NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I know there are loads of people out there that think Christians are naive and stupid for believing in God. Well thats not what this post is for. However I would like to put a few Christian perspecives on certian issues to you. Many people take the Christian perspective on issues like homosexuality and the creation vs evolution debate to there extremes and thus mock them. I would like to now dispell those myths put about by those opponents of Christianity

1) A reasonable perspective on Homosexuality

(Note, I dont want to get into a debate on whether or not it is a sin, I'm just presenting the perspective of the Christian who believes it is)

(Many) Christians believe homosexual sex is a sin. Make a note there, homosexual SEX. Not the action of being attracted to members of your own gender. However, Christians also believe that all have sinned, and that in the eyes of God all sin is sin.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

and by that logic, no one should be treated diffrently because of their sin (their crime however is diffrent, crime is against the law and so the law can judge, sin is against God and so only God can judge)


Luke 6:37

Judge not, and you will not be judged

So Christians who persecute Homosexuals because homosexual sex is a sin are gravely mistaken. That is God's job and God's job alone. Christians should treet homosexuals no diffrent from anyone else

2) Homosexual marriage

Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sin have a problem with this on two grounds. Firstly, marrigae is a Godly institution and so should be used as he designed, and same sex marriage is not how God designed it. Secondly, because homosexualual sex is a sin, giving it a title in which it is accepted to practice said sin is rather like (to Christians) giving a murder a town in which he has the right to kill anyone in there and for it to be all right

3) The creation/evolution debate

Now a literal seven days can be debated till the cows come home, but what I just want to say about this is evolution can be accepted in Christian logic as the way that life has changed since God created it. However, it is not the explination for the origin of life itself (Abiogenesis). Since science has not proven abiogenesis yet, the origin of life is still debateable. Thefore, neither side is conclusive

Now I'm not posting this to convert anyone, just to present the actual beliefs and to dispell the myths about Christianity (Homophobia, ignorence etc)

Props for you man!

Let's see how long it takes for the trolls to get here...

1) A reasonable perspective on Homosexuality
2) Homosexual marriage
3) The creation/evolution debate


Bravo, man. A sensible and well-thought out bit of debate. Just a couple of questions on the issues.

1) Absolutely fine by me.
2) So should they not be allowed to get married under LAW regardless, even if it's not in the eyes of God? Just so they have access to the various legal advantages of marriage.
3) Fine again. But where do you stand on the rest of the bible, then? Noah, for example, or in fact almost all the old testament?

Now I know there are loads of people out there that think Christians are naive and stupid for believing in God. Well thats not what this post is for. However I would like to put a few Christian perspecives on certian issues to you. Many people take the Christian perspective on issues like homosexuality and the creation vs evolution debate to there extremes and thus mock them. I would like to now dispell those myths put about by those opponents of Christianity

1) A reasonable perspective on Homosexuality

(Note, I dont want to get into a debate on whether or not it is a sin, I'm just presenting the perspective of the Christian who believes it is)

(Many) Christians believe homosexual sex is a sin. Make a note there, homosexual SEX. Not the action of being attracted to members of your own gender. However, Christians also believe that all have sinned, and that in the eyes of God all sin is sin.



and by that logic, no one should be treated diffrently because of their sin (their crime however is diffrent, crime is against the law and so the law can judge, sin is against God and so only God can judge)




So Christians who persecute Homosexuals because homosexual sex is a sin are gravely mistaken. That is God's job and God's job alone. Christians should treet homosexuals no diffrent from anyone else

2) Homosexual marriage

Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sin have a problem with this on two grounds. Firstly, marrigae is a Godly institution and so should be used as he designed, and same sex marriage is not how God designed it. Secondly, because homosexualual sex is a sin, giving it a title in which it is accepted to practice said sin is rather like (to Christians) giving a murder a town in which he has the right to kill anyone in there and for it to be all right

3) The creation/evolution debate

Now a literal seven days can be debated till the cows come home, but what I just want to say about this is evolution can be accepted in Christian logic as the way that life has changed since God created it. However, it is not the explination for the origin of life itself (Abiogenesis). Since science has not proven abiogenesis yet, the origin of life is still debateable. Thefore, neither side is conclusive

Now I'm not posting this to convert anyone, just to present the actual beliefs and to dispell the myths about Christianity (Homophobia, ignorence etc)

Thank you. No, really.

Bravo, man. A sensible and well-thought out bit of debate. Just a couple of questions on the issues.

1) Absolutely fine by me.
2) So should they not be allowed to get married under LAW regardless, even if it's not in the eyes of God? Just so they have access to the various legal advantages of marriage.
3) Fine again. But where do you stand on the rest of the bible, then? Noah, for example, or in fact almost all the old testament?
1) Ok
2) Its a debate amongst the Christian community. Some say it will eventually lead to normal marriage and also that it doesnt rid of the Sin, while some say we have no right to make that decsion for them, etc.
3)The storys are exagerated(over many years of copying and translations), and they also hold more symbolic meanings.

It's nice to know that there are more non-fanatical Christians on these forums than meets the eye, myself included.

2) So should they not be allowed to get married under LAW regardless, even if it's not in the eyes of God? Just so they have access to the various legal advantages of marriage.


Under law is fine, but I think Churches should be able to reserve the right to not allow homosexual ceremonies to be held in their buildings. I think Christians should oppose Homosexual marriage in terms of protest etc. But in the end if a democratic country wants it then it should be passed. However the same should be applied if the democratic country doesnt want it.


3) Fine again. But where do you stand on the rest of the bible, then? Noah, for example, or in fact almost all the old testament?

In my opinon the flood did happen as depicted (a global event). I dont claim to have any certian proof of it, although it would explain the Cambrian strata (a sudden burrial of almost every type of animal's previous evolutionary form). And as for the rest of the Old Testement, you would have to give me more specific examples. I never claim to have certian proof, just evidence to support. As the bible says

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

3)The storys are exagerated(over many years of copying and translations), and they also hold more symbolic meanings.

This I believe is a false assumption since everything in the Bible is divinely inspired (if you believe in it) everything in it is true. The stories are not exaggerated and the translations over time have shown an amazing amount of consistency (the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

1) True. Their sins are their business, not mine.
2) Eh, well, if there is some kind of love between people of same sex, I guess they should be given right to be recognized as a family by goverment authorities. But I do think, that marriage of those people at the churche is not nice.
3) Well, it is hardly logical, that life and everything else was created in 7 days, 10000 years ago. it is proven, that at least Earth, stars and universe are older than this term. My view on this evolution is, that life did changed, and keeps changing, but those changes are guided by God.

Nope, I see nothing reasonable in the first post. Maybe you should look up the word "reasonable"?

It was just christian apologetics.

Now I know there are loads of people out there that think Christians are naive and stupid for believing in God. Well thats not what this post is for. However I would like to put a few Christian perspecives on certian issues to you. Many people take the Christian perspective on issues like homosexuality and the creation vs evolution debate to there extremes and thus mock them. I would like to now dispell those myths put about by those opponents of Christianity

1) A reasonable perspective on Homosexuality

(Note, I dont want to get into a debate on whether or not it is a sin, I'm just presenting the perspective of the Christian who believes it is)

(Many) Christians believe homosexual sex is a sin. Make a note there, homosexual SEX. Not the action of being attracted to members of your own gender. However, Christians also believe that all have sinned, and that in the eyes of God all sin is sin.

and by that logic, no one should be treated diffrently because of their sin (their crime however is diffrent, crime is against the law and so the law can judge, sin is against God and so only God can judge)

So Christians who persecute Homosexuals because homosexual sex is a sin are gravely mistaken. That is God's job and God's job alone. Christians should treet homosexuals no diffrent from anyone else.

From debates with you in the past I have come to respect your views as you at least seem to take the nature of the Bible and apply it instead of taking your own biases and using the Bible to justify them. This is another example of why I respect your views.

2) Homosexual marriage

Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sin have a problem with this on two grounds. Firstly, marrigae is a Godly institution and so should be used as he designed, and same sex marriage is not how God designed it. Secondly, because homosexualual sex is a sin, giving it a title in which it is accepted to practice said sin is rather like (to Christians) giving a murder a town in which he has the right to kill anyone in there and for it to be all right.

For them it is a Godly institution, for the rest of us it is a legal institution. If you don't want to marry homosexuals in your church that is fine, but you cannot legitimately argue against homosexuals getting married in city hall or by accepting churches. As for the second part, where are your constitutional bans on adultery and gambling if you do not want to sanction sin?

