hiphop-elements.com

Well, to begin with, my problem with Numbers 31 is not the death of children, it's the murder of children with no morally sufficient reason given (not to mention the sexual exploitation of young girls). And I don't think that reading a story like that should shake one's faith in the Most High or in His goodness if one has such a faith. Rather, it should shake one's faith in the book that claims that this is an accurate portrayal of the Most High. See that's been my problem all along. I have no problem with an a priori belief in God. Some people think that such an entity is necessary to properly ground an ethical system or to make sense of the world. I don't but fair enough.

So I think it can be reasonable to take a belief on faith but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to take an entire belief system on faith, especially when it's just one belief system among many that exist or have existed. When I push you for your reasoning, this is what I'm getting at. I can understand why you might believe in a creator, but I have yet to see a reason to accept Yahweh over say, Quetzalcoatl or, to use an example near and dear to many an atheist, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So I think there is such a thing as reasonable faith. But, at some point, you do need a reason for believing some things to be true--especially if you're going to be completely devoted to those things to the point that you will kill or die for it. So no, I don't think faith is a game changer.



Maybe. I tend to think that we just have a tendency to describe anything we don't understand as supernatural or "unseen" if you'd prefer. As our understanding grows, there's less that's considered supernatural. We figured out how lightning works, for example, and so no one believes in Thor anymore. And then there's the paranormal. I remember hearing about a scientist that believes that telepathy is possible and that quantum mechanics provides a possible mechanism (a principle called spooky action at a distance). If he were able to prove that then it would cease to be "paranormal" or "supernatural" it would just be science.

Still, the vast majority of energy and matter in the universe is described as "dark" because we don't yet understand it. So there's that. Plus, every time we figure out an answer to something, that answer inevitably raises more questions. Evolution, for example, adequately answers a lot of questions about the origins of life, but raises the question of abiogenesis or how "simple" organisms could have possibly come from chemical compounds. And questions like this have actually led some scientists and scientifically informed folks to come to accept God!

So I don't think that God and science are really at odds with one another. For a period of a few hundred years, the Muslim world was at the forefront of the scientific community in large part because Islamic thinkers considered science to be about revealing the beauty of Allah's creation. And for this reason, most of the stars that have names have Arabic names and a lot of mathematical terms are derived from the Arabic, like algebra and algorithm. And then there are believers today like Francis Collins, who is the Director of the NIH and one of the world's foremost geneticists.

As far as this goes:



I completely disagree. Observational cosmology, in addition to being, in my opinion, an end in itself, is important to ensuring our survival. We need to know what risks there are in space. An object called Apophis, for example, gave scientists a scare when they realized that it had a chance of colliding with the earth. Now that it's got closer they think that it's very unlikely to strike. Still, it's important that we know what might be coming for us. And it's important that we have some understanding of how we might deflect such a threat, should it exist. There's just no reason for us to go the way of the dinosaurs.

That said, there is no reason that people should be starving or be denied access to medical services in the richest country in the world. I just don't know why space exploration should be singled out as wasteful. On the government level, it's a small fraction of federal spending--15 billion for NASA compared to about 500 billion for Defense or 400 billion for Medicare.

And I would think that a believer would be, if anything, more interested in scientific discovery than a non-believer. After all, it was Galileo that said that God has written two books--the Bible and creation itself. I therefore don't understand why a believer would consider scientific questions to be a matter of "vanity." After all, if God exists then He made Jupiter and its moons and He probably made them for a reason.


Peace

I've worked with kids for the better part of ten years. So there's that. But nah, I just find this topic interesting.

What is my belief system?

Because I thought it was Love your God with all your mind, body and soul and to love thy neighbor, the 10 commandments summarized...If I love you then I would not murder you etc etc etc.

Why do you find my belief system so difficult?

If that were the extent of your beliefs, I wouldn't find them "difficult." But that's not the extent of the beliefs you've espoused in this thread.

Hmmm? I think that the black and white of my position is the 10 commandments. We took some side streets but we usually came back to the commandments. I even remember telling you that the 10 commandments were different from the Mosaic laws.

This was one of my earlier post...I think I have espoused the Commandments

Right, and in that post you espoused the belief that 1.) The Bible contains prophecies that will come to pass and 2.) The Bible contains accurate depictions of past events. Like I said, you've so far been defending a belief system and not just a few beliefs about the Most High and His Law.

