That isn't the translation to which I refer.
You need to study a bit more. Lucky for you, you can read a bible. Of course, you will have to ask someone what it means. Because only theologians can decipher the word of a god.
Interesting religious breakdown on gay marriage
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
That isn't the translation to which I refer.
You need to study a bit more. Lucky for you, you can read a bible. Of course, you will have to ask someone what it means. Because only theologians can decipher the word of a god.
And why are the Africans so strong?
It couldn't be missions. It couldn't be trading bibles and food.
The Africans...the only way Catholics can claim 70 billion members....Methodists too!
It is almost like a colonization. Go figure.
Another point...why is anti-gay so big in Africa? I know. I just want to hear the excuse.
For some reason we don't tax these very obvious businesses. It is time we do.
Or, coupled with the language issue it relies on oral history.
I get you have a great disdain for religion and are well versed on the damage it has done, and I agree it has done much damage, but have you ever run the numbers to see how much damage science has done vs religion? I would guess "science" killed more people in the 20th century than religion ever has.
Last edited:
I am assuming that you know that Christian faith utilizes Scripture other than the Gospels, right? And that you don't expect any religion to be perfect.
So the point I am making is that the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality cannot be based on the words of Jesus because Jesus said nothing about the subject. It has been based on certain readings of other Christian scripture, but not on the explicit words of Jesus. Is that really so hard to understand?
There's a Constitution. That's "the reason" we don't tax churches. You start messing with freedom of religion, then that means you can start messing with establishment too.
And we all know that oral testimony is the best testimony. Ask an attorney about "eye" witness testimony. Forget the fact that there were no witnesses to the Christ myth.
Ah, the old science vs. religion body count argument.
Do you want to go?
Dot and tittle?
Are you willing to say that God is okay with gays and gay marriage?
I applaud your new age Judeo-Chrisitan thought.
How are you going to convince your followers that Yahweh Elohim is down with men having sex with other men? I've read the book Yahweh Elohim crafted.
Are we not supposed to follow the greatest story ever told?
In addition. This is unanswered.
What about Christ's life and teachings changed that made possible the following?
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.
Did God speak to you?
How is it that you have revelations that are unavailable to me?
Do non-profits need Learjets?
Have you looked at the mega-chrurches? Does the phrase prosperity gospel ring a bell?
I have said multiple times that separation works both ways. You aren't springing something new,
The problem is, the legal fiction of a non-profit has failed. The worlds biggest churches are multi-billion dollar businesses.
How would you fix this billion dollar scam?
I'm not one of those fellows who regards the Constitution as sacred.
Right now, I can organize as a church an buy tax free jets.
I can fill Cowboy Stadium on Sunday and use the earnings to buy a BMW. Tax free. Because Jesus.
Excellent.
Religion is nothing more than a used car.
A sales pitch.
What if I buy the Islam model?
In addition. This is unanswered.
What about Christ's life and teachings changed that made possible the following?
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.
Did God speak to you?
I genuinely don't understand the reason for your animosity. Is it impossible for you to disagree without resorting to mocking and insult? No one is trying to force you to accept Christian teaching (or Islamic or Buddhist or whatever), and it seems like you've become increasingly strident and aggressive in recent posts. I'll try one more time to make my point (which I'm pretty sure you've actually understood and are just trying to score rhetorical points with distraction).
Since no example I've tried to use from religious history has worked, let me try one from science.
For many years, the canon of scientific knowledge held that protons, electrons and neutrons were the smallest building blocks of nature. Textbooks were written that made this argument. It was taught in universities. Then there was new knowledge and new experiments and new understandings of matter including quarks, the particles that apparently comprise protons and neutrons. The canon of scientific knowledge was revised based on new knowledge.