3) The creation/evolution debate

Now a literal seven days can be debated till the cows come home, but what I just want to say about this is evolution can be accepted in Christian logic as the way that life has changed since God created it. However, it is not the explination for the origin of life itself (Abiogenesis). Since science has not proven abiogenesis yet, the origin of life is still debateable. Thefore, neither side is conclusive

I'm agnostic and don't like to debate this sort of stuff, but the entire Old Testament is pretty sketchy if you take it literally.

Now I'm not posting this to convert anyone, just to present the actual beliefs and to dispell the myths about Christianity (Homophobia, ignorence etc)

If most of your fellow believers would espouse your beliefs, then the myth would disappear. As the religion and its followers stand now, it is not a myth but a justifiable stereotype.

This I believe is a false assumption since everything in the Bible is divinely inspired (if you believe in it) everything in it is true. The stories are not exaggerated and the translations over time have shown an amazing amount of consistency (the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Thats the Gospel, we are talking about the Old Testament, we know that the Bible is divenly inspired, but we are imperfect and therefor will err in our translations. Its pretty much impossible not to do so.

Some reasonable Christian perspectives...
Yes, those are reasonable positions - too bad the militant atheists on this forum kinda like to pounce on religion.

Nope, I see nothing reasonable in the first post. Maybe you should look up the word "reasonable"?

It was just christian apologetics.

I see his views as being reasonable. I see your inability to accept them as being unreasonable.

Under law is fine, but I think Churches should be able to reserve the right to not allow homosexual ceremonies to be held in their buildings. I think Christians should oppose Homosexual marriage in terms of protest etc. But in the end if a democratic country wants it then it should be passed. However the same should be applied if the democratic country doesnt want it.

But given that homosexuality is naturally occuring, surely it can't have anything to do with God, really? Or else He wouldn't have made it that way.

In my opinon the flood did happen as depicted (a global event). I dont claim to have any certian proof of it, although it would explain the Cambrian strata (a sudden burrial of almost every type of animal's previous evolutionary form). And as for the rest of the Old Testement, you would have to give me more specific examples. I never claim to have certian proof, just evidence to support. As the bible says

Do you have Noah in the Cambrian period, in his little boat, or are you taking the depictions as a little more general?
I can take the evidence quite happily, but bear in mind that Noah would have to have been a trilobyte (Though this may not present a problem.) Also, the lower diversity in the lifeforms would make the Ark much easier, and it could well represent some protected area. But also remember that all life in the Cambrian was aquatic, as all life leading up to it was.

I personally put the flood at the end of the last Ice Age, when there would have been people about to see the melting Ice and wonder what the hell was going on.

I see his views as being reasonable. I see your inability to accept them as being unreasonable.

Reasonable: "being in accordance with reason"

Reason: "1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers"

Nope, still nothing that makes that have anything to do with "reason". Just christian apologetics.

Apologetics: "1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity"

But given that homosexuality is naturally occuring, surely it can't have anything to do with God, really? Or else He wouldn't have made it that way.


Thats a debatable statement and I wouldnt really recognize it.

Nope, I see nothing reasonable in the first post. Maybe you should look up the word "reasonable"?

It was just christian apologetics.


He was being very reasonable. He might have not been correct in your opinion, but he stated his case with reasons and used rationalisation as well. An Unreasonable post would have been:

Homosexuals are evil and we should burn them and that's the end of it.
Homosexual marriage is evil and all those who even suggest it shall be burned on Earth as they shall in the pits of Hell.
The bible's words is absolute truth, and all who disbelieve it shall be burned and I shall brooke no comment or argument.

Reasonable: "being in accordance with reason"

Reason: "1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers"

Nope, still nothing that makes that have anything to do with "reason". Just christian apologetics.

Apologetics: "1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity"

Yeah, now Im gonna to fight you with a Philosophical Argument, the best kind of 'reason' if you ask me. Langauge is opinated as far as definitions goes, thats why people must define words when making a law, so to block loopholes. Some people do the opposite and find faulty defintions and create loopholes. Therefore definition is opinated is subject to such changes, and this is why many Philosophers consider language as a horrible thing because one combines his expressions(words) to the actual object or idea, when in fact they are different,one is real while one is only words. Therefore, you are trying to define anothers ideas with your own words, when he uses an entirely different set of terminology. That is a no-no. They are not your idea/objects to the define in the first place, and since you have no specific authority to define ones terminology. Your argument is void. Good Day.

Reasonable: "being in accordance with reason"


I dont expect everyone to agree with my perspective, but, in the same way conservatives can respect liberals for having a viable alterntive, so you can respect my diffrent opinon for making sense.

Yeah, now Im gonna to fight you with a Philosophical Argument, the best kind of 'reason' if you ask me. Langauge is opinated as far as definitions goes, thats why people must define words when making a law, so to block loopholes. Some people do the opposite and find faulty defintions and create loopholes. Therefore definition is opinated is subject to such changes, and this is why many Philosophers consider language as a horrible thing because one combines his expressions(words) to the actual object or idea, when in fact they are different,one is real while one is only words. Therefore, you are trying to define anothers ideas with your own words, when he uses an entirely different set of terminology. That is a no-no. They are not your idea/objects to the define in the first place, and since you have no specific authority to define ones terminology. Your argument is void. Good Day.

Pfft, cop-out. That's like saying "well, for me 'cookie' means 'tree' and therefore I shouldn't be made to adhere to what 'cookie' means to everyone else".

There is no reason in what he wrote. Apologetics, almost by definition.

There is no reason in what he wrote. Apologetics, almost by definition.

What, then for you, would qualify as reasonable? From what you are saying, it sounds like you disagree. Disagreement with someone does not mean that their position is unreasonable.

I dont expect everyone to agree with my perspective, but, in the same way conservatives can respect liberals for having a viable alterntive, so you can respect my diffrent opinon for making sense.


Your opinion made enough sense for me, and I'm a die-hard atheist. You explained your views very reasonably, given the context of the thread, and so there was no call at all to make the ludicrous claim you didn't. Fass is just giving Atheists a bad name by arguing, since his views are different from yours

Pfft, cop-out. That's like saying "well, for me 'cookie' means 'tree' and therefore I shouldn't be made to adhere to what 'cookie' means to everyone else".

There is no reason in what he wrote. Apologetics, almost by definition.


There IS reason in it. His reasons are unvalidated themselves, but they have not been called into question in the context of the subject.

What, then for you, would qualify as reasonable? From what you are saying, it sounds like you disagree. Disagreement with someone does not mean that their position is unreasonable.

The reasonable has something to do with reason. A list of what christians believe because of their book, worded somewhat less pointedly, doesn't make their perspectives any more reasonble, since it all comes back to "the spirit in the sky".

What, then for you, would qualify as reasonable? From what you are saying, it sounds like you disagree. Disagreement with someone does not mean that their position is unreasonable.


I think he's sayin that, since religion itself is not based on reason, any form of reasoning based upon it must also be invalid. Which isn't true.

Pfft, cop-out. That's like saying "well, for me 'cookie' means 'tree' and therefore I shouldn't be made to adhere to what 'cookie' means to everyone else".

There is no reason in what he wrote. Apologetics, almost by definition.

He is referring to the connotation of abstract words, not concrete nouns.

He explained his positions through his interpretation of the Bible, which is his basis for reason. Your reasoning is based on something else. The basis may be different but the process with which the two of you come to your opinions is no different.

Pfft, cop-out. That's like saying "well, for me 'cookie' means 'tree' and therefore I shouldn't be made to adhere to what 'cookie' means to everyone else".

There is no reason in what he wrote. Apologetics, almost by definition.

Thats why its philosophy. Words are words, you know how many people I have gotten into a debate with about this. And then when I use the example, "What if we called the color 'white' 'blue'(since the begining of time), would we be wrong?"
Do you know how many said 'Yes', pretty much all of them. Thats sad.
You have no right to define a word to an idea. You cannot call what someone calls 'reasonable' as unreasonable because it doesnt stick to the formal definiton of 'reasonable', its not right.

He is referring to the connotation of abstract words, not concrete nouns.

He explained his positions through his interpretation of the Bible, which is his basis for reason. Your reasoning is based on something else. The basis may be different but the process with which the two of you come to your opinions is no different.

What is the title of this thread? "Some reasonable Christian perspectives."

None of those perspectives were reasonable. Yes, he reasoned around them, but nothing in what he wrote made the perspectives reasonable.

The reasonable has something to do with reason. A list of what christians believe because of their book, worded somewhat less pointedly, doesn't make their perspectives any more reasonble, since it all comes back to "the spirit in the sky".

