Posts by Jonathan Drake

61

God loves Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered People

by FusionTheism in

god's view of gays and lesbians.

why should anyone care what i have to say on this topic?

i am not a priest.

Jonathan Drake

I didn't read the OP, because I found the thread title offensive and assume that everything stated in the OP must be an example of accidentally committing intellectual dishonesty with ones self.

copy and paste from one of my other posts:

Any Christian that is for gay marriage or who even tacitly approved of it is not following or agreeing with what the bible says. They can engage in all the mental acrobatics that they like to avoid having to face what their Book of Truth actually says - but it doesn't change it. So long as being a Christian is defined in part by being an adherent of the bible they will be expected to uphold the following views:

Leviticus 18:22:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Romans 1:27:
"27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:26:
"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged naturalintercourse for unnatural"
1 Timothy 1:8-10:
"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching"

I'll just stop here. That last one is particularly condemning of this apologetic view of the bible, for not only is it in the New Testament, but it's upholding the Old Testament view of homosexuality as an abomination that is unholy, profane, godless, etc.

Further, these are not allegory verses. They are clearly addressing a specific type of people toward whom the bible (as just demonstrated) holds a 100% consistent view of being unnatural and damned.

There is no explanation for any other view than this being found in the bible except either willful intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

305

McKinney Texas pool party?

by Marvin Shilmer in

so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.

my response: it shows a clash of expectations.

i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.

Jonathan Drake

We have armed police here in Canada but many rarely draw their weapons (going off reports). Is that solely because of the police themselves or because they reflect the communities they police? I suspect in some other areas they do have to draw their weapons more if the neighbourhood they police is more violent.
Which is the cause and which is the effect? I have yet to see police anywhere invading peaceful law abiding neighbourhoods and turning them into hotbeds of crime but that is what some seem to want us to believe.

This is a very good point. All of it.

its also exactly what I've been wanting to find, information from other countries on such statistics as how they handle themselves. I've been too busy reading other material to take it up, but I've long thought we just need a good example from another country to follow. (Reason why I had the Austrian example ready to use)

i read read a psychology book once (I honestly can't remember what I it was called now) in which they were talking about the crime rate in NYC back in the.... 70s? I think... In any event, what they ended up doing to stem the high crime rate was clean up the city. They kept the subways free graffiti and fixed broken windows and and kept the high crime areas comparably cleaner than they were during times of high crime.

Crime went down. And eventually stayed down. Directly because of these efforts.

this brings me to my point, and another aspect of all of this I've been thinking: could this all be a systemic problem of Americas poor infrastructure? Any thoughts on that?

67

All Christians Should Accept EVOLUTION

by FusionTheism in

it is time for christians to accept evolution, in my opinion.. there are many reasons why i think it is long overdue for all christians to finally accept what science says about evolution.

below i will show these reasons.. .

the bible tells people to pay attention to nature to see the glory of god (psalm 19; romans 1:19-20).

Jonathan Drake

I almost forgot to address the BioLogos foundation, and I must.

It is funded by the John Templeton Foundation. John was a Presbyterian convinced that science would answer what he called "the big questions". These questions are a mix of scientific and religious things like evolution, infinity and time as well as prayer. He believed that science would prove God essentially, and to that end left his fortune to support this goal. It's a hugely biased endeavor. And no matter how they try to contort discoveries and rely on "God of the gaps" arguments, science just keeps proving it all wrong, little by little, one step at a time.

though these organizations are hugely accommodationalist and work very hard at using their intelligent to show that theists can accept Jesus and Darwin, my last post by itself thoroughly destroys such an idea.

67

All Christians Should Accept EVOLUTION

by FusionTheism in

it is time for christians to accept evolution, in my opinion.. there are many reasons why i think it is long overdue for all christians to finally accept what science says about evolution.

below i will show these reasons.. .

the bible tells people to pay attention to nature to see the glory of god (psalm 19; romans 1:19-20).