The same thing is happening with Christian doctrine - and it's not a change in Christ's teaching, no matter how much you want to insist that it is. Rather, Christian doctrine on the subject of homosexuality has long been based on the assumption that homosexuality is both "unnatural" and a "choice" - that is, that no one is genetically or biologically predisposed to homosexuality. At the time of Paul and the other writers of Scripture, such an idea would have been unthinkable.
Of course, now we are beginning to understand that - at least for most - homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. That being the case, our understanding of Christian doctrine is being transformed. We still believe that God is good and that God sees creation as good. If it is true, then, that a good God would not create an individual (or allow evolutionary processes to result in the birth of an individual) who is excluded from the love and grace of God for reasons out of his or her control, then it is no longer true to say that homosexuality is completely beyond the boundaries of Christian teaching. This is what the Methodist church is trying to wrestle with right now.
Again, Christ's teachings have not changed. Our understanding of them has changed - and in ways that are completely consistent with the history of Christian thought and practice.
Last edited:
God of the gaps.
Really?
As I said earlier, your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific knowledge.
Is that what you preach?
I was listening to Frank Turek a while back and I get the impression a quote from him describes your church.
A rotary club with hymns.
Which statement is true?
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.
Still haven't got an answer.
Last edited:
I haven't answered because I'm not sure I find a complete warrant for either in Scripture. Further, the UMC doesn't face a choice between those two statements. It's not as if we're going to move from the first to the second. More likely, paragraph 304.3 will be removed.
I am not sure why you think that "my God is an ever receding pocket of scientific knowledge." You continue to assume that Science stands in unrelenting opposition to the Christian understanding of God. That is simply not the case - I have several good friends (and deeply faithful people) who are brilliant scientists. Science has great power to explain the mechanisms of our universe, how things work. It is limited, however, when answering the question of why things work they way that they do. Science and faith are not in opposition (at least not inevitable opposition).
I love science - my first major in college was Physics and Mathematics. I get frustrated when Science is hypocritical about its limitations. Scientists want people of faith to admit that there are limits to what our faith says, to openly distinguish between "myth" (as in story that has been told to transmit religious or other transcendent truth) and "fact." I agree with Science on that - religious people have for far too long claimed Scripture to be factual in ways that the writers (and the early church) never imagined possible.
Why, then, can science not admit its own limitations? Why, then, can science not admit that, no matter how deeply they dig, there will always be mystery?
I think science admits that limitation quite well. No scientist is going to say there is no God because logically you can't prove a negative. And any scientist worth their salt will say that questions of philosophy and religion overlap with science to some degree but there are limitations. Now, I'm agnostic. I think it's very very likely that there is no God, and that when we die that's it. But I also believe strongly in science and a scientific approach...and that means that I cannot say "there is no God" because I can't prove a negative, and I can't show proof of what exists outside the universe, or what started the universe or came before. There are some theories to that end, but even if the start of the universe is proven (the mechanics of it) there will still be a gap there.
What you are complaining about is not science, it's about atheists, who, ironically just like theists, have decided they know the ultimate answer to something that is, in my opinion, not really knowable.
Religion does change, albeit a lot more slowly than it should. Go back a few centuries and slavery and racism were based on the bible...today, only a handful of folks would make that claim. We have pro-choice churches now. We have pro-gay churches right now. Religion is an attempt by man to ascertain what God wants. By definition it's going to be flawed, whether there is a God or there isn't, because man is flawed.
My hope for the future is that eventually religion matures into just speaking and encouraging our better natures and stops speaking to and encouraging our fears and prejudices...but in reality, that's just a microcosm of people/humanity in general. If religion didn't exist, all of the same folks would have the same prejudices and beliefs (good and bad), they'd just find some other way to justify them.
Paragraph 1 is fantastic.
Paragraph 2 is a definition issue.
Paragraph 3 Religion has no utility.
Paragraph 4 Religion has no utility.
Paragraph 2 has special applicability to you.
