This post is different from the rest of my bolg as it is a part of an arguement in which I have found myself entangled. It origionated from my girlfriend’s blog, The Emerald City, as a Christian had posted a somewhat intolerant comment on her post detailing her personal religious views. It eventually culminated in me essentially asking him to prove the accuracy of Christianity without using bible verses. He failed miserably with that challenge. His responce to me is here:
http://elmantheman.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/how-a-homosexual-can-be-a-christian/.
What follows is my reply to his post. Be forwarned, it is extremely long, and repeats a lot of the same things. I had no choice, however, as his post was extremely long and repetitive.
To begin with, you misquoted me. I never said .”..And the Holy Bible says that people will get more evil because of the lack of teachings. You yourself can observe that as far as religion is concerned, the earth was never out of it, but then again, listen to the teachings and you won’t wonder why people become more crazy and evil.” I do not know where you got this from. It is most definately not the sort of syntax or phrasing I would use. In fact, the voice sounds a lot like you. I am forced to think you intentionally put words in my mouth. If so, I would politely ask that you do not do so in the future, as this is libel.
So, that unplesentness aside, to quote something you said,
“Am I committing sin just for being born as a gay or homosexual individual? Does the bible really condemn gay or homosexual people? Or is just the sinful acts committed?”
So to summerize the first part of your post, you believe that it is not the state of being attracted to the same gender that is a sin, but a homosexual act. I admit, this is not a contradiction. I do not know how one could live like this, but it is your choice, so I will comment no further on the matter.
“I will give more verses which I always remember when the integrity of the Holy Bible is being questioned.”
So let me get this straight; when you start disbelieving in the Bible, you read verses of the Bible which make you believe in it again? A verse which says you are a fool if you don’t believe in the Bible? Right… I’m going to ignore the holes in your logic there for the moment, painful as they may be.
And I will remind you that I am not debating with you the existance of a god. I fully accept that there may be one. Which leads nicely into your next point:
“Some say they believe that there is a God, a good one, but you cannot see the concept of their God from their deeds, but the opposite of good, they are liars too.”
I know for a fact, Elmantheman, that you do not know Scaramouche personally. I do. And I love her. You also do not know me. Now, you are calling her, me, and by extention, everyone who does not believe in your specific god evil and a liar. Do you understand why some of us may resent that? You do not know our actions. You can not call us evil. And you certianly can not say that us saying what we truly believe is lying. I do not believe what you believe. But I do not claim that you are lying when you state your beliefs, because they are your beliefs. And I certainly do not call you evil, not knowing you, and not knowing your actions.
“Can’t you see how useful and very truthful the Holy Bible is? It gives exact description of the subject. I do not even need to reflect on the verse by writing. But because you asked, then, I will try to write more of what I learned from it, but I cannot disregard my reference, the verses from the Holy Bible.”
No, I can not see how useful and truthful the Bible is. I know you believe it to be truthful, however, and I respect that. However, naming a subject and then finding a bible verse that vaguely talks about it does not imply truthfulness. You must understand that although you believe it to be true, I do not.
“Imagine, people changed their views about God into something different! They now thought that immorality is a good thing because changing their perception becomes their license to do what their hearts desire to do. If it did not come from them, most likely, it came from their teachers, even friends who practice such immorality. They do not need God, they think that they are actually a god to themselves.”
Now, by very definition no one thinks that immorality is a good thing. Others may have a different system of morality than you, however. My own blog has a couple posts on the subject of my system of morality https://6d60.wordpress.com/category/morality/. I do believe that we should mostly be able to do what our hearts should do, however, there are exceptions. For example, I believe hurting another is immoral. And I do not believe I am a god. Far from it. My system of morality, however, derives from only one axiom. Hurting another is immoral.
“And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”
Again, using your verse this time, you imply that I and all other non-christians are liars and evil. Can you see why we find you intolerant? I do not ‘strangthen the hands of evildoers’. And I certianly have never commited, and will never commit adultery.
“Some people are open to talk about these things, indeed, they are even proud to say and accept that they pollute their own bodies.”
I do not ‘pollute’ my own body. I would not personally take drugs. However, I would not say that this is inherently wrong either. If one takes drugs it is their own choice to pollute their body. They are hurting no one but themselves. Again, I say you do not know me.