Alright, lets see if your ego can do this:
"Prove God Doesnt Exist Reasonably."(By Reasonably I mean your defenition)

Thats why its philosophy. Words are words, you know how many people I have gotten into a debate with about this. And then when I use the example, "What if we called the color 'white' 'blue'(since the begining of time), would we be wrong?"
Do you know how many said 'Yes', pretty much all of them. Thats sad.
You have no right to define a word to an idea. You cannot call what someone calls 'reasonable' as unreasonable because it doesnt stick to the formal definiton of 'reasonable', its not right.

Then what's the point of language at all if definition don't matter? Again, that's like saying "well, to me the unreasonable is reasonable" and leaving it at that. Pointless, and flawed in a discussion.

Then what's the point of language at all if definition don't matter? Again, that's like saying "well, to me the unreasonable is reasonable" and leaving it at that. Pointless, and flawed in a discussion.

Um what do you think language is for? Its definitions are faulty, but we need it for communication. But that doesnt mean defintions are underinterpertation. If your theory was correct idioms would not exist.

Alright, lets see if your ego can do this:
"Prove God Doesnt Exist Reasonably."(By Reasonably I mean your defenition)

The notion of God itself is unreasonable, hence the utter vanity in trying to use reason about the unreasonable.

Alright, lets see if your ego can do this:
"Prove God Doesnt Exist Reasonably."(By Reasonably I mean your defenition)

Just for reference.

Most of the arguments are understandable and non-threatening... however one stands out that amuses me. The sanctity of marriage that so many get all hot and bothered about. The so called sanctity of marriage in the way that it is goverened in the United States is laughable. Those who claim that same-sex couples marrying goes against traditional marriage values are right... Hold on let me finish before the flaming begins... Traditionally marriage is done for Financial reasons, for more money, to secure a good business transaction, to produce an heir. Love did not factor into the picture. Now, same-sex couples want to be able to marry for Love, and have the same benefits as everyone else... how is that unreasonable? After all, the Constitution states ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL... who are we to judge?

Alright, lets see if your ego can do this:
"Prove God Doesnt Exist Reasonably."(By Reasonably I mean your defenition)


Um... that's invalid. You don't prove something DOESN'T exist.

However, Fass is arguing a lost cause in the first place since, given the existence of life and no other indication of where it came from, God is just as likely to exist as not, or at least to hAVE existed. God need not be the concept of the omnipotent one.

The notion of God itself is unreasonable, hence the utter vanity in trying to use reason about the unreasonable.
Why is the notion of a God unreasonable?
Gotta prove it before it's an argument against it...

Um what do you think language is for? Its definitions are faulty, but we need it for communication. But that doesnt mean defintions are underinterpertation. If your theory was correct idioms would not exist.

And even idioms have definitions, otherwhise they would be unintelligable. Definitions are what we use so that everyone uses the same words for the same things. If you don't adhere to the meaning of words, then there is no point in using those words, since you won't be making any sense.

"Computer willy hachet job". What? That sentence makes no sense? Exactly.

Most of the arguments are understandable and non-threatening... however one stands out that amuses me. The sanctity of marriage that so many get all hot and bothered about. The so called sanctity of marriage in the way that it is goverened in the United States is laughable. Those who claim that same-sex couples marrying goes against traditional marriage values are right... Hold on let me finish before the flaming begins... Traditionally marriage is done for Financial reasons, for more money, to secure a good business transaction, to produce an heir. Love did not factor into the picture. Now, same-sex couples want to be able to marry for Love, and have the same benefits as everyone else... how is that unreasonable? After all, the Constitution states ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL... who are we to judge?

Not if we go far enough back. Marriage probably existed before the concept of currency. The Native Americans had marriage, but no concept of ownership.

Why is the notion of a God unreasonable?
Gotta prove it before it's an argument against it...

There's nothing rational nor logical about it. And it is logically impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

God is as unreasonable as me being a talking dog.

And even idioms have definitions, otherwhise they would be unintelligable. Definitions are what we use so that everyone uses the same words for the same things. If you don't adhere to the meaning of words, then there is no point in using those words, since you won't be making any sense.

And look how long and unweildy the definitions have to be. And even then they aren't perfect. The meaning of words is rarely held to solidly, and that's why the meaning changes over time.

"Computer willy hachet job". What? That sentence makes no sense? Exactly. But it DOES sounds rather naughty.

It would be impossible for God to be rational. So saying that IT is irrational is not a valid point.

The notion of God itself is unreasonable, hence the utter vanity in trying to use reason about the unreasonable.

Utter Vanity? Eh?

This isn't a debate, so far. Skip the semantics and answer the question straight. Why is it unreasonable? I understand you don't believe, but what was your reasoning behind believing God doesn't exist in any form? Christians have a reason for coming to believe, and Atheists have a reason for disbelieving. How did you come to your conclusion?

The notion of God itself is unreasonable, hence the utter vanity in trying to use reason about the unreasonable.

Good point, but all you said is we may never know. Therefore without the supporting evidence or the defeating evidence, you recieve an idea that is neither reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore if one uses reason to examine this entity while it is on this 'neutral' basis, one must come up with a conclusion, my question still stands.

And even idioms have definitions, otherwhise they would be unintelligable. Definitions are what we use so that everyone uses the same words for the same things. If you don't adhere to the meaning of words, then there is no point in using those words, since you won't be making any sense.

"Computer willy hachet job". What? That sentence makes no sense? Exactly.

Um yes your right idioms do have definitions, but your saying all things are literal. Which means that idioms like, foot in mouth, wouldnt be an idiom, because it didnt have a second non-literal meaning.

There's nothing rational nor logical about it. And it is logically impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

God is as unreasonable as me being a talking dog.
You still haven't provided anything by way of a proof.
I believe we're all waiting.

Good point, but all you said is we may never know. Therefore without the supporting evidence or the defeating evidence, you recieve an idea that is neither reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore if one uses reason to examine this entity while it is on this 'neutral' basis, one must come up with a conclusion, my question still stands.

God is not a rational motive for anything. It's not a sufficient ground for explanation of anything ("what created god?"). It doesn't make anything intelligible ("god works in mysterious ways"). It's not a logical defence of anything. It isn't even necessary to explain why anything happens, at all.

That's where Christian apologetics comes in. Reasoning to make the unreasonable reasonable by simply stating "the bible says so" or, as I mentioned previously "god works in mysterious ways" and "god has always existed".

The original post was nothing but that sort of apologetics - "christians think this because of god". It shows the reason for the perspective, yes, but does not make the perspective the least bit reasonable, because it still rests upon the unreasonability of god, and the unreasonability that of all the possible gods out there, the christian god - who negates all the other possibilities - would be the one to exist. There is simply no reason to assume it. And those who do assume, with them rests the burden of proof.

God is not a rational motive for anything. It's not a sufficient ground for explanation of anything ("what created god?"). It doesn't make anything intelligible ("god works in mysterious ways"). It's not a logical defence of anything. It isn't even nessasary to explain why anything happens, at all.

That's where Christian apologetics comes in. Reasoning to make the unreasonable reasonable by simply stating "the bible says so" or, as I mentioned previously "god works in mysterious ways" and "god has always existed".

The original post was nothing but that sort of apologetics - "christians think this because of god". It shows the reason for the perspective, yes, but does not make the perspective the least bit reasonable.

Ok. Um..... Wheres that proof against god....?

Ok. Um..... Wheres that proof against god....?

Since when does the unreasonability of the idea of god have anything to do with the impossibility of proving a negative?

Since when does the unreasonability of the idea of god have anything to do with the impossibility of proving a negative?
Ok then. Good Bye. You have no basis to call this thread unreasonable.

The concept of God transcends reality. Therefore any appeals to reason while discussing his existence are invalid.

However, Neo Cannen's original post was arrived at through a reasonable process of applying his beliefs on God and his application of those beliefs upon the current moral dilemma of homosexual marriage.

Um yes your right idioms do have definitions, but your saying all things are literal. Which means that idioms like, foot in mouth, wouldnt be an idiom, because it didnt have a second non-literal meaning.

Definitions give the accepted, common meaning of words or phrases or idioms or what have you. They don't have to be literal at all.

God transcends reality. Therefore any appeals to reason while discussing his existence are invalid.

However, Neo Cannen's original post was arrived at through a reasonable process of applying his beliefs on God and his application of those beliefs upon the current moral dilemma of homosexual marriage.

You can even call the process itself reasonable, since within the context it follows a certain logic. But it does not make the christian perspectives the least bit reasonable.

