Can you be a homosexual AND a Christian?

I read your essay Mr. Bill. I wrote one when I was in college that showed just as much evidence of nurture being more of a cause than genetics. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of it.

Many of the studies you site I have looked into personally. What I found was that there were so many variables involved in the research that it is basically useless.

Science is a sticky thing. It is very useful and can do much for us and answer many questions. However, it can also be misused (either intentionally or otherwise) to mislead people. We must be very careful when citing research. Studies have shown many things that have been proven wrong in the past.
 
Didasko said:
I read your essay Mr. Bill. I wrote one when I was in college that showed just as much evidence of nurture being more of a cause than genetics. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of it.

Many of the studies you site I have looked into personally. What I found was that there were so many variables involved in the research that it is basically useless.

Science is a sticky thing. It is very useful and can do much for us and answer many questions. However, it can also be misused (either intentionally or otherwise) to mislead people. We must be very careful when citing research. Studies have shown many things that have been proven wrong in the past.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that nature has more leeway more than nurture, or vice versa--there is no way we can definitively know either way.

I'm only saying that nature has SOME leeway.

Will you concede that much?

And just out of curiosity, how do you justify the twin study? I find that bit of evidence particularly interesting.
 
Gandhi said:
There's no hard proof that any religion is right, thats y its called faith. U have faith that what u believe is right is, but u can't be 100% sure. I don't think any of us can.
Click to expand...

I think the lines between Faith and hope often get blurred, and it's HOPE that believers tend to cling to.
 
Didasko said:
Science is a sticky thing. It is very useful and can do much for us and answer many questions. However, it can also be misused (either intentionally or otherwise) to mislead people. We must be very careful when citing research. Studies have shown many things that have been proven wrong in the past.
Click to expand...

Can't one say the same for religion.

At least science bases itself on FACTS. Those facts are easily reviewable and studyable. The same can't be said for Faith.
 
Both of you guys are thinking of faith as the little castle that christians can go back to when they are "losing" or need an "excuse" to run back to, essentially saying "Anything you say is wrong because I have faith, I am not going to change my mind"

That is the wrong metaphor for faith.
 
Faith is the high tower from which we protect our principles. From the top of a high tower, however, it is often easy to miss important details occurring on the ground below.
 
SilentAssassin said:
Both of you guys are thinking of faith as the little castle that christians can go back to when they are "losing" or need an "excuse" to run back to, essentially saying "Anything you say is wrong because I have faith, I am not going to change my mind"

That is the wrong metaphor for faith.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many times I've heard that as an excuse though?

"Oh, you don't understand because you don't have Faith".

Yeah, it's sad, but it's a common tactic.
 
The power goes out for a few hours and this thread grows by three pages... I am forced to wonder if people are still reading each-others posts or just arguing mindlessly.

Dark Virtue: Faith is not an excuse by any means, and the simple fact is that God requires us to have faith; it's not something optional for those who truly want to please God.

Just like if I were to try to explain how different things become once you try to use a public facility from a wheelchair... If you have no frame of reference to draw on and no understanding of what a wheelchair even is, my statement would then seem like an excuse to you when in-fact it really requires unique knowledge to comprehend.

Now I am not comparing faith to a wheelchair, so don't try to draw that assumption. However the analogy still holds true.
 
I think I understand Faith more now because I am no longer dependant on it. BTW, for an architectural design class I was required to make use of a public building in a wheelchair, so I understand the difficulties that entails.

Maybe I was a bit unclear, I was trying to say that all Christians use faith as a shield, but some do, many do. It becomes an impenetrable force field to reason and logic.

I'd like to touch on a topic that I believe is crucial. You assert that God requires his believers to have faith. I ask you this, faith in WHAT?

By your arguments, you are asserting that God insists that you have faith in his existence, I don't believe that's true. Just look at the examples used. The characters we've discussed didn't need faith to believe in the existence of God, they were required to have faith IN God and his abilities. Wasn't that Moses' problem? He already believed in God because he had been given incontrovertible proof to his existence. God not only spoke to him, but was issuing orders to him. God told Moses to have faith in his abilities, not to have faith that he existed. I think you are confusing that issue.
 
Have faith in God. To do that you must first believe that He exists. I can't believe in the abilities of a physician if I do not believe he first exists.

Please also understand that faith does not mean a person has to abandon logical thought. If that were so, then everyone who believes in anything without absolute proof would be senseless.
 
However Professor Stephen Hawking's existence is a well-documented fact. I have no difficulty believing he exists - many people have seen him and he writes prolifically.
 
The people who wrote the Bible saw God, they believe He exists, and He wrote prolifically (the greatest book ever written).

Just because something is not visible with out physical eyes does not mean that it is any less real. The wind is invisible, but we all feel the effects of it. So many people fail to understand that God is right there where they are, waiting for them to simply take a single step of faith, and they go through there lives seeking proof, never suspending their disbelief, and they end up missing it.
 
But that "leap of faith" could just as easily be putting on a blindfold. Different metaphor. Same effect.
 
James said:
Have faith in God. To do that you must first believe that He exists. I can't believe in the abilities of a physician if I do not believe he first exists.
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail right on the head!

You can't believe in the abilities of a physician if you don't believe he first exists, right?

Well how would you go about proving he exists?

First, call up his office and make an appointment.

Second, show up for the appointment...VOILA! There he is in the flesh. You can see him, listen to him, feel his hands on you, smell him (I'll leave the tasting up to you).

Sure, sure, he exists, but how about his ABILITIES! Look on the wall, diplomas from various institutions. Should you be so inclined, you could phone up those institutions and verify his credentials.

All the proof you could possibly want!

Now...can you do the same for God? I think not. You're telling me I need to have faith in God in order to believe he exists. But in order to believe he exists, I need to have faith. Vicious Cycle anyone?

Please also understand that faith does not mean a person has to abandon logical thought. If that were so, then everyone who believes in anything without absolute proof would be senseless.
Click to expand...

LOL, again, VOILA! To believe in anything without absolute proof IS senseless, according to you in every case except religious faith. Do you not see the duplicity in your thinking?

Faith is the opposite of logical thought I don't know how you can rationalize anything differently.
 
James said:
The people who wrote the Bible saw God, they believe He exists, and He wrote prolifically (the greatest book ever written).
Click to expand...

Say what? You don't actually believe Moses wrote the Pentetauch do you? Most modern religious historians disagree with that. Most authors are unknown. Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, Luke did not write Luke, and on and on. Therefore, your very first sentence is in error. Prolifically is defined as, "marked by abundant inventiveness or productivity" how does that lead to the Bible being labeled as the greatest book ever written?

Just because something is not visible with out physical eyes does not mean that it is any less real. The wind is invisible, but we all feel the effects of it. So many people fail to understand that God is right there where they are, waiting for them to simply take a single step of faith, and they go through there lives seeking proof, never suspending their disbelief, and they end up missing it.
Click to expand...

Things may not be visible to the naked eye, but they can be examined, either directly or indirectly. In your case, the wind can't actually be seen, but we can experience it, see its effects in a breeze or in a hurricane. Wind is a force of nature, one that can be verified and measured.

You can't verify God in any way, shape or form. Nor can you examine his affects on people (I have yet to see a scientific study that supports the existence of miracles). If you could verify God, you wouldn't need faith. On the contrary, you need to have Faith to believe in God, because there is NO evidence to support his existence.
 
James said:
That's what I have been trying to say. Thank you. :D
Click to expand...

And what I'VE been saying is that you have created an illogical vicious circle that you are hiding in.

You can't believe in God unless you have Faith, and you can't have Faith unless you believe in God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top