As far as this goes:



Right. I remember that too. But come to think of it, I managed to gloss over what may have been a contradiction in highlighting this distinction. When I mentioned Leviticus 20:13, you wrote:

"There is clearly a distinction between Moses' civil laws and God's moral law. I think this is something that Bible scholars and teachers of the Scriptures fail at badly, distinguishing the two. Moses' laws are imperfect, because they were written by man..."

And then, a little whiles later you wrote that Levitical Laws regarding cleanliness are "God's answers." I forgot to bring that up. Why do you think that Levitical rules regarding homosexuality are from Moses but Levitical rules regarding cleanliness are from God? I neglected to ask you about that. Again, before this discussion, I had been under the impression that it was all from God.

But regardless, I don't see how this distinction is important when you have also written that:



Anyways, I really don't understand why you have a problem with the obvious fact that, in this thread, you have been espousing a faith in a fairly complex belief system. You seem not just to accept a set of 10 commandments. You seem to accept the whole of a book--The Bible. You've quoted from more than just the 10 Commandments.

It's a belief system, holmes.


Peace

You have indeed pointed out a contradiction; I would say it happened due to my laziness...The Mosaic civil laws were written by a man inspired by God and not written by God, the Mosaic civil laws governed the Hebrew's' day-to-day lives. God's law or moral law were to be written on the heart, and the Mosaic laws, were civil rules, what and what their community would or would not accept. God's law has nothing to do with whether or not I should jay-walk; that's the difference between the Mosaic and God's law, so forgive me for my laziness. The Levitical laws also speak against incest, so I assume I do not have to clarify why we still read and learn from the Levitical civil laws; while understanding that I am not Hebrew and under the Levitical covenant. All Scripture is profitable. All are under the covenant of Righteousness, the Abrahamic covenant, our moral obligations, the 10 commandments.

You live in a country that makes it legal to be gay or lesbian, the Hebrews did not, but that's their world view and my world view as well--I think man-on-man is repugnant! However, I do not judge--condemn to hell--people for being gay or lesbian, I just think it is unnatural, goes against nature--planting seeds and reproducing to prolong life is natural--gays and lesbians cannot do this, they cannot prolong life, therefore they are against nature's order of things. Even water evaporates and creates rain, rain falls and waters the soil and the soil nurtures the seeds we eat and we have strength to have relations and reproduce--nature's logical and simple like the God that created it.

So with respect to Leviticus, would it be fair to say that, basically, God gave Moses a set of principles and allowed Moses to work out how they should be implemented? I think I read too much about politics because the way I make sense of it is thinking about Obama telling Congress what he wants to see in a health care bill while at the same time letting them work out the details. I hope that's not an unfair reading of what you're saying because it makes sense to me in that light. But, I have to ask, doesn't that mean that when we look to the Bible, say, Proverbs, we're not really looking at "God's" answers, rather we're looking at man's interpretation of God's principles?

With respect to homosexuality, maybe I don't fully understand your position but I don't think it's very well thought out. If you're saying that because a gay couple cannot, through a homosexual act, reproduce, their sexuality is unnatural then I would say that there are numerous problems with this position. Most obviously, you run into the problem of infertile couples. I have to ask, do you believe that married couples engaged in a sex act are participating in an unnatural act when one of the partners is infertile? They can't "plant seeds" or "prolong life" either. If not, then your problem doesn't lie with the fact that gay couples can't reproduce. And so, I don't see the point in mentioning it. Your problem lies elsewhere. If so, I doubt that most of us would want to take our cues regarding sexual mores from you. Furthermore, other animals sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior, which points to its being "natural" regardless of whether or not it helps to "plant seeds." More importantly, I think that even if we were to accept that homosexuality were unnatural, it would not follow that there's anything wrong with it. Dying your hair green is probably unnatural and yet most of us would consider it to be a morally neutral act. I just don't think that there's a good reason to condemn homosexuality.

I mean, look, maybe I'm biased because I've got some very good friends that are gay. One of those friends has been in a committed and monogamous relationship with his boyfriend for the better part of 10 years. They hope to get married here in California one day and I hope to attend that wedding, should it happen. I just have yet to see any good reason for saying that such a relationship is "repugnant."


Peace

Comparing an infertile couple to homosexuals is like comparing homosexuals fight for equal rights the same as blacks fight for civil rights. A biological dysfunction, uncontrollable, is not the same as what is controllable. For example, blacks cannot change their skin color, but homosexuals have a choice on whether or not to be a homosexual. Man-on-man is repugnant (1. Arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive: morally repugnant behavior. 2. Logic Contradictory; inconsistent). Yep! That sums up two men...and being unnatural. However, this is not the conversation.