Paragraph 3/4 having no applicability also speaks more to you than anything else. The idea that religion has no utility is such a flawed concept that it is hard to see how an intelligent person can utter it. Even false ideas can have utility. They can provide comfort, they can provide motivation, they can provide guidance. We lie to ourselves all of the time, and any psychologist will tell you some of those lies are quite important, necessary and in fact healthy. If we truly objectively assessed ourselves, we'd probably break down over all of our myriad flaws and shortcomings. If we truly objectively assessed others all of the time, we'd alienate everyone.
If believing in Jesus makes someone a better person, or gives them comfort, then there is plenty of utility and value there. Just like any other idea, there's good and there's ill depending on the person involved.
"What you are complaining about is not science, it's about atheists, who, ironically just like theists, have decided they know the ultimate answer to something that is, in my opinion, not really knowable."
Ecouch is correct (you may want to re-post the belief matrix), there is a question about definition here. I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for a deity, therefore I need not believe in such a thing any more than I believe in mermaids, bigfoot, etc. In fact, if "belief" is defined by acceptance of a premise without the need for verifiable evidence, I don't believe in anything.
From the skeptic's dictionary:
Finally, there is an argument, popular among some who fancy themselves intellectuals, that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take with regard to gods. According to this viewpoint, theism and atheism are arrogant affirmations of being certain about something that is intrinsically unknowable. It is, of course, true that it is possible there is some unknowable being or entity who creates universes, has unimaginable powers, and is like nothing we have any experience of. No atheist that I know of has ever denied such a possibility, nor have we denied the possibility of an unknowable Easter Bunny who lays eggs on Saturn or any other imaginable epistemic improbability. So what? Atheists and theists do not concern themselves with epistemic improbabilities, but with gods about whom stories have been told for millennia. The more we learn about the universe, the less reason there is for believing that any of these gods were not created by human imagination. Agnosticism regarding Zeus or Abraham's god is not an intellectually honest position, as it can be maintained only by a fatuous and dishonest treatment of the available evidence. That evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods fashioned thus far in the minds of men are highly improbable. Agnosticism regarding unimaginable, unknowable beings is redundant.
Of course atheist think this way, they don't like agnostics because they want their certainty to be correct, and everyone else's to be incorrect. It's the certainty that differentiates an atheist (or a theist) from an agnostic, not quibbling over the definitional nuances of belief vice knowledge. Atheist spend a moment giving lip service to possibilities then jump straight to beyond reasonable doubt. When atheists aren't spending their energies telling agnostics we are really just like them, then they spend it telling agnostics they aren't being intellectually honest (and neither are theists...it's just the atheists).
It actually is fundamentally not correct that the more we learn about the universe, the less reason there is for believing in something approximating a "God." Why? Because science has no clue what happened prior to the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, what it even means to "cause" something that happens before time is even in existence, if time was in existence before the Big Bang, whether the Big Bang is the start of this universe with no other universes, or the start of this universe within a giant multiverse, or another iteration of this universe as this brane smacked into another brane 14 billion years ago, or some other theory that may present itself. Heck, one theory is that every time a black hole is created, it creates it's own universe. Now imagine an entity with enough knowledge to create/finely tune a black hole in one universe to create a specific set of conditions in the universe spawned from it. That's one possible definition of a "God" at least for that universe. There are others.
In fact, go back 50 years and there was more certainty about how the universe started then there is now. Which simply shows the beauty and the limitations of science. It only works at understanding the mechanics of something, not the purpose of it.
The more we learn about quantum mechanics the more we learn about things being in two places at once (and even interacting with itself), spooky action at a distance, the idea that the universe is a hologram, or a computer program, or a myriad other wacky (at least initially) sounding ideas that real scientists take real seriously.
Certainty seems to be the sticking point here.
How are you defining certitude? Most atheists I know aren't certain of anything, deity included, but they see no reason in the universe for the existence of some supernatural force. Most definitions of God would be "supernatural", correct?