You can even call the process itself reasonable, since within the context it follows a certain logic. But it does not make the christian perspectives the least bit reasonable.

Without saying the foundation of belief in God is irrational, explain why the christian perspective is unreasonable.

Ok then. Good Bye. You have no basis to call this thread unreasonable.

Wow, didn't sit well with you that you were barking up the wrong tree at all, did it?

Definitions give the accepted, common meaning of words or phrases or idioms or what have you. They don't have to be literal at all.
But that means there can be two meanings for one word. That means, cookie may mean a 'cookie' but it may also means 'tree.' I believe you condemned that in the begining...

Without saying the foundation of belief in God is irrational, explain why the christian perspective is unreasonable.
This *will* be good...
I'm sure we're all dying for an answer to this!
:)

Without saying the foundation of belief in God is irrational, explain why the christian perspective is unreasonable.

Because it is only logical and rational if you accept the tenets of Christianity - a sort of circular argumentation.

Wow, didn't sit well with you that you were barking up the wrong tree at all, did it?

No, you base Reason on something with proof to back it up. If you cant deny a God exists, than that means the only proof for it is Positive proof and not negative(against it) proof. So, that means that the begining post has some amount of reason, since you couldnt prove it wrong, and that means your post was invalid.

But that means there can be two meanings for one word. That means, cookie may mean a 'cookie' but it may also means 'tree.' I believe you condemned that in the begining...

There can be several meanings to words - that's where context comes in. And "Reasonable christian perpectives" is perfect context to pinpoint a specific meaning.

This *will* be good...
I'm sure we're all dying for an answer to this!
:)


Hell, it's the question that's been on everyone's lips. How many times have you got up in the morning and asked yourself that one?

No, you base Reason on something with proof to back it up. If you cant deny a God exists, than that means the only proof for it is Positive proof and not negative(against it) proof. So, that means that the begining post has some amount of reason, since you couldnt prove it wrong, and that means your post was invalid.

Wow, you really have missed the mark. Reread the thread, please.

Because it is only logical and rational if you accept the tenets of Christianity - a sort of circular argumentation.


The tenets of Christianity are not in question in the post. They are outside of the context of the piece, and are in no way of importance to the subjective reasoning of the post.

It is a given in the very nature of the thread that Christianity is the basis of the rationale, but that does not make the entire thing unreasonable. Reason based on unreason is still reason in of itself, even if the conclusion drawn is incorrect.

Wow, you really have missed the mark. Reread the thread, please.

Ok, why dont you stop rambling and tell me why his post was Unreasonable. All you did was state the defintion. Im out of it today, otherwise I would of has a much better argument. So get to the point.

Ok, why dont you stop rambling and tell me why his post was Unreasonable. All you did was state the defintion. Im out of it today, otherwise I would of has a much better argument. So get to the point.

Because the definition of "reasonable" makes the perspectives anything but reasonable.

Because the definition of "reasonable" makes the perspectives anything but reasonable.

Ok, and that would make it.....(fill in the blank)

The tenets of Christianity are not in question in the post. They are outside of the context of the piece, and are in no way of importance to the subjective reasoning of the post.

It is a given in the very nature of the thread that Christianity is the basis of the rationale, but that does not make the entire thing unreasonable. Reason based on unreason is still reason in of itself, even if the conclusion drawn is incorrect.

But the perpectives are the ones claimed reasonable - not the method of applying them. They are only reasonable if christianity is reasonable, and they rest upon the, through christianity ordained, notion that christianity is reasonable. If you don't buy the christian philosophy, there is nothing reasonable about the perspectives at all, and it becomes a futile analogy of "my book tells me so and this is why I believe this" - giving reasons for the perspective, but not making the perspective reasonable.

Ok, and that would make it.....(fill in the blank)

Again, reread the thread. You're stuck in a rut and you are the only one to get out of it.

Again, reread the thread. You're stuck in a rut and you are the only one to get out of it.

Thats not what I asked, would you consider his perspectives to be unreasonable? Stop dodging my questions.

Thats not what I asked, would you consider his perspectives to be unreasonable? Stop dodging my questions.

Yes, I have been claiming that there is nothing reasonable about the perspectives this whole time. Even the post above yours says that. Again, reread the thread, please.

Yes, I have been claiming that there is nothing reasonable about the perspectives this whole time. Even the post above yours says that. Again, reread the thread, please.
THATS NOT WHAT I ASKED! There is a difference between 'not reasonable' and 'unreasonable' answer the question please.

THATS NOT WHAT I ASKED! There is a difference between 'not reasonable' and 'unreasonable' answer the question please.

I already have.

Aww screw you. Im out of it today. Really Out of it. You need to stop being an asshole though. All you do is dodge questions, it pisses me off. If you have something to say say the god damn thing instead of fidegting around and trying to not be responsible for anything that is asked of you in the thread. W/E Ill be back when Im not in such a bad vibe.

God is not a rational motive for anything. It's not a sufficient ground for explanation of anything ("what created god?"). It doesn't make anything intelligible ("god works in mysterious ways"). It's not a logical defence of anything. It isn't even necessary to explain why anything happens, at all.

That's where Christian apologetics comes in. Reasoning to make the unreasonable reasonable by simply stating "the bible says so" or, as I mentioned previously "god works in mysterious ways" and "god has always existed".

The original post was nothing but that sort of apologetics - "christians think this because of god". It shows the reason for the perspective, yes, but does not make the perspective the least bit reasonable, because it still rests upon the unreasonability of god, and the unreasonability that of all the possible gods out there, the christian god - who negates all the other possibilities - would be the one to exist. There is simply no reason to assume it. And those who do assume, with them rests the burden of proof.

The perspective of what I said was reasonable, within the context of the Bible. If you want to rip the context of the Bible appart then that is your own perogative. An unreasonable perspective from the view of the Bible would be something along the lines of "God likes sin" etc. My point is, you can disagree with the Bible as a logical basis. That is your own choice. But if you look at the Bible, you will see that what I have said is reasonable in its context. Its rather like the Western idea about Muslim extremeist suicide bombings. To many western nations, the practise is unreasonable as it is illogical to kill yourself and evil to kill others. Yet many Muslims around the world hailed the September 11th bombers as heros because that was a reasonable logic to them. Reason all comes from context. Its reletive. All I ask you is to be able to disagree but to understand, rather than disagree and dismiss as being stupid. As for the arguement about the concept of God being reasonable or not, well you cannot prove God certian to exist or not exist. Therefore being certian about either perspective is illogical (in your book by what you have said here). You can only have a mesure of faith.

Yes, I have been claiming that there is nothing reasonable about the perspectives this whole time. Even the post above yours says that. Again, reread the thread, please.

Alright, diffrent question. Considering that I know the Bible well and that I have "Reasoned" my perspecive in line with the Bible, would you then accept that my statements are reasonable within the context of Christianity. I'm not here to debate the validity of Christianity, we can do that somewhere else. Can you just accept that what I said makes sense ASSUMING there is a God and ASSUMING that the Bible was writen by divine inspiration. I dont expect you to agree, I just expect you to understand. I am not trying to convert people with this, just to get them to see Christianity for what it is, and not for what non Christians would continually claim it to be (homphobic, ignorent etc)

bump

bump

Good answer Neo Cannen. :)

Just because you can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean it/he/she doesn't exist. And vice versa.

Nothing unreasonable about believing in something that we believe exist but isn't proven.

We only know so much, not everything.

Good answer Neo Cannen. :)

Just because you can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean it/he/she doesn't exist. And vice versa.

Nothing unreasonable about believing in something that we believe exist but isn't proven.

We only know so much, not everything.

Thank's. Its nice to know I'm not the only one who can see the logic in this

Thank's. Its nice to know I'm not the only one who can see the logic in this
Most people can see the logic in us not knowing everything … the problem is most science is trying to prove something TRUE not assume everything is true and prove individual theory’s false (way to hard that way … because you essentially have an infinite amount of data to prove false)
One of the reasons it is hard for me to believe in something just because it could exist

Most people can see the logic in us not knowing everything … the problem is most science is trying to prove something TRUE not assume everything is true and prove individual theory’s false (way to hard that way … because you essentially have an infinite amount of data to prove false)
One of the reasons it is hard for me to believe in something just because it could exist

I'm not asking people to just believe on the grounds that God "Could" exist. I am trying to get people to see

A) That the myths that Non Christians put about about Christianity are untrue (See my original post)

B) That Atheisim is just as in the dark about the existance of God as Christianity. Neither side can be 100% sure about what they believe. Thats were faith comes into play. But Athiests who put forward their beliefs as somehow supirior to anyone else on so called "Intelectual" grounds are wrong. There is no way to prove 100% that God does or does not exist.

