Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and Probability
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 91 of 104 (64895)
11-07-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dinker
11-03-2003 5:13 PM


Re: You seem to leap to conclusions without watching your step...
A dog cannot grasp our nature or moral code by it's own means. However we manage to impart on dogs not to bark loud, to roll over, to pee outside, to be 'good' and not to be 'bad'. How is it that an entity to which we are ineffable has grasped a basic moral structure from us and is obeying them?
You cannot train a dog not to bark; it is not possible. Dogs have a complex social structure of their own, all we do is replace the 'top dog' figure and use our influence to effect their behaviour. We do not, and can not, embue an unintelligable moral code on them. In other words you can only teach a dog to do things that are intelligable on their own terms. Dogs have a natural understanding of territory; pack, friend and not-shitting-where-you-sleep. They have a natural understanding of hierachical command (don't believe me? Do some research into how Arctic Wolves hunt), which in certain breeds (e.g. Border Collies) has been bred to an extrordinary degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dinker, posted 11-03-2003 5:13 PM Dinker has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 92 of 104 (64917)
11-07-2003 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dinker
11-02-2003 8:26 PM


Re: I think you maybe assuming more than you know...
Hi Dinker. Welcome to EVCForum!
I'd like to continue with your discussion of the rather apt domino analogy (although as with any analogy this one starts falling apart at some point).
You stated:
ie. Anyone who says that the domino knocks over the next is assuming that the evolution model given that is underway is true (not just viable - actually happened). This is (At least partly) what this entire debate/website is about! You can't just decide that it is true!
There are a couple of problems here. Let's see if I can set them out logically.
1. There are a great number of observations that lead us to the conclusion that there exists a pile of dominos. It is a rather unusual pile in that we can detect a definite pattern or series of patterns in the pile - i.e., the pile is not strictly random. One of the more consistent patterns we can discern is a certain tendency towards linearity. Lots of the dominos seem to line up.
2. Based on the existence of the pile and the patterns we can discern within it, we can develop a hypothesis that explains how the pattern arose. The hypothesis that seems to make the most sense in this case is that the dominos were aligned standing upright, and then an adjacent domino fell forward knocking over its neighbor. We have, in essence, proposed a mechanism for how the pattern we observe could have emerged.
3. We then test the hypothesis by looking around to see if we can find support for our Theory of Domino Collapse. Amazingly enough, we find that the domino collapse is still occurring, and that we can actually observe the last two or three dominos falling in exactly the pattern predicted by our theory. We may not be able to "prove" that all the dominos in the pile collapsed in this fashion, and there are some intriguing patterns that aren't readily explained (like a couple of dominos way back at our inferred beginning of the pile seem to have merged, rather than collapsed; there are several lines that appear separated from our main pile with no obvious connection; there are some places where the dominos we'd expect to see seem to have disappeared, etc), but we can state that overall, the preponderance of observations seems to support our hypothesis.
Although we can be pretty sure our Theory of Domino Collapse is sound, the most interesting question remaining is the "initialization" question you broached. To stretch the domino analogy past the breaking point, we are in the position of trying to determine what the first domino actually was. We don't have the Last Universal Common Domino (LUCiD) to compare, and subsequent dominos are all different - and in truth change over time. In fact, we can't really be sure there WAS a LUCiD, all we can know is that it wasn't a domino-as-we-know-it. So we're looking for other things that might have been precursors to dominos that have the necessary properties to start our domino chain.
Naturally, the analogy completely falls apart from the fact that no two "dominos" in the ToE are the same; the fact that dominos don't replicate themselves whereas the organisms in the ToE do; dominos don't inherit traits from their predecessors; dominos aren't normally subject to selective pressures that might cause one type of domino to outlast another type of domino; evolution isn't a chain of progression (like dominos toppling); and the ToE's "dominos" morph from one type of domino to another or to things that aren't even dominos over time.
Hope this clarifies why your objection doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dinker, posted 11-02-2003 8:26 PM Dinker has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 93 of 104 (64942)
11-07-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dinker
11-03-2003 5:13 PM