I'm not trying to tell you anything about your intellectual honesty, I'm simply stating how most scientific minds I've interacted with work. I also think your definition of atheism is incorrect.
Science will always have unknowns, but I know of no serious scientist who follows the reasoning of - we don't know, therefore God.
We must be dealing with different atheist, because I know several who are quite certain, and boy a certain someone on here comes across quite vociferously about religion, and it wouldn't be unfair to mistake that for certainty either, although he hasn't specifically addressed it so I won't speak for him.
As for a definition of atheism, depends on who you ask. Some argue as you have that all atheism is is an absence of belief. These are the same folks who say since agnostics don't have belief either, they are really just atheists. That is not the only definition:
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.
"Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
Touching on that last point, yes there are "aggressive and explicit" atheists out there. Theism is active belief, atheism is active disbelief, and agnosticism is, to keep the analogy going actively bowing out because the question isn't one to which true knowledge can be gained one way or the other. If you want to split it up more, some folks talk about hard atheists and soft atheists.
I have no idea the point of your last point. I never said "we don't know, therefore God" That's not an agnostic position. We'd stop at "We don't know" although I suppose we could add, "and we likely never will."
Supernatural is simply something that exists above and beyond natural laws. A sufficiently advanced being could, one assumes, "violate" the laws of physics as we know them. Now, I suppose that wouldn't really be violating the laws of physics as much as having such a better understanding of them that they know all of the ways to get around them...but I go back to the analogy of the ability to create a universe and if you can fine tune it enough and know all of the laws and how they work, you are pretty much functioning as a "God" in that universe. So I suppose it also boils down to, what is the definition of a "God."
Do I think any of the human definitions are likely to be true? No, of course not. I don't think any of the human religions are anything other than man-made. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether they have "no utility" which seems like the much, much more important point that is being missed here over a very long sojourn into definitional nuances.
Folks also need to understand the terms.
A -Gnotic vs Gnostic.
A-Theist vs. Theist.
How slushy is this reply?
This was a good laugh.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh.....we are still wavering on the compatibility bit. Give us some more time if you would. We need some more market research.
There is nothing worse than being incompatible with God.
Last edited:
Everyone believes something untrue because it makes them feel better, even you.
Folks also need to understand the terms.
A -Gnotic vs Gnostic.
A-Theist vs. Theist.
Agnostic is not "it is not possible to be 100 percent certain" it's "it's unknowable."
What do you believe in that you know is untrue (I prefer evidence to truth claims) that makes you feel better?
Then, tell me what I believe in that makes me feel better.
Last edited:
Got it. You know that it is unknowable. Agnostics know that it is unknowable.
It is as if you've never read a book on basic philosophy. Read up on Huxley and the origin of this silly word.
lol so you really believe that everything you believe, that makes you feel better, is based on truth? You have no blind spots, you are completely, 100 percent self-aware?
You're delusional if you think that.
You think you are exactly as attractive as you objectively are, exactly as smart as you objectively are, exactly as good at your job as you objectively are, exactly as moral as you objectively are, exactly as kind as you objectively are, exactly as unbiased as you objectively are...
Of course, you may well think that, but you are going to be wrong on some of them, if not all of them, as we all are. You have blind spots, and lack self-awareness of some fault or another, as we all do.
He believes that he has no blind spots and evaluates everything about himself as it actually is in reality. There's you're answer.
I don't believe something because it makes me feel better. Apparently, this is a feat. I didn't know.
This is getting boring. Redefining every word is a tedious exercise to refute.
You make statements that you refuse to defend. Your argument has morphed to fallacy. You are mixing the gnostic with the theistic.
One deals with knowledge.
One deals with belief.
Gr8 is right in that you will certainly go down with the ship.
This one deserves a repost.
Still waiting to be told what I believe.
Why aren't we getting answers?
evaluates everything about himself as it actually is in reality.
Well. Heaven forbid I evaluate reality.
Oy Vey!
Last edited:
