A question for theists

[Recusant]

( I didn't insert that capital 'A', Recusant.    )

I know. I do mention the point on occasion, but generally it's in a context where it seems apparent that the person doing the capitalizing doesn't know any better. Personal style quirks displayed by atheists who do know better, I long since have chosen to ignore; I know you don't capitalize "atheist," anyway. I do appreciate your concern for my sensibilities though, dear sir.  

[Crow]

What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???

Depends on the usage. Metaphysics is abstract philosophy (such as time) or abstract theory that can be similar to the aforementioned. Metaphysical basically is the above but applied to a larger usage. (hope that makes sense).

[xSilverPhinx]

What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???

Depends on the usage. Metaphysics is abstract philosophy (such as time) or abstract theory that can be similar to the aforementioned. Metaphysical basically is the above but applied to a larger usage. (hope that makes sense).

Oh I see. I didn't really thing it was anything much different from supernatural, as in 'beyond reality' sort of thing.

[Crow]

Oh I see. I didn't really thing it was anything much different from supernatural, as in 'beyond reality' sort of thing.

Well there is certainly a crossover point between the two especially in Catholic theology. If we take death for example, an afterlife would be supernatural, but if we look at the abstract concept that no one ever really dies as the memory of that person is carried with others in their memories and the impact they make upon the world, that is metaphysics.

[Genericguy]

If it did exist and was measurable and testable by science then it would move from supernatural to natural, so far there is nothing to measure therefore its supernatural not natural...

I agree completely. Things that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.

[AnimatedDirt]

To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.

I certainly have an outsider's view of Christianity. I do try to understand you AD, thus I ask lots of questions.
I am often left in disbelief with regards to your mental positions, such as when you argue that the 47 mauled by Bears sent by god where not children but were young adults, or when you keep saying that the bible claims..., Jesus claims... therefore it must be true.

I'm not certain I have ever claimed something is true because the bible says so.  From my beginnings here at HAF, I've tried to EXPLAIN situations IN LIGHT of the bible and IN CONTEXT of the "fairytale".  If I have claimed something true because the bible says, it may be that you missed it being in that context or even that I failed to make that clear.  Again, taking into account the original language, the words translated to "children" could also mean a gang of youths and not preschool kids as you guess to mean from the exact wording in English.  And in context of the WHOLE bible (also taking into account that it teaches that kids up to a certain age are not necessarily accountable for their actions) it would be a better interpretation that these "children" mauled were at least teens if not young adults.  But again, full knowledge on the matter eludes you by your own admission.

Thus I make some claims, but instead of accepting my claims to be true you come back with a counter claim that I have the wrong interpretation.

When there is much more information to use in making a more precise interpretation, it should be done.  But since you've already admitted to only reading 10 pages into Genesis and a few pages of the NT "to get the gist"...you claim to have the correct interpretation of the whole.  I respect your intelligence and thinking on your position as an atheist, however the same feelings of respect do not follow in these situations when clearly you are not speaking or interpreting from a position of knowledge.

So obviously you base knowledge off more that mere claims, maybe claims need to be written in your bible for them to be true. I don't know, or maybe claims on forums don't count, maybe I need to write my claims on rice paper.

It baffles me as to when a claim can be considered by you as true.

What should baffle you more is that you are quite keen to make haphazard interpretations of a text having read maybe 1% of.  Apparently that's ok to do here.  I'll take note of that next time I make outstanding claims about something I know next to nothing about.

You admit to having an outsiders view, but make claims as though you are a biblical scholar.  You say you try and ask questions to try and understand.  What you are doing is making claims based on no knowledge of the bible or its claims.  But again, since the majority of the people on this forum are of disbelief, you go unchecked on the matter.  You SAY you want to understand, but your actions are not one of wanting understanding, but rather of one only wanting to extract and claim that which makes you feel better about your disbelief.  I don't blame you for lashing out in ignorance to something that threatens your stance.  We all do the same to one degree or another.  Your attitude of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "la, la, la, la, la..." also shows that you really aren't wanting to understand, but just out to build your wall.  That's ok too...but don't make the claim of wanting to understand when clearly you don't want to understand.  I don't fault you for your disbelief, in fact I support your ability to think and choose for yourself what you will or will not believe.  My only role here, as I see it, is to bring more understanding to those that wish for it and to clarify the misunderstandings that people like you make on a regular basis with no real knowledge of the basics of the fairytale...yet are emphatic about discussing and debunking a "fake" story.  On the flip side, I've grown to like many of the HAF regulars...you included.  We butt heads on these things, but on other things I see we think alike. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so."  The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another.  Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages.  But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think.  I've never really encountered it.  A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.

[Ali]

I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so."  The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another.  Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages.  But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think.  I've never really encountered it.  A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.

What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.  I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so.  Do they have other reasons?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.  I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so.  Do they have other reasons?

It seems unnatural to them, it may be viscerally disgusting to some of them, they think it's a choice or excuse to live a profligate lifestyle, etc. The fact that they can find some verses in the Bible that condemn it gives added support to their position.  A man desiring another man sexually seems strange to me, but I try to separate my personal feelings from policy issues in a secular society.  The idea of separation of church and state is not appealing to many Christians, and that's where the problem starts. 

[AnimatedDirt]

I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so."  The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another.  Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages.  But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think.  I've never really encountered it.  A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.

What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.  I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so.  Do they have other reasons?

I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads.  Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right".  The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.

Having said that...

If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign.  This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim.  Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects.  In that context the believer sees it as wrong.

However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God.  If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.   

[Ali]

I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so."  The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another.  Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages.  But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think.  I've never really encountered it.  A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.

What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.  I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so.  Do they have other reasons?

I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads.  Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right".  The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.

Having said that...

If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign.  This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim.  Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects.  In that context the believer sees it as wrong.

However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God.  If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.  

Exactly.  I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible.  Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion."  I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong.  Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people?    Proof 2: There are lots of things that I do find gross, but very few of them that I want to make against the law, because I don't care what other people do as long as they aren't hurting each other.  If Christians were merely grossed out, I doubt they would care about it being against the law either. 

Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

[AnimatedDirt]

Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing.  I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.

I agree.  There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes.  I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.

[Ali]

Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing.  I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.

I agree.  There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes.  I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.

To your first, while it may be true that people generally dislike public displays of affection, I am likely to be able to quickly kiss my husband or hold his hand in public without raising much ire.  Depending on where they are, a gay couple that does same could find themselves in danger of name calling, confrontations, and worse.

To your bolded, I agree.  I would say that a more accurate statement is "Most people who are 'anti-homosexual' are religious."  Not neccessarily Christian, and certainly not "all".

[AnimatedDirt]

Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing.  I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.

I agree.  There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes.  I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.

To your first, while it may be true that people generally dislike public displays of affection, I am likely to be able to quickly kiss my husband or hold his hand in public without raising much ire.  Depending on where they are, a gay couple that does same could find themselves in danger of name calling, confrontations, and worse.

To your bolded, I agree.  I would say that a more accurate statement is "Most people who are 'anti-homosexual' are religious."  Not neccessarily Christian, and certainly not "all".

Agreed.  On PDA, I meant making-out etc. as teens tend to do.  Simple kisses hello and goodbye or the like are not turn offs though...just to clarify. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Exactly.  I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible.  Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion."  I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong.  Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people? ......   Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

I disagree.  Somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation, imagining yourself doing that.  Having sex with a man would be in that category for me.  Yuck.  The Bible has nothing to do with it.  I don't oppose gay marriage.  People should generally be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others, which gay marriage doesn't.  But it's still weird to me, and I don't think that really has anything to do with the Bible.