Gay Christian

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not that difficult to know what God knows. You can read it in the bible.

Yeah, to me that is a belief and not knowing God. I accept that you believe as you do. I believe differently.

 

[eik]

What reason would I have for the belief that primitive folks, centuries ago, knew more about God than I do?

I know a ton of things that they didn't know. From science to ethics to geography to philosophy, I know a ton more than than the authors of Scripture did. Most modern people do, if they have a reasonable education. I'm not special or anything.

Why should I even consider the possibility that you understand God, because you revere some ancient people and feel attached to your interpretation of their literature, when I know more about a lot of things than they did and I have a much higher standard for evidence than you do?

Tom

You don't know anything. All you know is what your liberal education wanted you to know, and your liberal education didn't want you to know some things, such as the liberal educational establishment being corrupt and liberal.

In any case the letters of Paul and the gospel of John have never been surpassed in the field of human history.

 

[eik]

Yeah, to me that is a belief and not knowing God. I accept that you believe as you do. I believe differently.

You don't believe. Belief is based on evidence. When it comes to Christianity there's a lot of it.

 

[blü 2]

Thats a very interesting statement mate.

Not one I arrived at lightly ─ not that that proves anything.

That is you presuming that the omnipotent God must be a certain way but that's a presumption based on an anecdotal philosophy.

If you can point me to a god not based on anecdotal ─ ahm, let's say ─ philosophy, I'll go and have a look for myself.

 

[eik]

If God is omnipotent then God perfectly foresaw every single consequence of giving men free will.

My own view, and not so uncommon, is that we have 'freedom' to choose, but we're never free of our own choosing mechanism, the processes of our brain by which we decide.

And, wholly independently of that, an omnipotent god rules out any possibility of human free will ─ it is impossible for any human to deviate, even by the width of a quark, from what God perfectly foresaw back before [he] made the universe.

The bible can say what it likes, but it has no cred until it directly addresses such issues.

All you're doing is complaining that man is less than God. It is possible for man to have free will, but not the kind of free will that God himself possesses. Man is constrained by his physical limitations, that is clear, but he is not constrained spiritually now that the gospel has come. The grace of God has come to all. All can reject or accept it.

 

[columbus]

You don't know anything. All you know is what your liberal education wanted you to know, and your liberal education didn't want you to know some things, such as the liberal educational establishment being corrupt and liberal.

In any case the letters of Paul and the gospel of John have never been surpassed in the field of human history.

What does that even mean? Surpassed in what way? There's certainly tons of human history that is far more reliable and evidence-based than your favorite theological works.
Tom

 

[columbus]

You don't believe. Belief is based on evidence. When it comes to Christianity there's a lot of it.

Knowledge is based on evidence.

Christianity has virtually no evidence, that's why it's called Faith.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

Not one I arrived at lightly ─ not that that proves anything.

I did not say that. I agreed with you.

If you can point me to a god not based on anecdotal ─ ahm, let's say ─ philosophy, I'll go and have a look for myself.

You did not understand my statement. So I shall rest. Have a great day.

 

[blü 2]

All you're doing is complaining that man is less than God.

Doubtless you've noticed it's the way of gods to want to be better than humans.

No, let me amend that. It's the way of humans to want their gods to be in some vaguely defined sense better, or stronger, or creepier, than they are.

It is possible for man to have free will, but not the kind of free will that God himself possesses. Man is constrained by his physical limitations, that is clear, but he is not constrained spiritually now that the gospel has come. The grace of God has come to all. All can reject or accept it.

My problem with that is having no idea what a real god is. Without that, I don't think I can even call myself an atheist.

Given that God is real ─ exists in the world external to the self ─ I'm looking for the test that will tell me whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. I can tell it's not a fig tree. I can tell it's not a lizard. I can tell it's not the smell of fried onions. I can even tell it's not a unicorn. But I can't tell whether or not it's God. What's the test?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You don't know anything. All you know is what your liberal education wanted you to know, and your liberal education didn't want you to know some things, such as the liberal educational establishment being corrupt and liberal.

Oh, good, so now only liberals can be corrupt. Typical!!

In any case the letters of Paul and the gospel of John have never been surpassed in the field of human history.