I'm not asking people to just believe on the grounds that God "Could" exist. I am trying to get people to see

A) That the myths that Non Christians put about about Christianity are untrue (See my original post)

B) That Atheisim is just as in the dark about the existance of God as Christianity. Neither side can be 100% sure about what they believe. Thats were faith comes into play. But Athiests who put forward their beliefs as somehow supirior to anyone else on so called "Intelectual" grounds are wrong. There is no way to prove 100% that God does or does not exist.
Oh I know ... some of us soft atheists just end up there (really close to agnostic) where they just stay in the default no position till proof positive … being hard atheist (note hate to bring it up again but the difference between !(belief in god) and belief in 1(god)

Also you pointed out some of the reasons the faith has for not being intolerant and such (very commendable) and personally those are some of the teachings I would like to see people follow

But it comes to the point where the behavior of people in a religion really dictate viewpoints about the religion as well as the original teachings for the religions (if you will note even with all the arguments on just WHAT the bible says or means really most people don’t say it is “bad” but a lot of us have issues with the organized part of organized religion)


Anyways I am exhausted so I probably not making sense right now … but :)

Britian's chief Rabbi Dr Jonothan Sacks said once "Values are the tapes we play on the walkman of the mind; any tune as long as it doesn't disturb others". And to a point I agree with that. But that point ends with witnessing. God told people to spread his word to other people. But there is a diffrence between evangalism and witnessing. Evangalism is when you go out and talk to people about your faith with the specific purpose of bringing them to Christianity, whereas witnessing is talking to your friends and people you know about your faith when oppotunities arrise.

Also you pointed out some of the reasons the faith has for not being intolerant and such (very commendable) and personally those are some of the teachings I would like to see people follow

The intepretations I explained in the begining post were those of my church and I know many others. I would like to know of any Christian that could find significent fault with them.

But it comes to the point where the behavior of people in a religion really dictate viewpoints about the religion as well as the original teachings for the religions (if you will note even with all the arguments on just WHAT the bible says or means really most people don’t say it is “bad” but a lot of us have issues with the organized part of organized religion)


I agree with you on this point. The thing is many people misascoiate the Church with Christianity itself. Jesus in his teachings never said anything about Church organisation or set up. The Church as an institution is not a requirement of the Christian faith. You dont have to go to church to be a Christian and if you do go to chuch, doesnt mean you are a Christian. I dont go to Church becasue I feel I have to, or because I feel under some kind of obligation. I go because I want to, and because I beleive that it will help me spiritually. I get a great deal from going to church that helps me in my walk through life. Thats what Church should be about. Not just a ritual, but a spirtual source of strength. If you dont find you get that from group worship then that is fine. All that matters is that you get your strength from God somehow. He suggests reading his word and prayer. Never is Church any forced implication.

Britian's chief Rabbi Dr Jonothan Sacks said once "Values are the tapes we play on the walkman of the mind; any tune as long as it doesn't disturb others". And to a point I agree with that. But that point ends with witnessing. God told people to spread his word to other people. But there is a diffrence between evangalism and witnessing. Evangalism is when you go out and talk to people about your faith with the specific purpose of bringing them to Christianity, whereas witnessing is talking to your friends and people you know about your faith when oppotunities arrise.



The intepretations I explained in the begining post were those of my church and I know many others. I would like to know of any Christian that could find significent fault with them.



I agree with you on this point. The thing is many people misascoiate the Church with Christianity itself. Jesus in his teachings never said anything about Church organisation or set up. The Church as an institution is not a requirement of the Christian faith. You dont have to go to church to be a Christian and if you do go to chuch, doesnt mean you are a Christian. I dont go to Church becasue I feel I have to, or because I feel under some kind of obligation. I go because I want to, and because I beleive that it will help me spiritually. I get a great deal from going to church that helps me in my walk through life. Thats what Church should be about. Not just a ritual, but a spirtual source of strength. If you dont find you get that from group worship then that is fine. All that matters is that you get your strength from God somehow. He suggests reading his word and prayer. Never is Church any forced implication.

Wish my rents thought like you :p with catholic school I spent years going 2 – 4 times a week (or more if I served) … well at least till my priest “went away” but yeah that is a story for another time

Wish my rents thought like you :p with catholic school I spent years going 2 – 4 times a week (or more if I served) … well at least till my priest “went away” but yeah that is a story for another time

I have various gripes with Catholocism, but I wont go in to those now. While I have no problem with Parents giving their Children a relgious education, I do believe that when Children ask questions which may be deeply probing, they should be answered fully and properly. If you just fob off a child with something easy, it won't help that child. Also when a child gets older, it should be able to chose its own church, as I have done now. Christianity is not something associated with institutions. It is a personal relationship between a person and God.

I have various gripes with Catholocism, but I wont go in to those now. While I have no problem with Parents giving their Children a relgious education, I do believe that when Children ask questions which may be deeply probing, they should be answered fully and properly. If you just fob off a child with something easy, it won't help that child. Also when a child gets older, it should be able to chose its own church, as I have done now. Christianity is not something associated with institutions. It is a personal relationship between a person and God.

Yes, and if you brush off questions with easy answers, the moment the child realizes that the easy answers don't work, it becomes quite a shock. That is what happened to me, I was so indoctrinated with the God is awesome, he works in mysterious ways, the Bible is correct no matter what bullshit, that when I began to question the validity of Christianity, I actively rebelled against it. I have mellowed out since, (but am still an agnostic, who has little respect for any religious beliefs) and don't refute the religion altogether anymore.

I have various gripes with Catholocism, but I wont go in to those now. While I have no problem with Parents giving their Children a relgious education, I do believe that when Children ask questions which may be deeply probing, they should be answered fully and properly. If you just fob off a child with something easy, it won't help that child. Also when a child gets older, it should be able to chose its own church, as I have done now. Christianity is not something associated with institutions. It is a personal relationship between a person and God.
Yup … lead me to some of my early childhood thoughts … “Why do I have to be in this building for god to talk to me … could he not talk to me in else ware … specially considering he created it all”

I have moved beyond that in personal faith but I understand the thoughts still

Yes, and if you brush off questions with easy answers, the moment the child realizes that the easy answers don't work, it becomes quite a shock. That is what happened to me, I was so indoctrinated with the God is awesome, he works in mysterious ways, the Bible is correct no matter what bullshit, that when I began to question the validity of Christianity, I actively rebelled against it. I have mellowed out since, (but am still an agnostic, who has little respect for any religious beliefs) and don't refute the religion altogether anymore.
You sound a lot like me :D

Why do I have to be in this building for god to talk to me … could he not talk to me in else ware … specially considering he created it all"

I was raised Catholic also. What bothered me the most was the theory that only Christians and usely the Nuns meant just Catholics were going to heaven. It did't make sense to a small boy and it doesn't make sense to a much larger adult. How is this possible for a just God to keep His love and guidance from his creation?

Why do I have to be in this building for god to talk to me … could he not talk to me in else ware … specially considering he created it all"

I was raised Catholic also. What bothered me the most was the theory that only Christians and usely the Nuns meant just Catholics were going to heaven. It did't make sense to a small boy and it doesn't make sense to a much larger adult. How is this possible for a just God to keep His love and guidance from his creation?

First, I wanted to say that for the most part this is a great thread. I really appreciate the way Neo Cannon presented the issue of sin and that none of us has the moral right to throw stones, while at the same time leaving the freedom to call a sin a sin without judging the individual.

In answer to the post I quoted, as a Christian I don't believe that God has ever kept His love and guidance from His creation. The big problem that God has to deal with is that His creation doesn't always choose to accept His love and guidance and He isn't going to force it on anyone. He has no choice but to allow us the natural results of our choices, at least not without making us robots.

You sound a lot like me :D

Yes, without the firm belief in the power of the fluffle. :)

Yes, without the firm belief in the power of the fluffle. :)
Ohhh the :fluffle: is all knowing! all seeing ... and most importantly all fluffling!
They dont care what Race, creed, belief, or sex you are! all is equaly fluffable!

First, I wanted to say that for the most part this is a great thread. I really appreciate the way Neo Cannon presented the issue of sin and that none of us has the moral right to throw stones, while at the same time leaving the freedom to call a sin a sin without judging the individual.

