Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Blackheart]

"But I can certainly have my well-considered opinions on what kinds of BEHAVIORS are good and beneficial (right? RIGHT? or are you gonna call me intolerant? )"

That is of course, the point of my post. Opinions, viewpoints, and thoughts MUST be exempt from censorship. You wouldn't want anyone forcing you to modify your thoughts because they don't conform would you?

Apply the Golden rule people.

As for calling you intolerant, I have no idea. I have not observed your behavior. Do you run around at night beating up faggots with a baseball bat for their own good? If so, that would be an example of intolerant behavior.

It doesn't matter if your opinions are intolerant or not. They are, and should be, protected. Hell that's why we even protect the Klan's right to free speech.

"and one of my opinions is that homosexual BEHAVIOR is harmful,"

It is certainly your opinion. I have yet to see any data that supports this viewpoint, other than the harm done to such people because they are unaccepted by certain facets of society.

My opinion is that no one in their right mind would "choose" to be homosexual, because of the stigma attatched to it in this society. Since I know several people who are relatively sane and homosexual, I can only conclude that they are the way that they are for some other reason than choice. Such as childhood conditioning, genetics, or some combinaiton.

As such, I cannot condem anyone for their lifestyle. Even if they had a choice, I will not condem them, I have not walked in their shoes. According to your sourcebook, "Judge not, lest yourself be judged and found wanting". And also according to your sourcebook, not one shall be found righteous. It's not up to you to judge. Even in a secular setting, it's not up to you to judge, unless you were appointed that power by the courts.

"and should not be supported by legislation that says its the same as a marriage between a man and a woman."

Actually, I view state sanctioned marriage as an intolerable violation of church and state. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, should NEVER have been sanctioned by the state. Since it is holy, it should be reserved for religious institutions.

The state should not perform marriages, or sanction them. Instead it should issue secular contracts between partners for the secular purposes of tax benefits, inheritance, child rearing etc.

To allow the state to continue to sanction marriage cheapens the meaning of such an institution, and makes it profane. And Christians keep wondering why the divorce rate is skyrocketing. Sometimes I despair of actually teaching people things.

"And you're intolerant if you say I'm intolerant, right?"

I would be better off removing the timber from my own eye before I show you the splinter in yours.

However since this is a discussion on the difference between thinking and behavior, I can honestly say I don't care if your viewpoint is intolerant or not. It's your behavior that matters.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Cirdan - yes, people are actively persecuting my viewpoints for example, trying to pass laws that 2 men can marry, or 2 women can marry, when I feel very strongly that it would be terribly harmful to them and to those around them. And that's just one example. See? I'm a victim of intolerance, acc'd to your standard.

I don't see anyone trying to force you to marry a woman. If the poplar support is to allow gay marriage, then that is the law and I think you believe in supporting the law. On the other hand, you want to regulate someone else's personal relationships which is pretty invasive. Ideas and beliefs can't be persecuted, only people. No one is seeking to penalize you or a group you are a member of by this action while you actively opposing it penalizes them. They want more freedom and you want less so who is persecuting who?

Accepting a possible law you don't agree with is not persecution of you. It is a rejection of what you believe. Ironically, it forces you to choose between tolerance and rebellion. Read The Rebel by Camus if you haven't already. It's a wonderful treatise on the subject.

The gay marriage is complex because at the level of personal contrct the gays have a valid case for the right to enter into a civil contract. As for the religious aspect of marriage, there is a strong tradition in Christianity against homosexuals (except the episcopalians) and churches can't be forced to sanction them.

If I believe people I don't like should be killed am I persecuted because there is a law preventing the actualization of my utopia? NO!

[Ruinel]

Go Cirdan!
Ditto to everything Cirdan said.

[Cirdan]

*does "cabbage patch" dance for Ruinel*

[Rían]

* no one cheers for me *
* feels sorry for self *

BTW, as the thread starter, I'd like to say this OT discussion is fine with me - it's a rather interesting one.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
But then, I don't think marriage as such is something that should be recognised by the state- a civil union contract available to any consenting adults should be fine, with marriage as a personal/social/religious ceremony free from government sanction or control.

I think C. S. Lewis felt that way, IIRC, but I'm not real sure on that one ... interesting idea, has some definite good points ...

