JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

This distinction is really, really stupid.

All I have to do is substitute "gay" with "Christian" and Christians would cry PERSECUTION and start having crucifixion fantasies.

Okay, wut?

First, who the hell "advocates" for evolution? That's like saying people "advocate" for Einstein's relativity. Maybe people trying to get actual science into schools, because it belongs there, but I don't "advocate" for evolution. It's just an actual thing, whether one "advocates" for it or not.

Second, what's ironic about evolution and LGBTQ? I can't wait to hear this.

Also, what is LGBTQ "ideology"? That they're people too and deserve to be treated equally?

 

Thanks, I was about to post a similar query.

1)what's LGBTQ ideology?
2)what's "advocating for evolution?"

I hate being the guy who always has to have the punchline explained in detail, but I'm really anxious to appreciate the irony.

 

Evolution won the popular vote but Creationism won the electoral college, so I guess Genesis is President now.

 

I'm not appreciating the irony of that

 

This one:

What I'm saying is that if the Judeo-Christian model is correct, we don't have the authority to disagree with what is written. (Obviously, not everyone will believe this, but this is the logical bottom line in the Judeo-Christian worldview on this subject.)

See above. If the Judeo-Christian worldview is correct, that's the way the world works, regardless of if we like it or not.

2. LGBTQ people do not have a "lifestyle" or an "ideology." Their lifestyle is getting up in the morning, getting breakfast, going to work, coming home, telling their partner about their day, wine and Netflix, bed. You know--like a lot of other people. (Just giving a random example of a "lifestyle" here, not saying that all LGBTQ people like wine and Netflix. I'm heterosexual and I like wine and Netflix.)[/quote]

"Ideology" was used for lack of a better word. The position that said lifestyle is morally okay. Is there a better way to put it?

I'll come back to this.

I see.

True, if we assume that the atheist worldview is correct. And since that's a discussion that'll probably be going on to the end of time, I'm not sure I have anything else to say about it right not.

That's exactly what I'm saying. In the majority of cases, those cherry-picked statements are being used out of context to justify whatever they want. (For example, I think I know of some of the references you're referring to in this example. Not only are they not referring to black people, but you also need to ignore other references and general principles that make Christianity incompatible with racism.

So, does that mean we'll be getting an executive order deciding if it was six days or six periods of millions of years?

Finally, in regards to the "LGBTQ and evolution" question:

The idea of evolution is that advances happen through mutation. The only way that sticks is if the genes are passed on, meaning the organism needs to reproduce. If we assume that evolution happened, then humanity is still evolving today (probably not into the X-Men, though). In the case of the LGBTQ community, reproduction is not as likely. Ergo, said percentage of the population is not helping and may be hindering the evolutionary process by not ensuring that the genes are saved for the next generation.

FULL DISCLAIMER: This was just a weird idea that occurred to me before when I was bored. I don't advocate for it, don't believe it, nor do I think that it has any basis in anything, nor am I even sure of the accuracy to it. In fact, I wish that I'd never brought it up. It's just a weird tangent my brain went on, nothing more, nothing less.


(FYI: I'm sorry to anyone I've offended or ticked off; I'm trying to be as civil as I can be and am sorry if I failed in that.)

 

I'm not offended or ticked off, but you're wise to disavow the comment. It was ill-advised and hinted at a certain level of ignorance paved over by overconfident assumptions.

 

This is your original quote:

You could change it to "accept and support LGBTQ people".

You do know that they are people, right? Not an ideology, not a lifestyle that is "morally okay", but living, breathing people who exist.

I knew you were going to say this, as it is a relatively common thought born of ignorance as to what evolution actually is.

I haven't been the least bit offended.

 

Evolution and Creationism are not at all mutually exclusive, if you use Creationism at a pretty basic meaning, ie. the universe was created by a higher being. I'm a Christian and I believe in that higher being as the same God that Jesus Christ represented and embodied on this world, but I still except evolution. If you're talking about something like Intelligent Design and Creation Science, then you're getting into terms that represent a worldview that is decidedly anti-science. Both of those things are wrong-headed and don't deserve a place in either serious science or serious theology. Accepting evolution isn't an issue of God vs. no God or even just higher will vs. random chance. It's an issue of whether an ancient work of poetry or the modern scientific method is more accurate in terms of the detailed method of God's creation. In my opinion, God is the creator & evolution is the method. This is extremely easy to accept, once you get past the absolutely literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, which is itself a really easy thing to do and doesn't at all undermine using the Bible or even just other parts of the Bible as a religious text or believing in divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

I believe that right now Azathoth, the Idiot God, is asleep and has dreamed us all into existence. The other gods play music to keep him asleep, for when he wakes up, all of creation disappears.

