What Is Man?

[whag]

Because God, a rational, intelligent being, created a rational, intelligible cosmos. So we have two choices to try and explain our rational universe. One is the non-rational forces of nature. The other is a Rational Mind. We again, know that intelligence can create precise, ordered conditions. There is zero evidence that unaided nature could do the same. And you can not claim that nature by default is rational, that is begging the question since its rationality is the very thing that needs to be explained. I would say that of course the universe is rational and intelligible - that is what one would expect if created by an Intelligence.

What would a non-rational, unintelligible universe look like?

[seer]

What would a non-rational, unintelligible universe look like?

Completely chaotic, disordered. Non-life permitting.

[whag]

Completely chaotic, disordered. Non-life permitting.

Are birth defects, predation, and calamity "ordered and rational" to you?

[seer]

Are birth defects, predation, and calamity "ordered and rational" to you?

Yes, since sin has infected the situation. Sin is inherently irrational, and introduces a variable into the system. Of course, if you are correct birth defects, predation, and calamity are all perfectly natural - no big deal. Having said that the universe is still generally ordered and life-permitting, needing dozens of precise conditions to bring this state of affairs about.

[whag]

Yes, since sin has infected the situation. Sin is inherently irrational, and introduces a variable into the system. Of course, if you are correct birth defects, predation, and calamity are all perfectly natural - no big deal. Having said that the universe is still generally ordered and life-permitting, needing dozens of precise conditions to bring this state of affairs about.

Sin has infected what situation? Are you saying that sin caused predation?

[seer]

Sin has infected what situation? Are you saying that sin caused predation?

I think you and I have been over this before whag.

[whag]

I think you and I have been over this before whag.

No we haven't. What could you possibly mean by "sin has infected the situation"?

[seer]

No we haven't. What could you possibly mean by "sin has infected the situation"?

What don't you understand about sin? And yes, we have. It was in your thread "Problematic Natural Evil."

[whag]

What don't you understand about sin? And yes, we have. It was in your thread "Problematic Natural Evil."

So I went back and read it. Your view--and Lewis' and some of the church fathers' views--seems to be that Satan causes high winds. Are you guys joking?

[seer]

So I went back and read it. Your view--and Lewis' and some of the church fathers' views--seems to be that Satan causes high winds. Are you guys joking?

Nope. We certainly do believe that that it is possible.

[whag]

Nope. We certainly do believe that that it is possible.

Does Satan have something against Jupiter and Venus, too? Those planets' climates are the fiercest in the solar system.

Climate is just one example of your silly view of how nature works. You posit a perfect world sans predation and high winds, but then stammer and stall when asked what a perfect world would even look like. Without mutations that cause the birth defects I mentioned, none of the variety of life would exist. Reproduction is itself a "imperfect" process, yet you give evil spirits the credit for its products.

[whag]

What don't you understand about sin?

I overlooked this.

If you mean sin as in deliberately harming and killing, a lot. If you mean sin as in "not performing the Eucharist" or "being cocky" when conveying an apologetic argument, a lot. Human behavior is complicated.

But notice that I'm talking about comprehensible things. You invoke an incomprehensible thing (satan infecting the universe) to explain comprehensible things such as gale force winds and spider fangs. While I would fight for your right to believe and express that, I can't honestly accept that as a rational interpretation of natural processes, products, and phenomena. I honestly feel sorry for those who do.

[NormATive]

Ok, so their behavior has changed because of AIDS? Not because they thought that having multiple partners was necessarily a bad thing. So if we can cure the disease I guess it would be off to the races again. So I guess you now agree that the Bell study was valid. BTW - do you have a study showing that homosexual males have drastically changed their sexual habits? How many partners do they have now? 200 instead of 500? Or did you just make that up?

Everyone's behavior has changed because of AIDS. Now, schools distribute condoms to keep teens safe, and the general population is more educated on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This is a good thing.