Re: You seem to leap to conclusions without watching your step...
quote:
I think you should know that our models are still flawed (and we know they are) thus not accurate. I agree with you in part that natural laws seemingly act without God. But why are the laws as they are? (- this is deep philosophy)
And a very good question. First off, however, a quick recommendation: Don't fall into the "God of the Gaps" theory. If you're not familiar with it, people have constantly - when they don't know how something works - said "God did it." They've constantly been wrong. They push God into the next gap of knowlege, and then when science goes to rip apart that gap of knowlege, they resist it, and eventually are forced to accept it.
As we probe deeper into the universe, we find rules constructed on rules constructed on rules. The universe is becoming more and more of an abstraction, the deeper we look into it. Even if there is some fundamental, basic ruleset to all of reality, who is to say that all possible rulesets don't exist in their own universe? The only reason that we perceive this ruleset is that we exist in it.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dinker, posted 11-03-2003 5:13 PM Dinker has not replied

  
Dinker
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 104 (65133)
11-08-2003 12:30 PM


Hmmm... I'd have to disagree...
Just before I dive in. I am thankful for you bothering to reply to me Crashfrog. I can appreciate from your perspective this must be at the very least frustrating. So in a way I'm sorry for what I'm gonna do - put forward some more of my thoughts based on your responses...
quote:
No, not really. It's born out by study after study.
This a very compelling point. But then as you pointed out before, God is not an entity that can be modelled. God is not a natural law. All you can know of God is what he reveals to you. I appreciate the implication of this - that to someone who believes that scientifically non-verifiable ideas/entities are a waste of time, God is irrelevant, existing or not. Such thinking could be summed up by the statement, "A statement/idea is meaningless unless it is imperically or analytically verifiable". Does this sum up your life philosophy? If so then I must tell you then that your life philosophy declares itself to be meaningless. If the statement is true then it is meaningless - unable to be true or false. This is not to say that I think you should believe anything. More to suggest there is more than science can reach.
But I do agree with some of what you said in those statements:
quote:
Apparently there's no way to get God to do anything
Obviously - if there was you'd supersede God which would be the greatest disproof of God ever. The Christian stance is "God's will be done".
As for knowing his will on a subject. As before you can only know of God what he reveals to you. This is the use of the Bible. The Bible is not a technical manual which you seem to analyse it as. (i.e. The creation aspect is about 1 page long and pretty vague - the Bible isn't really about how it's about why). The old testiment is seems only really to set a scene/basis and show the prophecy of Jesus. The new testiment is more the applicable edification (I realise this is a christian view point of this). Given the learning available in the new testiment, reading original texts (with a good dictionary) and reading them in the context of the time and situation. You can come to very clear conclusions on issues most the time. If God has said it once why should he say it again?
For instance you bring up the case of "gay marriage". I'm gonna whip up a quick biblical/historical/modernly observable argument - probably not that theologically great but it does make you think.. well me think...
In general the gay christian community have got round all the biblical texts by just disowning it. The bible is clear on what is right here but I'm more interested in this more subtle point. It is backed up by historical evidence from all over the place and the state of affairs today. In Corinth the situation at the time 'Paul' wrote them the letter, Corinthians, sexuality was the major theme of the day (As in most Eras). You think we had a sexual liberation in the 60s? They were having orgies left, right and centre. Gay was social norm. As was paedophilia. You would be expected to have a few wives/concubines, a gay lover and fun down the local brothel. Yet they gave it up to become christians? Why? Christianity was not much of a physical force at this point - if you believe they were forced into it, the Romans were chopping up christians with no remorse and (as you pointed out) not seeing any Godly smiting for it. And the people had heard threats of Gods before - there was an abundance of choice as far as Spiritualism and God worship goes. What did they find in christianity that made it spread so fast? Remember this was a pleasure seeking society. Did everyone just go insane? or is there something in christianity that managed to intice everyone from all the other very REAL 'happiness sources' of the day? By embracing homosexuality or any sexuality when forced to choose between it and a relationship with God shows a rejection of God. Cutting you off from whatever made everyone in Corinth (and the rest of Greece and the Roman empire) give it all up.
I do not defend the entire present "organised" church of today. In many ways it has lost the point in politics and perversion of the faith. The christianity that I'm interested in is that which turned the great Roman empire from christian killers/haters to christians themselves. That is a case study for you Crashfrog. I'm sure a mind great as yours could give me a good explanation for why such a massive turn around happened. As a side note - just to put it in perspective, Paul puts homosexuality on a plane with being greedy. Christians hate sins not sinners - we believe we are all sinners. That was just in case you believe I'm a pig-headed homophobe... You may still do... But my friends who are gay would probably disagree... at least a little...
Anyway! Other stuff!
Your "Trivial" disproof of God. I agree with your definition of God in general terms:
quote:
The God you're talking about is both moral and powerful
Can I add "Creator God" to that and "above all". As in that he/she/it was just there always. So not to worry about causality arguments, just as I suspect you believe the universe has always existed, not sure how well that fits with the second law of Thermodynamics... Actually given that I don't know what you believe... Sorry about that presumption..