I believe that people who believe homosexual behavior is harmful and wrong are themselves harmful and wrong; does that make me intolerant?

Whew, pretty harsh statement .... but as I thought about it, I suppose I really feel the same way about those that believe that homosexual behavior is right. I do NOT think they are intentionally being harmful (as in having malicious intent), but I believe that they are wrong, and that their beliefs will bring harm. I hope you don't think I'm intentionally harmful. I don't think you are.

[Rían]

What's so interesting here is to read the various definitions of tolerence, and how they start to change ...

Just for fun, here are 3 defs from my dictionary:

1. To not interfere with; allow; permit [to tolerate heresy]
2. to recognize and respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without sharing them
3. to bear, or put up with (someone or something not especially liked)

As far as Blackheart and his Bible references -

from Blackheart's most recent post
"Judge not, lest yourself be judged and found wanting"

And also according to your sourcebook, not one shall be found righteous.

I would be better off removing the timber from my own eye before I show you the splinter in yours.

I think you're making the common error of taking the judgement verse out of context. This verse is typically brought up in discussions like this if a Christian says that homosexual behavior is wrong. However, taking the verse in context, it's clear that the Sermon on the Mount is focusing on heart attitudes (Jesus was always speaking against hypocrites). And of course, taking it in the way you're appearing to use it, Jesus Himself didn't follow His own advice, as He clearly called certain behaviors and attitudes wrong! One needs to make a judgement to do that, obviously. So using that verse against someone saying that a certain action or attitude is wrong is clearly incorrect. What I believe is the correct meaning is that we are not to judge in the sense of passing a final judgement on a person as being past redemption (only God can do that); or in the sense of having a critical, malicious, judgemental heart attitude; or in the sense of trying to find fault in others in order to avoid looking at our own faults (which of course is the point of the timber/splinter verse).

The second verse - yes, quite right We're all in the same boat, and we all of us need a savior to bear the burden of our sins and make us righteous before God. I certainly hope I've never conveyed the idea that I think I'm better than anyone else, because I don't feel that way at all. Much of what people call "good" in me is not a result of any effort of mine, but a result of a good upbringing in a safe environment (IOW, I've never been temped to steal, so it's no credit to me that I don't steal!)

The third verse - yes, of course - again, it relates back to (and even elucidates) the first verse you quoted. To be more precise, you probably should have quoted the whole section (the first verse is Matthew 7:1, the third is Matthew 7:3!) But continue on, and see that after removing our own logs, we ARE instructed to help our brother with the splinter in his eye. And to do that, we must be able to make a judgement. But if we concentrate on our own plentiful batch of logs in our own eyes, we will help our brother with mercy and love and compassion, not with a critical, malicious attitude. After all, Satan is the one who accuses us with malice; Jesus is the one who shows us our sins to heal us.

[Elfhelm]

On topic: I don't think evidence is necessary for creationism. Evidence is a scientific concept. Creationism is a superstition. If one chooses to believe aliens seeded the earth with humans, for instance, no evidence could sway that person either way, so why bother? Inductive and deductive reasoning should not be wasted on people who resort to faith in the face of all proofs opposite to their opinions.

Off topic: Their attitudes of sexual control over other people are just further proof that they should not be allowed to rule.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I don't see anyone trying to force you to marry a woman.

Given this logic, the following is also a lack of tolerance:
1. A girl wants to join the men's olympic swimming relay team. She claims they are intolerant because they insist that the men's olympic swimming team should consist of men. And they are also intolerant because they insist that the people they choose have to be the fastest swimmers.

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (sp?) has a valid claim to intolerance because he can't run for president in the US.

3. A convicted pedophile wants to work in a day care nursery. He claims that they are intolerant because they don't accept pedophiles as nursery workers.

And I could go on and on ... the point is that marriage is not formed by a committee and subject to review ("let's see - shall it be man/woman only, or man/tree, or woman/woman/woman/woman/man, or what?") - it has been the natural and basic standard for a family across time and civilization, and for excellent reasons. Any man and any woman is free to marry, but marriage means a union with the opposite sex. It's a definition - just like a person on the men's olympic swimming team must be a man, and one of the fastest swimmers in the nation.

If the poplar support is to allow gay marriage, then that is the law and I think you believe in supporting the law.

