The Lorax

I love science. Let me give this a shot. It's true homosexuality is a maladaptive trait, from a biological standpoint. Obviously a population that was 100% homosexual would produce zero offspring. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, I think it would have been eliminated long ago. But I don't think homosexuality is a genetic trait; I think it is something else entirely. I am an identical twin. That is to say, I shared a womb with a person whose genome is the same as mine. We could be called "clones," except that natural twins are *more* similar than artificial clones. I am left-handed. Greg is right-handed. Since we are genetically identical, right/left-handedness cannot be a genetic trait. If it were, it would be impossible that I'm left handed. I've heard different numbers, but apparently about 1 out of 8 people is left handed. Similarly, roughly 1 out of 8 people is homosexual. I think homosexuality is a congenital condition not unlike left-handedness. It's not genetic, but it's not a choice either. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me. What are the biological underpinnings there? Beats me.

My doubts didn't arise from literary evidence - they arose from scientific evidence and from a sense of morality that I cannot ignore. That being said, your suggestion is excellent, and it's something I plan on doing. I cannot stress enough that I am not speaking with any theological authority whatsoever. I am speaking from the standpoint of a young guy who was raised to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but who is finding it impossible to do so. That's where I stand right now.

And once more: this is all just my opinion. These are my personal beliefs and I am not forcing them on anyone, nor would I presume to "teach" them to anyone. I am merely explaining why I have them at this moment. I will admit, there is great doubt in me. However, this doubt is not in Jesus or in God, it's in the human writings about them. If the above statements make me a "nonbeliever" in the eyes of Worthy Ministries, then I invite the moderators to change my account status accordingly. I would not mind, and in fact I think many people here would be satisfied with nothing less. The only privilege I ask is the ability to explain my beliefs when they are questioned.

Could you give me a link or a name or something to go by here? There may be 5000 of those things, but I don't know where to find them. Natural death is what inevitably happens to a human as a result of the body's degeneration over time. Genocide, on the other hand, is when the lives of a whole people are cut short. Of course, you already know this. It's amazing - you've yet to admit genocide is immoral. What's stopping you? Again you assume the point you wish to prove - that the Bible is God's inerrant word. The message of the Bible was revealed and inspired by God, that is true. That we agree on. Where we disagree is how the Bible has been handled in the ages following. No. God did not lie when He said the Bible was inerrant. At the time, that was true. But again, you blindly assume the Bible has not in any way been changed by its human purveyors. If humans changed it, that would not make God a liar.

Last post for the night. Thank you everyone for the wild ride. I have a busy week ahead of me so I may not be able to continue this me-vs.-all discussion. Maybe in my absence the topic will return to bacteria. Probably not, though.

"MY Lord and Savior." <-- He's much bigger than just you, runninggator. Not according to God. So is God right or are you? Back to the same tautology? "The Bible says its absolutely correct, so it *must* be absolutely correct, nevermind its repeated translation and transcription by fallen humans. I'll just ignore all that, because I can't stand the possibility my beliefs could be wrong." What is the difference in relation to the actions of God? God is the giver of all life, as such he is the one that also ends all life. What you consider natural is not relevant to the discussion. we are not talking about us, we are talking about God. Natural death is not the same as genocide. One is morally repugnant. Can you tell which? It must feel great, thinking you are 100% right on matters of faith. Unfortunately, such a mindset is not faith - it's fanaticism. Faith is not a sense of certainty. Faith engenders doubt. Just like free will requires the recognition of multiple choices, faith requires the recognition of multiple possibilities. If you've convinced yourself you are 100% right, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in any matter of faith, then you've mistaken yourself for God.

That is why we share the gospel with them, so they don't have to, but it's like everything else. They have to make a decision. We are not responsible for their decision, only for sharing the gospel with them. I don't know how Heaven can be Heaven for anyone with the knowledge that millions if not billions of people are in Hell. Think about it. How can you ever be at peace when your former companions endure intense, *unending* torment? This is true. However, I do not rule out the possibility of postmortem redemption through Christ. Again, I believe the existence of an eternal hell is antithetical to the loving nature of God. You simply cannot have a loving God and eternal torment, just like you cannot have a square circle.

