation: that the car is there at all speaks loudly to the reality of the manufacturer.
The supposed "leaps of faith" of science are merely the laying down of reasonable assumptions consistent with known observations. To say that such are "commensurate" with the leap of faith it takes to believe that yahweh stopped the sun in its tracks one day to help the Israelites win a battle is absolute absurdity.
@ John: you're talking about why the car runs again. That the car exists is the commensurate miracle. That there are laws of physics AT ALL... not simply that they work.
@Russ
I think you're issue is that you're trying to imply causation from a perceived effect. Using your analogy, you see the car is here so you as.sume that there must be a creator who built it in the first place where as scientists and atheists only worry about how the car works and the principals behind that.
What you don't understand however is that this universe did not just appear as a brand new car that needed creating. It's ok, at the moment at least, to answer the question of "why does the universe follow physical laws?" with "because they do". If you feel its absolutely necessary that there must be a creator, then you have to believe that god has to have a creator and that creator has to have a creator and so on into infinite regress (not how you used it by throwing up what the greeks thought). The universe works the way it does (as far as we know) because it does, there is no need to add in a creator who made it work one way or not, that's just what you want to do.
We cannot answer why the creator existed without a creator yet, but we will, you just wait. lol
@JW
I thought the answer was that even though there is nothing in the bible or other books supporting this, that god exists outside of time and space and so he doesn't need a creator like we do, which wraps up the question very nicely I guess, but it smacks of a patch that some believers came up with when they were first presented with this question and this allowed for god to retain the "omnipotence" ti.tle while still supporting that everything needs a creator idea.
Well I use that explanation as reasoning of why it is possible for God to exist, and how it was possible for Him to create the universe. I feel like I could do more to explain why he does not need a creator. I will have to do research and formulate an explanation.
@ Chuckles: you're picking up the conversation mid-stream. See the video above, particularly beginning @ 1:15.
Misusing science by claiming it answers metaphysical questions (or ignoring that it needs to presuppose them) is a faith leap, and a major one at that.
Nietzsche went out of his way to make that point to distinguish himself from an honest nihilism & the commercial one Americans spout: "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." ("The Gay Science) And understand, for Nietzsche, as an atheist, that's as deep a critique as can be brought against an atheist.
"Chuckles: you're picking up the conversation mid-stream. See the video above, particularly beginning"
In case you haven't figure it out Russ is deflecting the fact there is no proof of his god.
Maybe I am coming in mid-stream, but you said something along the lines of "using sciene to answer metaphysical questions", what I said above and will say again, "answering" is a relative term here. You want a concrete answer, something along the lines of "why does math work" and the "answer" here is "because it does", this is a case of asking an apparently deep question that actually has no depth at all. It's the same way with "why are we here" conundrum. You want something maybe sentimental like " to make everyone happy" , or " to follow gods will " or some other answer, but the answer to this question is we're here because over millions of years we evolved, which is a technical explanation but doesn't give depth right? The heart of this question is that you want MEANING to life and not just the technical, and the meaning can't be proven with science because its different for everyone, which is why religion fills that seeming gap as if its a victory.
@ umm: no. I'm belaboring the point that the pot is calling the kettle black.
All this appealing to science in order to dodge the metaphysical questions underlying it ignores that your position is equally problematic (to all the things you question about my faith). BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT IT. My long labor here is that philosophical point. Because, once admitted, all this mockery of the miraculous is exposed: you can't turn to science to answer these ethical issues. It's self-refuting, and forces you to call it what it is when you do that: an enormous leap of faith. As large, if not larger, than the very thing you mock.
@Russ
Well you sure are belaboring the point, unfortunately though you don't have a solid premis to do so. You're using the word faith here in two different ways and equating the two. For instance science may help answer a metaphysical question so to speak by refuting a christian answer and I have faith in the science answer, but it is not irrational faith (which is found in religion) because science has peer reviewed data to back it up. There's also the part where nothing pins me down to this faith and I can change it easily if I am presented with evidence to the contrary. The faith that you believe scientists and believers share is actually two very separate things as the faith a believer must have must be 100% and unyielding (because wavering in your faith makes you heretical and an apostate). Science does not seek to answer philisophical questions, nor does science have issues admitting when it was wrong or that there are some conclusions reached leaning on theories that could be proven wrong (for instance it might actually be possible to go faster than the speed of light which was thought to be impossible). The main issue is that religion tries to step outside its domain of philosophy and claim truths that CAN be proven wrong by science, which is where the battle ground is.
Russ,
You consistently argue for the most unlikely of cases. Do you understand probabilty at all? Yes, miracles COULD occur like the earth stopping dead in its tracks and every molecule of air stopping with it so that we wouldn't immediately have 1,000 mph winds. All of the laws of physics and common sense says it couldn't happen. So, if it makes you feel better, we can acknowledge, say, a .000000000000000001 (?) probablility that you are right. Feel better. Do you gamble at all? The good news is that the probability of talking snakes and unicorns is a lot higher.
@ Chuckles: ethics are inherently a philosophical discussion. Science can't address ethics. Again, that's Lane Craig's point in the video.