 

I just want to add a few thoughts in here, to these parts:


1. There is no consensus on "the Judeo-Christian worldview." I'm a Christian, who doesn't believe same-sex relationships are sinful, or that science inherently conflicts with religion, and I'm not alone. But even disregarding my viewpoint, shared by others... there is still no consensus on "the Judeo-Christian worldview." Or "the Christian worldview." Or "the Catholic worldview." Or "the Protestant worldview." Or "the Abrahamic worldview." Etc.


2. Being gay is not a lifestyle. Even being in a same-sex relationship is not a "lifestyle." It's the same style of life as any straight person.
(and if you equate being gay with promiscuity... just like not all straight people are promiscuous, neither are all gay people... gay marriage became a thing for a reason)


3. Gay humans (and animals) have existed throughout history. There are many theories for that. One theory being that exclusively-gay members give more attention to their nephews/nieces or the general next generation or with adoptions, making them more likely to survive and develop and improving the survival and development of the species as a whole. Another theory says genes that might cause a woman to have lots of kids, in a man cause him to be gay. Lots of theories, nothing definitive yet, but that's some just to show you some examples about how it can be evolutionary beneficial.

And even beyond that... gay people can still have their own biological children. Whether it happened when they were (or perhaps still are) confused and making themselves be in a heterosexual relationship, or they have a little bit of bisexuality and do it just to have kids, or in more modern times with surrogate mothers and sperm donors, and the possibility in the future to be able to create a sperm cell from a woman or an egg cell from a man to have true biological children with their same-sex partners.

As has been said, gay people are also only around 3-10% of the population. And really, if for some weird reason it ever became 100%, I doubt humanity would die out.

Also, you seem to be confused that evolution is advancement. It's not, it's a bunch of small changes accumulating over the generations. We'll always be evolving in some way, but there's nothing inherently good or bad about it. (for all we know, humans in the future evolve into small-brained frog-like creatures.) There's no value assigned to it. There's no direction to it. It just is. Every living thing on Earth today is equally evolved, we just branched off.

 

I hate to always be bringing up the scandalous LGB lifestyles of bonobo chimpanzees in the wild. So I'm not going to. Zoologists in the field keep shouting questions at them like "what's the point?" but all the bonobos do is have more sex.

 

LGBTQ ideology, heh.
Less offensive than "LGBTQ community".

 

WebLurker can you please point me to the actual discussion, perhaps a link to the relevant thread page?

 

I think I understand what you're saying. But, as a parent, I'm sure you set some boundaries for you kids and stick to them, even if they don't totally understand your reasoning behind it? I guess that how I see this topic, if that makes any sense.

I have seen more than a few Biblical references against living said lifestyle. Also, all references to marriage are pretty specific that it's heterosexual only. Between those two points, that's why a lot of Christians have moral objections to the gay lifestyle as far as sex goes.

Maybe the atheist isn't looking closely enough (assuming that the Christian/whatever religion we're talking about isn't reading too much into it)? We all see the same things in the world, we just draw different conclusions from it, kind of like how in the original Star Wars movie, when Luke was practicing with the remote, Ben Kenobi saw someone using the Force, while Han Solo saw the exact same thing, but explained it as a lucky swing.

Okay, guess I misunderstood what you were saying earlier.

The heck? Look, if your going on about that "LGBTQ and evolution" comment I made earlier, I said that it was just a bizarre idea that came into my head (probably thanks to a sugar high or something) that wasn't meant to be a serious argument about anything. We need to move on.

Fair enough. I will concede that I'm not sure how to reconcile said view with the Bible, but some people do hold that view.

I guess I failed to find a concise way to describe it. Since there is the theological school of thought that homosexuality is wrong to practice, that was what I was trying to find a phrase to describe.

And even beyond that... gay people can still have their own biological children. Whether it happened when they were (or perhaps still are) confused and making themselves be in a heterosexual relationship, or they have a little bit of bisexuality and do it just to have kids, or in more modern times with surrogate mothers and sperm donors, and the possibility in the future to be able to create a sperm cell from a woman or an egg cell from a man to have true biological children with their same-sex partners.[

As has been said, gay people are also only around 3-10% of the population. And really, if for some weird reason it ever became 100%, I doubt humanity would die out.