You said that God does not intervene when moral injustice is about to occur and therefore is either immoral or powerless. You used the example of not preventing a murder being immoral. I'm gonna suggest a slightly more complex model and ask what you would do?
Suppose there is man A and he is about to kill man B who in turn is about to kill 100 psycho-paedophiles. You are God. Do you intervene? Do you want to? Will you just stop A? This a fairly simple moral dilemma in comparison to what God must see given that he would have the foresight of all the consequences of every immoral act he intervened in. You would probably come to the conclusion that the only way to ensure morality is to make sure that nobody ever did anything wrong - only what you wanted. The very politician like stance of "You can do what ever you want as long as it is exactly what I say". The consequence of intervening always is complete loss of free will and morals (as the moral choice is all there is thus it is just reality). We would be a race of robots just doing exactly what we were programmed to. What is the point of this? Often we say God is Love. Love is FREELY given. I can program a computer to repeat the words "I love you" to me but it is meaningless. A requirement of Love is freedom. A requirement of freedom is not to control everything somebody does (it isn't freedom otherwise).
If God ever does intervene/act he/she/it will do so considering all the consequences of such actions. You over simplified. Those impossible moral dilemmas you probably never have to deal with. God does. Whatever such an entity choses to do is far more informed than your tiny example - there is a bigger picture.
And besides you seem to be a little confused as to what morals are. Where do we get morals? Most atheistic philosophers I've spoken to don't believe in morals (Objective morals) because they've only observed/believe in subjective morals - products of society and TV etc. You seem (Forgive me for any ignorance) to reference objective morals. ie. Killing is wrong - it is not just a matter of opinion. Such objectivity demands a universal moral law to define whether something is right or wrong. A law which no entity under God has any right to define. If God is a creator then he is the only one who can claim objectivity because he defined the objects. ie. If God says it's right it's right and if he says it's wrong it's wrong. For example if you make up a board-game you can make up the rules - what you can and can't do. If you create a universe you can make up all the natural laws and moral laws. Because you are defining all the systems and objects. You seem to speak as if both you and God are aspiring to the same moral code which supersedes both of you. That puts a system/law above God which contradicts the definition of such an entity.
I therefore have to disagree with your conclusion. I would like to know your definition of morals though. You said dogs aren't moral beings (I'm inclined to agree), so what makes us moral beings? And as you believe we are the product of the same natural system when did we evolve morals?
My dog analogy is quite flawed. It was only suppose to show the point that God could impart moral law upon us via his Revelation to us, regardless of us understanding him. Nothing more. I quite happily disown the analogy (Sorry about it!). I think maybe a better analogy (well obviously better) would be that of human parents and children. Children have few morals when they are young. They don't understand why they're parents think things are right or wrong. So parents explain morals to their children in simple language. Children of course still do not understand all the morals imparted upon them but they do follow them - occasionally disobeying (depending on the child). But once some of the reasons for some of the morals make sense children tend to trust that the others are also (until they become teenagers - Please take the analogy for what it means). They trust their parents judgement - that they know more. Voila. Morality transferred to children without understanding the inner working of their parents or even the reason for some morals. This is at least a very similar state to that of between us and God. We can appreciate some Godly morals such as "Thou shall not murder" but maybe not others. We may have to trust that an entity of infinite hindsight is in a better position to see morality then us and trust it. I suspect you will not accept this for a reason at present beyond me (Ignoring disbelief in God). I really need to know what you think morals are and where they come from before commenting. I think I may have portayed what I believe morals are quite well - but that will become clear by your response!
That's all I really disagree with. All I would say in reference to your closing comments:
quote:
To the contrary, I can. Because the alternative means proposing the existence of entities whose existence can't be confirmed or denied in any way. What's the point of that? What's the difference between my model that explains everything naturally, and yours that explains the same things, but adds untestable chocolate sprinkles? The difference is, I don't waste my time with the stuff that I can't know exists, and wouldn't matter if it did. Ockham's Razor, basically.
They are quite admirable. Such a strive for the truth and core of what's going on - I really respect that. The only point I would make is "What is really important in this life? Have you passed it off because it could not be modelled by your techniques?". Not to discourage you in your scientific exploration. The wonders of this universe seem somewhat endless - at least from my perspective. More just to imply maybe there's more to chocolate sprinkles then you ever imagined and that maybe there are other means of exploring them other than science.
Sorry that was so long. It's hard to say everything you want and as it was so long I'm sure there are language errors all over the place! Please be kind in that respect! Thankyou for your time thus far Crashfrog. I look forward to you reply.
[This message has been edited by Dinker, 11-08-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2003 1:40 PM Dinker has not replied
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2003 3:10 PM Dinker has not replied
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2003 6:32 AM Dinker has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 95 of 104 (65134)
11-08-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dinker
11-08-2003 12:30 PM