@ Observer: I do understand probability. Your math tells me you're still not hearing my distinction. I'm not asking what the odds are on the repet_ition of physics-based outcomes, I'm asking the question that underlies all of physics: what are the odds that the laws of physics would exist in the first place? It's almost a non-quanitifiable answer, mathematically speaking. It begs metaphysical questions – as does this article (which appeals to ethics and Christian belief) and as does your objection to the probability of the miraculous.
Which, to get us back on topic, is the reason science cannot end run the purpose of human life, which does immediately address the legitimacy or illegitimacy of ho_mos_e_xual marriage. This whole debate is centered on ethics, which is a question that science cannot answer directly.
@Russ
As far as I know, science has never actually weighed in on ethics, how they are found and who has the best ethics and so on further than showing that ethics are not just contained to the bible. Atheism (which is very different from science) can take scientific findings, like Hammurabi's Code, and show a believer that morals and ethics aren't from god, but a human invention to help us work together and live in harmony and not kill one another. So, targeting science is wrong here no matter how you slice it.
Oops, posted too son
Ho.mose.xulaity is NOT just an ethics issue because, for a couple of reasons. First, it's fact at this point that people don't choose to become gay or straight, which means you can't fault someone just because they are ga.y. You also don't have a right to impose you're own morals and ethics on someone else just because you disapprove. You don't have to get married to another guy yourself, you don't even have to go to a ga.y wedding if its so upsetting to you, however you have no right, or moral highground or authority to take away rights from other people just because you disagree with them.
"This whole debate is centered on ethics, which is a question that science cannot answer directly."
Ethics is not definable, is not implementable, because it is not conscious; it involves not only our thinking, but also our feelings. Ethics is, like physics, history, psychology and economics, an organized and rational inquiry into an aspect of the world we experience. It shares with other inquiries a structure in which theories are constructed to account for data and data is screened and sorted in the light of theory. There is considerable deep disagreement in ethical theory at present, and there are issues about which contending parties care deeply. The same can be said of other fields, past and present. There is no fundamental gap between science and ethics.
With that said many of the most interesting and important questions cannot be resolved by measurement. Take the opposition between evolutionary theory and so-called creationism. I am convinced of the reality of evolution, but I can point to no particular facts, and certainly to no measurements, that show creationism to be false. Creationism is a very poor theory despite the fact that it, in at least a minimal sense, accounts for all our observations and measurements. Creationism fails to cohere with the rest of our scientific picture of the world, and it fails to provide genuine, non-question-begging explanations. To say that animals and plants are the way they are because God has made them that way has no explanatory power, for no matter how plants and animals were, such an "explanation" would account for it. An explanation that can be guaranteed to explain any conceivable phenomenon really explains nothing.
@Russ Why the universe with its precise laws exists is still to some extent mysterious, but it isn't MIRACULOUS in the same sense that individual events that violate those laws would be. These are two wholly different issues.
Russ: Intellectual horsepower! well said fella!
More like pseudo-intellectual horse hockey ...
The final stage of church history shall be indifference, an indifference to right and wrong, good and evil; a majority which though they profess Christ, yet are in agreement with modifying righteousness to accommodate sin; and only for the petty reason of remaining popular in this present evil secular societies world.
@tom, tom
I know I'm not going to change any minds here but I do have a question. How can you believe in science?
Since Tom Tom is apparently not on anymore, I'll throw in my 2-cents worth and say that people believe in science because it offers proveable, consistent, reproducible results, unlike the Bible.
"How can you believe in science?" I don't – I am posting this from a wigwam using magic smoke signals. What part of "computer" don't you believe in? Does your car run on leprechauns instead of gasoline?
I'm intrigued by this leprechaun-powered car...
Observer has it right. Now, answer this: how can you NOT believe in science?
Still waiting for an answer from a Christian:
Please explain why what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is a sin or any of God's business or any of your business?
consistent- often, reproducible- often. Provable– I think that is stretching things- Science is based on observation I see this ergo that must have happened. it is a logical fallacy called proving the antecedent- really all that is happening is you are placing your faith in a pragmatic paradigm. statistically probable but not provable
obviously the answer to your question hinges on a simple question of if you believe in God. If so Yes he is intimately interested in behavior. If not the question is moot.
MD,
So no answer to the second and third question.
@Observer: I answered this below.
Russ,
"@Observer: I answered this below.'
Nope.
@Observer: not agreeing with a Christian's thoughts is not the same as failing to hear back from one.
I checked your answer, Russ. All you had to say was because the bible says so. I guess that's all you need.
What a shame you choose the morals laid out in a book written in the bronze age. Actual observation will show that gays and lesbians are pretty much the same as everyone else. Actual science will show that they are born that way. Actual conversation may result in friendship and understanding. But you've chosen faith over reality and you are a poorer person for it.
Gay Christians remind me of black KKK members.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns
@Anon: even atheists are questioning the so-called "New Atheists" logic...
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/28/3202269.htm
Tom, if I explained to you WHY it is a sin, you would still laugh... So, WHY should I?
Yes. Please explain why what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is a sin or any of God's business or any of your business?
@Observer: that is a very individualistic mindset. As Christians, we believe God made us all & made us for community. What we do actually affects each other – which is the very reason that you feel compelled to argue (dare I say, proselytize) for your cause.
