Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Ariel]

I will be gone for the next week, so I will not be able to reply to anything on this thread.

[Col. Hstar]

That was a nice post. Thanks Colonel. I had forgotten about Proverbs 6:16-19. I'll keep those handy.

In my belief, I don't care if God created us or not, there's nothing wrong with being homosexual unless he can come up with a really good reason. If we say "just because he created us, he can tell us what to do" then where does it end? No. I'll worship God because he deserves it, not because he tells me so. If God came to me, and told me to kill my father, I wouldn't do it. He wouldn't, but that's not my point. You can't do everything God says just because he says to do it. That's slavery.

In response to whether or not he has the right to tell us what to do, I would offer this analogy. And yes this is a much smaller scale as far as importance, but if we take this forum that we are on here. It was created and maintain by a group of people. They have set specific rules and guidelines for us to follow if we want to continue posting here. If we were to act against their rules we would get banned or blocked. They have that right because they created this forum. If we don't want to abide by their rules we would have to leave. Now take the fact the God not only created us, but this planet as well. Why would he not have the right to decide what is allowed and what is not. This is a very simplistic example I know, but I think it fits none the less. The fact that you don't understand his reasons for everything doesn't mean God is unreasonable.

I hope this helps explain my views a little better.

[Darth Crater]

I think that being a pet would be a closer analogy, Homestar. Do you think it should be permissible to torture and kill your pets? How about to lock them in a cage unless they do tricks for you? If you were the pet, would you be alright with this?

Ariel - I'll have that response ready when you get back, most likely.

[Col. Hstar]

I think that being a pet would be a closer analogy, Homestar. Do you think it should be permissible to torture and kill your pets? How about to lock them in a cage unless they do tricks for you? If you were the pet, would you be alright with this?

I think it's a good analogy only if one has the terribly warped sense about God that you do. Tell me please where he condones torturing people. If your going to bring up hell cite the scriptures you feel that show a place called hell exists. Next show me anywhere in the bible where he takes delight, glee, joy in having someone put to death for no reason. I'd also like to know how you think we are locked in a cage and forced to perform tricks. God doesn't view humans as pets. In fact he specifically refers to all as his children and some as his friends.

[theavengers85]

I really don't see how you got the impression Creationism is "reasonable" and scientifically sound, but it's really not.

That's because it really doesn't get a lot of mainstream attention. There are numerous frameworks being worked on (icr and AIG are two places doing the research).

Actually, the position is reasonable because, as I was trying to convey (but not too well), it follows from a philosophical commitment to a literal interpretation of the Bible, just as evolutionism follows reasonable from an athiestic understanding of the world. Both are historical scientific frameworks that attempt to explain the same set of facts from different perspectives. Neither has been (or can be for that er) disproved, because it is not experimental science. They are both historical frameworks.

And yes, I am well aware most Christians don't take the Bible completely literally (particularly Genesis), but that's a whole other story.

Also, Westboro gives Christians who oppose same-sex marriage a bad name. Don't go by them (they are wackos) and are definitely not the mainstream opinion.

[Darth Crater]

Children, you say? Even better. Would you want your children to be shunned, restricted, or even (in some places) put to death because they're homosexual? Especially when you're the one who made them that way, and claim to have created the situation that allows for such? Would you want your other children to be the ones doing the tormenting and killing? Would you reward them only if they performed for you, going to churches, praying, and telling others about you? Do you have the right to kill your child (after birth - we have enough on the table here without bringing up abortion) anytime you want, just because you created them?

If we are God's children, then we are better than God.

Cypher: Evolution does not follow from an atheistic view of the world. It follows from the evidence we have about the past. You do not get to write this off as "different perspectives" and absolve yourself of having to actually think, especially when only one "perspective" is actually supported by observations. And yes, we can test evolution. The theory predicts the existence of so-called "transitional" fossils, and they have since been found. It predicts that populations will change to respond to environmental conditions - constant use of antibiotics has selected for resistant bacteria.

Note that it does not make any claims about the existence or nonexistence of a deity. Note that a large portion of the scientists who believe evolution occurred, in history or today, are Christian. Evolution does not oppose Christianity, unless you believe that the Christian god created the Earth 6,000 years ago (in which case you're throwing out all of geology, cosmology, paleontology, bits of archaeology... in effect, completely disregarding literal mountains of evidence).

[Col. Hstar]

Children, you say? Even better. Would you want your children to be shunned, restricted, or even (in some places) put to death because they're homosexual? Especially when you're the one who made them that way, and claim to have created the situation that allows for such? Would you want your other children to be the ones doing the tormenting and killing? Would you reward them only if they performed for you, going to churches, praying, and telling others about you? Do you have the right to kill your child (after birth - we have enough on the table here without bringing up abortion) anytime you want, just because you created them?

You still haven't cited the scripture that you base your statements on. Where does the Bible condone tormenting? Killing without cause. When we were discussing evolution, you didn't want me making arguments without foundation, I expect the same from you.

I've already discussed the issue of homosexuality above, you should have read it.

Funny you want to side step the issue of abortion. Are you protecting the right to kill children before they are born?

And BTW, if your want your children to work hard and do good in school is that forcing them to perform for your pleasure as well?

FYI read what I said earlier about the Mosaic Law, what it was for, and why Israel readily agreed with it.

EDIT: it might be a few days before I can respond to any other messages.

[Darth Crater]

I didn't think this needed scripture at all, but...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The Bible claims God created humans. Thus, he created homosexual humans. Thus, the homosexuals being murdered in hate crimes (some even state-sanctioned), or treated unfairly (since it's his 100th birthday, take a look at Alan Turing...), can lay the blame for their suffering directly at God's feet. Further, humans were also created with a willingness to kill, for which God was responsible.