Re: Hmmm... I'd have to disagree...
An excellent post.
However it is waaaay off topic for this thread.
A lot of us non-Christians here would agree with you by the way on:
The Bible is not a technical manual which you seem to analyse it as. (i.e. The creation aspect is about 1 page long and pretty vague - the Bible isn't really about how it's about why)
And if the Christians would all agree with this and leave the so called "science" out of it this forum probably wouldn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dinker, posted 11-08-2003 12:30 PM Dinker has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 104 (65140)
11-08-2003 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dinker
11-08-2003 12:30 PM


All you can know of God is what he reveals to you.
Then he chooses to reveal nothing. If that's the case, how can we know god exists? If he won't do anything, why does it matter if he exists or not?
The only kind of god that can exist is one who doesn't matter. So why bother?
Such thinking could be summed up by the statement, "A statement/idea is meaningless unless it is imperically or analytically verifiable". Does this sum up your life philosophy?
Not even close. My life philosophy is "Know the difference between what you know you know, and what you only think you know." What I know about the physical world falls into the first category. What I think about God falls into the second.
The difference between me and believers is that believers don't know that they don't know about God, and as a result, they try to effect social change based on the fallacious position that they know what god wants.
The Christian stance is "God's will be done".
And apparently there's no difference between things that happen with God's will and things that happen without god's will.
If I cast a handful of pennies in front of you, and you noted the random pattern that they made, and I said "behold! it was my will that they fall into that exact configuration" wouldn't you think I was full of crap? (I hope you would.)
What's the difference, then, between me saying that and God saying that? If God's will can't ever not be done, how is it meaningful?
As before you can only know of God what he reveals to you.
It seems suspect to me that God is revealing one will to one person, and a totally different, contradictory will to another person. Surely one God would have one will, right?
You can come to very clear conclusions on issues most the time.
Can you? I think that the current controversy in the Episcopailean Church shows the opposite of that. If anything the vast doctrinal differences between Christian denominations shows that in fact you can get any interpretation you like out of the Bible.
Yet they gave it up to become christians?
Did they? Do you know for sure?
In many ways it has lost the point in politics and perversion of the faith.
Says you. They say the same thing about you. Who am I to believe?
How about none of you?
Christians hate sins not sinners - we believe we are all sinners. That was just in case you believe I'm a pig-headed homophobe... You may still do... But my friends who are gay would probably disagree... at least a little...
"Hating the sin" is a little inconvenient when we're talking about whether or not it should be a legal behavior. After all, you may hate a "sin" that I'm committing. But I don't think it's a sin at all. When it comes to making laws, then, who decides?
It's not Christians hating sins that scare me. It's the ones that feel the need to do something about it.
Sorry about that presumption..
That's all right. Just to get it on the table, let's just say that I believe the universe is finite in both time and space, and that causality arguments don't apply because causality is not a phenomenon that extends beyond the scope of the universe.
Suppose there is man A and he is about to kill man B who in turn is about to kill 100 psycho-paedophiles. You are God. Do you intervene? Do you want to? Will you just stop A?
I'd figure out a way to stop them both without killing. God should have no problem with this if he's as smart as you say.
A requirement of Love is freedom.
I submit to you that if you really believe this, you have not experienced love. When you love, the last thing you would want is to contemplate the idea that the object of your love is free to, at any moment, tell you to stuff it. Love is not about freedom. You don't even get to choose to fall in love. Love compels.
And besides you seem to be a little confused as to what morals are. Where do we get morals?