And secondly, the manufacturer & designer is the only one who can explain the purpose for which a product was made.
Russ,
Standard answer for a Christian: "Beats me. It's illogical so I'll claim only God can understand it".
Typical non-answer mumbo-jumbo.
@Observer: that's not what I said. I said that was a very individualistic mindset. I do not share your view that people are not interconnected. And I am wondering if you really believe that either...
the fact that you are arguing your case says that you don't think we are merely individuals either. You feel compelled to argue for your cause.
Russ,
"I do not share your view that people are not interconnected."
Now that's really funny. It's non-believers like Tom Tom and me that bring up the Golden Rule because Christians totally ignor it when talking about gays. We are ALL in this life together and need to treat each other as equals. It's the Christians who don't practice the Golden Rule when it comes to their fellow man, namely gays.
Even if you disagree with our ethics, don't you understand that our belief equally compels us to stand against the very things you promote?
I posted this earlier, but here it is again... in the words of another atheist who understands even though he disagrees...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk
Russ,
Do you agree with everything that Penn Gillette says since you used him to support your position, or did you just pick and choose like Christians who pick and choose from the Bible?
@Observer: As a Christian, no, I obviously do not agree with Penn Gilette on everything. Since you felt my logic was not consistent, I was attempting to give you the same logic from someone with similar convictions to your own.
You'll either explain it or you won't. You either can or you can't. What I do in response shouldn't matter if you're able to provide proof that you are correct.
I don't think you can without using the bible.
Once again, a CNN religion editor shows their ignorance of the basic principals and teachings of Christianity. Deliberately ignoring passages such as Matthew 10:34-36, they create a 'fantasy Jesus' that's only goal was to 'try to make the world a better place'. The point in the verse in 1 John is not about relationships between human beings as Mr. Murray greatly misunderstands, rather it's emphasis is on how God's perfect love in Christ's sacrifice casts out the fear we should have in light of God's perfect and just wrath due to our sin. I pray that God would open our nations eyes to read His Word with honesty and truthfulness.
I am glad to see that you at least know how CNN reports its "information". Keep up the good work and faith.
So does all that mean you are ok with gay people, or you want to burn them at the stake to please your god?
To hear Russ and the other "Christians" tell it, every single thing we do is sinful. Why would a god put humans on earth if by their every movement they commit a sin? With every thought, they commit a sin, for which they must throw themselves down in repentance-for doing the very things god made them able to do.
What for? It seems absurd beyond any belief that anyone would think such a construct makes the slightest sense.
@ Tom Tom: glad you've read my posts. All I'm doing is pointing out what the Bible teaches.
Because of the fall, all we do apart from Christ (Jn.15:5) is sin (Rom.3:10-20, 23).
And yes, that means we all (myself definitely included) need Jesus.
I'm not reading all your posts. I'm skimming them and everyone else's. And that's no answer. As usual.
@Tom Tom: then I invite you to read them. I answered a similar question earlier today.
Every other religion: here are the rules. follow them well enough & then maybe God will love you & let you in.
Jesus: I know you can't follow the rules because of what you've done to yourself. I'll love you first. Come back to me. Live in my love.
Repentance is traumatic in every other religion. It means groveling b/c I didn't perform well enough.
Repentance in Christianity is joy. I'm reminded of a love that came after a jerk like me. It means coming home (Lk.15:17).
"they want to kill him for blasphemy... because he claimed to be God."
LOL! They didn't kill him – he slipped away in that scripture. It wasn't because he claimed to be a god. The religious leaders wanted Jesus dead for a number of reasons. First, the claims that he made demonstrated that his authority was greater than theirs. The religious leaders could not accept this. The miraculous deeds that he, which demonstrated his superior authority, was also a reason they wanted him dead. Jesus was also a threat to their religious system. He went the temple and condemned the practices. They also considered him a threat to their way of life. They were worried how the Romans would respond. The people with whom Jesus socialized offended the pride of the religious leaders. Above all, it was the lack of respect for their religious traditions that caused them to desire to kill him. This is particularly true of Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath. All of these things contributed to their evil desire to want Jesus dead.
"Repentance is traumatic in every other religion. It means groveling b/c I didn't perform well enough.
Repentance in Christianity is joy. I'm reminded of a love that came after a jerk like me. It means coming home "
You do get that your bible is the rule book on how you are to love your god, if you don't follow that rule book you burn in eternity in hell. Sorry dude only a brainwashed moron would say there's joy in loving that nonsense..
I have one question for Russ and the other "Christians". To what end did god send his son to "pay" for our sins? Why bother? Why not just forgive the sins? To what end does god demand we worship him? Fear him? Why? For what? So he can do what? So we can what? If god was going to have a son pay for our sins, why create the ability to sin in the first place? What for?
So god can play some giant video game of souls and sins and redemption?
Really, the more you guys talk, the less credible the explanations.
Is there a point to your ranting? Specifically?
Is that the only thing you have to say? Go ahead and answer the questions, dimbulb.
Hurry up, dolt. If you can't figure out the point, maybe you need to grow a brain.
@ TomTom: the issue is justice. There is a cost to evil.
If someone steals my car & wrecks it, I can forgive him, but someone must still pay for the car. Somebody has to pay the cost.