In answer to the post I quoted, as a Christian I don't believe that God has ever kept His love and guidance from His creation. The big problem that God has to deal with is that His creation doesn't always choose to accept His love and guidance and He isn't going to force it on anyone. He has no choice but to allow us the natural results of our choices, at least not without making us robots.

yes, I couldn't agree more. God does not leave His creation alone. If we all believed this there would be far fewer wars between religious groups. Europe would not have gone through all of the wars that it went through--the 100 years war etc. Hindu and Budhist, Christian and Muslim would have remained at peace. A beatiful world.

Ohhh the :fluffle: is all knowing! all seeing ... and most importantly all fluffling!
They dont care what Race, creed, belief, or sex you are! all is equaly fluffable!

Didn't you know?

Fluffling can only be between a yellow circle and a yellow circle. Otherwise the sanctity of the fluffle is ruined!

STOP HETEROFLUFFLING!!

Didn't you know?

Fluffling can only be between a yellow circle and a yellow circle. Otherwise the sanctity of the fluffle is ruined!

STOP HETEROFLUFFLING!!
Where in the big mistranslated fluffeling handbook (revised edition) does it say hetrofluffling is illigal?

Where in the big mistranslated fluffeling handbook (revised edition) does it say hetrofluffling is illigal?


Commandment 7.

Commandment 7.
WRONG in the book of fluffles it is is Sugestment not COMMANDmen :D

the 100 years war etc. .

While I agree with your post, it should be pointed out that the 100 years war was not a war of religion. Just England and France sparring over territory as they had done for hundruds of years.

While I agree with your post, it should be pointed out that the 100 years war was not a war of religion. Just England and France sparring over territory as they had done for hundruds of years.

My mistake then. Perhaps, I meant war of Roses? There were several wars that took place in Europe between Protestant and Catholic that spread death and mayhem for several generations.

Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sin have a problem with this on two grounds. Firstly, marrigae is a Godly institution and so should be used as he designed, and same sex marriage is not how God designed it. Secondly, because homosexualual sex is a sin, giving it a title in which it is accepted to practice said sin is rather like (to Christians) giving a murder a town in which he has the right to kill anyone in there and for it to be all rightThat's a perfectly sound reason for Christians to dislike gay marriage. The problem is that many Christians then over-extend the argument by claiming that it justifies a ban on gay marriage. That seems to be the root of the problem.

"God says that homosexual sex is a sin, therefore I think that it is wrong" - fine.

"God says that homosexual sex is a sin, therefore I think that it should be banned" - not fine.

That's a perfectly sound reason for Christians to dislike gay marriage. The problem is that many Christians then over-extend the argument by claiming that it justifies a ban on gay marriage. That seems to be the root of the problem.

"God says that homosexual sex is a sin, therefore I think that it is wrong" - fine.

"God says that homosexual sex is a sin, therefore I think that it should be banned" - not fine.

This is a democratic question, not a religious one. If a democratic nation has a majority that believes that homosexual marriage is wrong, then the possiblity of legislating against the idea of homosexual marriage seems fair enough. In the same way a majority of people in the UK believed that foxhunting with dogs was wrong, and thus it was legislated against.

This is a democratic question, not a religious one. If a democratic nation has a majority that believes that homosexual marriage is wrong, then the possiblity of legislating against the idea of homosexual marriage seems fair enough. In the same way a majority of people in the UK believed that foxhunting with dogs was wrong, and thus it was legislated against.
Problem being that their are previous and more deeply held rules that say making that sort of law is illigal in and of itself

My mistake then. Perhaps, I meant war of Roses? There were several wars that took place in Europe between Protestant and Catholic that spread death and mayhem for several generations.

You may also be thinking of the "Inquisition". Although, not technically a war, it was Catholosisms attempt to exterminate anything other than "Catholic" Christianity... Not very Christ like IMO.

Problem being that their are previous and more deeply held rules that say making that sort of law is illigal in and of itself

In America yes, the seperation of Church and State. Not so in other nations though. But as I said, the idea of the legality of banning homosexual marriage is a political and democratic question, and I think something that the Church would do well not to make top of its adgenda

Problem being that their are previous and more deeply held rules that say making that sort of law is illigal in and of itself

The real problem here is that the State has crossed the Church and State divide by having anything to do with marriage to begin with. Marriage is a religious custom and should have always remained one. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the Gov. had left well enough alone to begin with.

I didn't have time to read all the answers, so I don't know if somebody already have said this. What's wrong with this debate, is that you all think that all Christians think alike. Christianity is a bigger concept for all the churches that are Christian churches. For example, I'm a Lutheran. And you can not compare Lutheran beliefs to those of the catholic church. Both are Christian, but Lutheran church thinks more open-minded about stuff. The basic belief is the same, but not the other stuff. So please don't speak about all the Christian people because they are the members of different churches who have different opinions on those mentioned subjects. Besides, not all Christians really believe in God or the Bible, though they are members of the churches.

This is a democratic question, not a religious one. If a democratic nation has a majority that believes that homosexual marriage is wrong, then the possiblity of legislating against the idea of homosexual marriage seems fair enough.That's asking for trouble, surely. What do you do if, for instance, religion tells you that slavery is a cool and groovy thing? Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Legislation needs to be based upon reason and a basic set of common axioms. Murder, for instance, should be illegal not because God doesn't like it but because we can generally agree that we don't want to find ourselves on the receiving end. Similarly theft, arson and other things that infringe upon the rights of another.

In the same way a majority of people in the UK believed that foxhunting with dogs was wrong, and thus it was legislated against.That's an excellent example, and one which demonstrates my own point of view in this sort of area. I find the idea of hunting with dogs to be repellent and find it both astonishing and deeply depressing that anyone should wish to be a part of it. I also do not believe that fox hunters should be deprived of their right to hunt, just because I (and, apparently, the majority) find it distasteful. This issue is one of the main reasons why I decided not to join the Labour party.

I didn't have time to read all the answers, so I don't know if somebody already have said this. What's wrong with this debate, is that you all think that all Christians think alike. Christianity is a bigger concept for all the churches that are Christian churches. For example, I'm a Lutheran. And you can not compare Lutheran beliefs to those of the catholic church. Both are Christian, but Lutheran church thinks more open-minded about stuff. The basic belief is the same, but not the other stuff. So please don't speak about all the Christian people because they are the members of different churches who have different opinions on those mentioned subjects. Besides, not all Christians really believe in God or the Bible, though they are members of the churches.

If they don't follow Christ, aren't Christ like, they can call themselves christians, but it is a misnomer. Conversely, all who are Christ like, no matter what church they belong or don't belong to are Christians.

The real problem here is that the State has crossed the Church and State divide by having anything to do with marriage to begin with. Marriage is a religious custom and should have always remained one. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the Gov. had left well enough alone to begin with.
Agreed … though somehow I have a feeling it was originally a plea from the “majority” to recognize their special status. (and I agree … I don’t think I have to go into the whole civil union vs marriage for all argument)

You may also be thinking of the "Inquisition". Although, not technically a war, it was Catholosisms attempt to exterminate anything other than "Catholic" Christianity... Not very Christ like IMO.
To be fair it was not the church as a whole (if I remember right … more a cardinal run amuck) but does not make the church letting him get away with it was very good in and of itself

Agreed … though somehow I have a feeling it was originally a plea from the “majority” to recognize their special status. (and I agree … I don’t think I have to go into the whole civil union vs marriage for all argument)

There are many examples of the violation of the 1st Ammendment on religous grounds. If you are really interested in the subject, check out "Religous Liberty" magazine. You might be surprised what some Christians actually believe about this and other related subjects.

If they don't follow Christ, aren't Christ like, they can call themselves christians, but it is a misnomer. Conversely, all who are Christ like, no matter what church they belong or don't belong to are Christians.

Well it would follow depending on ones chosen interpetation of the Bible and Jesus of Nazarth's teachings that no one is following Christ or Christ like. So I guess Christians don't exist.

To be fair it was not the church as a whole (if I remember right … more a cardinal run amuck) but does not make the church letting him get away with it was very good in and of itself

Partially true, but take that along with the history of the "Reformation" and the Crusades and you can see a pretty militant practice of 'christianity' that I have a hard time finding support for in the Bible.

There are many examples of the violation of the 1st Ammendment on religous grounds. If you are really interested in the subject, check out "Religous Liberty" magazine. You might be surprised what some Christians actually believe about this and other related subjects.
Oh I know … just replying to specific comments did not mean for it to sound like I thought all Christians were like that :)

Partially true, but take that along with the history of the "Reformation" and the Crusades and you can see a pretty militant practice of 'christianity' that I have a hard time finding support for in the Bible.
I agree (wow here I thought I was going to be hard core arguing) just wanted to be fair in specific instances (as long as my facts were right … history is not my strong suit)

Well it would follow depending on ones chosen interpetation of the Bible and Jesus of Nazarth's teachings that no one is following Christ or Christ like. So I guess Christians don't exist.