We get them from ourselves, by agreement. Morals are democratic. Morals aren't just what we are willing to do or not do - they're what we're willing to have done to us.
You seem to speak as if both you and God are aspiring to the same moral code which supersedes both of you.
Yes, that's a cherished American philosophy, and the definition of a moral being - one who puts morals above his own personal interests. God cannot be a moral entity, as I assume you believe him to be, unless he's bound by his own morals. Otherwise he's a tyrant.
You said dogs aren't moral beings (I'm inclined to agree), so what makes us moral beings?
Well, if we're not, who is?
And as you believe we are the product of the same natural system when did we evolve morals?
When we developed language and culture. Pretty simple, really. You can't have morals unless you have a way to communicate them.
Children have few morals when they are young.
I submit to you that you are wrong - children are as moral as adults. It's just that they've internalized a set or morals from a different set of peers - other children. The process of maturity is not so much the aquisition of morals in general, but rather, the specific morals that we associate with adulthood.
We can appreciate some Godly morals such as "Thou shall not murder" but maybe not others.
But don't you think it's appropriate, at some point, to say "hey, God, why this and not that?" and expect an answer? Otherwise how do you know that God is just and moral?
If God's so beyond our moral comprehension, as you say, how do you determine the difference between a moral god and a tyrant god? Your own personal hope that the universe is not run by a bad guy doesn't count.
I assume you agree that it's immoral to blindly serve an immoral authority. So explain to me how you determine the difference between a moral god and an immoral god. I can only think of judging his actions. You clearly disagree. What then is your method? Just taking his word for it?
The only point I would make is "What is really important in this life? Have you passed it off because it could not be modelled by your techniques?".
If I can't model it and examine it, how can I know about it? More importantly, how can I know that I know, and that I'm not just fooling myself?
More just to imply maybe there's more to chocolate sprinkles then you ever imagined and that maybe there are other means of exploring them other than science.
What would that be, exactly? What other method not only lets you know stuff, but also lets you know that you know it?
I realize that "there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreampt of in my pholosophy." However science is the only process we have that's at all able to let us know what those things are in a way that's distinguishable from fooling ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dinker, posted 11-08-2003 12:30 PM Dinker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2003 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 104 (65141)
11-08-2003 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
11-08-2003 3:10 PM


Crap - Dinker, we really ought to take this to another thread. If you have a response, why don't you start a new thread for it - I'll be sure to find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2003 3:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 98 of 104 (65526)
11-10-2003 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
11-07-2003 9:19 AM


Re: A Basic Error
Basically there are a group of people working on
Information Systems applications, and have underlying
concepts of Information Theory.
Some regard the problem as a simple engineering activity
with information and data being interchangeable, while
others say that such a view cannot produce anything but
faulty, flawed systems and can ultimately lead to systems
failure.
It is, perhaps, more of an Information Systems area, but
the underlying principles/definitions of what information
is/are(??) and can be usefully viewed as are an issue within
the discipline.
My opinion has never particularly wavered from DNA as a code
beign an over-used analogy that has come to be accepted as
a fact -- DNA is a complex chemical, that forms part of
an incredibly complex reactive environment .... but's
it not information in an Information Theory sense (even
when viewed just as data transmission).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 11-07-2003 9:19 AM Percy has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 99 of 104 (65764)
11-11-2003 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dinker
11-08-2003 12:30 PM