God doesn't compromise his justice in extending mercy. He upholds both. The only way that could happen: he takes the injustice I've done upon him. So, the place of justice (that would have ended me) becomes instead an expression of love.
"For the wages (what we've earned) of sin is death, but the gift (no cost! paid for by him) of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom.6:23)
Not an answer. You are telling me something that has nothing to do with the question I asked. When are you going to simply answer it or admit that your god makes no sense?
You all claim that god is omnipotent. If so, he created sin as well as all else. If you cannot look into your bible and find an explanation as to why he would bother to make a creation so flawed and then punish it for being flawed, I have even less tolerance for your nonsense than ever.
The more I read here, the less I find anything reasonable or believable in christianity.
Don't even bother answering. I know from reading here it will be nothing more than a convoluted mess and I'm too tired to bother attempting to decipher more "mysteries". I have to go to work tomorrow. I plan to treat others as I want to be treated and to refrain from hurting anyone in any way.
I wonder if some of you Christians can say the same. You have no idea how your words and actions of "love" harm people. None at all.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son,
Congratulations! Besides me, you may be the only other person to bring up the Golden Rule during a discussion on gays. It's not at all surprising that you apparently are not claiming to be Christian.
@TomTom: now you're getting into the meat of the issue.
Many psychopaths & prisoners can follow the Golden Rule in that sense. It has no meaning if you take it out of context. Jesus was pointing out that none of us fulfill it, nor can we. Just consider: if there is a God & you claim to follow his Golden Rule while giving him the finger, is everything ok?
As Flannery O'Connor said in Wiseblood: "there was a deep, black, wordless conviction in him that the way to avoid Jesus was to avoid sinning."
The Golden 'Rule' was never about keeping the rule. It was about your relationship with the One who made you & the others He made.
Russ,
"The Golden 'Rule' was never about keeping the rule. It was about your relationship with the One who made you & the others He made."
Matthew 7:12 "Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.”
Typical. The Bible says "TREAT OTHERS" and you pretend it talks about God. You just make your own interpretation. It's like so many Christians who fantasize that the Bible talks about abortion. What does it say about child molesters, too?
@Observer: I didn't say it was never meant to be applied. I agree with you that we should treat others as we would want to be treated.
I was pointing out that I think the primary thing people overlook in quoting it was that Jesus said it... and it was not meant to be taken apart from WHO HE IS and WHAT HE SAID about himself.
It is clear that Jesus thinks he is the most important thing in the universe. You cannot separate his ethical teaching from his claim to be God. To 'live the golden rule' without reference to the One who said it & why he said it is to ignore his primary intent. It's like sitting at dinner with your family, having completely proper etiquette, but wanting no relationship at all with them. It misses the main point of the meal: the real food of life is life together.
Russ,
First of all, the concept that Christians adopted and labeled "the Golden Rule" existed LONG before Jesus and the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."
- story of The Eloquent Peasant, Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE)
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." - Pittacus, Greece (c. 640–568 BCE)
Do research.
@Observer: yes, you can piecemeal the entirety of the so-called "ethics of Jesus" (ignoring who he claimed to be & what he did to prove it, which notably is interlaced with those teachings) over about 270 pre-existing sources. But that's not the discussion here.
Jesus is not worshipped today because he taught ethics; he is worshipped because he repeatedly claimed to be God & did what no one else could. That is what makes a Christian a Christian. Jesus died in my place & rose from the dead. All my ethics flow out of that central truth. To quote Jesus apart from that central claim is to completely miss his primary intent.
And this article claims things in the name of Christ which go directly against not only his ethics, but also his claims to divinity.
Russ,
The Bible quotes John the Baptist describing Jesus as "he whom God hath sent". Jesus says in John 7:16: "My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me". In John 14:10 he says "the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works."
So is Jesus lying or the Bible wrong? You claim he always said he was God. Obviously, Jesus didn't tell the truth according to your comments.
@Observer: the same author (John) says that Jesus is God repeatedly (Jn.1:1-3,14; Jn.20:28) & Jesus says as much (Jn.8:58; 10:30). These are passages that point to the Trinity. Yes, I await your cat-calls here as well, but there it is.
Russ,
Great theory. God impregnated Mary to create himself. Amazing logic.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Guess you missed the "begotten" part which means "child of" here.
Russ,
Jesus NEVER said he was God.
Here's what he said in your quote "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
Your knowledge of the Bible is shocking. When Jesus was crucified, he said to God "Hast thou forsaken me?"
Same old story. Just wishful thinking for Christians like about abortion, child molesters, etc.
@Observer: Jesus said, "I and the Father are One." (Jn.10:30) & "Before Abraham was, I Am." (Jn.8:58) "I Am" = YHWH, the very name of God (Ex.4). And it's clear the Jews understood what he was saying. They picked up stones to kill him. They don't do that if he's only claiming to be really old.
Elsewhere he says "I sent you the prophets." Again, who sent the prophets? God did. A man cannot make that claim.
In several places, he forgives people's sins against others. The religious leaders are furious, because "who can forgive sins but God alone?"
It's clear that the religious leaders of Jesus' day understood exactly what he was claiming.