Jonathan Drake

I agree with the topic, but of all the reasons you've posted I only agree with one (the 6th).

All of the other reasons you state are only accepting evolution on the caveat that it is done within the view of Christian Faith and scripture. This is not possible.

I am very happy to see that another person is reading and educating themselves on these subjects, so please don't take this as me bullying you; I'm merely going to state the following as a form of quality control for the information you are taking in and the threads you are making.

There is no contradiction between what science shows regarding evolution, and what Genesis reveals about God's creation of the universe. You can google to research other interpretations of Genesis. You should especially visit BioLogos. (For additional reading, please seeAllegorical Interpretations of Genesis)

This second post is empirically false. The various Christian faiths all share several non-negotiable tenets. One of these tenets is that all of mankind descended from two specific progenitors: Adam and Eve. This is a non-negotiable claim, because through these two we have all inherited sin and death and the necessity of a savior becomes part of the story.

Evolutionary geneticists now know that the human population could never have been merely two people at any point in history.

The genetic evidence tells us several things. First, the genes in all modern humans diverged from one another a long time ago - long before the 6,000 to 10,000 years estimated in scripture ... the evidence is even stronger, for we can also back-calculate from DNA sequences the size of human populations at different times in the past. And we know that when our ancestors left Africa between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago to colonize the world, the size of the migrating group dropped to a minimum of 2,250 individuals - and that's an underestimate. The population that remained in Africa stayed larger: a minimum of about 10,000 people. The total number of ancestors of modern humans, then, was not two but over 12,000 individuals."
- Jerry Coyne, Faith Versus Fact pg 126-127

This is a universal truth, proven by science, clashing with a universal truth claimed by religion with no proof whatsoever. The reality is that there were never in history at any given time only two human beings, and as a result the entire premise of sin and death being passed on is impossible because there are far more than 2 progenitors. This then makes the necessity of a savior null, and the entire Christian Faith crumbles. These are empirical truths.

I'm only going to dismantle one of your points because I do not want to come across like I'm trying to destroy your OP. But I will say this, and it is very important, reality and truth should never be accepted on religious grounds because science and reason are NOT true because of religion - they are true just because they are.

305

McKinney Texas pool party?

by Marvin Shilmer in

so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.

my response: it shows a clash of expectations.

i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.

Jonathan Drake

don't think it reflects on the others, it brings the force into disrepute but bad actions only reflect badly on those committing them or any who cover it up.
Without this distinction then the argument that criminals reflect on all the others in a community of the same race becomes valid which it should not. The criminals are the criminals whatever color they happen to be and whatever shirt they happen to wear.
The problem is that for both police and color people seem unable to separate condemnation of individuals with condemnation of the group. People want to blame all black people. People want to blame all police. Neither are valid or fair.

This is a far better way to say what I was thinking. What I meant was it reflects on the group as a whole. Much better phrasing, I'm saving this for future use if you don't mind.

as far as the bit about tasers. I've been thinking about this back and forth for a few months and, again, I just can't seem to decide a position to take.

On the one hand, the police need guns as a deterrent to being assaulted and to adequately try to defend not just themselves but innocents. This is especially true in America, where not knowing if the assailant may have a weapon (specifically a gun) is a huge variable since the 2nd ammendment makes it possible for anyone to get a gun as long as they've never been convicted of crimes or diagnosed with mental instability. Even in such cases, getting around these restrictions is laughably easy.

on the other hand, would a little faith in society (as much as I hate that word now) go a long way? Might we find that people actually respect police MORE if they are unarmed? And should violence ignite against police, on what possible foundation could such a position be based when the targets of the criticism have no means of being oppressive?

perhaps the ability of truly armed response to society should only be available to the national guard or some other agency to be called in during such times.

305

McKinney Texas pool party?

by Marvin Shilmer in

so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.

my response: it shows a clash of expectations.

i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.

Jonathan Drake

police officers are public servants. They represent & enforce the law of the city, county or state in which they serve.

