Friday, December 01, 2006

Care, but Prioritize

The title of this article is taken from the mold of President Ronald Reagan’s policy: “Trust, but verify.” In other words, trust what people tell you, but go ahead and check it out to see if they are telling the truth. On the topic of AIDS (Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome), I think it is important for Christians to care about the issue and have compassion for the sufferers, but we also need to prioritize our varying efforts, and prioritize the different approaches to the AIDS issue. We must also realize the superior importance of a person's soul to their body.

Today is World AIDS Day. So, essentially, if you plug in to any media today, you’ll see and hear them portray AIDS along the lines of being the most important issue facing the world at present. Ironically, every other day in the media (especially TV), the message seems to be: “There is no God, and look how fun it is to do things that—well, inconveniently—may cause you to contract AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).”

It may be very easy for Christians to fall into the trap of thinking that AIDS should require our full (or near-full) attention and efforts, and that a hands-down cure for AIDS would be the best thing that could happen.

But I think it should be noted that, as even Christians are limited somewhat to the 24-hour days God has given us, we have to balance our numerous and essential outreaches. Also, we must consider seriously some of the negative effects—spiritually—that an all-out—no questions asked—cure for AIDS (or other STDs) might cause.

First, let’s look at just a sampling of the programs that we must never forget, forsake, or demote for the sake of AIDS:

Operation Christmas Child (and other similar programs): delivering Christmas gifts to poor and underprivileged children around the world, while simultaneously telling them of the Greatest Gift of All—Jesus Christ.

Pro-Life Outreaches: It’s the age-old “what-if” question—if America had taken the step of faithfulness to God’s precepts of protecting innocent life rather than slaughtering it, would God have blessed the world with a cure for AIDS and other things? Would one of these murdered babies have come up with the cure?
Many who have contracted AIDS have done so by their own sinful choices. They have essentially taken their own lives. But babies in the womb—the closest thing to complete innocence in this world—have no such choice.

The Gideons International (and other similar programs): Getting the Word of God into countless hands. Polygamous, homosexual, and premarital sex has spiritual consequences, even if the immediate physical consequences were to be eliminated. This is just one of many things that the Bible shows to people. “I would not have known sin but by the Law.” (Romans 7:7)

Missionary Efforts: Preaching the Gospel to countless ears. People must hear that there are eternal ordeals with which they must deal—a cure for the physical symptoms is nothing in comparison to the cure for our spiritual disease.

Prison Fellowship Ministries: Jesus offers forgiveness to all, including those who have contracted AIDS, and those who have wound up in prison. "... focused on the mission of transformation through the grace and power of Jesus Christ."

Soup Kitchens and Shelters; Disaster Relief; Caring for the Homeless; Caring for Orphans and Widows; etc.: We should be showing these people the love and mercy of Christ. "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

Hospital and Nursing-Home Ministries: We must remind people that there is more to this life than breath, pain, and death. We must remind them that there is a life--or a death--after the one experienced here on earth.

Protecting Our Borders: We must protect the values and people of the country of America. These two things are exactly what our enemies want to destroy. They are more than willing to kill innocent citizens, including women and children, in order to reach their ultimate goal—to eliminate Christians and Jews and remove the religious freedom and Christian principles this country is built upon.

Protecting Society by Defending Marriage: For the sake of society as a whole, we must defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Other Disease Research: There are some deadly diseases that have neither cures nor known prevention techniques. We know that abstaining from sexual promiscuity and irresponsible drug use are two prevention techniques for HIV AIDS, but most refuse to accept at least one of those methods of prevention.

Written in Stone (and similar efforts): It surprises Christians, but a lot of people now-a-days really don't know the Ten Commandments, their own sin, and their need for a Savior. Getting the Ten Commandments into the public square is an important step to take--not only for salvations, but also for societies.

ACLJ (and other groups): We must preserve our religious freedom, for the sake of the advancement of the gospel of Christ and the prospering of America.

I understand the fact that many victims of HIV AIDS are innocent by-standers: illegitimate children, raped women, people who accidentally come into contact with the blood, etc., of an HIV carrier. We should love these people and have compassion for them. We should not consider ourselves, at our core, as somehow better than them. Christians should have burdened hearts for their souls as for any others.
But, my biggest concern is that a cure for AIDS would encourage promiscuity, irresponsibility, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.. They may indeed sin more frequently if they thought they could do so without drawback. That wouldn’t be a good thing for the world, as unbelievers might think. It would be a disastrous thing. Addressing the physical while ignoring the spiritual would be a serious misplacement of focus.

When you look at the above issues, think of the possible results of a total (which is unexpected) cure for AIDS:
Abortions would increase: if people lost the fear of AIDS, promiscuity would become even more prevalent and so-called “safe” sex might be disregarded as useless.

Push for gay marriage would intensify: there are a couple things that proponents for gay marriage have a hard time getting around. They are the facts that two of the same gender can’t procreate, and that gay sex has a high propensity for contracting an STD, unlike heterosexual marriage. A cure for AIDS might eliminate to a point one of those concerns.

Drug usage would increase: I don’t know how many druggies allow the fear of contaminated needles to keep them from taking drugs. But if the fear of diseases was completely diminished, then the fear of tainted needles would as well.

Sexual promiscuity, in general would increase: Why wouldn’t it?

The best way to end the AIDS epidemic is prevention--not by medicine--but through my own version of the ABC Plan being used in some parts of the world, which chastises people to “Abstinence, Be faithful to one partner, and use Condoms.” Although I think this ideology is a great two steps forward for one step back, it doesn’t quite do the trick for me. How about: “Abstinence, Be faithful to your one SPOUSE, and Christ.” That combination, if embraced, would largely end the tragedy that is AIDS and STDs in general.

Ultimately, though, as a compassionate person looking at the big picture and the appropriate attitude of a Christian, finding a cure would—all things being considered—probably be a good thing, especially when you note those infected by the disease by no fault of their own. But, do you know what? More people—AIDS sufferers and not—finding a cure for their souls’ condition would be much, much better.
Obviously, however, because of this, drugs that prolong the life of the AIDS sufferer should be considered a good thing, because Christians should not want anyone to die in their sins, without the Savior. Therefore, a prolonged life--with more opportunity for salvation--is far superior to a short, unsaved life.

~Kingdom Advancer

The key is this: we must assist those in need without assisting them on their sinful road towards eternal separation from God, but rather, our efforts should cause quite the opposite reaction.

92 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you talked to teenagers and adults who are behaving promiscuously you would know that this statement is not true - "promiscuity would become even more prevalent and so-called “safe” sex might be disregarded as useless". The people who are behaving this way have no fear of AIDS or any STDs, and that is the problem. This goes for educated people as well as those who may have a lesser education. If you have had the privilege of growing up in a Christian home you don't understand the desperation a person feels. The desperation to be loved - at any cost. As far as your statements - "Abortions would increase, Drug usage would increase, Sexual promiscuity, in general would increase, (if there was a cure for AIDS)" I don't believe they are true, or even near true. The desperation to be loved is much stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is the desperate longing for love, a love that only Jesus can bring, that drives a person to take such risks.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I appreciate your input.
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that these actions would double or triple. The increase would be smaller than that.

Secondly, I was pointing out that responsibility--which some promiscuous and drug-taking people exert to a certain extent--would lose some of its value.