@Observer: your question regarding Jesus as "begotten" is a Trinitarian one, not simply the deity of God. Scripture teaches us that God is One (Dt.6:4f), yet in three persons (as this passage evidences, but also especially John 14-17, Mt.28:19-20, etc.).
I don't expect you to suddenly accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but I hope you'll at least see that for Christians you are not denying Jesus' divinity by noting that the Jesus talks to the Father, anymore than Jesus & the Father together send the Holy Spirit (Jn.14:16-17).
Russ,
Again. Jesus NEVER said he was God. Read the FULL quote I mentioned to see he talked about his Father in the same quote you used.
Since there are multiple versions of Jesus' final words, you can take your pick and it will still prove the point. If Jesus was God, he wouldn't have called on himself for help.
– Matthew 27:45-46 “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour
Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"
– Luke 23:46 “Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Just more wishful thinking from a Christian who WANTS the Bible to say things it doesn't.
@Observer: so, if you think Jesus is not claiming to be God, why do the religious leaders want to kill Jesus for blasphemy in Jn.8:58-59? They hear what Jesus is saying loud & clear. You don't try to kill a guy who says he's older than Abraham. You just laugh at him.
"if you think Jesus is not claiming to be God, why do the religious leaders want to kill Jesus "
LOL! According to the gospels, the main charge against Jesus was that he claimed to be the king of the Jews. The Roman soldiers were mocking this idea when they dressed him in a purple robe and pressed a crown of thorns onto his head. This was also the charge written on the sign at the top of the cross.
@umm: that is the Romans' reason, but not the Jews. In John 8:58-59, they want to kill him for blasphemy... because he claimed to be God.
This was posted in the wrong spot.
"they want to kill him for blasphemy... because he claimed to be God."
LOL! They didn't kill him – he slipped away in that scripture. It wasn't because he claimed to be a god. The religious leaders wanted Jesus dead for a number of reasons. First, the claims that he made demonstrated that his authority was greater than theirs. The religious leaders could not accept this. The miraculous deeds that he, which demonstrated his superior authority, was also a reason they wanted him dead. Jesus was also a threat to their religious system. He went the temple and condemned the practices. They also considered him a threat to their way of life. They were worried how the Romans would respond. The people with whom Jesus socialized offended the pride of the religious leaders. Above all, it was the lack of respect for their religious traditions that caused them to desire to kill him. This is particularly true of Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath. All of these things contributed to their evil desire to want Jesus dead.
@ Duh: "they picked up stones to stone him" (Jn.8:59). Why? For blasphemy. Where are they getting that? Lev.24:16. It only applies if Jesus is claiming to be God.
It's the very reason they site in Jn.5:18. And again in Jn.10:33. Jesus repeatedly claimed to be God & did things to prove it. That's the primary reason they are upset with him. That's why their authority was being questioned. All the sociological & political reasons are ancillary to Jesus' claim to be God. That's why it upset society & politics.
Blah, blah, blah. All this yapping and not one of you has been able to answer. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Why would an omnipotent god create a flawed being and then punish it for being flawed?
Finite is not the same thing as flawed. In the same way that human being is not the same thing as robot.
God made us good & finite. We didn't have to do evil. We chose to do evil. We did this to ourselves.
The amazing thing: God doesn't crush us for what we did with his good gift (which would be giving us justice), but chooses to take the wrath on himself on the cross (instead giving us mercy).
Bible Clown
"John-Paul, do you believe that you are justified in killing people who don't believe your religion, the way bin Laden did? Anything to bring them to God, right? No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!"
NO! that's completely wrong! that's not at all what JESUS teaches. if you have met someone who calls themselves a christian and professes this, i am sorry. but they DO NOT speak for Christianity. May GOD bless you with the knowledge of HIS love!
Meanings of the word 'FITNAH' in the Qur’aan and Sunnah:
by Muslim Ummah Awakeners-( M U A)- on Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 4:31am
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=249234381793772
----
THE HYPOCRITE
ACCORDING TO THE QUR'AN
THEY CAUSE FITNAH (TRIBULATION)
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/faith/hypocrite/hypocrite5.php
--
The act of Corruption and corruptors
http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=corrupt&translator=5&search=1
Satan loves a billion Muslims who reject the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Tom Tom
Thanks a lot you spiked my curiosity and made me listen to it............herbie does not play the piano so its not him
Well may Satan love you more for assigning to GOD partners in his only divinity...!
Please stop posting religious views like they are facts. They are opinions.
I'm so glad that islam and several of their clerics are embracing the h0m0s^xuals, after all islam is the tolerant religion of peace and love.
Nope. They seem to be following all of the commands that God issued when he set up the rules.
you gais. we prais. come friday prais.
Just as I thought, you can't handle the truth in this case. Christianity does not hang h0m0's by the neck until dead, islam does. Yet the h0m0's attack Christianity every chance they get while not only giving islam a free pass-but embracing it. Truly bizzarre. Islam and h0m0's make strange bedfellows. Once they're done using you, they'll slip that noose around your neck, too. Or are you too blind to see that?
Keith,
If you bother to read the Bible sometime, you'll see that radical Muslims are practicing MANY of the commands from God before Jesus got him to change his mind.
@Observer: again, Jesus didn't make the Father change his mind. He took the punishment for us.