The popular support in the US is still against gay marriage; it's a vocal minority that is for it, and the laws are still against gay marriage. Am I tolerant, then, in this area, since I'm with the majority and the law? Will I become instantly intolerant if the majority swings the other way? Does tolerance mean caving in to someone else's opinion? Then why don't they cave into mine? I certainly respect people's right to have an opinion, and I expect my opinion to be respected, and I will support my opinion because I think it is the best one on that subject.

On the other hand, you want to regulate someone else's personal relationships which is pretty invasive.

Absolutely not - that's a ridiculous accusation! I don't want cameras in homes. What I DO want to regulate is the definition of marriage. This is by no means a mere matter of personal relationship! It has far-reaching implications for people, for society, and especially for children, as it is a pretty strong consensus that the best environment for children is a stable marriage between a man and a woman.
I think men and women are wonderful! I adore being a woman, and I've always really liked men (and prefer working with them, as I did for many years as an engineer in the radar industry). And men and women are different, and that's wonderful and fun and interesting, and a marriage is a glorious combination of their differing aspects. And a mom has unique qualities that make her the best teacher in some areas to both a son and a daughter, and a dad has unique qualities that make him the best teacher in some areas to both a son and a daughter. And homosexual marriages deprive children of the wonderful benefits of a man/woman marriage.

But now I'm OT on the OT discussion, as I only meant to talk about tolerance.

They want more freedom and you want less so who is persecuting who?

So maximum tolerance is maximum freedom? Then this :

If I believe people I don't like should be killed am I persecuted because there is a law preventing the actualization of my utopia? NO!

makes no logical sense. Why do you say "NO!"? Why not maximize the freedom of allowable personal contact? Why deny the person that likes to kill people the freedom of carrying out of his viewpoint?

[Elfhelm]

logic?

Killing people, by definition, hurts others.
Gay love hurts nobody.
Wanting to stop gay love hurts people. It is wrong.

[Blackheart]

"So using that verse against someone saying that a certain action or attitude is wrong is clearly incorrect. "

If you are judging a behavior that is an indelible mark on who that person is, then yes, you are judging them, not the behavior. Especially related to the fact that someone's sexual orientation isn't a choice, and the behavior is instinctive. It's quite applicable.

It would be no different than saying an alcoholic's behavior makes them a morally corrupt person, instead of a sick person. Except that in the case of a homosexual, there isn't a mental or physical illness, just different wiring. And the behavior isn't maladaptive or degenerative. Though I'd find it interesting to see you try to argue differently.

I find it morbidly amusing when modern Christians say that they love the sinner and hate the sin, then proceed to try to cut the sinner into little pieces to remove the sin.

As for the second verse, I don't know if you are familiar at all with Gnostic interpretations, but it has a different shade of meaning. Jesus was an elevated human, and as such was indeed fallible, and subject to temptation. Not to mention a perspective that was based, whether through default or design, on a barbaric middle-eastern culture that stoned "sinners", advocated slavery, and various other wonderful practices. He was indeed an enlightened individual, but you can only work so much with people who barely understand the concept of enlightened self interest.

As such, I don't put any stock in such prohibitions, not to mention, I don't actually remember him particularly identifying homosexuality as any worse than regular old fornication. And lord knows we've all been doing enough of that after church picnics...

"we ARE instructed to help our brother with the splinter in his eye. And to do that, we must be able to make a judgment."

Actually, I'm trying to. She seems a bit stubborn. As for making a judgment, no. I'm advocating acceptance, humility, and tolerance. I'm not qualified to judge another person spiritually, nor morally outside the bounds of what social norms are, and I can't do it secularly outside of tightly proscribed powers granted to citizens.

"After all, Satan is the one who accuses us with malice; Jesus is the one who shows us our sins to heal us."

Interesting that you bring up the old concept of the adversary(s) as one who confronts. They served the very same purpose under the old testament. So I take it that you wouldn't condone any malice at all to homosexuals, but you just want to "heal" them?

Even though most current psychology seems to insist that doing so would be akin to destroying their identity? Imagine, just for a second, that for some odd reason, you were the one who was considered "queer" (in the old english Tolkein usage of the word). And all these people who knew what was good for you decided that you should be attracted to women. Not because they had any empirical knowledge that it was better, but because that was the way god had intended for you to be (which is odd, since you obviously turned out differently), and you were committing a sin because you obviously chose somehow to be attracted to men.