Re: Hmmm... I'd have to disagree...
Dinker writes:
quote:
In general the gay christian community have got round all the biblical texts by just disowning it.
(*chuckle!*)
Yeah, right.
It can't possibly be because they understand the Bible better than you. No, it has to be because they are deliberately ignoring it.
quote:
The bible is clear on what is right here
No, it isn't.
There is nothing in the Bible that talks about homosexuality as we understand it.
[referring to Corinth at the time of Paul]
quote:
Gay was social norm.
Incorrect.
How could "gay be the social norm" when there was no concept of homosexuality at the time?
Note, I am not saying that people didn't have sex with people of the same sex at the time. I'm saying they didn't consider themselves to be gay simply because they did. By your argument, everybody in prison is "gay" since pretty much all the sex that is taking place in prison is between people of the same sex. I think it's safe to say that if we were to ask them what they think they are, they would immediately denounce such a characterisation.
You're oversimplifying, Dinker. Just because a person has sex with someone of the same sex does not make him gay.
quote:
As was paedophilia.
Again, you oversimplify.
Question: How old were the youths, usually?
Question: What kind of sex took place?
Question: Was there any ritualisation of the process of acquiring the youth?
It isn't like you had men walking up to 10-year-olds and having anal intercourse. You need to do more research.
quote:
You would be expected to have a few wives/concubines, a gay lover and fun down the local brothel.
Incorrect. You have the direction backwards. That is, a man who had a wife was not completely condemned for having some sexual activity outside of the marriage, including having sex with another man. That doesn't mean one was expected to do so. In fact, quite the opposite was the case. While a man who had sex outside of marriage wasn't condemned, he wasn't exactly celebrated, either. A man who couldn't control himself and would neglect his wife for these other outlets was condemned. You could have a little, but overdoing it was taboo.
quote:
By embracing homosexuality or any sexuality when forced to choose between it and a relationship with God shows a rejection of God.
That's why gay Christians are in no trouble. They aren't choosing between their sexuality and god. They are gay. God made them that way. Since there is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexuality as we understand it, there is no conflict between being gay and being Christian.
quote:
Paul puts homosexuality on a plane with being greedy.
Paul doesn't talk about homosexuality, though.
quote:
Christians hate sins not sinners
Impossible.
I don't hate you...I simply hate the fact that you're blond. Couldn't you just shave it or dye it or something? I don't hate you...I simply hate the fact that you're male. Couldn't you at least have the decency to dress like a woman?
When a person has an immutable trait, then it is impossible to "hate the sin" without hating the sinner, too. What you're saying is that you don't hate circles...just the fact that they're round.
quote:
we believe we are all sinners.
Yes, but it seems that some sins are worth more hyperventilation than others.
quote:
That was just in case you believe I'm a pig-headed homophobe... You may still do... But my friends who are gay would probably disagree... at least a little...
(*chuckle*)
Right. "You know, you're going to hell." Doesn't seem to be a very good basis for a friendship.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dinker, posted 11-08-2003 12:30 PM Dinker has not replied

  
Dinker
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 104 (66040)
11-12-2003 12:56 PM