At the cross, justice was upheld in a way that allowed death-deserving people like me to get mercy.
Way to go Observer! Sidestep the observation.
Russ,
"@Observer: again, Jesus didn't make the Father change his mind. He took the punishment for us."
Yes. CORRECTION: Radical Muslims seem to be doing EXACTLY what God wants according to the Bible.
@ Observer: why do you insist on misrepresenting what Christians believe? You don't have to agree with us to have the integrity to engage our actual beliefs. Caricatures do not further the conversation.
We read the Old Testament through the cross (Lk.24:27,44). All of those passages of judgment are not what we should do to others, but what should be done to us without Jesus.
Observer, take your white cane and seeing-eye-dog and move on to another story. You may want to change your screen name...the one you have is not accurate.
Keith,
Why not read the Bible so you won't be so CLUELESS? The radical Muslims are killing people for blasphemy, h0mos-xuality, adultery, etc. JUST LIKE GOD ORDERED and would be still continuing if it wasn't for Jesus.
Why do all atheist including observer suffer from 'Strabismus'
Observer, I'll type this real sloooow so you can understand. Bible=Christianity. Koran=Islam. Any questions?
Question,
Why do believers who are without any good rebuttals try to change subjects and resort to attempts at insults?
Keith,
I w i l l t y p e r e a l l y s l o w l y a n d h o p e y o u w i l l b e a b l e t o f o l l o w: R a d i c a l M u s l i m s a r e d o i n g m a n y o f t h e s a m e t h i n g s t h a t G o d c o m m a n d e d i n t h e C h r i s t i a n B i b l e.
Keith,
Since the presentation in the reply box did not translate the same online, here's my comment:
I will type really slowly and hope you will be able to follow: Radical Muslims are doing many of the same things that God commanded in the Christian Bible.
Strabismus is curable, Question, you dipshirt. Your stupidity is not.
Observer, since you are such a theologian, you will know that the punishment for blasphemy is stoning. You will also know that 100 pounders will thump a few melons during the Great Tribulation. Have seen the treasury of hail reserved for the day of battle and war? You know nothing.
Observer, if you're the best the reprobates have this evening, then I think I'll close up the old laptop and attempt to converse with my golden lab-she's smarter.
Keith,
I never said that Muslims followed the Bible. Is English comprehension a problem for you?
Buh-Bye, Keith, you coward.
Tom Tom, Where I come from a coward is some chickensh1t who throws a sucker punch once the fight is over-where the hell were you at the beginning of the "discussion"? Neither you nor anyone else could refute my initial statements. Grow a pair.
@F.P.: Good question. No. That's the distinctive of Christianity.
Every other religion is "try hard to follow my rules & maybe then I'll love you."
Jesus shows us on the cross: "I already love you. Now live in my love & let it change you."
It's not about trying harder, it's about looking at what he did & letting it soak in.
I can't try hard enough. But I'm already loved. That will change why you even try in the first place.
I'm no longer trying in order to get love. I just want to enjoy more of being loved.
Christians are nothing but a bunch of failures whom God is changing... often at different rates.
Ah yes hedonistic love. You do not know what love is. Is love to let someone jump off a bridge if they choose to do so? If a man is harming himself it is not loving to ignore his behavior. All sin is harmful to men and God did not let his son die on the cross so that we could wallow in sin. No, by his cross we are set free from sin. When we repent he helps us overcome it. If we deny we sin then we are liars and the truth is not in us. Those who engage in g a y activity and those who support them are on the path of destruction.
@gerald: read my other comments.
@Russ, excellente!
"Those who engage in g a y activity and those who support them are on the path of destruction"
This article is showing close minded people like that you are wrong. Thank GOD, you are WRONG!
gerald
What's so hedonistic about gays wanting to marry? If hedonism is the sin why get in the way of their settling down to committed relationships?
It always kind of makes me sick when christians get all excited about how a man was tortured to death.
@talullah13: not excited that he was tortured to death, but blown away that he would endure what I deserved in my place.
"It always kind of makes me sick when christians get all excited about how a man was tortured to death."
Yeah and their god did nothing to stop it, this was after all it's supposed son. Any true father wouldn't have allowed that to happen and step in, especially one that is all powerful. LOL!
Yeah,
I guess you don't want to hear about the Christian worship services where they symbolically drink blood and eat bodies.
The very fact that you think it's okay that someone was murdered, even if he volunteered, makes me sick, Russ. My greatest sins in life are speeding and jaywalking (and I'm working on the speeding thing). I also stole a couple of library books when I was a kid. Does that require torture and a death to atone for? If so, then I should be the one to pay for my crimes.
I think it's immoral to let someone suffer in my stead. That is what disgusts me. I say, no thank you, god. I don't need your invented crimes or your scapegoat. If you exist and my mild crimes deserve eternal suffering, so be it. The god of the bible is a petty creep, and I don't respect petty creeps.
So, let me get this straight.. Church did not accept LGBT earlier because god thinks it is abnormal.. Now they are accepting.. who was wrong earlier and what changed? God? Church? LGBT for sure remained the same..
If you say god, why follow him?
if you say church, why go there at all?