Not to mention that some of them would gladly call you names behind your back or too your face, or even kill you...

So we're going to nicely tell you that you are perverted, and unwholesome, and doing terrible harm to yourself and society, because we so sweetly know what's right for you. Because some dead middle-easterner who probably was homophobic due to unspecified trauma's recorded it in a book along with other prohibitions about laying down with goats and eating with the wrong hand and the best way to sacrifice animals.

You may not be displaying the malice, but there's plenty enough coming from the pews to make up for it.

But if you LIKE bible quotes, here's a puzzle for you:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

[Elfhelm]

Here's a little humor that has been going around the internet regarding the application of archaic laws to our modern life. Hope you all enjoy it!

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Lev. 1:9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness. (Lev. 15:19-24) The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[Sheeana]

*laugh*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
logic?

Yes, logic I was pointing out a logical inconsistency - Cirdan appeared to be saying that increasing freedom is good in general; I pointed out that increasing freedom for certain kinds of things can be bad.

Gay love hurts nobody.

That is your OPINION . My opinion is different. And I think it's safe to estimate that many millions of people across the world agree with me.

Wanting to stop gay love hurts people. It is wrong.

Two more of your opinions, with which I (and many others) disagree.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Here's a little humor that has been going around the internet regarding the application of archaic laws to our modern life. Hope you all enjoy it!
[quotes from the Old Testament follow]

Good thing those don't apply to Christians, who are not under the old covenant of the law

The OT laws were for our instruction, during that time period, and used to point out our tendency to sin, and to illustrate the need for a substitutionary sacrifice, which was perfectly fulfilled at the right time by Jesus

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
If you are judging a behavior that is an indelible mark on who that person is, then yes, you are judging them, not the behavior. Especially related to the fact that someone's sexual orientation isn't a choice, and the behavior is instinctive.

Sorry, but I disagree. Or I agree in the sense that EVERYONE has indelible marks on them that they do not choose and that are instinctive. Mine include laziness and selfishness. A homosexual's include a desire for homosexual behavior. We're all in the same boat, but have different luggage.

It would be no different than saying an alcoholic's behavior makes them a morally corrupt person, instead of a sick person. Except that in the case of a homosexual, there isn't a mental or physical illness, just different wiring. And the behavior isn't maladaptive or degenerative. Though I'd find it interesting to see you try to argue differently.

I don't consider homosexuals to be any worse than the rest of us - we're ALL morally corrupt to some degree (anyone that says that they've never sinned is either a liar or not sane, wouldn't you say?).

I find it morbidly amusing when modern Christians say that they love the sinner and hate the sin, then proceed to try to cut the sinner into little pieces to remove the sin.

Have I done this, in your opinion? If you think so, please point it out.

As for the second verse, I don't know if you are familiar at all with Gnostic interpretations, but it has a different shade of meaning. Jesus was an elevated human, and as such was indeed fallible, and subject to temptation.

Yes, He certainly was, but also overcame those temptations and was the only person without sin. Your point is ....?

Not to mention a perspective that was based, whether through default or design, on a barbaric middle-eastern culture that stoned "sinners", advocated slavery, and various other wonderful practices. He was indeed an enlightened individual, but you can only work so much with people who barely understand the concept of enlightened self interest.

Are you referring to Jesus or those He worked with when you say "you can only work so much ..."? If Jesus, then I would say the God part of Him would have no trouble overcoming these things ; if the people around Him, well, it looks like you have a little "technology snobbery" going here ... I don't consider people back in those times any less intelligent than we are. I'm sure they were worse in some ways, but also better in some ways.

As such, I don't put any stock in such prohibitions, not to mention, I don't actually remember him particularly identifying homosexuality as any worse than regular old fornication. And lord knows we've all been doing enough of that after church picnics...

They're both wrong; so what is your point? And my selfishness and laziness are wrong, too.

Actually, I'm trying to. She seems a bit stubborn.

Yes, I'm always stubborn when I know I'm right And that stubbornness comes from love.

[Rían]

more from Blackheart's post (why do people pick names like that, anyway? )

I'm advocating acceptance, humility, and tolerance.