May I start with a sorry...
[Sorry this is way off the topic subject but I thought this is important]
Hey Rrhain,
Firstly let me say sorry. I do not wish to alienate the gay commmunity from christianity (and I couldn't if I wanted to - Thank God!). I am delighted that you have the joy of christ in your life. The main reason I brought up the subject was due to comments from crashfrog. But let me try and justify my view at least a little. So you don't do to me what you possibly believed I was doing to you.
I said:
quote:
In general the gay christian community have got round all the biblical texts by just disowning it.
- this was an inappropriate comment, entirely based on my own personal experience. I've not met a gay christian who has given me reasoning that would indicate that homosexual (As I understand it... which apparently is very little) activity is not a sin or that it is glorifying to God.
You say:
quote:
It can't possibly be because they understand the Bible better than you. No, it has to be because they are deliberately ignoring it.
I have never claimed to be a great theologian. So I would be delighted if you would in christian brotherly style show me the errors of my ways (rebuke me - as is every christians duty in love). I will not insult your intelligence by telling you which verses I would like explained - I'm sure you've covered the material many times. Could you show me your reasoning? Could you tell me what homosexuality is as you understand it?
I would like to pick up on one or two things though. Cause I think (maybe totally foolishly) that I may have a point. You say you "They are gay. God made them that way" - thus they are exactly as God intended and thus not sinning. So basically you believe I was saying that you shouldn't be who you are - denile of self - how horrible! I beg of you not to believe such a thing of me. That was never what I intended and here's why...
I'm going to be a little bold here and say you are not what you do. We are both from societies in which what you do defines who you are. When we are born we have genetic dispositions to all kinds of things. The best you can be born with is an inclination to do something (Strong though it maybe). People are born with inclinations to do all sorts of things that are wrong (and right). Pyschopaths are born with a disposition to kill - should we allow them to kill people because they were made that way by God? Paedophiles are born with a sexual disposition towards being attracted to children - do we condone sexual relationships between adults and children cause God made them that way (Surely we are stopping them being who they are if we don't)? Or at least not tell them off when they exercise their right to be themself as God made them? What about those who have inclinations towards beastiality? Surely we should allow them to have sex with appropriately sized animals. They're likely to not even be hurting the animal (probably pleasuring the animal!). Surely we have no reason to stop them using their God given sexuality...
I can't help feel your "God made me this way" argument leaves something to be desired. I would quite literally be delighted if you could prove the error in my argument. When I've asked people about it before they just got angry with me or just said it was different without telling me how. I do realise that there is a consent issue involved (on the first 2 examples at least) which makes it differ. But I'm speaking of the motivation here. Does being born with an inclination to do something make acting on it right and God given?
In my view, sexuality does not define who you are! It is important, yes. But it isn't who you are! What would you think of me if I walked round saying "Hi, my names Dinker and I'm a heterosexual". You'd probably think I was a bit weird and I doubt you'd think that fact had any bearing on who I was. Yet you seem to believe it is a major defining factor. I could be wrong on this. Please show me I am - whenever I discuss issues this close to anothers heart I feel very much like I'm playing with matches.
When I said Paul puts homosexuality (and I mean this referring to sexual acts/lusting in homosexuality) on a plain with greed I'm referring to:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Corinthians 6:9-10.
He goes onto say in verse 11:
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
(NIV - maybe a source of error!)
He said you were once like that - you gave it up when you got to know Jesus - you don't need it any more.
Having a homosexual inclination is not wrong - you cannot help it. Acting upon such an inclination (Lusting (just wrong in general) after the same sex, Sexual acts with same sex) (And then saying it is wonderous and beautiful) is wrong from what is in the bible - as I understand it.
At what point are you homosexual? I apparently have an inclination towards playing the guitar. At what point from starting playing was I a guitarist? Or was I one before I started playing?
This is why I say homosexuality is a sin - You have to do homosexual acts to be homosexual (You have to play guitar to be a guitarist). But in some ways I would rather it wouldn't be. Just so I didn't have to do such things as this. Believe it or not I don't enjoy this. I don't enjoy being screamed at for holding such a view which I believe to be right. Can you show me that I am wrong so that I need not pointlessly rebuke another christian over this issue?
Lastly:
quote:
Right. "You know, you're going to hell." Doesn't seem to be a very good basis for a friendship.
That is not the basis of our relationship. Just as the fact that I believe all my non-christians friends are going to hell is not basis for my relationship with them. I'm am deeply saddened that they do not know the joy I have in Christ and that ultimately them will be seperated from the love of God and God himself. I found your comment was quite hurtful or though maybe not unprovoked...
I hope I have successfully given across at least a partly justified view here that you may address it justly. I am sorry we had to meet on these circumstances.
I'll be praying for both of us over this!
God Bless.
I await your reply.