All Scripture is profitable, that if applied, the world would be a better place, but not all knowledge is profitable, like knowing what is happening on mars, the age of the earth, etc etc etc. A lot of sciences, not all sciences, are endless genealogies that profit nothing! I would have to agree with your Obama depiction, however, Congress is not Solomon. Solomon's words, Proverbs, are above reproach, and Proverbs alone, if applied, would fix America; because proverb ( ) n. A short pithy saying in frequent and widespread use that expresses a basic truth or practical precept--practical, logical simple. Wouldn't it be difficult to say that while Phil Jackson is not on the court playing, he has nothing to do with the Lakers winning a championship? God is the coach and Solomon, David, Isaac and Joseph are his Jordan's Pippen' and Kobe's, and listening to them is a better bet than not listening to them. So I agree with your premise but find error in your conclusion!

May Jah Jah bless

...uh, no it's not. It's like comparing gays to infertile couples because they share a common trait--they both lack the ability to reproduce sexually. You wrote:

"I just think it is unnatural, goes against nature--planting seeds and reproducing to prolong life is natural--gays and lesbians cannot do this, they cannot prolong life, therefore they are against nature's order of things."

If gays go "against nature" because they aren't "planting seeds" then infertile couples are also going "against nature" because they aren't "planting seeds" either. You've given absolutely no reason for me to think that there is a relevant difference that invalidates the analogy. You've offered no argument.



You can't just state things as if they were facts and expect people to be persuaded. You've given absolutely no reason to think that homosexuality is "offensive," "morally repugnant," or "[logically] inconsistent." You've only stated that it is so. This is not an argument.



I disagree. And this is why I think that our discussion of homosexuality is indeed relevant to this conversation. This is one example of scripture being, in my opinion, very wrong on an issue. There's no good reason to condemn homosexuality. And thus there's no reason that a whole group of people should be shamed because they choose to go to bed with a member of their own sex. Thus this rule, if applied, would not make the world a better place. It would be a major step backward.



This is probably the best analogy you can use when you're in a discussion with someone from Southern California. But I don't really understand the point of it. My contention was not that God had nothing to do with inspiring what is written. I just don't think you can really call them God's answers per se. If Kobe shoots a three, do you call it Phil Jackson's shot? I mean, you agreed with this contention earlier when you wrote that the Levitical rules were "from man." You were the one that brought in this distinction.

With respect to your point about Congress, I would have thought you'd have more of a problem with Obama being God in the analogy.


Peace

Going against nature is an action phrase, c'mon...Infertile couples do not go against anything, because they did not have a choice in the matter. Apples and oranges...infertile couples are biologically incapable of reproduction like blacks are incapable of changing their skin color. I work with a lady's son in in-home services and she just told me about her gay friend going straight, which substantiates my point, homosexuals can change.

You have your views--views by the very nature of freewill--you are allowed to have. I think the world is spiraling into oblivion. Things that seem right to man will perish, ends. The world stinks do to the lack of standards. You said God's laws against homosexuals are repugnant and I think the homosexual lifestyle is repugnant. So who's right? I do not really care, because I am not a judge.

You disagree with God having answers for this world and I agree that his answers are exactly what's needed in the world.
I believe my belief system is simple, practical and profitable, and you disagree, and believe it is complex.

# Are preserved by God.
Psalms 116:6 The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me.

# Made circumspect by instruction.
Proverbs 1:4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

2 Corinthians 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

In my lifetime, proof will be established, and when it comes, if HHE is still around, I will again post, but til that time...

Peace



“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

Albert Einstein



“God has no religion” (Religion is a system).

Mahatma Gandhi



“To believe in God is impossible - to not believe in Him is absurd”

Voltaire




“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

Albert Einstein




“When we know what God is, we shall be gods ourselves”

George Bernard Shaw



“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”

Albert Einstein



“I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.”

Frank Lloyd Wright

1. Choice is not really a relevant difference. Infertile couples didn't choose to be infertile but they still choose to engage in sexual activity that they know cannot result in pregnancy, which was the same sort of behavior you highlighted to show that homosexuality goes against nature. So I don't see how this difference is supposed to be a defense against my objection.