Thirdly, I'm sure many people are desperate to be loved. But I think it's a little dangerous to give them a "woe is me" excuse because they haven't found the love of Jesus. That's only one element. The other is that--by all of our fallen natures--they love the darkness rather than the light. They love sin. They love sex against God's plan.

I agree with you that the cure is Jesus--I think I made it clear in my post that that is what we should be focusing on.

Llama Momma said...

You need to educate yourself on AIDS. The problem of AIDS is not just about promiscuity. AIDS in Africa has become such an epidemic -- it is everyone's disease.

Total number of orphans due to AIDS, 2005
South Africa 1,200,000
Tanzania 1,100,000
Zimbabwe 1,100,000
Kenya 1,100,000
Uganda 1,000,000
Nigeria 930,000
Zambia 710,000
DR Congo 680,000
Malawi 550,000

How would Christ have us respond?

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Austin said...

Kindom Advancer,

You're right, but keep this in mind:

Many people who have AIDS are not responsible for getting it - especially in Africa, as llama momma pointed out above.

Many people in Africa get AIDS from their mother's milk when they are babies.
Also, there's a false rumor spreading around in Africa that if you have aids and you sleep with a virgin, it will leave you and go into her. For this reason, many little girls are being raped by older males who have bought into this lie, and apparently care more about their own lives than the little girls' lives. How sad.

Anyway, the point is, it's URGENT that we cure these people. They don't deserve to have AIDS, so we can't limit our cure-searching simply because many people will also be cured who probably deserved it.

The percentage of people in Africa with AIDS is ridiculous. If you were born there, almost everyone you know would have it, and probably you too. The chances of you having earned it are slim. Most likely you would have gotten it from your mother's milk. So let's try to devote just a little more time to curing this disease, which has a whole continent in bondage.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Llama Mama:
Not to sound rude, but did you even read my post?

In the first part of the article, I used the hot topic of AIDS to remind Christians of all the important things that we need to be involved in, and to stress the superiority of the spiritual cure (Jesus) over any temporal physical cure.

I also was focusing on some of the negative spiritual and societal effects that could result from a cure that Christians need to be wary of.

I accented the term "cure" with adjectives such as "no questions asked," "hands-down," etc.

I recognized that all people don't have AIDS by their own fault. What do these quotes mean to you? :
"I understand the fact that many victims of HIV AIDS are innocent by-standers..."

"...finding a cure would—all things being considered—probably be a good thing, especially when you note those infected by the disease by no fault of their own..."

I even quoted James 1:27 :

"Soup Kitchens and Shelters; Disaster Relief; Caring for the Homeless; Caring for Orphans and Widows; etc.: We should be showing these people the love and mercy of Christ. "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)"

This includes caring for orphans and widows as a result of AIDS. I made no exclusionary statement.
But, as a side-note, is this Llama Mama quoting Scripture the same one who says she's a better Christian when she doesn't read her Bible?

In conclusion, I think that avoiding the irresponsibility issue is like ignoring the root because the weed now has leaves.
Prostitution; homosexuality; multiple partners; contaminated needles (for taking drugs); rape; etc. are still big players in the AIDS (and STDs) issue. I expect the world to downplay such factors, but I wouldn't expect a Christian to.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Austin,

It is URGENT that these people find a cure for their souls.

Note my list of important efforts:

At least 4 of 12 are directly related to salvation.

You could say 9 of 12 are related a little indirectly.

"What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?"

5 of 12 are concerning what we need to take care of at home in order to continue helping the rest of the world: our borders, our principles,marriage, our babies.

Note: Why do you think God would bless us with the ability to cure AIDS if we slap Him in the face on the issues of marriage and abortion?

Another issue is other diseases:
People complain about the money being poured into the Iraq War; how about all the money that could be poured into the Africa AIDS pandemic while other diseases get the short end of the stick over here in America?

Kingdom Advancer said...

Another thing is that a lot of people don't like the Abstinence and Faithfulness strategy. Why am I not surprised? They want to cure AIDS, but they don't want it to be at the cost of people's sin.

I agree with you that it is sad and I agree that a cure would--all things being weighed--be a good thing. But my focus was on the negative effects a cure could have and the negative effects the search for a cure could have.

Llama Momma said...

I did read your post.

I guess I felt like you were missing some key facts about AIDS.

AIDS was first identified in the United States of America in 1981. Since then, the epidemic has been steadily growing and by the end of 2004, there were estimated to be just over 1 million people living with HIV and approximately 415,000 people living with AIDS in the USA. AIDS is also thought to have killed over half a million Americans.

An estimated 24.5 million adults and children were living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 2005.

During that year, an estimated 2 million people died from AIDS. The epidemic has left behind some 12 million orphaned African children.

If you look at the statistics from around the world, this disease is staggering. Check out the facts at: http://www.avert.org

Yes, promiscuity in America is a problem. Gay sex, drug use, these things are all against God's plan, and sometimes disease results. I applaud you for bringing attention to this important issue -- but if you're going to write about AIDS, look at the facts. It's not about a promiscuous teen in America. It's about 2 million orphans in Africa alone.

I don't believe concern for people dying of AIDS is optional.

And, yes, if you've read my blog, you saw my tongue-in-cheek remark about bible reading. I was being sarcastic, of course. The point is, when I compare myself to people around me, I feel great about myself. I'm a devoted wife and mother, a sunday school teacher, a community volunteer. It's easy to become prideful and arrogant. But when I meditate on God's Word, and what He thinks of me (which is the only opinion that matters), I see the truth: without Him I can do nothing. There is nothing I can do to add to His work on the cross. Nothing. I am a sinner in need of a savior, and I need to be always mindful of that fact.

Llama Momma said...

Did I say 2 million orphans? I meant to say 12 million.

God have mercy.

Faultline USA said...

Thank you for your thought-provoking article. It is good that you were "focusing on some of the negative spiritual and societal effects that could result from a cure that Christians need to be wary of." People will read into articles what they want to see and ignore all the rest. Keep up the good questions because far too few are asking.

Anonymous said...

Your comment - "But I think it's a little dangerous to give them a "woe is me" excuse because they haven't found the love of Jesus." - what I commented to you has nothing to do with a "woe is me" excuse. It is the truth. Do you know that most teenagers think that AIDS is an "old school" worry? Don't think for one minute that the threat of contracting AIDS or STDs is keeping anyone from doing what they please (taking drugs, promiscuous sex, or gay lifestyle). As far as the desperate need to be loved, that is a REALITY and not a "woe is me" excuse. Thank God every day that you have been brought up in a Christian home and don't know that desperation, but also ask Him for eyes to see and a heart to FEEL the desperation to be loved. You might realize that it is not always a "woe is me" attitude but instead (and most often) a desperate plea for love.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Faultline USA,

Your welcome, and thank you--both for your encouraging comments and adding Kingdom Advancing to your blogroll.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Anonymous,

"Don't think for one minute that the threat of contracting AIDS or STDs is keeping ANYONE from doing what they please (taking drugs, promiscuous sex, or gay lifestyle)." (emphasis added)

So, you assume that I don't talk to ANY sexually promiscuous people, then you claim by implication that you must know EACH one in the world. I agree with you that most will do what they please--they have such an infatuation with sin that they'll take the chance (or, in some cases, as you say, they're so desperate for love). I also agree with you that most people won't necessarily use common sense. But I have to think that there are a few out there who are showing a little restraint--a little common sense, or fear, at that. Perhaps they are still being promiscuous; perhaps with no threat they'd be MORE promiscuous. Perhaps they are still taking drugs--maybe not by injection; perhaps they would start taking MORE drugs because of lack of a threat of intravenals.