The same can be asked for a myriad of things over the last 2000 yrs.. from pagans to inquisitions to planetary science.. Why do people still cling on to such a well proven fallacy?
Whoops.. Sorry to ask a logical question folks.. I forgot that to be an ideal bible thumper I need to take leave from logic and senses
@ snow: your question assumes all Christians agree with this article. To answer it the way you posed it would have been to agree with it.
@russ.. Way to dodge questions .. your next statement would be, "And since I did not get any questions, I am right" .. 🙂
@snow: I don't agree with this article. I don't think Christianity has changed on this issue. So your question is moot.
Do you agree with the church's/bible's change of opinion about pagans, planetary science, inquisitions, ince$t, discipline, etc.. read carefully what I asked.. EVERYTHING??
@snow: there is a difference between the Bible (God's Word) and the Church (the sinners God has called). The Church continues to be a place where failures fail & hypocrites do hypocrisy, yet still are called forward to Christ in repentance.
The Church has done some evil things in the name of Jesus, but the God's Word judges those very things. ALL people need Jesus, especially those who are claiming to follow him.
Somebody posted that '1500 animal species have gay relationships'. If this is a justification for gay relationships then one has to beleive that we are just another order of the animal kingdom and not created in God's image. Sure some DNA strands are similar in both humans and animals but in terms of differences, we truly are worlds apart.
@middlekeith: no to mention that sometimes animals eat their young.
"in terms of differences, we truly are worlds apart."
Wrong. Look at how similar we are to members of the ape family and how we can communicate with them through sign language. If God wanted to make man completely unique, he sure failed miserably by appearance.
"Some" dna strands are similar?
Open a book sometime. Not the bible.
Humans fit snugly in the evolutionary tree.
Besides, the fact that ho-mo-se-xuality is common amongst animal species is a direct rebuttal of the often smugly asserted but wildly incorrect claim that it is "unnatural". Indeed, many have said that it is unheard of in nature outside of humans, which is pure bunk.
How ridiculous. You don't know what god's image is or whether we are "made in it" or not. The bible is the only "proof" you have of any such nonsense.
@Russ Yes, some animals eat their young. In several species, the young eat their mothers. No one is saying that humans must or should emulate everything attested elsewhere in the animal kingdom. But for decades if not centuries, people opposed to ho-mo-se-xuality declared that it was unheard of in nature and that somehow was supposed to prove that it was wrong. Strange argument from the get go. Going to church is for real unheard of in nature, By the reasoning of these prior h0-m0-phobes, that means that going to church is some sort of abomination. Hmmmm. Maybe they're in to something after all ... Anyway, the premise was false in the case of h0-m0-s3xuality.
Just another example of Christian double talk. First they say gay is bad because it’s not found in nature. Then when you point out it does exist naturally they say gay is bad because it makes us just another animal
The various religious groups are starting to accept LGBT groups because they HAVE to. They're numbers are dwindling, they realize they are being phased out, with fewer and fewer people who are willing to be a part of discriminatory organizations. They realize, to survive, they must accept them. I doubt, that it has anything, to do with being a good Christian, or they would have done it years ago.
@ Ozzy: actually, it's the groups that are embracing the LGBT agenda that are shrinking. Take the PCUSA for example. The more conservative Presbyterian branches are growing, while the PCUSA has been shrinking for almost 50 years now.
As polls show, the number of people objecting to gay marriage keeps falling. Education is winning.
@ Observer: are you talking about the same question? I think you have switched to American political polls, not the question of whether the Church embraces the idea.
Russ,
Seriously, do you do any research or use a dictionary?
The new poll finds that about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Last year opponents outnumbered supporters 48% to 42%. Opposition to same-s-x marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor.
– Pew poll, 3/3/11
Why not do some research in the future before commenting?
@Observer: you still are addressing a different category. The comment was on various "religious" groups, not just adults in general. The polls you need to site are on religious groups.
Are the majority of Christian denominations making this move? In particular, are the GROWING Christian denominations making this move? Absolutely not.
Russ,
It's a riot to hear Christians scream about this being a Christian country with a huge part of the population being Christians, and then pretend that polls representing ALL Americans don't actually reflect Christians. What a joke!
@ Observer: I didn't claim this was a Christian country. I simply said you were not engaging the topic.
The question was regarding "various religious groups." You were citing polls on adults, not religious groups.
Russ
"@ Observer: I didn't claim this was a Christian country. I simply said you were not engaging the topic."
So you don't support those who claim this is a Christian country? Do you agree with their claim? Yes or no?
Russ,
Since you apparently don't care about doing research to find the truth, here's a Pew report from last year:
The shift in opinion on same-s-x marriage has been broad-based, occurring across many demographic, political and religious groups. Notably, pluralities of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally – the first time this has occurred in Pew Research Center surveys. Political independents are divided in their views of same-s-x-marriage; in 2009, they opposed it by a wide margin.
Now that you KNOW better, you won't be spreading so much ignorance.
"I think you have switched to American political polls, not the question of whether the Church embraces the idea."
Yo – moron...even the pope has come out and stated based on what we now know today about gays, just being gay is not a sin. So yeah it's changing.