2. I really like that you can, at once, feel free to dismiss the independent work of scientists from a wide variety of fields with regard to the age of the earth as mere "estimates" that "satisfy nothing," but then turn around and highlight one potential case of a person's sexuality changing as potentially representative of homosexuals as a whole. Now, I suppose I could throw out all of my experience because of this one third hand example of someone changing their sexuality that you presented. Or maybe I should just say that I'm willing to accept that some people are confused and just experimenting and that for those people it's a choice. But all that shows is that, for those people, it's a choice. That doesn't negate the possibility that there are many more for whom homosexuality is not a choice.

Still, even accepting that homosexuality is a choice and that it does indeed go against nature, I really don't see how that would make it wrong in a moral sense. Again, dying my hair green is a choice that goes against nature and yet very few of us would consider it a moral issue. If you think it is, then I think you have an overly broad view of morality. And if dying my hair is not going against nature, it seems to me that it's a very vacuous expression.

Oh, and if you call something repugnant, you're making a judgment, homie.

And finally, in this thread you've proposed a creator god with whom you have a personal relationship, that chose his very favorite desert tribe as a means of disseminating his most important rules, that inspired holy books, that occasionally judges and destroys societies that offend him, etc. You can call that a simple, logical belief system if you want. But then you're not using the words simple or logical in any recognizable way.

And if you agree with Einstein on this topic then you don't believe in the god of the Bible.


Peace

Breakings News: It is been uncovered that Democracy has been impersonated by agents of Tyranny. It is being suggested that long ago Tyranny charged his agents, Politics and Religion, with hijacking Democracy, and beginning a mind-boggling campaign of lawlessness and ethnic cleansing. Politics and Religion face a grand jury on Independence Day and are expected to be charged with several generations of crimes against humanity, impersonation, embezzlement, tampering and extortion. Evidence is expected to include the history books of America and its policies i.e. Ostend Manfesto, Manifest Destiny and the current situation, the Americanization of Iraq--domination and bloodspilling first and then mandatory assimilation.

What would you say if you were called to testify? Would you testify on behalf of or against Politics and Religion?

As a defender of common sense and logic...I would prefer the truth to the bindings and contradictions of both Politics and Religion.

Then again...They both stand to seem redundant in nature. What I mean is that they both harbor on the fine line of opinions of an individual compared to the masses/another. BUT, with common sense and logic, what seems true is proven by fact and not baseless claims without the effort to do the research. Even though I maintain a faith within my heart, my beliefs do not coincide with those that congregate under a cathedral or building of ministry.

I think that the more obvious answer to the argument between Free and BIg, is that a woman (infertile or not,) produces mucus upon preparation for receiving a penis (for obvious reasons,) and, if infertile, she still maintains the inner parts which were supposed to (by nature,) produce eggs and receive sperm. Infertile by defect, however, is by defect and not by conscious perversion by the individual; as where homosexual relationships are infertile by the exchange of non-defective, but possibly effective body parts, purposefully being used in a way that contradicts natural body functions.

If it is natural, then what springs forth when a man puts his seed within the chutes of defecation?

I think that's a ridiculous argument. On your view, it would appear that all sex acts besides unprotected vaginal sex are unnatural, even heterosexual ones. What springs forth when a man uses a condom. What springs forth when a man puts his tongue in a woman's vagina? What springs forth when a woman puts her mouth on a man's penis?

Obviously nothing springs forth, and obviously you can use the argument that anything sexual, outside of intercourse, is of no difference than two homosexual people having sex, since no pregnancy can occur.

However, it is a question of bodily manipulation and perverting nature:

it can not be denied that a man and a woman were physically designed to fit together so that children may be born. The whole purpose of sex, no matter what, is to obviously impregnate, otherwise it would not be nearly so messy. We manipulate the baby maker into falsely releasing baby making ingredients, for the sake of pleasure. As far as our bodies are concerned though, it thinks we are trying to impregnate a woman.

Therefore, nature has to be manipulated so that we can feel the pleasurable results that come along with releasing baby maker ingredients.

How can you argue that?

Again Mike, you can make the same exact argument for any type of sex act besides unprotected vaginal sex. If you masturbate then, as far as your body is concerned, you're making a baby. If you perform oral sex on your partner then, as far as her body is concerned, you're making a baby. If you pull out...Etc.

Again, on your view, only unprotected vaginal sex counts as natural. Using a condom, pulling out, performing oral sex, and masturbation are all perversions of nature.

I think that this is completely ridiculous.

Furthermore, I really don't see why you're so stuck on whether or not it's natural. We, as humans, have constructed aqueducts that send water uphill and across valleys, for example. Water doesn't behave that way in nature. You could even say that it's a perversion of nature. But so what?

What exactly is the point that you think you're making?