You can't convince me that this isn't true, because that's one of the latest prevention techniques being used, as I pointed out: abstinence and faithfulness to one partner.

Also, although condoms--which I'm not a real supporter of--have multiple purposes, one purpose, as I pointed out, is prevention (though with questionable results). Your claims would suggest that NO condoms are being used for that purpose.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Anonymous,

An excuse can be a reality. What I meant is that it seems that a person could say "I sin because I'm desperate for love, not because I am a wretched sinner who loves sin."

You are right that a person needs Jesus' love. They need Him as their Savior; they need Him for salvation; they need Him for forgiveness of sins; they need the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. All people, promiscuous or not, need these things. But only some seem to be desperate for love. Are you telling me that the cheating husband with a Christian wife is desperate for love; it's not that he is fallen and loves sin? Are you telling me that the user of a prostitute is "most often" desperate for love? Are you telling me that the man who leaves his marriage and family to live with his same sex partner is desperate for love? Are you telling me that the high-school football star who can get--and takes--any girl in school is doing so for the simple desperate quest for love?

You are right that promiscuous people--and all sinners--need what Jesus has to offer. But I disagree with you that all (or even most) people are immoral because of the reason (or at least solely because of the reason) you say.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Llama Momma:

I guess I can see how you could think that I was downplaying the massive widespread nature of AIDS.

But, my question for you is this:
What's the worse disease: AIDS or sin?
That is a pretty good summation of the point of my article. Christians must devote their time to saving people (with God's help, of course)--not from their physical ailments, so much as their spiritual condition. AIDS and its punishment will pass away; sin (without Jesus' blood to wipe it away) and its punishment will remain eternally. A good analogy:

A boy running with a stick in his hand trips and punctures the jugular vein in his neck. The father (who is with the boy) sticks his thumb over the wound to stop the bleeding and quickly transports the boy to the hospital emergency room. There, as the doctor hectically prepares to perform, the little boy holds up his finger to the doctor.
The boy says, "Splinter..."
Does the doctor stop to get the splinter out of the boy's finger? Of course not. That's a secondary issue! The doctor shoves the boy's hand aside to get to the more urgent and life-threatening issue--the punctured jugular vein.

In this way, AIDS is horrific; but sin is even more horrific. AIDS is the splinter; sin the jugular vein.

The other element of the article was pointing out the negative effects--in relation to the spiritual--that a cure could have--again I was focusing on the most essential part of our beings: our souls.

"It's about 2 million orphans in Africa alone."

What would you say the base root of AIDS in Africa is? Promiscuity? Rape? Prostitution? Probably.
It's about 2 million orphans, but why did their parents die? Did their parents do something?

"I don't believe concern for people dying of AIDS is optional."

I didn't say it was optional; I said we should prioritize. Also, the first part of this comment applies here.

"I am a sinner in need of a savior, and I need to be always mindful of that fact. "

Maybe you could help me make that point to Anonymous.

Oh, I feel like I should thank you for your input. I did for Anonymous, but then I forgot for you. So, thanks.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I should add that this doesn't mean we ignore a person's physical needs. Dare I say it: "Care, but prioritize."

Austin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Austin said...

Kingdom Advancer,

You're right that sin is the worse disease, but you seem to miss our point - the vast majority of people with this disease did not get it because of their own sin.

You claim that you realize that, but then you contradict yourself later by saying that they would only behave worse if the disease was cured.

AIDS is the biggest STD threat by far, given two factors - how widely it's spread, and how dangerous it is.

Africa is filled to the brim with people who contracted AIDS from their mother's milk or from being raped.

OVER HALF THE CONTINENT HAS AIDS!!!

Obviously, spending our money to cure this disease would not be neglecting other diseases that aren't affecting nearly as many people.

This is not about America - this is about Africa! Sure, our society is behaving badly and they are bringing AIDS on themselves, but they aren't the only ones who have it. Not even close.

Besides, how can these ministries aimed toward salvation reach their goal if the people they're trying to reach die of AIDS?

If you lived in Africa, you would almost definitely have AIDS, and you would want a cure. If you happened to avoid it (very unlikely), then you would want someone to cure your family and friends, the majority of which would have AIDS.

The homosexuals and drug users will keep doing what they do, regardless of the consequences, so let's try and do something for the millions of people in a single continent who almost all have AIDS.

Austin said...

I'm going to use your own argument against you.

You claim that it's better to focus on the jugular of sin than on the splinter of AIDS, but previously you said that it's wrong to focus on the jugular that is AIDS, while paying less attention to the splinter (by comparison) that is other STD's.

Anonymous said...

I realize that this comment is totally off topic, but I am looking for some help. As you know kingdom advancer, I was debating with beepbeepitsme, and after you left, I got the topic turned to Creation vs. evolution. Now I am debating with four or five evolutionists and can’t keep up with all of the arguments. If anyone has interest in this topic, I would appreciate the help. We are debating on the article entitled ‘evolution rocks’ written on November 30.

Daniel

Kingdom Advancer said...

"You're right that sin is the worse disease, but you seem to miss our point - the vast majority of people with this disease did not get it because of their own sin." -- Austin

You're mixing up two different angles that I'm coming from.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

My point is, we Christians need to focus on the heart and salvation from sin.

"You claim that you realize that, but then you contradict yourself later by saying that they would only behave worse if the disease was cured. " --Austin

Some very well could.

"OVER HALF THE CONTINENT HAS AIDS!!!" --Austin

The whole continent--the whole world--has sin. You referred to Africa as "being in bondage" to AIDS. Well, a much worse and stronger bondage is to sin. I'm not saying that everyone in Africa has sinned sexually (and therefore contracted AIDS), I'm saying everyone in Africa--and the world--has sinned...period.

"Obviously, spending our money to cure this disease would not be neglecting other disease... "--Austin

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

"This is not about America - this is about Africa! Sure, our society is behaving badly and they are bringing AIDS on themselves, but they aren't the only ones who have it. Not even close."--Austin

But it seems like liberals lacking in morals and homosexuals are many of the champions of the AIDS effort.

"Besides, how can these ministries aimed toward salvation reach their goal if the people they're trying to reach die of AIDS?" --Austin

Hence my statement:
"Obviously, however, because of this, drugs that prolong the life of the AIDS sufferer should be considered a good thing, because Christians should not want anyone to die in their sins, without the Savior. Therefore, a prolonged life--with more opportunity for salvation--is far superior to a short, unsaved life."

"If you lived in Africa, you would almost definitely have AIDS, and you would want a cure. If you happened to avoid it (very unlikely), then you would want someone to cure your family and friends, the majority of which would have AIDS." --Austin

True. Did I ever say I didn't want a cure? I was pointing out some of the negative effects that COULD result. The cool pool of water is great, but you should be alerted to the piranhas that could be swimming beneath the surface!