I'll go for the Biblical qualities of love, patience, kindness, gentleness, mercy, etc. "Tolerance", as it is used currently, usually means "intolerance" - IOW, the people that use it seem to mean "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'll continue to call you intolerant until you change your beliefs." (of course, at that point, there is nothing to be tolerant about!.) Tolerance, to me, means "I think I'm right, I think you're wrong - hey, let's discuss things and be friends!"

I'm not qualified to judge another person spiritually ...

I don't make judgements on a person's spirituality; I can't see their heart like God can. I AM called to make judgements on their behavior in the sense of (1) if they're a fellow Christian, I'm called to lovingly and carefully point out wrong behavior, and I hope that other Christians would do the same to me; (2) if they AREN'T a Christian, I would just state my opinion on a behavior if it comes up - IOW, if someone lies, and asks me if I think that's right, I would say that I thought it was NOT right.

So I take it that you wouldn't condone any malice at all to homosexuals, but you just want to "heal" them?

I wouldn't condone malice towards anyone. I would hope and pray that they would see their need for redemption, just like I would pray for everyone else. If they became a Christian, I would hope and pray that that particular area, as well as all the other areas, would be healed, and would hope for their prayers that my sin areas would be healed.

Even though most current psychology seems to insist that doing so would be akin to destroying their identity? ... So we're going to nicely tell you that you are perverted, and unwholesome, and doing terrible harm to yourself and society, because we so sweetly know what's right for you. Because some dead middle-easterner who probably was homophobic due to unspecified trauma's recorded it in a book along with other prohibitions about laying down with goats and eating with the wrong hand and the best way to sacrifice animals.

Boy, are you missing the boat here as far as the OT, IMO!! There's so much to discuss, maybe we should continue on another thread. Again, the main point is ... we've ALL sinned! We're all in the same situation! Homosexual behavior is just one of many sins - some people have it, some don't. No special treatment. And I disagree with the first sentence, too. Or I agree that it would destroy their current identity, but would give them their right, intended identify. Again, JUST LIKE FOR ME! - losing my selfishness would destroy my old identify, but put me into my right, intended identify.

You may not be displaying the malice, but there's plenty enough coming from the pews to make up for it.

I don't have malice; perhaps that's why I'm not displaying it And whenever I see malice, I try to correct it. Homosexuality is just a hot issue now, and that's why you see it addressed more than many other sins. People aren't going around trying to push selfishness on us, after all; but they ARE trying to push the mistaken idea that homosexual behavior is right and good.

But if you LIKE bible quotes, here's a puzzle for you: ...

I like the Bible I know that's not in the Bible that I consider to be the authorized set of Scriptures. Or perhaps it's some really different translation that I don't recognize; I wouldn't be surprised if these start coming out more and more, with inaccurate translations in certain places that the translator doesn't want to deal with.... After all, we'd rather justify our bad behavior ("well, I only yelled at her because I was really tired!" )than deal with the source of it, wouldn't we? Thank God that He helps us deal with the source, not just cover things up.

So - acc'd to Blackheart's standards, apparently I'm tolerant towards homosexuals.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Who would want a canadian slave anyway?

[Snowdog]

A little sidenote here:

People aren't going around trying to push selfishness on us, after all; but they ARE trying to push the mistaken idea that homosexual behavior is right and good.

How true! Next week, we are required to go to a play at the performing arts center on company time to watch a pro-homosexual play in the name of diversity.

[Rían]

Wow - and you'd prob. get fired if you didn't! Again, it's NOT tolerance that we're seeing here on the part of homosexual activists - it's intolerance.

Snowdog's post reminded me of something Cirdan said about being forced to do things against our beliefs (and BTW, I doubt if Snowdog will be forced to attend a play that extols the virtue of true marriage!)

Cirdan pointed out that I wasn't being forced to marry a woman, and apparently drew the conclusion that because of this, laws saying that homosexual marriage is OK shouldn't affect/bother me (is that close enough, Cirdan?)

Cirdan, if laws were passed saying that it's ok for people to kill anyone they want to, would you say it's ok with you because you weren't being forced to kill anyone?

(and please don't say I'm equating homosexuals with murderers! It's obvious I'm NOT - but I AM pointing out logical inconsistencies with people's arguments.)