None of us do it perfectly, that's for sure. Though, for some of us, at least, it is the goal to be striving towards, growing towards for as long as life lasts.

None of us do it perfectly, that's for sure. Though, for some of us, at least, it is the goal to be striving towards, growing towards for as long as life lasts.
We are all imprefect...Well Jesus of Nazareth himself would not take that has a excuse "Be Perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". And how can you know who is correctly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? The Eastern Orthodox Church will tell you that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate and not correctly interpetating the teachings of Jesus, the Roman Catholice Church will tell you that the Protestant denominations are heretical and not truly following the teachings of Jesus and of course you will have the multitude of Protestant denominations tellling you that the EOC,RCC and every other denomination is wrong about what Jesus meant and the rest are going to Hell. A rather confusing situation.

We are all imprefect...Well Jesus of Nazareth himself would not take that has a excuse "Be Perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". And how can you know who is correctly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? The Eastern Orthodox Church will tell you that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate and not correctly interpetating the teachings of Jesus, the Roman Catholice Church will tell you that the Protestant denominations are heretical and not truly following the teachings of Jesus and of course you will have the multitude of Protestant denominations tellling you that the EOC,RCC and every other denomination is wrong about what Jesus meant and the rest are going to Hell. A rather confusing situation.

It isn't an excuse, and with His robe of righteousness standing in my place, that can be fulfilled, imperfect though I be. As for churches denouncing one another, there are some that don't, though rare admittedly and most say that everyone else has at least a part of it wrong. That is why I believe in reading and coming to my own conclusions and am a member of the chruch that most closely fits that. But, don't forget that Christ came for sinners, not the righteous "to repentence" and "seek and save the lost". The process of being sanctified (made like God) isn't something that happens overnight.

The process of being sanctified (made like God) isn't something that happens overnight.

It is if you're a baptist. :)

It is if you're a baptist. :)

I'm not positive about that, but I think even they debate amongst themselves on that subject. Most Christian's agree that we are justified at baptism/and or acceptance of the gospel, of which baptism is a public confession. Anyway, I know that not all Christian's believe that sanctification is instantaneous.

That's asking for trouble, surely. What do you do if, for instance, religion tells you that slavery is a cool and groovy thing? Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Legislation needs to be based upon reason and a basic set of common axioms. Murder, for instance, should be illegal not because God doesn't like it but because we can generally agree that we don't want to find ourselves on the receiving end. Similarly theft, arson and other things that infringe upon the rights of another.


I didn't say it should be legislated in favour just becasue a religion says so, but if there is a majority decision to do something, then the government must discuss it, and adress it somehow (whether that be in favour or opposed to popular belief is another matter)


That's an excellent example, and one which demonstrates my own point of view in this sort of area. I find the idea of hunting with dogs to be repellent and find it both astonishing and deeply depressing that anyone should wish to be a part of it. I also do not believe that fox hunters should be deprived of their right to hunt, just because I (and, apparently, the majority) find it distasteful. This issue is one of the main reasons why I decided not to join the Labour party.

My point was that this issue is comparable to that of homosexual marriage. IE there is a idea that the majority view as repugnent (reality = foxhunting/hypothtical = homosexual marriage) which is practiced by the minority. Becasue of the majority, the government needs to do something about it, discuss it in someway and make a decision.

I didn't have time to read all the answers, so I don't know if somebody already have said this. What's wrong with this debate, is that you all think that all Christians think alike. Christianity is a bigger concept for all the churches that are Christian churches. For example, I'm a Lutheran. And you can not compare Lutheran beliefs to those of the catholic church. Both are Christian, but Lutheran church thinks more open-minded about stuff. The basic belief is the same, but not the other stuff. So please don't speak about all the Christian people because they are the members of different churches who have different opinions on those mentioned subjects. Besides, not all Christians really believe in God or the Bible, though they are members of the churches.

If you had read the FIRST post, you would see I delt with this by putting the word MANY in brakets at the begining.

Now a literal seven days can be debated till the cows come home, but what I just want to say about this is evolution can be accepted in Christian logic as the way that life has changed since God created it. However, it is not the explination for the origin of life itself (Abiogenesis). Since science has not proven abiogenesis yet, the origin of life is still debateable. Thefore, neither side is conclusive

Well, abiogenesis is outside the scope of evolution anyway, so would that make evolution conclusive (as much as anything can be)? Evolution starts after the beginning of life. That's a misconception many Christians have about evolution.

Originally posted by Neo Cannen
2) Homosexual marriage

Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sin have a problem with this on two grounds. Firstly, marrigae is a Godly institution and so should be used as he designed, and same sex marriage is not how God designed it. Secondly, because homosexualual sex is a sin, giving it a title in which it is accepted to practice said sin is rather like (to Christians) giving a murder a town in which he has the right to kill anyone in there and for it to be all right

Did you intend to make a conclusion? Also, murder is not nearly the same homosexual sex, as very few species of animal kill their own kind, except to preserve their own life, while somewhere around 80% of animals we have studied in depth show homosexual behavior occasionally.

Originally posted my Neo Cannen
This is a democratic question, not a religious one. If a democratic nation has a majority that believes that homosexual marriage is wrong, then the possiblity of legislating against the idea of homosexual marriage seems fair enough. In the same way a majority of people in the UK believed that foxhunting with dogs was wrong, and thus it was legislated against.

Unfortunately, if Americans only solved problems through democratic processes, blacks would still have to ride in the back of the bus. Hell, blacks might still be enslaved if Lincoln hadn't punished the South by taking away their right own other human beings. Frankly, I'm hesitant to trust to Christianity for solutions, as our country (America) was largely founded on writings that were thoroughly secular, written by people who were frequently accused of atheism, though they claimed to be deist.

I'm not positive about that, but I think even they debate amongst themselves on that subject. Most Christian's agree that we are justified at baptism/and or acceptance of the gospel, of which baptism is a public confession. Anyway, I know that not all Christian's believe that sanctification is instantaneous.

Let me re-iterate... these Southern Baptists in the hick corner of NE Georgia, teach that all you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and, in that instant, all your sins are 'washed away', and you are guaranteed a place in heaven.

I have asked my friend Charles (who is a pastor), what that means about sinning AFTER you are saved, and the general consensus seems to be that, after you are saved, you live a Christ-like life, so you are unlikely to sin. (Which, in my opinion, shows that someone didn't know what people are like).

To me - that's too much of a cop-out. I can't accept that the Christian god should be SO fickle, that pledging alleigence ONE TIME should be enough to absolve eternally.

My point was that this issue is comparable to that of homosexual marriage. IE there is a idea that the majority view as repugnent (reality = foxhunting/hypothtical = homosexual marriage) which is practiced by the minority. Becasue of the majority, the government needs to do something about it, discuss it in someway and make a decision.

Except that the great majority of people SUPPORT unions for homosexual couples.

(Maybe not the WORD "marriage", but the 'spirit').

Let me re-iterate... these Southern Baptists in the hick corner of NE Georgia, teach that all you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and, in that instant, all your sins are 'washed away', and you are guaranteed a place in heaven.

I have asked my friend Charles (who is a pastor), what that means about sinning AFTER you are saved, and the general consensus seems to be that, after you are saved, you live a Christ-like life, so you are unlikely to sin. (Which, in my opinion, shows that someone didn't know what people are like).

To me - that's too much of a cop-out. I can't accept that the Christian god should be SO fickle, that pledging alleigence ONE TIME should be enough to absolve eternally.
I just got to figure out if a death bed confession works if it is video taped ... that way if I die before I get to confess ...

Hell I will just do it in every major religon just in-case

I just got to figure out if a death bed confession works if it is video taped ... that way if I die before I get to confess ...

Hell I will just do it in every major religon just in-case

Well, if people around here are right... all you REALLY need, for a guaranteed ticket to heaven, is to believe in Jesus, just one time - for long enough to be 'saved'.

After that, your golden... doesn't matter if you convert to Islam on your way out of church, or eat a baby in the car on the way home... once you're IN, you're IN.

So I'm told. :)

As for churches denouncing one another, there are some that don't, though rare admittedly and most say that everyone else has at least a part of it wrong.