“Notice the above verses? God can see that a fool really believes in his heart that there is no God. No matter how hard he tries to hide that belief, God can see his heart. And no matter how obvious their foolishness, the more they profess that they are wise. The more they commit sin, the more they deny God who created them.”
Now, here’s the catch with that: you are not arguing with an Athiest here. I never once said I believe there is no god. I never said that I completely deny the possibility that there is a god. And I can not deny the possibility that it may be your god. However, there are many, many other possibilities that I can not deny either. There are several other major religions in the world. Although you are convinced of the truth of yours, all of them seem equally likely to me. What makes Christianity uniquely true? Your bible? Other religions have sacred texts as well. And I will say also that there is a possibility that none of them are right. Maybe there is no god. Maybe there are several gods. Maybe the truth is something no human has thought of. You have so far given me no reason to believe in your specific religion, and your specific Bible.
“Even logic and plain analysis will dictate or will tell us that some people love to get drunk, they just do not admit that they are after drinking a lot. Some people deny that they are immoral because they believe that orgies makes them happy and they love doing it with other people who loves doing it with them too, especially, it is their belief, and will ask you to mind your own business!”
Orgies? That came out of nowhere. But yes. I would ask you to mind your own business. Because if you choose not to partake in such endeavors, this issue does not affect you. This is an example of why many people get annoyed with Christians. It does not affect you, and we resent you trying to control that. If it does not hurt anyone, and everyone involved consents to it, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it. If you do not believe in the morality of it, that is fine. Then don’t participate in it. Accept, however, that other people may have different systems of morality.
“Do you really deny what is truly happening on the earth that we are living now? Do you still believe that using the verses in the Holy Bible are illogical and irrelevant?”
Deny what is happening on Earth? Many things are happening on Earth. I do not deny any of them. If, however, you mean all the pointless wars that are going on today, I do not believe that the cause of all this is a lack of morality as you define it. I would argue that a lot of the world’s problems are caused by intolerance. And yes, I believe that using verses from the Bible is illogical and irrelevant when you are arguing with someone who does not believe in the Bible.
“The Holy Bible teaches us how we should behave towards different people with an emphasis on not to discriminate.”
If you truly believe this, then why do you discriminate against non-Christians, calling us liars and evil?
You claim “The Holy Bible teaches about logic too.” And you follow that with a verse on obediance. Obviously this is a question of definition, as you and I clearly see logic as completely different things. To me, logic is critical thinking; applying thought to your own observations and drawing your own conclusions. Starting with simple axioms and using only those axioms and nothing else to draw non-contradictory conclusions. In short, logic is about as far as you can get from blind obedience. And no, non-Christians do not use the Bible as a reference for anything. Because we’re not Christians.
That’s it with that section. You follow this with more talk about distinguishing homosexual acts from being gay, a point which I already conceded.
“Haven’t you noticed that it is a real man, heterosexual man who is being admonished here? That is, due to sexual immorality and perversion, he might have changed his preference from a woman to a man. Even women who changed her sexual preference from man to woman because of sexual immorality and perversion?”
I very much doubt that one can voluntarily change their sexual perference. If it were possible to willfully change one’s orientation, due to “sexual immorality and perversion” or otherwise, would you not have done it already if you believe homosexual acts to be immoral.
“Even nature teaches as that a heterosexual man will not even think of having sex with a man too! I saw once, a man, was asked about this and he had goosebumps and his cheeks got red, he even looked very squeamish. That’s how a heterosexual woman feels too, what more of homosexual man and woman? Why did these things happen? Why was there a change of preference for a partner?”
I deny the premise of your questions, because you have not shown me that it is possible for one to change their orientation at will.
“If you think the Holy Bible discriminates or condemns gay people as a person, then I will not wonder why you talk like that and insinuate that I would have a change of heart and mind on my understanding of the Holy Bible. Why would we disregard or will not consider the Holy Bible in an argument? As a person, what can you contribute to an argument? Is it your experience or is it your own knowledge? But then again, 6d60, you don’t even have a concrete evidence of your existence here in the internet. But we do not argue if you are real or not. It is the teaching that is important. Did it make you less a better person, or did it make you a better person?”