Also, we should be praying that these people desire a cure for their souls. If I lived in Africa, and had found that cure, I most definitely would want my family members and friends to have it too, as well as a cure for AIDS.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"You claim that it's better to focus on the jugular of sin than on the splinter of AIDS, but previously you said that it's wrong to focus on the jugular that is AIDS, while paying less attention to the splinter (by comparison) that is other STD's. "--Austin

This argument doesn't work, and I'll tell you why. I didn't say we should focus less on AIDS and more on STDs. I was pointing out that we should focus on the root and dark side of AIDS and STDs--generally, sexual immorality, including homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and rape--and, ultimately, what I believe to be the best approach to AIDS: abstinence, faithfulness to one partner, and Christ. That may not cure the current generation, but it would likely stop AIDS in its tracks. And, with Christ, "O death, where is thy victory?"

Kingdom Advancer said...

Daniel, as for me, I wish I could help you out, but I really don't think I can right now. Sorry...

Also, I hope you don't feel like I abandoned you. I should've let you know that I wasn't going to go there anymore.

But, I realized that the people at that blog are really sold out to their beliefs: they are not interested in finding the truth; they are interested in burying the truth so that they don't have to concede God's existence and what that would require of them.

Your efforts, nevertheless, are worthy of being commended.

Anonymous said...

kingdom advancer


‘Daniel, as for me, I wish I could help you out, but I really don't think I can right now. Sorry...’

That’s all right, If you haven’t got the time than you haven’t got the time.

‘Also, I hope you don't feel like I abandoned you. I should've let you know that I wasn't going to go there anymore.’

No, I just figured that you got fed up with them. Sometimes I feel like just leaving too, but unfortunately, I am very argumentative and hate losing anything.

‘But, I realized that the people at that blog are really sold out to their beliefs: they are not interested in finding the truth; they are interested in burying the truth so that they don't have to concede God's existence and what that would require of them.’

Very true. I just figured that Creation vs. evolution was my best bet.

Keep up the good work.

Daniel

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Very true. I just figured that Creation vs. evolution was my best bet."

That's probably true. Remember the Intelligent Design articles and how many times I tried to get the discussion to Creation v Evolution? They were always like: "This isn't about that. This is about whether God exists. Disproving evolution doesn't prove God."

I was like, "Well, Evolution is what you believe. And, right now, you have choice A or B. And really, we'll always have but two choices: either we needed to be created, or we didn't. If you narrow it down to one, it's probably that one."

They generally don't want to turn to the topic of Evolution, for good reason. When they do, though, you have to be careful. Many of them can spit fake or erroneous facts (they may or may not know that they are not true) until the cows come home, and it is very hard to honestly argue with someone in that type of format.

"No, I just figured that you got fed up with them."

Well, it was eating up a lot of time with little positive results. But, it started to get insulting. Beepbeep said that, because I feel like I need a Savior, that I must be a wife-beater, child-abuser, alcoholic, drug addict, or closet homosexual. I was called "terminally retarded" and an a-----e (in capital letters, at that). I think it was Beepbeep who said she was going to try to delve into the "deep,dark" parts of my brain to reach into any reasoning ability "I have left" from my "religious dogma." Just stuff like that. I'm man enough to take it, but I just kind of thought, "Why?"

"Sometimes I feel like just leaving too, but unfortunately, I am very argumentative and hate losing anything."

Well, I'm kind of like that, too. But I was trying to stay focused on changed hearts, not defeated intellects. (As in, I wanted the intellect to be a means to the changed heart end. I didn't want a won argument to be an end in itself.) Therefore, the soil just didn't seem too fertile there.

"Keep up the good work."

You too, only hopefully you can stumble onto a place where you can get more good accomplished (or hopefully you can get good accomplished there).

Kingdom Advancer said...

"If you narrow it down to one, it's probably that one."

It is CERTAINLY that one. My fault.

sunny_12 said...

Hey Kingdom advancer,
I just want you to come see my latest post about Gratitude.
Jo

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: Well, it was eating up a lot of time with little positive results. But, it started to get insulting. Beepbeep said that, because I feel like I need a Savior, that I must be a wife-beater, child-abuser, alcoholic, drug addict, or closet homosexual. I was called "terminally retarded" and an a-----e (in capital letters, at that). I think it was Beepbeep who said she was going to try to delve into the "deep,dark" parts of my brain to reach into any reasoning ability "I have left" from my "religious dogma." Just stuff like that. I'm man enough to take it, but I just kind of thought, "Why?"

Well, no once again. I did not call you a wife beater. I asked you if you had a chequered past, as many people who have had a not so nice past become fervent religionists of some type. Here is what I said taken directly from my site.

What I said: - "I usually find that believers who are this fervent have quite often had a very chequered past. So what is it with you? What sort of criminal or immoral activity do you hope your god belief will save you from? Drugs? Alcohol? Child abuse? Wife bashing? I am interested to know as I understand that many weak people do not have the ability to be socially responsible adults without belief in a supernatural daddy who will forgive them. "

Then I suggested that you might be homosexual. This was a direct suggestion, the above mentioned was not. Suffice it to say, I don't think that being homosexual is a sin, but as a more fundamental christian, no doubt you do.

What I said: "Uh oh. I think I have guessed it. You are a closet homosexual. Not surprising really, many religious men are."

And, this is quite true. Many religious men in the past and in the present have been and are homosexuals. This is not to be misconstrued with - ALL religious men are closet gays. Though I feel sure you will interpret it in some way which doesn't consider the actual words I have used.

Now, I don't remember calling you an A*** , with or without capital letters. but I will check and see if this was the case. :)

beepbeepitsme said...

Now, did I call you an A*** with or without capitalization? I certainly can't find reference to it. Perhaps you can point out the specific place on my my blog where I called you an A***.

There are 2 places where I used the word a*** and in neither instance am I calling you one.

Example1: What I said: - "It has nothing to do with man's fallen, sinful, finite reasoning ability. It has to do with the fact that you can't handle reality. You are afraid of death. This is why you kiss an imaginary friend's arse in hope that you and your pathetic ego will live forever."

Example2: What I said: - "You wish to argue that if evolution is wrong, then creationism is right. Let me say it again: THIS IS LOGICALLY UNSOUND. But, it is at least amusing to me to realize that the very thing that you profess to be able to use to prove the existence of your god, that is, the scientific method, is the very thing that would have had you roasting over a pit in the city square with a red hot poker firming planted up your arse. As this was just one of the delightful christian punishments for those who espoused heretical scientific theories."

As evidenced, under neither situation have I called you an A***, though if you can find such an example on my blog, you are welcome to point it out to me. :)

Llama Momma said...

"But hungry as they were, they chased and killed the Philistines all day from Micmash to Aijalon, growing more and more faint."

1 Samuel 14:31

Llama Momma said...

Sorry about the random comment...I meant to add...keep up the fight, Kingdom Advancer. The world needs more young men willing to fight the good fight, regardless of popularity!

Kingdom Advancer said...

Just for reference, as I am curious, Beepbeep: do you regularly read my blog or do you just do a Google search to see where your name pops up?

Anyways...

I know you didn't call me an A*****E. It was someone who holds beliefs similar to yours. (Check one of your old posts on Noah's Ark.) Note that when someone goes on your blog, they have to deal with all your buddies and their comments--not just you and yours.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Thanks for the encouragement, Llama Momma. I want to apologize if I seemed too harsh when we were discussing AIDS. When I am passionate about something, I tend to be polarizing. And, although I hope you began to see my points on the matter, it's good to remember that we are both Christians (and thereby brother-sister and should be on the same team) at the end of the day.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Beepbeep:

"So what is it with you? What sort of criminal or immoral activity do you hope your god belief will save you from?"