Also, you seem to be confused that evolution is advancement. It's not, it's a bunch of small changes accumulating over the generations. We'll always be evolving in some way, but there's nothing inherently good or bad about it. (for all we know, humans in the future evolve into small-brained frog-like creatures.) There's no value assigned to it. There's no direction to it. It just is. Every living thing on Earth today is equally evolved, we just branched off.[/quote]


Once again, can we please get off that stupid offhand comment that wasn't even something I was trying to advocate?

Sorry, It's this part of the thread: (http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-theist-atheist-thunderdome™.50018058/page-190#post-54165207). I was originally responding to point four of your post, which then sparked the question.

 

WebLurker I think you will find that the quote you are attributing to me was actually made by anakinfansince1983 on the previous page.

 

Ok, thank you for acknowledging my first two points.

For the third point, I'm confused. I thought you had just made that post when I replied to it. And regardless, does this mean you agree with my response there?



As for the larger point of homosexuality and the Bible, I suggest you watch this video by Matthew Vines, once you have time (it's rather long, slightly over an hour). This analyzes every part of the Bible that is said to disapprove or approve of same-sex relationships. Yes, analyzing the direct Biblical verses.

 

I would just like to address this whole thing about humans not having the right to question God. The Bible contains a long tradition of the people in its pages wrestling with & questioning God in a variety of emotional states. Abraham confronting God over the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah is a great early example. Then there's, well, the whole matter of the book of Job, some forty chapters of wrestling with God. All throughout the Psalms, you have passages in which the writer questions God's actions or inaction. The prophets are filled with such passages as well.

And, then, of course, there's Jesus himself: "Father, if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me." And later and even more devastating: "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" That's JESUS. Giving voice to a cry of rage and despair at feeling abandoned by God. I know I've wrestled with God in my personal spiritual walk and I think that's kind of the point. It's not really Biblical at all to say that we're supposed to just blindly follow God's orders or quietly accept our circumstances as if He was in total control. I mean, if I can't take my doubts and my anger and my despair and my questions to God, what do I do with them? And what's the whole point?

I think people who say you should never question God are really saying that you should never question them. Often they don't want to deal with the hard questions or challenging arguments or maybe they know they don't have all the answers and are afraid to just admit that. Sometimes it's just simple insecurity. But whenever a person tells you not to question or challenge God, they have an agenda of their own. Question God about anything you want to question him about. God's not fragile. God can take questions. Even accusations. At least you're starting a conversation.

 

Any authority figure that prohibits or discourages questions isn't one that's worth following. Asking questions is how we learn. Taking something on "because I said so!" limits the learning process.

That may be one of the reasons why religions still thrive today. By suppressing questions, the authority figures keep their wards ignorant and unlikely to seek answers elsewhere. If good education was more widespread, if questions were encouraged, and if people truly examine their beliefs with a critical eye, religious beliefs as we know them today would dry up within a generation.

 

I've always held--and would repeat--that this thread is a cesspool, and absolutely not worthy of any real theological discussion. For what it's worth, though, Rogue1-and-a-half, I don't know that really of those examples really count as questioning God:

1. God appears to Abraham and literally says that he intends to investigate the evils of Sodom and Gomorrah before determining if it should be destroyed. Abraham subsequently argues. . .that he should investigate Sodom and Gomorrah before determining if it should be destroyed. Which is what he just said. So then we have an account of God's investigation of the area, and his subsequent destruction of the cities based on what happened. It seemed much more like an exercise for Abraham than a meaningful challenge of God's thinking or intentions.

2. Job was explicitly rebuked at the end. As were, for that matter, the majority of the speakers in that whole book. He apologized and said it was wrong to say what he did.

3. I don't get the impression Jesus was making some random, angry, flailing comment. Without getting too deep into the weeds, it seems to be a pretty literal, accurate description of what was happening. Within itself, a being that was divine was recoiling from sin even as it took up the weight of it.

That said, having a meaningful discussion of this topic would require better delineating what we mean by "questioning" and outlining distinctions like uncertainty (and how we deal with such thoughts/emotions), versus what should more honestly just be called disagreement. The default attitude of religious adherents towards their own religion's commandments is something separate still.

 

Ghost thank you for posting that video, I thought it was excellent. I also think that Matthew Vines chap is amazing for a 21 year old. Everything he said sounded good to my non-Christian ears.