That is mere opinion and taste. There's not a Muslim alive who wouldn't tell you that the Qur'an surpassed them, and that it itself has never been surpassed in the field of human history.

For myself, I'll take Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Sei Shonagun and a thousand other authors over those you think are unsurpassable.

 

[Kenny]

That I can think, doesn't mean that it is free.

of course it does. Otherwise the murderer has no choice.

 

[Kenny]

I'm the guy who thinks my neighbor's sexuality is none of my business.

I'm also the guy who thinks any god who thinks homosexuality must be stamped out, who thinks that any homosexual person must be discriminated against, whether in this world or the next, is a moral midget. not worth anyone's respect.

so we are in agreement.

 

[blü 2]

I did not say that. I agreed with you.

Goodness, my remark was addressed to the air, not to you. Mea culpa.

You did not understand my statement. So I shall rest. Have a great day.

Mea culpa again. Go well!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

All you're doing is complaining that man is less than God. It is possible for man to have free will, but not the kind of free will that God himself possesses. Man is constrained by his physical limitations, that is clear, but he is not constrained spiritually now that the gospel has come. The grace of God has come to all. All can reject or accept it.

Actually, I'd have to suggest that being omniscient, God is in at least one way less than I am. When you are omniscient, it is utterly impossible to have free will. To have free will means that you can decide to do something, that you had not decided on before -- and if that were possible, you would have already done it, because you knew about it before.

 

[Kenny]

My brain makes decisions as the result of complex interacting chains of cause+effect. The decision-making process has been the subject of detailed studies.

None of them discloses a manner in which a decision is made independently of the biochemistry.

So we're left with chains of cause+effect, possibly kept from strict determinism (in the classical sense) by random quantum events.

We're a very complex robot, then, and maybe not totally reliable, but at no point are we independent of our own mechanism.

You have no empirical and verifiable evidence.... but you can be a robot if you want to be.

 

[blü 2]

so we are in agreement.

Then you have no problem with homosexuality or homosexuals. I must have misunderstood you ─ my apologies.

It occurred to me after I'd answered your previous post that you might have been asking if I'm homosexual myself. If that's the case, no, I've been hetero without effort, had a great marriage and three kids and so far two grandkids blah blah.

I just find the negative attitude of the Christian right to homosexuality to be grossly uninformed and wantonly oppressive. It used to be called gay-bashing, sometimes not just as metaphor.

 

[Kenny]

Then you have no problem with homosexuality or homosexuals. I must have misunderstood you ─ my apologies.

It occurred to me after I'd answered your previous post that you might have been asking if I'm homosexual myself. If that's the case, no, I've been hetero without effort, had a great marriage and three kids and so far two grandkids blah blah.

I just find the negative attitude of the Christian right to homosexuality to be grossly uninformed and wantonly oppressive. It used to be called gay-bashing, sometimes not just as metaphor.

I did think about your sexuality.

If you read Romans it says "all have sinned"... so why would I throw the first rock?

But whats the difference between gay-bashing and Christian bashing? Both are bashing. Are you Christophobic? Because it looks like you are doing the very same thing you are complaining about.

 

[blü 2]

You have no empirical and verifiable evidence.... but you can be a robot if you want to be.

On the contrary, I've followed brain research with the same interest I have in other areas of science, and the evidence you say is lacking is by no means lacking.

If you're interested, a very easy place to start is a book called The Secret Life of the Mind by Mariano Sigman (2015). Clear, not too technical, intelligent, relevant to this conversation.

If you're not interested, go well regardless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

of course it does. Otherwise the murderer has no choice.

Just as the judge.
The accused murder to the Judge: You can't convict me. I had no choice,
The judge: Neither have I.

Now that you can think, doesn't mean that you have free will. And now I have tried and I didn't find free will.

 

[Kenny]

On the contrary, I've followed brain research with the same interest I have in other areas of science, and the evidence you say is lacking is by no means lacking.

If you're interested, a very easy place to start is a book called The Secret Life of the Mind by Mariano Sigman (2015). Clear, not too technical, intelligent, relevant to this conversation.

If you're not interested, go well regardless.

Thanks, but not interested, I believe we are more than just a bunch of bio-chemical interactions.