This quote is very much in line with my feelings toward the police. When a person becomes an officer of the law they are agreeing to be a part of a standard of behavior and to represent this country, their state, and their city. Due to this they must live up to that higher standard.

Contrast this with the general public responding to situations like Michael Brown's shooting and Freddie on Baltimore. These regular citizens may be showing up in large numbers but they are not officers of anything, they do not represent a standard and therefore the actions of one of them has no reflection on any other. This is absolutely not the same with the police, among which the actions of one absolutely does reflect on all the others.

Its difficult for me to take a side in this discussion anymore, because the more I think about it the more clouded seeing any clear stand I would take becomes. I believe few would debate what I've said above but even if that view were universally agreed upon as true it would be hard to settle all these flare ups we are seeing in society.

I recently watched a video of an Australian man reacting to the actions of police (which he witnessed). I wish I could find this video, alas I cannot; but, in the video the he responds to the police shooting a suspect by being utterly surprised and disgusted. He cannot believe the officer just shot the person instead of tasering them. I feel it is a valid point to make: why are the police here trained to draw their gun instead of a taser or some other non lethal response option? why are they trained to respond with such extreme measures so quickly? If you would argue they aren't trained that way but emotions set in then why aren't they trained until they can TRULY be trusted and released from duty of they can't be? Why can't what works in other countries work here, such as in Australia?

I do not share the opinion that our police force in America is prejudiced or racist, but I do feel that all of these events are evidence that there is a problem. Since the police represent a united group that are part of a standard representing their country and cities of residence it is the responsibility of their side to change in ways that will please the people.

The only way I currently see this happening, is a police force that has no lethal weaponry on their person.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

So you need to realize that, at its basic level, it is a response to a CLAIM not a belief.

Im sorry if I'm jumping in unwelcome but I can't make sense out of this statement.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos"a god" (see theo-).

This was how it was understood originally. It originates from Greece, a culture which when dealing with God was talking about the gods of their pantheon. When a person was "atheos" in Greece it meant they were without the gods (of the Greek pantheon).

Now since then, our culture and language have evolved. To be, "a - theist," means to be, "without theism." You have likely never heard the words 'adeist' or 'adeism' which would mean, "without deism," and this is because (at least in my opinion) adeism is unnecessary.

Anyway, my point is this, atheism is position lacking theism. Theism is,

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Atheism is all about this belief, not claims. It's a non-theistic position, while a theistic position (as defined here by my handy dictionary app) is a belief in a personal God.

It is important though to separate theism and deism. Atheism is not a position against a deistic view, only a theistic view. I keep saying that to make the point that atheism is not about beliefs, it is a response and position taken against theism - one specific belief.

(this argument based strictly on etymology. To most people atheism is a position against either a theistic or deistic God, but linguistically I think this incorrect.)

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

don't like the atheist label because it was given by the very theists.
Being a negative it gives the self evident status to theism.

I think that might be why we are now seeing the rise of "Secularism"

150

Disfellowshipping Image

by naazira in

jw
friends

this photo can be found in the april 15 , study edition article titled:.

why disfellowshipping is a loving provision.

just by looking at this image we can see how quickly the barrier between the congregation and former member is put up, after the announcement that this sister is no longer one of jehovah's witneses.

Jonathan Drake

So screwed up. How incredibly sad.

80

Is RIDICULE acceptable in online debating?

by nicolaou in

this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .

.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.

the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.

Jonathan Drake

"laughable nonsense" that some individuals proclaim.

Ridiculing their words is tantamount to ridiculing them (if for no other reason than they will feel this way).

It is possible to reason with a person without ridiculing them. And reasoning will bring about the same emotional response because they will get just as worked up - the difference is that they will be all worked up trying to disprove a factual position of reason and failing as oppose to arguing that they are being ridiculed and mistreated which is true.

Unfortunately, ridicule is far more likely to work against you. While it shouldn't at all have any effect on the view of your argument in terms of truth and reality, it does and it will in the minds of most people.