Where does the Bible condone killing without cause? Here's the first one I found; it's hardly the only one.

Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.

Requiring children to do something that is clearly beneficial for them is not what I was talking about. I'm comparing it to something like forcing your child to constantly shave their hair, or devote time to telling you how good a parent you are, before you'll let them leave the house.

If we are God's children, he has not properly raised us, he has not intervened to protect us or to stop us from hurting ourselves or each other, and he has personally killed or ordered the deaths of many of us. Thus, we are better parents than he is.

I was attempting to sidestep the issue of abortion because the thread really doesn't need an even more hotly contested topic right now. Please tell me you are capable of comprehending this. If you want to talk about it, go to another thread or PM's.

[Col. Hstar]

Time for one quick one before I go

I didn't think this needed scripture at all, but...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The Bible claims God created humans. Thus, he created homosexual humans. Thus, the homosexuals being murdered in hate crimes (some even state-sanctioned), or treated unfairly (since it's his 100th birthday, take a look at Alan Turing...), can lay the blame for their suffering directly at God's feet.

I already explained the difference between hating a homosexual, to hating the act. If you can't get that we are at an impasse.

Further, humans were also created with a willingness to kill, for which God was responsible.

Is a car designer held responsible when the car they created is used to kill or inflict pain. No the user is guilty

Where does the Bible condone killing without cause? Here's the first one I found; it's hardly the only one.

Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.

How does this condone killing without cause? This was God telling his people that he would be delivering them out of the hand of the Babylonians who while holding them captive, were mistreating God's people. Please familiarize yourself with the context you base you views on.

Requiring children to do something that is clearly beneficial for them is not what I was talking about. I'm comparing it to something like forcing your child to constantly shave their hair, or devote time to telling you how good a parent you are, before you'll let them leave the house.

I didn't see what you basing this on from the bible?

If we are God's children, he has not properly raised us, he has not intervened to protect us or to stop us from hurting ourselves or each other, and he has personally killed or ordered the deaths of many of us. Thus, we are better parents than he is.

I was attempting to sidestep the issue of abortion because the thread really doesn't need an even more hotly contested topic right now. Please tell me you are capable of comprehending this. If you want to talk about it, go to another thread or PM's.

Better parents? My reason for pointing out the abortion issue was not to debate it, but to show the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of your comment about God killing his children. In fact, the stance that God takes in the bible with regards to the killing of a fetus, proves your point wrong. I don't need to debate abortion, we are talking about God's views here in case that slipped your attention.

Also I have yet to see you basis for saying that God tortures people. But take your time, I will be back online in a couple days.

[theavengers85]

Warning: even longer post follows :)

Cypher: Evolution does not follow from an atheistic view of the world. It follows from the evidence we have about the past. You do not get to write this off as "different perspectives" and absolve yourself of having to actually think, especially when only one "perspective" is actually supported by observations. And yes, we can test evolution. The theory predicts the existence of so-called "transitional" fossils, and they have since been found. It predicts that populations will change to respond to environmental conditions - constant use of antibiotics has selected for resistant bacteria.

You are conflating micro- and macro-evolution. I never said that creationists don't believe in any evolution. I am saying they don't believe in macroevolution (formation of new "kinds", i.e. cats and dogs have same ancestor). Microevolution (change in gene frequency of a population to form a new species or even new genera) is well established and observable.

You cannot say that just because relatively small changes occur today, it means that big changes happened over large amounts of time.

Here are the three criteria of experimental science:
1) Testable
2) Repeatable
3) Disprovable

Evolution: is testable (yes), not repeatable (you can repeated parts of it, but not the whole thing), and disprovable (not sure on this point)
Thus it is not EXPERIMENTAL science, but a historical framework (more akin to forensic science).

In forensic science you obviously cannot repeat the actual crime (:P), but you can test theories of what actually happened. It is the same with evolution.

Creationism: is testable (yes, believe it or not, you can test aspects of it just as you can test evolution), not repeatable (for obvious reasons), and disprovable (again, not sure on this point).

Therefore, it is in the same boat as a historical framework.

As far as creationism being disproved by "mountains" of evidence, let me recite some that would "disprove" evolution (and old earth in general)

1) The transitional fossils found are few and far between (and highly debatable, some being tossed out), and yet, according to evolution, the fossil record should be filled with them. In fact, evolutionists have fewer transitional fossils now than they had 50 years ago due to some of them being tossed out.

2) saline content of ocean: at its present rate, the ocean cannot be that old, if it was, it would be saturated with salt

3) most reactions involving DNA/RNA and proteins are highly endergonic (requiring free energy input), and are therefore not favored. This works against the random formation of DNA/RNA, becuase it goes against the equilibrium of the reaction. However, input too much energy (like sunlight), and the compounds will fall apart.

4) In the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment), he was able to "naturally" form amino acids, but ran into an interesting problem. Both D and L isomers were formed with equal frequency, as they would in any such reaction. However, in living creatures, amino acids are almost exclusively L rotamers. How could this lopsided distribution arise?

I could go on, but I think recited many of the issues that go against the core attributes of evolution.

Therefore, evolution has its own problems. The reason they are not discussed much is because it is the majority belief among professional scientists. This does not mean that creationism is invalid.

As far as evolution not following from atheism, I think I may be able to prove otherwise:
Atheism has no higher power to "create", only random processes. Random processes cannot produce a perfect state, so the initial state must have been highly disordered. If the disorder got worse, we would obviously have no life, or planets, or anything. Therefore, an atheist must hold that order is increasing. This matches quite well with evolution, which holds that simpler evolves into more sophisticated. If one does not believe in evolution, then he/she must find something similar.

Christians, on the other hand, contend that, when sin came into the world, it caused disorder and entropy to increase ever since. Creationism agrees with this downward pattern.