So you didn't accuse me of anything in particular, necessarily, but you made it sound as if one the choices you posed or something similar was likely the case. Now, this is not only insulting in and of itself (since you don't know much of anything about me), but it is insulting because it implies that I would need something like that to have a sin that I would see as "exceedingly sinful." That is not true--in my case and in many others. You obviously don't understand the grave nature of sin, because you think a person needs a big, bad one to feel like they need to be saved.

Then, hey, you mentioned another one. You seem to underhandedly imply that I must be weak! Add it to the list.

"You are a closet homosexual."

You are right: that is quite the direct suggestion--or more. I didn't say that you were saying all religious men are homosexuals. I said that you were saying that I am! Now, read the quote above, and tell me if that's not true.

By the way, just for kicks:
"Suffice it to say, I don't think that being homosexual is a sin, but as a more fundamental christian, no doubt you do."

So, you're saying that you are a "less fundamental Christian" who believes some things are sins? Because that seems implied in that statement. ;)

Kingdom Advancer said...

"...because you think a person needs a big, bad one to feel like they need to be saved..."

That statement seems to contradict previous statements of mine. I did not mean to imply that some sins aren't "bad" or that some sins aren't "big"--especially in the eyes of God. I was just using "big bad wolf" type terminology, if you know what I mean.

My mistake. I was in a hurry. ;)

beepbeepitsme said...

No, I don't visit your blog often. I popped in to see what you were posting out of interest and would probably not left a comment except that my name was mentioned in dispatches.

I consider it a reasonable question to ask people what "sins" they have committed as many people who gravitate towards religion do so because of a lifestyle they have adopted which they have no or little control over, and they hope to find a means to improve their situation through religion.

Sometimes as well, they have a deep abiding sense of guilt which also encourages them to gravitate towards a concept which supposedly will wipe the slate clean.

Regarding the "sin of homosexuality"

Obviously, I don't consider homosexuality a sin. So, I wouldn't find it offensive if someone asked me if I was homosexual. That you railed against the question, suggests to me that you have an unreasonable fear of homosexuality. Are you related to Ted Haggard perchance?

Regarding other people who comment on my blog. Their expressions are their own and their comments are their own. I can't find where someone called you an A####, so I hope you can find it for me.

Regarding you not posting at my blog. I thought your primary mission was to convert people to christianity? How can you consider yourself to be giving 100% if you falter when the going gets tough?

In reality, you had no argument, and you knew it - that is why you left.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"That you railed against the question, suggests to me that you have an unreasonable fear of homosexuality."

Railed against the question? Hmm... I don't recall "railing." I attacked the assumption that in all probability I must have what you consider (or what you consider me to consider) a "grave sin" to see my need for a Savior.

"An unreasonable fear"? If by that you mean that I do not want to sin, then you are right. I do not want to sin. And, considering the trifold nature of homosexuality (sinning against God, sinning against the body, sinning against nature), I do exert an emphatic plea against it.
But, if you would've said, "You are a serial killer," it would've been a somewhat similar reply from me; for both are false assumptions and accusations that you make based on no evidence or information.

"Are you related to Ted Haggard perchance?"

Ha ha, very funny. I knew that was coming sooner or later. The question was: from whom? And, if you had the opportunity to use it, it would be a no-brainer that you would be the one to use it.

"Regarding other people who comment on my blog. Their expressions are their own and their comments are their own. I can't find where someone called you an A####, so I hope you can find it for me."

I believe it was on a post about Noah's Ark, genetics, and skin color, or something like that. Anyways, though, I don't have time to dig through your archives.

As for other people on your blog, it is almost impossible to have a fair debate when two, three, four or more people are dedicating their time to debating one person and his time. It can be wisely said that when debating atheists, it is often easier to defeat one of their relatively good arguments than it is to refute one thousand of their bad ones.

"Regarding you not posting at my blog. I thought your primary mission was to convert people to christianity? How can you consider yourself to be giving 100% if you falter when the going gets tough?

"In reality, you had no argument, and you knew it - that is why you left. "

Reality, Beepbeep? Interesting, "in reality" coming from the same person who said she "sees no need to believe or not believe in absolutes" ; coming from the same person who says "I never said I believe in nothing...I never said I believe in more than nothing, either."

In reality, I realized that opposing views were often uncivilized and unprofessional. I realized that you're fully committed to your beliefs for reasons that I know but you refuse to admit. I realized that you hear but don't listen, see but don't understand. I realized that you are not searching for the truth, but running from it--and trying to drag others with you. I realized that my arguments were falling on dead ears, and that my efforts were being put into someone who holds their beliefs like an immovable object.

I hope and pray that you will find the truth and be set free by it, and I apologize to you and repent to God in advance if indeed my dedicating all my time to your debates would save you and your fellow atheists from your sins. But, I felt led to leave your site because it seemed that my seeds were falling by the wayside only to be eaten by the birds; that my pearls that I genuinely and sincerely offered were being rejected and trampled upon. (To again reference your favorite person and book: Jesus and the Bible)

I decided that--for the advancement of the Gospel and for the sake of those who would appreciate my efforts--I needed to focus on my blog (which you were causing me to neglect) and find a site interested in finding the truth--not smothering it.

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a site like that, although I don't see why you would want to.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "sinning against nature"

Homosexuality exists in nature so it isn't unnatural.

RE: ""I never said I believe in nothing...I never said I believe in more than nothing, either."

I see we are back to discussing your comprehension problem.

RE: "it is often easier to defeat one of their relatively good arguments"

Which "good argument" have you defeated? And I mean literally, not just in your own mind.

RE: "I realized that my arguments were falling on dead ears, and that my efforts were being put into someone who holds their beliefs like an immovable object."

Tsk tsk. Methinks thou projects too much.

RE: "I needed to focus on my blog (which you were causing me to neglect) and find a site interested in finding the truth--not smothering it."

The "truth" for you will only ever be opinion which complies with your preconceived religious belief system.

Afterall, you are not indulging in a quest for truth, once you have picked a religion, you believe that you have found truth.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To: beep beep it's me,


If you get down to the reason sex exists, it is not only for pleasure. Sex exists for procreation. The main reason for any sexual activity is to procreate. We use it for pleasure mostly, which is fine, but not the main function of sex. Homosexual sex does not procreate, therefore it is unnatural. Homosexual sex is strictly for pleasure and pleasure is not the main function for sex. Pleasure from sex is a bonus. So, if you use something for any other reason than what it is designed for, you would be using it in an "unnatural" way.

We all sin, some sins are seen and some are hidden in the heart. The homosexual is no different than the person who harbors resentment and bitterness in their heart. The point is one person's sin you see and the other you don't, but they are no different.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Homosexual sex does not procreate, therefore it is unnatural."

Wrong.

Something is not defined as natural because procreation is a possible outcome.

Anonymous said...

To: beep beep it's me,

The main function/reason for sex IS procreation

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Which "good argument" have you defeated? And I mean literally, not just in your own mind." --Beepbeep

Well, since it would be impossible to defeat one of your arguments in YOUR mind (tell me, have you ever been defeated--in your opinion--in an argument by a creationist/theist? Or, are you just the never failing genius of the world?), what would be the point of continuing the discussion?

