Comments on: Gays Are Evil

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:41:46 +0000

Turning this into a fight against religion as a whole, rather than its natural state of being a fight against those who say “Gays are Evil,” whether religious or not, if nothing else needlessly sets more people in the enemy camp than need be. Those of us who are gay Christians (and etc.) are stuck either way, but more of the straight ones than you would suspect are allies… and those who are on the fence are put off by your calling their beliefs on other matters false.

Whether they are or not.

By: Erin

Erin — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:57:56 +0000

And yes, it’s off-topic. But wouldn’t it be nice if all these myths didn’t negatively affect the lives of LGBT people so much.

By: Erin

Erin — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:52:09 +0000

Yeah, it’s always a way out when she gets ya. With all due respect, the Creation story is nothing the theory of Evolution. It’s fine to live by the principles of Jesus’ lessons, but a lot of Biblical followers don’t actually take many of the stories literally.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:45:20 +0000

“You are, of course, entitled to your opinion”. I love that phrase! I hope it becomes something of a catch phrase around here, because in the end, nothing could be more true about much of what we say here.

However, not everyone is entitled to hijack a thread to change the subject to their favorite (a)theological viewpoint. The is not a(n a)theology blog, or even a(n a)theology thread.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:02 +0000

Priya Lynn, I’m quite certain that you know this, but for clarity’s sake I’ll reiterate: You are, as always, welcome to your own opinion.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:43:40 +0000

Timothy said “Personally, when I sat down and actually read, with an open mind, the Creation Story in the Bible, I found it to be shockingly similar to the Evolution explanation.”.

I love it when religious people grasp wildely at straws. The creation story suggests nothing about the central feature of evolution – the gradual change over time of one species into something else.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:41:33 +0000

Richard said “After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything supernatural exists.”.

Timothy said “Yes, by definition. Once something is physically evident, it is no long supernatural.”.

*rolls eyes*…No, it never was supernatural in the first place. Let me phrase it a little differently:

After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything has required a god to bring it about.

Timothy said “I agree that science is continually producing new compelling evidence that expands our knowledge of nature. And religion tries to provide answers for what science cannot tell.”… and fails miserably.

Timothy said “And if you keep an open mind about it, you can see that quite often religion gets it pretty close considering the language and concept limitations.”.

Oh, please…give us an example, and not something pathetic like “in the beginning there was nothing” = big bang theory.

By: chiMaxx

chiMaxx — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:31:29 +0000

We’ve known that Glenn Stanton likes to make authoritative-sounding statements about things he doesn’t really understand ever since his debate here at BTB with Patrick Chapman.

By: JFE

JFE — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:22:47 +0000

As I posted on Good as You, Webster apparently disagrees with Focus on the Family on the ONLY definition of marriage:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:17:25 +0000

Richard,

After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything supernatural exists.

Yes, by definition. Once something is physically evident, it is no long supernatural.

But does that mean that the supernatural of the past is not evident (and natural) today.

Take, for example, a sudden change in a person who experienced radically different behavior that was damaging to them and others and was out of character. An ancient might declare that they had been possessed of a demon, a supernatural action. We might, on the other hand, see a virus that had infected the victim and was causing the problem.

But who is wrong? If you were to try and explain a virus to someone living 2500 years ago, you’d have a tough time of it. It’s a living organism that is invisible that takes over a part of its host’s nervous system and… oh hell, it’s a demon.

I agree that science is continually producing new compelling evidence that expands our knowledge of nature. And religion tries to provide answers for what science cannot tell. And if you keep an open mind about it, you can see that quite often religion gets it pretty close considering the language and concept limitations.

The biggest conflict, in my opinion, between religion and science is when folks on both sides insist that religion is literal in the same way that a science text is literal – exact, observable, and directed at a sophisticated, educated, public with a strong grounding in the sciences.

But see one as literal and sophisticated and the other as lyrical and story telling to an audience with only minimal understanding of science and its startling how close they come. Personally, when I sat down and actually read, with an open mind, the Creation Story in the Bible, I found it to be shockingly similar to the Evolution explanation.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep…”

to a people without any concept of space or planets.