Know It's True: Recent Comments

Comment on Why I'm not a "H8er"

Brian — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:22:28 GMT

Monique,

Thanks for commenting. I wish more people thought like me too! Of course you and I are in agreement with respect to equal rights for all. Now might be a good time to point out that I'm not an expert on politics by any means. I specialize in Christian Apologetics and I'm only interested in the Prop 8 issue because of its Theological implications.

Having read your blog, it is apparent that such Theological implications may have been misread in the scriptures. I appreciate your deep exegetical research in this topic. It seems to me that your findings suggest a legitimate alternative way of interpreting the scriptures. This doesn't seem to me to be too dissimilar to the Catholics' apologetic of Jesus being an only child in light of scriptures mentioning his brothers and sisters. Or women being permitted to be pastors in church in light of scriptures commanding them to be silent. Let me briefly touch on both of these.

As for the Catholic apologetic, it is usually stated that the term "brother" could mean "close friend" or in other cases "cousin". It is true that the word could be interpreted that way, but the frequency in which these words appear in the Gospels is an indication that Jesus actually did have siblings.

As for women preachers, the apologetic is that the greek word for "man" also means "husband". So it is possible that the scriptures are actually saying that women are only to submit to the authority of thier husbands, rather than every other man in church.

My point is, that the greek and hebrew languages do permit alternative interpretations such as these. The key in determining which one is right could be in viewing the interpretations in light of the rest of the Bible, as well as early church fathers' writings. In other words, ask we can ask ourselves, "do I really think this is the proper interpretation for this scripture given everything I know about what the Bible says about issues peripheral to this?"

Comment on Why I'm not a "H8er"

Monique — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:40:40 GMT

As a lesbian Christian, I can understand your views on the sacrament of what you define as Biblical marriage and your reasons to defend the meaning. I wish that more people that voted yes on Prop 8 had your views, but most I have come in contact with do not. Sadly, domestic partnership only allows state rights and so without gay marriage, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States that are denied to gay tax-paying United State citizens. I know that you see this as wrong. So perhaps a revision would be to allow these rights, which would have to entail repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which deleted the opportunity for gay couples to obtain these rights on a federal level even as married couples in the states that allow it.
On a different note, I must go to the source of why homosexuals have been seen as sinful and an “unnatural” relationship. As a Bible believing Christian (and lesbian) I challenge other Christians to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and research the creation of these 6 verses that have currently branded homosexuals as sinful. The cultural practices and beliefs of Biblical times should also be considered greatly in order to view the Bible through the lenses of its original creators. I guarantee that what you find will make you think twice, if not change your perspective on the topic once your defenses of lifelong beliefs have been softened through time and prayer. To save some time, visit my website which encompasses years of theological research on the topic. Go to http://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/

Thank you for writing this fascinated entry! I respect your views and look forward to talking with you again. :)

Comment on Review: ICEC Forum, "Four Christian Views of Evolution"

Brian — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:49:51 GMT

Seth, the debate was not intended to answer the Atheists' questions. This was an in house debate among brethren.

How do we know that the teachings of 2000 years ago were any more word for word than the beginning of existence?

It depends on which books of the Bible you are talking about. There are several different genres of liteture in the Bible. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, & Acts) are of the the genre of history. When you read the words of those writers, it becomes evident that they are reporting events that actually happened.

On the other hand Genesis, as well as Psalms, and Revelation contain elements of poetry, and apocolyptic imagery. When you have a book that contains these elements, it is evident that the author of the book did not intend for his story to be taken literally.

Comment on Review: ICEC Forum, "Four Christian Views of Evolution"

Seth — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:18:55 GMT

I see this debate as particularly relevant because it calls into question the accuracy and legitimacy of the Bible. If the passage mostly in question (The beginning of Genesis) isn’t to be taken word for word as the truth, how can we know that anything else in the Bible can be taken as word for word? How do we know that the teachings of 2000 years ago were any more word for word than the beginning of existence? This is worrisome because modern science seems to indicate, on the whole (yes there are outliers, there will always be outliers to any data, anywhere) that the Earth is significantly older than the literal translation of Genesis would suggest.
So… it’s a terrific debate, and I’m glad everyone behaved nicely, but for me, this just highlights my questions. It doesn’t answer them.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Brian — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:32:22 GMT

I'm rather hesitant to explain anything to you about my worldview at this point since you just spent an incredible amount of energy explain absolutely nothing to me about your worldview. But in this case, Seth asked the question.