How can you sleep at night, thinking that many of your friends and family will probably burn in fire forever? This is just my opinion, but it seems egocentric and small-minded to so confidently exclude the possibility that others worship the same God. "Ignore" "Pretend" "Picking" "Choosing" "Like" "Don't like" You're throwing a whole slew of labels at me. I could just as easily throw them back, and I've really been trying not too. For instance, I could say you *ignore* the immorality of genocide and you *pretend* there is no evidence for evolution. However, it strikes me as futile to tell someone who you think they are, as if you know them better than they know themselves. That too is small-minded and egocentric. I completely agree, God is never wrong. God is infallible. It was man, not God, who altered the Bible over time. You really don't get it. I don't reject every passage that can't be scientifically verified. I reject passages that conflict with others, with themselves, and with an overwhelming volume of verifiable evidence. If that picking and choosing was guided solely by personal convenience, life would be easy. But, for the Nth time, it doesn't work that way. Do logic or evidence have any weight with you at all? Natural death is not genocide. Slaughtering a people is genocide. If you can't tell the difference, that's worrisome. Oh right. A lake of fire would make an awesome vacation spot. Imagine how tan you'd get! Now, runninggator, let's see if we can reverse this downward spiral...shall we?

One more thing: Although I think the Bible has been altered, I think the Lord's message still shines through. After all, it was through the Holy Bible that I found Jesus. If the Bible were flawed beyond measure, this could not have happened. That is why these excluded middle arguments have no weight with me.

I dont see it as one God. The god you speak of is not the same as the God that I worship. It is not the God of the Bible There is only one God, though. Way off the mark. Rejecting an impossible interpretation is not "ignoring the Bible." Furthermore, my interpretation is based on evidence, not personal preference. I don't see how assessing possibilities can make us ignorant. Ignorance does not arise from thorough consideration; it arises from the lack of it. It certainly opens a can of theological worms, yes, and that's why many are hesitant to even consider that possibility. But the possibility is undeniable given that the Bible has been vulnerable to the influence of humans for ages. How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. Jeremiah 8:8 Not really. It would be theologically expedient to take the Bible literally in its entirety, but of course evidence prevents that. This is a flawed diagnosis. My interpretation is guided by evidence and by logic, not by personal preference. You know what's a position that can't be defended? That a loving God commanded genocide and condoned slavery. Or that a loving God permits torture, *eternal* torture. Belief in such is indefensible, as these things are logically self-negating. There can't be square circles.

It's interesting you see it through that lens, "my God" vs. your God. I see it as one God and many interpretations. But anyway, I don't think God plays tricks. Never said He did. People can and do ignore the Bible regardless. This is not what I do - I don't ignore what I dislike. I *question* things that may be logically and/or demonstrably impossible. For instance, the idea of 7-day of creation does not stand up to scientific evidence As a result, I interpret 7-day creation metaphorically. This decision is based on evidence, not on whims. Again, your argument presupposes the Bible has not been changed in an number of ways by any number of fallen human beings. Tautology: an argument that assumes the point it's made to prove.

Didn't see this. I know because I have experienced Jesus.

Woah, I'm following after Thomas Jefferson!

That's the tricky part - you can't, not with complete certainty, anyway. That's why I want to make clear these are just my personal beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to agree with them; I'm just explaining them. That's also why I'm open to change. I would not call our God-given moral compass a "preconceived notion." It is deeper and more essential than that. There is part of me that knows stealing is unacceptable, murder is unacceptable, etc. It is this part of me that guides my biblical interpretation.

As for the Bible being either 100% true or 100% untrue - what basis do any of you have for claiming that? If the Bible were 100% true when it was first revealed -- and I believe it was -- but accumulated human error over time, then it would neither be 100% true or 100% untrue. You've all demonstrated what's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This fallacy is very common because humans have a bias to think in black-or-white terms, often for no good reason.