Solution to World Crisis....

[pnome]

I told you, I have answers in my worldview. Homosexuality exists b/c of sin. Homosexuality is "uncontrollable lust". I am asking you (since you don't believe in sin), where are your answers from your perspective? You can't even come up with any. All you can do is guess. And you want people to follow your system?? Man, looks like "reason" that you trust in is not so "reasonable" after all.........

My answer is simply, "I don't know"

<dl><dt>To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.</dt><dd class="author">http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lao-tzu/-Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)</dd></dl>​

Now, since you claim to know, let's examine your proposition using reason.

What is this "sin" you speak of, exactly?

 

[connorreid]

My answer is simply, "I don't know"



Now, since you claim to know, let's examine your proposition using reason.

What is this "sin" you speak of, exactly?

I adhere to the definition of sin as defined by the Westminster Devines in The Westminster Confession of Faith. Sin is defined in the larger catechism question and answer # 24.

What is sin? - Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

To put it simply, sin is breaking God's law.

So, the sin I am talking of in regards to homosexuals or sodomites is described in Romans 1: 27 where the author says, "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due".

Now, please define "reason" in your worldview so we can make sure we are on the same page.

Remember, I believe that I (as well as Christians) have a "system" of belief that is coherent and makes sense. We don't by any means have all of the answers in the world, but we don't need them in order to make sense of this world and so on. However, in your system, led by "reason", it looks like things aren't going so well and that things are getting worse. The best you can do is say "I don't know" about the homosexuality issue. Wow.......what great "reason" . In order to make sense of a world ruled by "reason" then you HAVE TO HAVE all of the answers!! That is implied, else you couldn't "reason" about anything.

So please explain what you mean by "reason".

 

[addictedtodeer]

Banjo- thanks I enjoyed the article.

Pnome interesting thoughts.

As to the cause of homosexuality our worldviews will cause disagreement.
For a christian sin has corrupted everything, especially humanity.
All deviations from God's prescribed plan is caused by sin.
Lying, disobedience, adultery, idolatry, homosexuality all the result of the fall of man.

On this an atheist and a Christian will have to agree to disagree.

 

[pnome]

To put it simply, sin is breaking God's law.

And who is this "god" you speak of? Can you prove he exists?

I'm guessing the answer is no. If that's so, then you certainly don't "know" you "believe"

 

[connorreid]

And who is this "god" you speak of? Can you prove he exists?

I'm guessing the answer is no. If that's so, then you certainly don't "know" you "believe"

Wow, what a mind boggling question. Here, I'll ask you the same thing. Can you "disprove" that He exists? Is this where your "reason" leads you??........such profoundness??

 

[Banjo]

Banjo- thanks I enjoyed the article.

You are most welcome.

connorreid...Check out my new signature....

 

[pnome]

Wow, what a mind boggling question. Here, I'll ask you the same thing. Can you "disprove" that He exists? Is this where your "reason" leads you??........such profoundness??

One cannot prove a negative.

Logic and reason dictate that the burden of proof lies with the positive proclamation.

 

[connorreid]

You are most welcome.

connorreid...Check out my new signature....

YES!!! Hey, what did you think of Pnome's profound statement that we couldn't prove God? If he only knew anything about Van Til............."impossibility of the contrary"..........

 

[earl]

I adhere to the definition of sin as defined by the Westminster Devines in The Westminster Confession of Faith. Sin is defined in the larger catechism question and answer # 24.

What is sin? - Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

To put it simply, sin is breaking God's law.

So, the sin I am talking of in regards to homosexuals or sodomites is described in Romans 1: 27 where the author says, "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due".

Now, please define "reason" in your worldview so we can make sure we are on the same page.

Remember, I believe that I (as well as Christians) have a "system" of belief that is coherent and makes sense. We don't by any means have all of the answers in the world, but we don't need them in order to make sense of this world and so on. However, in your system, led by "reason", it looks like things aren't going so well and that things are getting worse. The best you can do is say "I don't know" about the homosexuality issue. Wow.......what great "reason" . In order to make sense of a world ruled by "reason" then you HAVE TO HAVE all of the answers!! That is implied, else you couldn't "reason" about anything.

So please explain what you mean by "reason".