Well, according to Jesus of Nazareth's own brother James the Just , if you have it wrong on one part - you have it totally wrong. And didn't John of Patmos say that you shouldn't be lukewarm, be either hot or cold but not lukewarm? So comes down to the point its whether you are perfect in following Jesus of Nazareth or not. There is no middle ground or excuses.

Well, according to Jesus of Nazareth's own brother James the Just , if you have it wrong on one part - you have it totally wrong. And didn't John of Patmos say that you shouldn't be lukewarm, be either hot or cold but not lukewarm? So comes down to the point its whether you are perfect in following Jesus of Nazareth or not. There is no middle ground or excuses.

That's pretty much the way I see it.

Following Bible scripture means nothing. Church attendence means nothing.

The only way to be 'Christian' is to be Christ-like.

If you follow Christ, honestly and earnestly, the dogmas and religious foibles of any individual church are irrelevent. My opinion, anyway.

That's my big complaint with 'modern christianity'... the fact that it follows Pauline teaching.

You still haven't provided anything by way of a proof.
I believe we're all waiting.
It is not possible to prove a negative! I don't believe in pink and spotted dragons, but I certainly can't prove they exist. Do you believe in pink and purple spotted dragons? If not, why? Can you prove they don't exist?

It is not possible to prove a negative! I don't believe in pink and spotted dragons, but I certainly can't prove they exist. Do you believe in pink and purple spotted dragons? If not, why? Can you prove they don't exist?

I can - I just ate the last one. :)

This is a democratic question, not a religious one. If a democratic nation has a majority that believes that homosexual marriage is wrong, then the possiblity of legislating against the idea of homosexual marriage seems fair enough. In the same way a majority of people in the UK believed that foxhunting with dogs was wrong, and thus it was legislated against.
The majority does not have the right to tyrannize the minority.
If so, then blacks would not have any legal rights.

The majority does not have the right to tyrannize the minority.
If so, then blacks would not have any legal rights.

Tell that to foxhunters

Except that the great majority of people SUPPORT unions for homosexual couples.

(Maybe not the WORD "marriage", but the 'spirit').

I said hypothetical

I can - I just ate the last one. :)
YOU MONSTER!! ;)

Unfortunately, if Americans only solved problems through democratic processes, blacks would still have to ride in the back of the bus. Hell, blacks might still be enslaved if Lincoln hadn't punished the South by taking away their right own other human beings. Frankly, I'm hesitant to trust to Christianity for solutions, as our country (America) was largely founded on writings that were thoroughly secular, written by people who were frequently accused of atheism, though they claimed to be deist.

I am opposed to Gay marriage completely, but I can see the legality of allowing it. Having said that, Churches should reserve the right not to hold homosexual cerrmonies in their buildings. Dont think I'm a hompohobe now, I think I've allready explained that part enough

I am opposed to Gay marriage completely, but I can see the legality of allowing it. Having said that, Churches should reserve the right not to hold homosexual cerrmonies in their buildings

You do realise that Churches aren't required for marriage, yes?

To be honest, I STILL can't see what it even HAS TO DO with the church.

They should attend to something more important, like saving souls or clothing the poor, rather than trying to impose THEIR sexual preferences on other people.

You do realise that Churches aren't required for marriage, yes?

To be honest, I STILL can't see what it even HAS TO DO with the church.

They should attend to something more important, like saving souls or clothing the poor, rather than trying to impose THEIR sexual preferences on other people.

Well Churches do all those things, and to great effect. Its just they dont get publicised enough because

A) There is very little disagreement about it

B) When do the press ever focus on the good things that people do? (Before you answer "Charites in the Tsunami recovery zones" then think, what about all the other charity work that people do all the time)

And the reason that it is to do with the church is that long before the state got involved, marriage was a religious idea.

Let me re-iterate... these Southern Baptists in the hick corner of NE Georgia, teach that all you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and, in that instant, all your sins are 'washed away', and you are guaranteed a place in heaven.

I have asked my friend Charles (who is a pastor), what that means about sinning AFTER you are saved, and the general consensus seems to be that, after you are saved, you live a Christ-like life, so you are unlikely to sin. (Which, in my opinion, shows that someone didn't know what people are like).

To me - that's too much of a cop-out. I can't accept that the Christian god should be SO fickle, that pledging alleigence ONE TIME should be enough to absolve eternally.


First paragraph... that is a poor mans definition of Justification by grace through faith, in theological terms.

Second paragraph... This is, as you noted, not something that happens in reality. The living a "Christ like" life is something that you learn over time as your relationship with Christ deepens and is the process of a lifetime. That is a poor mans definition of sanctification and is sounds like your pastor friend either doesn't live in reality or doesn't believe in that process.

Third paragraph... I agree with you. It is an ongoing commitment IMO.

I just got to figure out if a death bed confession works if it is video taped ... that way if I die before I get to confess ...

Hell I will just do it in every major religon just in-case

LOL ;) Hopefully you'll come to a sufficient knowlegde of truth that it takes a little less guess work than that. :)

I am opposed to Gay marriage completely, but I can see the legality of allowing it. Having said that, Churches should reserve the right not to hold homosexual cerrmonies in their buildings
I'm pretty sure they already do. Catholics can't marry in an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue, can they?

It is not possible to prove a negative! I don't believe in pink and spotted dragons, but I certainly can't prove they exist. Do you believe in pink and purple spotted dragons? If not, why? Can you prove they don't exist?
You can disprove an individual God, by proving the logical incompatibility of its features. Although, having features that are compatible doesn't support its existence. That said, it is wholly unnecessary to disprove any god, just as it is unnecessary to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Leprechaun King. Until there is (objective) evidence to support the existence of such a being, the belief in it is unjustified, as it requires the presupposition that it exists in order to believe in its existence. To help explain why I put the word "objective" in the previous sentence, I can claim that Moby Dick exists because the book Moby Dick says so. That is subjective evidence. Physical evidence is objective. So, the corpse of God would be proof enough for me.

Well, according to Jesus of Nazareth's own brother James the Just , if you have it wrong on one part - you have it totally wrong. And didn't John of Patmos say that you shouldn't be lukewarm, be either hot or cold but not lukewarm? So comes down to the point its whether you are perfect in following Jesus of Nazareth or not. There is no middle ground or excuses.

Actually, those to passages are a little taken out of context here. The Isle of Patmos guy was talking about a specific church and its pride, "you think that you are rich have need of nothing, but do not realize that you are poor, blind and naked." A group of people who are self-decieved.

As for the comments of James, it is talking about breaking the commandments and if you offend in one point you are as guilty as if you had broken all. Fortunately, he and others point out that the remedy for this problem is Christ's death in our stead at Calvary.

Having said that, Churches should reserve the right not to hold homosexual cerrmonies in their buildings.

I don't know about GB, but in the US, any church has a right to refuse any service to any person (as long as they are not getting government money to perform that service). As I have said before, if a church doesn't want to marry people with blue eyes on Tuesdays, there is nothing in the law to make them do so. If a church doesn't want to marry non-members, it doesn't have to do so. In truth, the fact that a priest/preacher/rabbi/etc can give a legal marriage license in some areas is pure convenience.

Of course, this would have to go the other way as well. There are many churches that would (and already do) perform homosexual marriages. And legally, nothing should keep them from doing so.

Ok so can people now appricate that the Church is not an institution of homophobia?

Ok so can people now appricate that the Church is not an institution of homophobia?

Maybe just an institution.

I'm not here in this thread to post hateful comments about Christians. I repect Christians and their beliefs as long as they repect me and my beliefs. So save your anti-Satanism posts for another thread.

With that out of the way, here are my perspectives as a Satanist.

1.All gays are sinners. Homosexual sex and the action of being attracted to members of your own gender are both the same sin. As I believe in that Satanist are the punishers of Hell, and we will punish the sinners in the depths of Hell. That includes all gays. We should be able to judge sinners because it's a choice to sin, and I believe if gays want to truly stop being gay they can.

2.I'm against homosexual marriage. It's a choice to sin. If you want to get married they should change their ways, or just shut up and deal with not being able to marry.

3.Neither. Because neither side can really prove their theory is true.

These are just my opinions and not the views of every Satanist.

Posted by the Satanist, Lord Medivh

Religion. MEh.
I have mine. It is not my place to force it on others, but offer it. That is all I need to know.

Thats a debatable statement and I wouldnt really recognize it.

It is. It's proven that people with a certain something (I always forget what they go on about in those medical conferences) are 70% more likely to be homosexual that other people.

Er. In reply to the fact that homosexuality can be genetic