You seem to ask questions, elmantheman, that you consider to be rhetorical, but which are not rhetorical to me in the slightest. I would disregard the Bible in an argument because I do not believe in it. Plain and simple. Yes, as a person I can contribute my own knowledge and experience. But more than that, I can contribute logic. Something that you have completely failed to use in your post so far. And by logic, of course, I mean my definition of using established axioms and critically thinking to draw a conclusion. Not your definition of blind obedience. The reason your arguments have failed with me is because I do not take to be axiomatic what you take to be axiomatic. That is, the bible. Until you convince me of the truthfulness of the Bible, you can not use the Bible in a logical argument with me. And it is for this same reason that you can not use the Bible in your arguments that the Bible is true, because in order for me to accept this argument, I would have to take as axiomatic the very thing that you are trying to prove.
I hope that clears things up a bit. Do you understand now why I asked you to refrain from using bible verses in your post? Now, on to the rest of it.
“Let me just remind you that as a Christian, we believe too that only a man and woman should marry, not both man having the same gender nor both woman. But what about us, gays? We also have feelings like yours but then again, we feel them towards the same sex. It is never a question in the Bible if a gay is person or not. The Bible gives a sense of direction for us. We are people too. We can never change what we feel, we were born this way. But one thing is for sure, be it a man, a woman, or a gay, we are all given the freedom but as Christians, we are taught not to use it given the freedom to lust on the same sex or even to the opposite sex? Of course not!”
Oh, how little you know me. I do not believe that only a man and a woman should be able to marry. I believe that if they love each other it should not matter. But, of course, your belief is your own, and if your religion wants to keep marriage the way you currently define it, that is your right. However, you have no control over anyone else.
“One of the privilege of a Christian is to know the Truth, because it will set us free from the eyes of the hypocrites and even the myths that comes along in believing them. If you take time to read my blog, you will learn how the impossible becomes possible for those who love God and His teachings. Probably you do not know God’s teachings and Gospel.”
I know you believe that you know the one and only truth-with-a-captial-t. That’s fine. However, I am many things, but I am not a hypocrite. My beliefs and my actions are entirely consistent with each other. And again, how little you know me. I would not be magically converted just by reading your blog or the gosples. Because I do not believe in the Bible to begin with. However, I am not going to read the entire Bible or your entire blog just to prove you wrong, because, frankly, I find them both extremely long-winded and boring.
Alright, you contradict yourself completely in these next two paragraphs. You claim “I am not commenting to convert anyone of you in that post to be Christians.” Then you go on to say “They were able to distinguish what belief needs correcting and what belief has a basis. So what if I use a bible verse?” You say Scaramouche’s belief “needs correcting.” How can you say that this is not trying to convert her? You say that you are not discriminatory, elmantheman, but you are. Her beliefs do not need correcting. Accept her beliefs for what they are. They work for her, as she pointed out. You do not have to agree with them. Just accept that she believes it.
“So what if I use a bible verse? Can you prove that the verses are wrong,”
No, I can not prove that the bible is wrong. I could prove it logically inconsistant, but that’s not the same thing. No, I can not prove that all of the bible is wrong. But nor can you prove that all of the bible is right. And the burden of proof right now lies with you. I don’t care if you believe the bible is right. But if you wish to argue using a bible verse, you must first prove to me that it is right.
“…when in fact nature even teaches us and testifies, even the good values in us, if ever you have one, that those are facts.”
Really? That’s not my experience. How does nature teach that the bible is fact? If you can actually show this to me, you might have an actual argument.
“I learned that by taking a firm stand and having the Holy Bible as a basis is better than arguing without any.”
I do argue with a basis, sir. It’s called logic.
“The Holy Bible is enough to learn how to make sense by using biblical logic and analysis. The logic for you still remains incomplete without God’s wisdom for man.”
As I said before, I would not call what you use ‘logic’. I would argue, however, that my definition is complete, and is a useful tool for understanding the world. Unlike yours, which is all based off of a single axiom that many people do not agree with. And unlike you, if I learn something new about the world, I can change my axioms, my basic beliefs from which my entire logic, and therefore system of beliefs, derives. This will reflect in a better understanding of the world around me. You, however, are stuck with your Bible. Your one foundation for all of your beliefs. And when the world changes, when the world learns, you don’t. You stay the same. And you do not learn. You can not learn.
Oh, and then we come to your misquote of me. Something which I never said. I had almost forgotten about it. You even have the nerve to lead into it by telling me that I said it.