I notice you didn't quote the rule book [your bible] in your answer. Interesting. However i believe all your resources were written by man. You continually rant about atheism and how bad they are yet your only defense for fallen christians is that they really aren't christians. There is another thread that deals with sinners but what I came away with was that christians are in fact still sinners. So now we have sinner christians calling out other sinner christians . Do you actually know any one who is what you define a christian as? You have set yourself up as the perfect example so that you can explain to the atheist why he is so wrong . Perhaps you could give us examples of your fruit so we know that you are qualified to speak as a TRUE christian. When you boast of telling off John at your kitchen table,I can just visualize you as a 6' 6'' Adonis of the computer. In the real world you sound very small indeed.

 

[connorreid]

I notice you didn't quote the rule book [your bible] in your answer. Interesting. However i believe all your resources were written by man. You continually rant about atheism and how bad they are yet your only defense for fallen christians is that they really aren't christians. There is another thread that deals with sinners but what I came away with was that christians are in fact still sinners. So now we have sinner christians calling out other sinner christians . Do you actually know any one who is what you define a christian as? You have set yourself up as the perfect example so that you can explain to the atheist why he is so wrong . Perhaps you could give us examples of your fruit so we know that you are qualified to speak as a TRUE christian. When you boast of telling off John at your kitchen table,I can just visualize you as a 6' 6'' Adonis of the computer. In the real world you sound very small indeed.

Earl: The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches the Bible systematically. I suggest you go read it before you start cracking on it. What you don't even realize is how most of the Christians out there you are making fun of DON'T even have a systematic form of their theology. That's why the Bible is so horribly and often taken out of context.

Can you define what a Christian is? Please give me the definition of what you think a Christian is.

In regards to the statement of John......well, obviously you don't know me too well. By the way, I am awe struck by your reasoning

 

[earl]

Still not the bible though,or maybe it is your bible. I see by your response your method of answering is to ask another question. Since I am not a christian ,I am sure my definition is wrong . However you are the one who claims to hold the true definition . That is why I asked you as the expert. You are correct ,I don't know you but I do know you by your fruits . And my impression is you are certainly a fruity kind of guy .LOL

 

[addictedtodeer]

One cannot prove a negative.

Logic and reason dictate that the burden of proof lies with the positive proclamation.

Actually it is also the other way around. You are proposing there is no God, therefore you must prove there is no God.

You are correct that we have the burden to prove God exists, but you also have the burden to prove He or any other god does not exist.

 

[connorreid]

Still not the bible though,or maybe it is your bible. I see by your response your method of answering is to ask another question. Since I am not a christian ,I am sure my definition is wrong . However you are the one who claims to hold the true definition . That is why I asked you as the expert. You are correct ,I don't know you but I do know you by your fruits . And my impression is you are certainly a fruity kind of guy .LOL

Way to dodge giving a definition. Maybe it is b/c you can't. The Bible says "sin is lawlessness". Same thing the Westminster Divines said. I do claim to hold a true definition. It is defined by God. So why do you point a finger at me for judging people by their fruit when you do it also? Is that a hypocrite? Your fruit labels you as a double minded man.

 

[addictedtodeer]

I notice you didn't quote the rule book [your bible] in your answer. Interesting. However i believe all your resources were written by man.

The following verses are what Question 24 from the larger Catechism are based on:
1 John 3:4; Galatians 3:10,12 (I would add James 4:17)

 

[pnome]

Actually it is also the other way around. You are proposing there is no God, therefore you must prove there is no God.

You are correct that we have the burden to prove God exists, but you also have the burden to prove He or any other god does not exist.

Incorrect.

"No" is the default position.

 

[connorreid]

Incorrect.

"No" is the default position.

Wrong.

 

[earl]

Way to dodge giving a definition. Maybe it is b/c you can't. The Bible says "sin is lawlessness". Same thing the Westminster Divines said. I do claim to hold a true definition. It is defined by God. So why do you point a finger at me for judging people by their fruit when you do it also? Is that a hypocrite? Your fruit labels you as a double minded man.

I admitted I can't . That is why I asked for your expert definition. So you equate the Westminster Divines on an equal basis as the bible? Again not judging ,but asking for your expert answer. Not trying to be a hypocrite by judging fruit ,just trying to emulate one who professes to be the expert. You know, imitation is a form of flattery, that kind of thing.

 

[earl]

rgumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.
I think this is the answer to the question about burden of proof .

 

[earl]

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Source for burden of proof.

 

[addictedtodeer]

Incorrect.

"No" is the default position.

Umm not according to logic.
You are making a statement that needs to be proven, just as we are.