BTW, I know that you could probably care less, but there essentially is a cure for AIDS. I know that will disappoint those who wish the disease on homosexuals as a curse.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex - it's a perfectly natural thing to do. One could even say it is "creationaly normative." The institute of marriage (even one man / one woman) is a relatively modern invention. For the record; I think it is a good thing, generally. I don't think it needs state or church "permission." We should either end tax subsidies in support of all marriage, or treat our citizens equally.

I think that society is better off with a sexuality that is open and safe - even (especially?) outside of marriage.

You choose to live in the dark ages, and that's OK. But, when it comes to discriminating against a segment of society you refuse to accept or understand, that's where society will correct for the aberration that is you.

I think we've beaten this subject to death. I know where you stand on this issue, and you are clearly out of step with the rest of society.

NORM

[NormATive]

We are resurrected individually and personally. Jesus was known after His resurrection, and was not someone else. We all stand in judgement for what we did, not for what someone else did. I have no reason to assume that we will not be ourselves - do you have Biblical reasons to assume otherwise?

That's not the question. I'll only ask one more time. Show me the scripture that you base your belief that you will be married to your wife in heaven.

The Bell study was referenced in my original link and my new reference from a 1997 study. Which you already saw. And let it be known, you have offered no study that disproves either of my studies.

1997 is still nearly 20 years ago. MUCH has changed since then. I don't have to show studies, as I am not making an assertion. You are.

What kind of world do you live in Norm? Do you have to agree with all the behavior of someone before you can love them? You have to agree with everything they do before you can treat them kindly? Did Jesus teach that I should only love those that agree with me or live like I want them to live?

How did you get that from what I said? You are the one who has a very conditional worldview. Not me. I accept people for who they are, not how they measure up to my deity. If you want to restrict yourself to one wife and one marriage and all of the other restrictions your religion requires, who am I to judge? It's your life.

What does the Tanakh and the Talmud say about homosexual behavior Norm?

The Tanakh roundly condemns homosexuality. The Talmud mostly does, however, you can actually find a ceremony for a gay wedding. Weird.

Like I've said before; I don't allow an ancient book to dictate what I think. There are many things in the Tanakh and Talmud that I do find of value.

Just because some men use their moral freedom wrongly does not mean that they are not created equal, and don't have inherent worth. It just doesn't follow.

I'm still not getting why you keep saying that the Bible says everyone is equal. If it does, you clearly are not obeying your book.

I accept all men as image bearers of God, so what is your point? And as far as deciding ones own worth that is pretty much meaningless. The men I worked with who had Downs had little or no concept of personal worth.

Well, as my brother once told me; "those guys that take care of me at work (he takes part in a workshop program that provides employment of a sort) don't know me. I don't think they like me."

You might assume that they have no sense of self worth, but they surely do. Because you fail to see it doesn't make it any less real.

NORM

[Tassman]

That is completely false Tass. If "exclusion from a community" is the cause of promiscuity with gay males why didn't the same exclusion cause gay women to be more promiscuous in the same time period? You are not making sense. And what percentage of homosexual males are actually marrying in the states that they can? I have an old friend, Ronny, (gay of course) who thinks that gay marriage is silly - he lives for sexual variety. I wonder how many other gay men feel that way. And BTW Tass, you don't need the blessing of the state or society to remain in a committed relationship - gay women have been in committed relations for years without that blessing.

Oh please, more social cohesion nonsense? Well the Muslim countries have a lot of social cohesion. And we in the West have had great social cohesion even without embracing homosexual behavior. And yes, bashing gays may not be socially acceptable today, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

we live in a secular democracy where equal civil rights are supposedly available to all citizens. If you want a theocracy whereby you can enforce "God's Law" (see link) you will have to overturn the Constitution; but you will be resisted.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

After all nothing is inherently right or wrong in your world Tass.

Nothing is inherently right or wrong in ANY world, yours or mine. Things are

We just follow the dictates of our biological natures and who knows where that will lead.

We have always and we know precisely where it will lead, namely where we are now, with religion trailing along behind resisting enlightened social change as it always tends to do.