God's own moral character is the objective standard by which all other things are measured. His moral character is then expressed to us in the form of Divine Commands (Thou shalt not murder). But murder was an evil act long before God told Moses it was. This is because, before the command was receieved, it was already true according to God's nature. And the people knew it was an evil act before they were told it was as well. This is because God has written his moral law on the heart of every person according to Romans 2:14-15.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:58:57 GMT

"That standard is not what God has told us to do or not to do, but rather that standard IS God himself. "

Now THIS I've never heard before. I am very eager to hear you explain to us how a person can perceive God itself, instead of just perceiving God's words. If what you say is possible, then the entire world will be changed.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Brian — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:55:43 GMT

Well notice that no where in my explanation was the explantion that "murder is wrong because God says so" or "without the Bible we wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong". I'm simply saying that in order to judge something right or wrong, there must be an objective standard. That standard is not what God has told us to do or not to do, but rather that standard IS God himself. He is perfectly good. He is the straight line by which we are able to show other lines to be crooked.

I wouldn't be so quick to resort to Ockham's Razor here. It seems to me that having a single standard for morality is far more simpler that saying that morality is based on the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Seth — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:23:04 GMT

Sorry, I meant that modern morality seems to be nothing more than learned, mutually benificial behavior as a species.
Of course, it's a lot simpler an answer to say, "'Cause God said so." I don't mean to belittle your argument, I just mean that Ockham's Razor seems to apply here too.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Brian — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:29:14 GMT

I have no problem with the fact that animals exibit what appears to be moral behavior the same way humans do. The argument seems to usually be that because the animals are able to act that way without religion then the act must not come from religion. But I've always granted that moral behavior doesn't come from belief in God, but rather that objective moral values wouldn't exist in the absense of God.

Your analogy of the cavemen only displays the way we as humans become aware of moral values. I'm perfectly willing to consider any theory one might have as to how we come to know moral values. My concern is with the moral values' ontological foundation (their foundation in reality). The cavemen, merely discovered morality, they didn't invent it.

Comment on Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis by Brian Colón

Seth — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:49:36 GMT

Brian,
I am admittedly not a well read person on this subject, and I’m sorry if this seems a little obvious to you and I just completely missed something. (which is likely)
Morality seems semi-universal around this planet, not just in human beings. Birds for instance, do not just kill another bird. They band together, living as a community. They will kill an outsider or a threat, or in some cases, a bird of their own flock that has committed some crime we can only guess at. Perhaps it woke up everyone 15 minutes too early for the millionth time and they’d had enough of it. Who can say?
The point is, varying levels of morality seem to exist everywhere, not necessarily as some deep religious instinct, but by basic evolutionary need.
Caveman 1 has a piece of food. Caveman 2 doesn’t. Caveman 2 smacks Caveman 1 and takes the food, your first example of government. Caveman 1 goes to Caveman 3, and together, they beat up Caveman 2 and share the food, the beginnings of civilization and morality. It becomes apparent that those who band together survive better, and it’s impossible to band together if you consistently do not respect another person’s existence.
At what point in our lives, aside from perhaps the savagery of middle school, has it been viewed as “right” to steal from someone? Concepts of right and wrong surround us every minute of our lives, and in an environment like that, how could we not pick them up?
If human beings are nothing more than matter, why bother respecting one another? Basic survival instinct that every life form shares. I don’t try to kill you, you don’t try to kill me, and we’ll get along fine and both survive.
I remember a recent case in the news where two men were arrested after shooting another man. Both suspects were avid hunters and wanted “…to see if it felt different than shooting a deer.” Both men were also Atheists that had taken the step of “If human beings are animals, why not treat them as such?”
Modern civilization is only possible because of us respecting each other, and its benefits are obvious. Other animals haven’t achieved this level of civilization, possibly because they haven’t developed the degree of morality that we display on a regular basis. If we live more like a common animal, our civilization, and the benefits that go with it fall apart- that is why we treat human beings with more respect that say, a dog or a cat.
I don't mean to attack your position, and I am not an Athiest, I just have a lot of questions.
Thank you for your time, and again, I'm sorry if this seems self obvious to you or anyone else who reads this.
-Seth