“Actually you have been accusing that the teachings in the Holy Bible are the reason why we have this kind of world populated by crazy and evil people. That is the main reason why the Holy Bible should be used to answer your accusations.”
I have never made such a claim. I wonder why you would say I did, knowing full well that I would read this. Or perhaps you thought that I would not read it. That I would see the start of your post, see how long it is, then give up and just ignore you. Well I’ll admit I almost did. And then I saw this slander, this misquotation.
So of course I’m going to ignore your rambling reply to the words you placed in my mouth, and move on to your reply to something I actually said.
You claim my request to not include scripture in your reply was “very rediculous.” Perhaps you “real Christians”, by which I am forced to assume to believe means ‘you and anyone who agrees with everything you say’, can not separate the Bible from logic and reasoning, since your entire sense of reasoning seems to be based upon it.
Conversely, however, it is also very rediculous to attempt to talk to a non-christian, because when you talk to a non-christian, you can not connect the Holy Bible with logic and reason. Because to me they are two very separate things indeed. So you see, it was not a rediculous request for me to ask you to argue without using scripture. It was to save you all of your efforts to come up with arguments that would mean nothing to me.
You go on to claim:
“The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it. What is secular morality by the way? According to the Internet, it is based upon the principle that happiness is the chief end and aim of mankind.”
First of all, “According to the Internet?” You cite the internet as a source? Umm, do you mind if I asked where on the Internet? The internet is a big place. It’s an entire medium. That’s like saying ‘according to books’, or ‘people say that…”. But citations aside, I reject the definition. I would define secular morality as “any system of morality that is not based upon a religion”. That’s right, any. This includes many systems of morality, not just one. I just meant do not base your moral arguments upon religion, as it would fall upon deaf ears. By the way, “The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it”? What exactly do you mean by that. It makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I know the meanings of each individual word, but they do not go together to form a coherent idea.
You go on to ask what happiness is. An interesting philosophical question in and of itself, but since this is now irrelevent to the argument at hand, I shall ignore that paragraph.
“Do you really want me to agree with you and tell you that we know what love is on the earth we live in?”
Again with the putting words in my mouth. Although at least this time it was indirectly. I never said anything of the kind. And how did we get to talking about love, anyway? This has nothing to do with anything. Love is a very mysterious thing, and the mystery of it is actually one of the reasons I think there may be some sort of god or spiritual force out there.
Oh, I’m sorry to go out of order, but I just noticed this question, “What can you offer me that makes sense when you die?”
First off, I never claimed to offer anything that would. Secondly, you don’t even seem to be offering me anything that makes sense to me when I’m alive. Let alone death, which is another matter entirely.
“The earth that you kept on holding on will vanish sooner or later, even some scientists say so.”
Hmm… again, you cite a vague, general source. “Some scientists”. Wow, that’s just oozing with credibility. But sarcasm aside, no, the Earth is not due to ‘vanish’ at any time. It will, however, be rendered uninhabitably hot in about a billion years or so by the sun’s slow expansion. Perhaps that is what you meant. Admitedly it is a stretch of definition, but it’s not like you haven’t done that before. And who says I’m ‘holding on to the Earth’?
“Nevertheless, let me tell you how the Holy Bible agrees with you too on how you feel and what you have been doing.”
I am going to ignore this next part for a few reasons. You do not know how I feel or what I have been doing, and as such, you can not possibly tell me how the Holy Bible ‘agrees with me’ on it. Never mind how an inanimate book that was written thousands of years ago can ‘agree’ with me on anything. Especially since I disagree with the book in so many ways.
“You may want to know how the Holy Bible defines what kind of world are the Christians like me, and even you share.”
Not perticularly, no. Out of curiosity, is there any reason why the word ‘you’ is a link?
“As a Christian, we learned that we cannot set aside the Holy Bible. We say, “evil,we have enough of you! Sin, we are no longer your slaves!”
Again with the first person plural. You change pronouns in the middle of your sentence. Unless you mean ‘we’ as in the singular royal ‘we’. Fancy yourself a king, do you?
And, blah blah blah, God gave his son, blah, blah, blah.
And that’s the end of that.
Now, I am really growing weary of this argument, so I really do not care if you reply to this or not. If you do, I would insist that you not use bible verses in your proofs, otherwise I shall ignore it completely. Oh, and don’t think I’ll just sit idlely by if you attempt to slander my name again, because I won’t.