@ Observer: mainline churches in America are the ones that are in decline.
on your other question, America has a Christian heritage, which is very different than saying it is a Christian nation.
honestly, I think the most poignant critique you bring is that Christianity is fading in America. With that, I agree. However, just as
in Europe, that does not mean the demise of Christianity.
@ umm: I'm not Catholic, but I do believe the current Pope's position was that having ho_mos_exual inclinations is not a sin. Acting on them is.
"@ umm: I'm not Catholic, but I do believe the current Pope's position was that having ho_mos_exual inclinations is not a sin. Acting on them is."
It use to be just being gay was a sin so there was some progress. It's the same steps any civil rights go through, baby steps as you lead the fearful into the light that their fears are baseless.
Here's the primary reason SOME Christians are embracing their LGBT neighbors: It's the Christian thing to do. If that had been a drag queen being stoned instead of an adulteress, Jesus still would have stopped the stoning and saved her, and read the miscreants the riot act. "Love your neighbor as yourself" means everybody, including the ones you don't want to physically embrace.
@texaschick9: yes, but be sure to note how Jesus showed his love: the cross.
When Jesus embraces sinners, the result is the cross. But it calls Christians out of their sin. He took the hit for what I've done, and to change me. If "embracing" is code for pretending my sins are ok, then that's not real love.
@Russ – so what shall the gays do about themselves and their sins, Russ?
@F.P.: the same thing Jesus tells all of us to do: repent of our sins (Mk.1:15; Mt.3:2).
Ask him to change us into something greater than what we are.
"If that had been a drag queen being stoned instead of an adulteress, Jesus still would have stopped the stoning and saved her...."
Yes, He would have done the same. He would have also said to the "drag queen", just like HE said to adulteress: "neither do I condemn you. Go, and SIN NO MORE! "
@Russ – so for the folks who have repented, and asked Jesus to make something 'better' of them – but find themselves still being the same, and feeling the same (except now really ashamed because they're sinners who are failing at changing and Jesus doesn't seem to be listening) – is it just that they didn't try hard enough?
@F.P.: (sorry, posted this above by accident)
Good question. No. That's the distinctive of Christianity.
Every other religion is "try hard to follow my rules & maybe then I'll love you."
Jesus shows us on the cross: "I already love you. Now live in my love & let it change you."
It's not about trying harder, it's about looking at what he did & letting it soak in.
I can't try hard enough. But I'm already loved. That will change why you even try in the first place.
I'm no longer trying in order to get love. I just want to enjoy more of being loved.
Christians are nothing but a bunch of failures whom God is changing... often at different rates.
If your "god" is omnipotent, then why create such failures in the first place? Why put them in a position of temptation and then shame them for doing exactly what the natures he gave them told them to do?
For what purpose?
is the failure his? or ours?
If he made us and he's omnipotent, why did he make us imperfect? Especially if we are supposedly made "in his image"?
You're the ones who continue to insist that all sin is the fault of man. Why did your 'god' create a world in which 'sin' was inevitable? Why make temptation for his creation to resist? To what end? For his own amusement?
If the clockmaker makes a clock that fails, do you think that's the fault of the clock? I don't.
Oh, so cross-dressing is a sin, PRISM? Where in the bible does it say that?
Really, what a laugh.
A man must not wear a woman's clothing and a woman must not wear a man's clothing. This is detestable. It's in 1st Corinthians
Tom
"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man; nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 22:5
It's an abomination, like eating lobster, and part of the Old Covenant that many Christians pick and choose from.
Ryan
All that 1st Corinthians mentions is head coverings, right?
Ahahhahha! What a hoot. So it's a sin for women to wear what? Pants? Wait, did men in Biblical times even know what pants WERE? Did they have gaucho pants? Capris? How about high heels? Earth shoes? ANY shoes? Hosiery? Bras?
You guys are so beyond ridiculous it's almost a sin to make fun of you. It would be like making fun of handicapped people.
And of course, PRISM THE GENIUS thinks it's forbidden for men to wear dresses, right? Umm. Wait a minute. What, exactly, would make a "dress" different than the robes men wore in Biblical times, PRISM?
If you don't want to be laughed at, don't provide such fodder.
Tom, I count talking to some people as a waste of time, and you seem to be one them. But for the sake of others, i will address this issue of dressing... There's haave always been differences between man's and women's clothing, even in the past when they were robes, both – men and women, or pants , like nowdays.
But if my daughter goes and wears man's suit and cuts her hair, starts to shave above her upper lip, obviously wanting to look as a man, that REFLECTS something that's in her, inwardly. Most likely she would be an disturbed individual, tying to be who she is not.
The same , if my son shuts himself in his room and puts woman's blouse on, ower a bra that he "borrowed", from his sister, and puts her pants or a dress on, and his sister's make up.... would it not be disturbing to me as a parent, even though he is a grown man, or should I, according to some of you, just cheer him as he has found his new individuality?
What I'm saying with all this, to do those things is unnatural, and when people do them, it reflects what is in their innermost thoughts and hearts.
And why should God care if they do that... an why is it sin? Because out of heart of a (hu)man proceed the issues of life, and as a person THINKS , so is he/she.
So, when someone goes against what they have been created to be, it is sin, because they make a mockery of who they are, therefore sinning against God, His intent for them, AND their own person. Do you understand that?