Anyways...my point was that, no matter HOW BAD your arguments are, they are hard to debate when it is 2, 3 , 4+ commenters vs. 1.

"Tsk tsk. Methinks thou projects too much." --Beepbeep

If, by that, you mean that you are open to Christianity and other belief systems besides yourself, then I am encouraged. I don't WANT you to be the way I described you (I still WANT you to be saved). It is just the impression you gave me.

I'll respond to the rest of your comment later.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Regarding homosexuality:

1.) Since we are speaking of sin, I think it would be appropriate to note that homosexuality is against GOD'S NATURAL, CREATED ORDER (and His commands, for that matter). Therefore, it is against nature.

2.) "Something"--as you put it--is not defined as natural because procreation is a possible result--but sex can be defined that way.

3.) If by "natural," you mean that humans have a "natural" (naturally wicked) tendency to homosexuality--that could be considered true in that all of our fallen natures are naturally inclined to do all sorts of evil and sinful things, including heterosexual immorality. But that's not the form of nature I'm referring to here.

4.) Nature itself teaches us that homosexuality is wrong through the notorious reputation of contracting diseases from homosexuality--above and beyond the diseases contracted from heterosexual fornication/adultery.
This is in contrast to diseases contracted randomly or by accident.

5.) In the fallen world we live in, it could be possible that even the animals are effected by the results of sin--even to the point of acting in a homosexual manner. The Bible tells us that all of nature is "groaning" because of sin. I imagine this would be especially true of animals acting homosexually--IF your claims are true.
And, even IF your claims are true of homosexuality being evident in nature, note that those references are the exceptions--NOT the rule! Also note that any gender-neutral creatures DO NOT prove your point, and note that NO SPECIES CONSIST OF JUST FEMALES HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES OR MALES HAVING SEX WITH MALES without the other species in existence.

This is not even to mention the fact of the societal effects of homosexuality: that it has contributed to the downfall of societies and that children need both a father and a mother, not two of one and none of the other.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"The "truth" for you will only ever be opinion which complies with your preconceived religious belief system.
Afterall, you are not indulging in a quest for truth, once you have picked a religion, you believe that you have found truth." --Beepbeep

A.) First of all, you still don't realize that these types of statements you make apply to you. You don't exactly have a fair and balanced perspective. You don't post about the formerly known as "evidence" for Evolution that's been been disregarded as untrue, fraudulent, or misinterpreted. You don't post about how music is a proof for the existence of God. You don't post about all the evidence that the earth must be relatively young. You don't post about how love, or beauty, etc. is a proof for God. You don't post about how common sense suggests to all that God exists. The list goes on and on.... Your search for the "truth"--if you even consider yourself searching--can almost be precisely defined as what you said my quest for truth is (or is not). You take whatever you may consider "evidence" for your position and ignore--or hide--all the rest.

B.) Second of all, this statement of yours illustrates an assumption that is in itself a belief--and not a fact. You seem to think that no religion (or God-belief) is true--or, at least, any follower of such religion can't KNOW that it is true. Well, what if one is true? And what if some people KNOW it's true? You seem to think that impossible, and therefore you discredit anyone who would make such a claim upon the basis of your own preconceived belief.

C.) Thirdly, you seem to think that it is ridiculously ignorant and/or arrogant to believe that thousands of religions are false while one is right. Well, doubtless all of them are NOT right. And, it is pretty much implausible that even MORE THAN ONE is right. As I stated before, believing that NONE OF THEM are right is just another belief. So, your point about the arrogance/ignorance of "one-religion-right-the-rest-wrong" philosophy is not true.

D.)Lastly, though I believe--excuse me, KNOW--that I have found the truth, it does not mean my quest for truth is over. I still read educational books, watch educational TV, observe the world around me, etc., etc., and OF COURSE, READ THE BIBLE. I, unlike you, however, have a truth filter--the Bible--to run through that which I learn. The Bible--which the reading and understanding of is the ultimate discovery for truth--is my truth foundation.

The difference between you and me is that I have a firm foundation of truth.

Anonymous said...

KA:
Don't get dragged into petty, fruitless debates. As it says in Romans 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, NOR CAN IT DO SO.
Continue to fight the good fight, but don't get distracted by petty debates.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous:

Once again, the definition of "natural" has nothing to do with procreation.

BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Anonymous said...

RE: beep beep it's me
the definition of natural and unnatural sex has everything to do with procreation

good bye!

Kingdom Advancer said...

"...NO SPECIES CONSIST OF JUST FEMALES HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES OR MALES HAVING SEX WITH MALES without the other species in existence."

Sorry, I meant to say "without the other GENDER in existence."

beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous

Natural : 1.existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

Unless homosexuality is performed in some other realm outside the natural world like the supernatural world, it exists in a natural one, and is, hence - natural.

Thank you for playing.

BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

kingdom advancer said...

"Unless homosexuality is performed in some other realm outside the natural world like the supernatural world, it exists in a natural one, and is, hence - natural."

Wow, what twisted logic. By this figuring, EVERYTHING is natural, for, anything artificial--created by man--exists in a "natural" world, as well. Also, anything insanely unnatural that could be performed would thereby be "natural" by your logic because something or someone--ONE--did it in the "natural" realm.

Hmm...I don't think so.

beepbeepitsme said...

"Natural" doesn't mean "good" and unnatural" doesn't mean bad. And yes, everthing does exist in a natural world until you can prove otherwise.

Cancer is also natural - it occurs in the natural world. We might not like it, but that doesn't make it "unnatural".

The problem is that some people use words which they embue with a moral judgement - the word itself has none.

"Unnatural" is one of those words. Religious people use it to symbolise an action, behaviour, attribute that they don't like. This isn't the function of the word.

Homosexuality is observed in the natural world. That makes it natural. However, it isn't "normal." It isn't normal because it doesn't conform to conforming to the standard or the common type of sexual activity. That is, the majority of people are NOT homosexuals. So that makes homosexuality abnormal. It doesn't make it "Unnatural."

A few thousand years on and you still cannot provide evidence that ANYTHING happens outside of the natural world.

beepbeepitsme said...

In other words, calling something unnatural, or abnormal doesn't automatically make it wrong.

It would have been abnormal to be a jew in nazi germany who wasn't in a concentration camp. Just because it would have been an abnormal occurence, doesn't make it wrong.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"And yes, everthing does exist in a natural world until you can prove otherwise."

Therefore, everything is natural and nothing is unnatural; therefore, why does the word unnatural exist? Therefore, why does the word natural exist? By your logic, technically nothing can be natural because nothing can be unnatural. You are not natural; I am not natural; nothing is natural, because nothing can be unnatural and therefore both adjectives are worthless.

Sorry...not happening.

kingdom advancer said...

"Homosexuality is observed in the natural world. That makes it natural."

No, because homosexuality is not in accordance with the "state of things in nature." It goes against that order--that state--as an exception.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "No, because homosexuality is not in accordance with the "state of things in nature." It goes against that order--that state--as an exception.

Homosexuality is in accordance with the state of things in nature because it is observed in nature.

It may not be the most common sexual practice, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in nature. It still exists, regardless of its popularity or your approval of it.