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 1:24 PM Dinker has replied
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2003 6:20 AM Dinker has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 101 of 104 (66050)
11-12-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dinker
11-12-2003 12:56 PM


Re: May I start with a sorry...
I've started a new thread over in "Faith and Belief" for this topic. You can visit it here.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dinker, posted 11-12-2003 12:56 PM Dinker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dinker, posted 11-12-2003 2:01 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 103 by roxrkool, posted 11-12-2003 11:51 PM Rei has not replied

  
Dinker
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 104 (66058)
11-12-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rei
11-12-2003 1:24 PM


Cheers Rei!
Yeh soz about the tangent I seemed to have incited. And thanx for ya help!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 1:24 PM Rei has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 103 of 104 (66158)
11-12-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rei
11-12-2003 1:24 PM


Re: May I start with a sorry...
Ummm... Rei, you might want to edit the first post in that new thread to show that Dinker wrote it. You have the link, yes, but it really looks like you wrote it.
I was a bit confused when I first read it... to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 1:24 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 104 (66199)
11-13-2003 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dinker
11-12-2003 12:56 PM


Re: May I start with a sorry...
Um, Dinker? I don't recall saying anywhere that I was gay or Christian. What on earth makes you think that I am? Just because I disagree with your interpretation of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality doesn't mean that I am gay or Christian.
quote:
I've not met a gay christian who has given me reasoning that would indicate that homosexual (As I understand it... which apparently is very little) activity is not a sin or that it is glorifying to God.
To be honest, I doubt you've ever talked to any about it.
quote:
So I would be delighted if you would in christian brotherly style show me the errors of my ways
(*sigh*)
I've got a better idea: You tell me why you think the Bible says anything about homosexuality as we understand it and we'll go from there.
quote:
I'm going to be a little bold here and say you are not what you do.
So what you're saying is that all you need is a good gay lover? A six-pack will get you on your back?
quote:
People are born with inclinations to do all sorts of things that are wrong ... Psychopaths ... Paedophiles ... bestiality
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's just precious, Dinker! Because two people in a loving relationship is just so much like killing people and abuse.
I'm reminded of the idiots out there that say that if we allow people of the same sex to get married, the next thing you know we'll be letting people get married to a car. Because, you know, a car is just like a person.
quote:
What would you think of me if I walked round saying "Hi, my names Dinker and I'm a heterosexual".
But you do. All the time. You may not realize that you're doing it, but you do. Are you married? What do you think that ring on your finger means? Have a picture of your loved one on your desk? When a coworker asks you what you did last weekend, do you ever find yourself saying something like, "My wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend and I went to..."?
quote:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Corinthians 6:9-10.
You asked for me to let you know when you have erred. Well, here is one.
"Homosexual offenders"? Why does your Bible contain the word "homosexual" in it? There was no word in Greek that would translate as "homosexual." Don't tell me...let me guess...you're using the NIV, aren't you? You do realize that the NIV is one of the worst translations of the Bible around for precisely this reason. It starts with the dogma (homosexuality is bad) and then translates the text to fit the dogma, even when it doesn't.
The word your translation has claimed to be "homosexual offenders" is the Greek word "arsenokoitai." This is a word that Paul simply made up and it appears exactly twice in the Bible. It is a combination of the words for "male" and for "prostitute."
It literally does not mean what you think it means.
quote:
At what point are you homosexual?
Why don't we turn the question around? At what point are you whatever sexuality you are?
quote:
This is why I say homosexuality is a sin
It may be.
But nothing in the Bible indicates that it is.
quote:
But in some ways I would rather it wouldn't be. Just so I didn't have to do such things as this.
Are you trying to tell us something, Dinker?
After all, studies show that the people who are most vehemently opposed to homosexuality tend to be closeted homosexuals, themselves.
quote:
Can you show me that I am wrong so that I need not pointlessly rebuke another christian over this issue?
There are already many threads about this.
Better still, why don't you tell me why you think the Bible has something to say about homosexuality as we understand it.
quote:
quote:
Right. "You know, you're going to hell." Doesn't seem to be a very good basis for a friendship.
That is not the basis of our relationship.
But that's the underlying current, though. You even say so, yourself:
I'm am deeply saddened that they do not know the joy I have in Christ and that ultimately them will be seperated from the love of God and God himself.
So do tell us how these "friends" of yours take to knowing that you think they're going to hell?
quote:
I'll be praying for both of us over this!
Don't bother. I don't need your assistance. I am certain that god is well aware of what is going on.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dinker, posted 11-12-2003 12:56 PM Dinker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024