Austin said...

Animals also kill each other for reasons that would be unacceptable to humans. Should we murder? Let's stop talking about natural - just because something is natural for animals, doesn't mean it is acceptable for us. In fact, just because something is natural for us, also doesn't mean it's acceptable. It's natural for people to chase their own selfish desires, even when it hurts others. Most societies put forth rules to protect people from each other by limiting them from carrying out their selfish desires. Of course, this doesn't fix the real problem, but it keeps some order.

If you would like to know how to fix the real problem, the answer has always been, and will always be, God's Son, Jesus.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE austin

"just because something is natural for animals, doesn't mean it is acceptable for us"

See, I almost agree with you. Many things are natural and we don't consider them appropriate, or we don't like them. But an argument based on the concept that something is unnatural, when it is obviously natural, is plain silly.

Phlegm is also natural - can't say I am particularly fond of it though. But my dislike of it, or my reasons for finding it objectionable, should not be based on whether it is natural or not.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Yes, Austin is right.

He reiterated this point I made earlier:

"If by "natural," you mean that humans have a "natural" (naturally wicked) tendency to homosexuality--that could be considered true in that all of our fallen natures are naturally inclined to do all sorts of evil and sinful things, including heterosexual immorality. But that's not the form of nature I'm referring to here."

And this point:

"In the fallen world we live in, it could be possible that even the animals are effected by the results of sin--even to the point of acting in a homosexual manner. The Bible tells us that all of nature is "groaning" because of sin. I imagine this would be especially true of animals acting homosexually--IF your claims are true."


However, that doesn't mean I back down from my statement that homosexuality is a sin against nature. First of all, this point:

"Since we are speaking of sin, I think it would be appropriate to note that homosexuality is against GOD'S NATURAL, CREATED ORDER (and His commands, for that matter). Therefore, it is against nature. "

God created us in a certain way, and to behave in a certain way. He even told us how to behave. So, homosexuality is sinning against Him and His natural design.

Second point:

"Nature itself teaches us that homosexuality is wrong through the notorious reputation of contracting diseases from homosexuality--above and beyond the diseases contracted from heterosexual fornication/adultery...
NO SPECIES CONSIST OF JUST FEMALES HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES OR MALES HAVING SEX WITH MALES without the other gender in existence."

I was wondering where you think survival of the fittest--and or will to survive--comes in, BeepBeep? Homosexual behavior leads only to disease, early death, and the discontinuation of a species. No species can exist consisting of homosexual behavior. And yet, you say it is natural, only abnormal, as if such states are arbitrary formalities that could change over time without a hitch. The fact is, it would not be NATURAL--according with the natural will to survive or continue one's species--for a group of creatures to behave in a manner that would bring about the elimination and the destruction of their race or species.

Kingdom Advancer said...

You also, BeepBeep, conveniently left out other definitions of the word "natural," as you are prone to do.

natural: Conforming to the USUAL OR ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE.

natural: FAITHFULLY representing life or nature

natural: ONE SUITED BY NATURE FOR A CERTAIN FUNCTION OR PURPOSE

Now, whether or not the term "one" is reserved only for whole persons and things and not for parts, I am not sure. But if it can be applied to parts, then you could say that the certain function of sex organs is procreation. That is true whether the definition of "natural" can be applied or not.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"The problem is that some people use words which they embue with a moral judgement - the word itself has none.
""Unnatural" is one of those words. Religious people use it to symbolise an action, behaviour, attribute that they don't like. This isn't the function of the word." --BeepBeep

Well, then what are these definitions:

"Expected and accepted."

"Established by moral conviction or certainty."

However, regardless, that's not how I was using the word, although the foundation that God created things for certain purposes kind of combines some of these definitions.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"A few thousand years on and you still cannot provide evidence that ANYTHING happens outside of the natural world. " --BeepBeep

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent, and people like you turn blind eyes to the evidence.

The fact is, there are things that are and that happen that you can't satisfactorily explain, yet you refuse to accept them as evidence.

under_the_mercy said...

2 Corinthians 4:4-5

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

beepbeepitsme said...

Homosexuality is Natural
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/10/homosexuality-is-natural.html

beepbeepitsme said...

Actually, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", you may have mixed your metaphors.

Evidence, on the other hand doesn't require my personal opinion or yours, for it to be considered evidence.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Actually, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", you may have mixed your metaphors.
Evidence, on the other hand doesn't require my personal opinion or yours, for it to be considered evidence. " --BeepBeep

First of all, my "metaphors" are my own.

Second of all, I don't think that saying something is "in" something else is a metaphor.

Thirdly, and most importantly, evidence SHOULD be as you say, but it is not taken that way. However, since it SHOULD be taken that way, you are without excuse. (Romans 1:20) When you stand before God on Judgment Day, are you really going to say to Him, "There just wasn't evidence that You created or existed." ?

Austin said...

Whether or not it was the original metaphor, the question is "Is the new metaphor an accurate metaphor?" Think about it, and I think you will find that it is.

Austin said...

I don't believe that every homosexual objectively chose to be that way, any more than that every angry person chose to be that way all at once. We could say that it's "psychologically induced". It doesn't take away responsibility, but it gives us some understanding.

The problem with homosexuality is that romance with the same sex comes from a desire to be with that which is most like ourselves. People are uncomfortable with something different - something foreign. If an important male figure in a guy's life is absent or abusive, the boy may choose (sometimes subconsciously) to seek romantic relationships with members of their own sex. This is kind of like idolatry in a way - it's seeking to have what most resembles yourself and is most comfortable, instead of the "natural", intended relationship between members of the opposite sex. Women become homosexual for similar, and sometimes different reasons, but the principle is the same.

Woman is the perfect friend for man. No one can suit him better. Adam only asked for a companion - that's it - and he was given a woman! That's because we're perfect for each other.

However, in some circumstances, people, unfortunately, would prefer relationships with what they understand and with what is most like themselves, rather than with what suits them best.

I think many church people are too cruel to homosexuals. We accept liars, murderers, and other riff-raff, but for some reason church people are afraid of letting homosexuals through the door. This is wrong. They belong with us, learning to become the person God wants them to be - which happens to include freedom from the bondage of homosexuality.

A lot of people think that when homosexuals become Christians and recover from their former identity, they are putting chains on themselves. But it's the opposite. Homosexuality is a chain. Christ is freedom.

That's a general summary of my opinion on homosexuality.

Read this blog post by a Deaf man who recovered from homosexuality:

Former homosexual finds freedom in Christ

Kingdom Advancer said...

BeepBeep,

Why are you resorting back to your original argument with your old link? I've addressed those points already.

You could just concede. ;D

Kingdom Advancer said...

Good points, Austin.

I will point out a couple of things, though:

1.) It seems to me that woman WAS the perfect friend for man, but sin sort of messed that up. However, that certainly doesn't mean same-sex relationships are better (certainly not!!!) or that we should forsake man-woman relationships. I just wanted to point that out in case somebody mentioned divorce, spouse abuse, etc., etc.

2.)Some churchpeople do seem to overlook some things--like adultery and fornincation--more than homosexuality. However, I think that the case is often that homosexuals want to be Christians AND homosexuals. In other words, they are not always struggling with the sin--but rather REVELING in the sin.

Although, I guess that is the case with other sins sometimes as well.

beepbeepitsme said...

When my consciousness is no more, because I am dead - I won't be standing in front of anyone, and neither will you.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I wonder if that belief is comforting now, BeepBeep, because it sure won't be when you find out it is false.

Austin said...

Humans have a natural - yes, actually natural - longing for supernatural. It's in our nature. We know it's there, that's why we spend our entire lives talking about it. Consider, beepbeep, that you talk about very little else other than that it doesn't exist.

We know the supernatural is there, and we know it's real. Sometimes we make up stories to describe it, but these stories aren't real. That's why we read Harry Potter (I'm a little behind - I've only read the first four). Just because our stories aren't real doesn't mean our hunger for the supernatural isn't based on something real.

If God isn't real, then why do we all love him or hate him so much? Why do I spend every waking moment trying to please him or regretting not pleasing him? Why do you spend every waking moment trying to convince yourself that he doesn't exist? If he doesn't exist, you should find another hobby. You sure talk about him an awful lot.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE kingdom:

Who said the truth was supposed to be comforting?

Kingdom Advancer said...

I know the truth isn't at first comforting, BeepBeep. You have to acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner, who can do nothing by yourself to save yourself, and who is destined to eternal damnation without a change of course. That is not such a comforting truth.
Neither is the truth comforting if it is not realized--or admitted--until after death, whence comes the judgment.

I was wondering whether you are comfortable in your sin when you lie to yourself with such falsehoods that you will lose consciousness when you die and stand before no one.

beepbeepitsme said...

it is your faith that all people sin. I don't have that faith. It is cpmforting to you to believe that if you become a member of a cult, that you won't die, that you will live in glory and paradise forever.

Sorry, but I just see that as a fairytale.

Kingdom Advancer said...

" I don't have that faith." --BeepBeep

Obviously, you do not hold those beliefs. However, that does not make them untrue--or even possibly untrue. You think this to be some type of contrast of two equally valid belief systems or opinions, when that is not the case. It is actually a battle between truth and falsehood; light and darkness; right and wrong; good and evil; and ultimately, life and death.

"It is cpmforting to you to believe that if you become a member of a cult, that you won't die, that you will live in glory and paradise forever." --BeepBeep

As I stated earlier, the truth is not at first comforting. Now it is. Now, I have the "peace that passes all understanding." I can say, "Whatever my lot...It is well with my soul." I have the Comforter Himself.

You, however, seem to be comforted by the lie that you can do whatever you want in this life with no significant consequences after death, and no humility required.

P.S. It is not "if I become a member of a cult." I am saved by grace, through faith, yet not of myself--it is the gift of God.

Austintatious said...

Comforting?

If I wanted comfort, I wouldn't be a Christian. Sometimes it's downright depressing. Sometimes I see the sin and hopelessness in the world, and I just cry. Sometimes I see the children being hurt and lied to and taught by example how to live as badly as possible, and I beg God to send someone to spare them the temptation to sin. There's no comfort in knowing that people are constantly being deceived and led astray. If I wanted comfort, I wouldn't spend hours trying to figure out the truth on a given subject - I would just make up whatever answer seems most comforting.

I just don't have enough faith. Not nearly enough faith to be an atheist, that is.

To hell with comfort. I want truth.

The truth, by the way, just so happens to end in comfort and peace anyway. So here's to killing two birds with one stone.

beepbeepitsme said...

People who have accepted an ideology on faith and who continue to accept it on faith regardless of evidence or the lack of it, do not seek truth. They seek self validation.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Re: BeepBeep

Those who have found the truth and have faith in that truth--faith being the assurance of things hoped for--know that evidence or "more truth" can ONLY validate what they believe.

Your statement, however, applies to you:

Ideology: Atheism & Evolution

"Who continue to accept it on faith regardless of evidence or the lack of it" : Certainly this applies to you, not me. The evidence stacks up against Evolution everyday, and assuredly you take an extreme leap of faith to believe there is no God.

"They seek self validation" : And try to tell me you are doing something different on your blog. Never mind, don't waste the effort of beating around the bush.

Austin said...

I can already see Beepbeep writing that even if evolution were disproven (it has been, by the way), then that still wouldn't prove the existence of God.

I would just like to point out that the extreme complexity of living organisms requires that evolution be real unless an intelligent mind created us.

So if evolution is false, then we were certainly created. There is no other alternative.

Think about it: how else could we have been formed this complex?

If evolution left the building, creation is all that would remain.

Unless, of course, you base your beliefs entirely on faith without evidence, in which case, carry on.

Kingdom Advancer said...

BeepBeep has already said that. You know, the genius debating technique of "just because what I believe is wrong doesn't mean you are right." Now, with all the beliefs out there, that is somewhat true. But we are speaking of an A-B decision here. We were created, or we were not. In other words, the statement that disproving Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion is like saying, "Just because you are not dead doesn't mean you are alive." Say what?

You can tell someone is standing on shaky ground when they say that it is irrelevant if their beliefs are proven false.

beepbeepitsme said...

Ok, I'll say it. We weren't created by a supernatural force called god.

Evolution has been disproven? What an interesting fantasy world you live in...

Kingdom Advancer said...

Of course, you, BeepBeep, who depends on Evolution as the origins' sector of your atheistic religion, would be the level-headed, unbiased one to know who's living in a fantasy world and who is not, right? I don't think so. It has often been said that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in Creation, because to believe in Evolution you have to leave common sense, good science, and overwhelming evidence behind. Then again, it's all worth it to continue to live in a pretend state of ignorance of the existence of a righteous God, isn't it?

"Ignorance" is only bliss for so long...

P.S. A belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, BeepBeep. :)

beepbeepitsme said...

Hey, I am not the adult with invisible friends..
And a happy gregorian calendar to you too.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Hey, I am not the adult with invisible friends.." --BeepBeep

That's true: you really are disconnected from reality: God exists.
I'm not the one that believes we all came from gobbly-goo.

beepbeepitsme said...

God only exists as a meme in your mind. That is all.

Kingdom Advancer said...

On the contrary, it is Evolution--in the form in which you believe in it--that exists only in YOUR mind, and in the minds of those like you. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon your faithful devotion to it. Otherwise, it would not exist.

On the other hand, although God does live "in" me in a way--in the Person of the Holy Spirit--and although He does want me to believe in Him (and much more than that), His existence is not dependent upon my belief in Him. He is outside of that, for He is not contained/restrained in my mind, on the earth, or even in the universe or time itself.

beepbeepitsme said...

God is invisible - allelles and genetic material are visible. God is the fantasy.

Kingdom Advancer said...

You should be glad that God is invisible to our eyes. If He made Himself visible to you now in all His glory and righteousness, you would immediately die.

Of course genetic material, as well as many other things in creation, is visible. But that does not prove your point. The incredible complexity and genious found in such things as DNA showeth the handiwork of God.

Alleles don't prove your argument, either. When one looks closely at the evidence and probability--and even the definition of the very word ("any of a group of POSSIBLE mutational forms of a gene")--it only serves to backfire on you.

beepbeepitsme said...

"The incredible complexity and genious found in such things as DNA showeth the handiwork of God."

Nah, it showeth the wilful shoehorning of superstitious people.

Kingdom Advancer said...

DNA showeth the willful shoehorning of superstitious people? Huh........