What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 119 by Difflugia]

Okay, so what we have here is one who pretty much rewrites these things, and must have found a Church to accept her as she is, along with what she decides for herself to rewrite.

So then, my point still stands. Why would there be those from the gay community involved in a Church who holds to the teachings of the Bible as they are? They are free to leave such a Church, and they are free to find a Church such as the one you describe where anything goes.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 119 by Difflugia]Okay, so what we have here is one who pretty much rewrites these things, and must have found a Church to accept her as she is, along with what she decides for herself to rewrite.

I disagree. She didn't rewrite anything, but took conflicting statements by Paul and reconciled them in a different way than most other Christians do. It's no different than Catholics claiming that Romans doesn't really mean that grace alone is sufficient for salvation and most Protestants claiming that James doesn't really mean that grace alone is insufficient.

So then, my point still stands. Why would there be those from the gay community involved in a Church who holds to the teachings of the Bible as they are? They are free to leave such a Church, and they are free to find a Church such as the one you describe where anything goes.

"The teachings of the Bible as they are" include sufficiency (Paul) and insufficiency (James) of grace, following the Law is both necessary (Matthew) and unnecessary (Paul), and whether salvation is difficult to achieve (Mark and Luke) or simply requires faith (John). And those are just the ones that could be considered salvation issues.

How your particular church chooses to reconcile the various conflicts in teaching and whether your way is more or less popular doesn't make other ways of resolving them unbiblical. They are simply different.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think Christianity brings anything worthwhile to the LBGTQ table and I think she'd be better off chucking the whole thing. I do, however, think that her way of resolving the glaring conflict in Paul's theology is just as biblical as a number of other common harmonizations. Granted, it doesn't preserve inerrancy, but most harmonizations don't even when they claim to.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 121 by Difflugia]

I disagree. She didn't rewrite anything, but took conflicting statements by Paul and reconciled them in a different way than most other Christians do. It's no different than Catholics claiming that Romans doesn't really mean that grace alone is sufficient for salvation and most Protestants claiming that James doesn't really mean that grace alone is insufficient.

You continue to make my point. In other words, I do not agree with the Catholics, and therefore I do not attend a Catholic Church. In the same way, if there are those in the gay community who do not agree with the teachings of a particular Church, then why in the world would they stay in that Church? Let us recall what I was responding to,

There are also LGBTQ people in church who are in denial of their sexual orientation because of the belief about homosexuality that was imposed on them.

Okay, so even if this was "imposed" on them, then they still must believe that such behavior would be immoral. If they do not believe this behavior would be immoral, then they are certainly free to leave, correct?

"The teachings of the Bible as they are" include sufficiency (Paul) and insufficiency (James) of grace, following the Law is both necessary (Matthew) and unnecessary (Paul), and whether salvation is difficult to achieve (Mark and Luke) or simply requires faith (John). And those are just the ones that could be considered salvation issues.

What you are describing is, Arminianism vs Reformed theology, and if one is convinced of Arminianism they will attend such a Church, and the same would go for those who are Reformed.

How your particular church chooses to reconcile the various conflicts in teaching and whether your way is more or less popular doesn't make other ways of resolving them unbiblical. They are simply different.

This is not exactly accurate, but even if I were to concede this, it would still be making my point. If one does not agree with the teachings of a particular Church, then they should not attend such a Church.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think Christianity brings anything worthwhile to the LBGTQ table and I think she'd be better off chucking the whole thing. I do, however, think that her way of resolving the glaring conflict in Paul's theology is just as biblical as a number of other common harmonizations. Granted, it doesn't preserve inerrancy, but most harmonizations don't even when they claim to.

Opinion noted!

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 112 by bluegreenearth]

There are more LGBTQ people and supporters in church than you might realize because they are compelled to remain in the closet while living under their parent's home.

Oh? So you are talking about children then, who are brought up in Christian homes, and you are telling us that it would be immoral for us to tell them that Christianity teaches homsexuality, along with many, many other things would be a sin, because they may grow up with these tendencies, and be ashamed, and this could cause them harm? I hope I am correct here?

My recommendation would be to teach children in Christian homes that some theologians believe homosexuality is a sin and some theologians do not. Whether homosexuality is actually a sin or not is an unfalsifiable claim that can be neither proved nor disproved. As such, Christian Children should be taught that, regardless of whether they or someone else believes homosexuality is a sin or not, unbiased scientific research has demonstrated that homosexuals are biologically normal people with a normal sexual orientation for which they should not be shamed or be made to feel ashamed. Christians parents should not indoctrinate their children to believe unfalsifiable claims are either true or false. Instead, they should teach their children how to think critically and how to think for themselves before introducing them to unverifiable religious concepts.

Do you really believe this stuff? I mean this is just as extraordinary, and absurd as a resurrection seems to be. In other words, the thinking seems to be, "these reports cannot be possible" so they come up with scenarios which end up being just as extraordinary, and absurd, as what they are attempting to explain away.

No, I don't just believe that stuff; I acknowledge that stuff as another equally plausible explanation for an unfalsifiable claim. A well supported rational argument for an unfalsifiable claim has the same chance of being true or false as a poorly supported irrational argument for an unfalsifiable claim. Therefore, intellectual honesty demands a person at least remain agnostic about these sorts of claims.

Which sort of demonstrates you have no way to "VERIFY" if what they are saying would be anywhere close to the truth? If this is what you would like to do, then that is fine by me, but please pardon me if I do not follow suit, because I would rather analyze the evidence for myself, when, and if I can, and when I cannot, or do not feel confident enough, I still would not simply defer to what others have to say.

This is why I only provisionally accept the conclusions of the experts; because they are working with falsifiable claims. They have attempted to disprove their own hypotheses but were unsuccessful. However, this doesn't guarantee their hypotheses will never be disproven. As such, scientific conclusions of falsifiable claims are never to be believed by faith but conditionally acknowledged as the most reasonable natural explanations based on the supporting evidence. If you would like to see the conclusions of a scientific investigation overturned, all you need to do is falsify the hypothesis that scientists were unable to. Meanwhile, because unfalsifiable claims can be neither proved nor disproved, there is nothing there for science to explain away. In any case, the scientific approach towards investigating the truth of falsifiable claims is 99% more reliable than using faith to conclude an unfalsifiable claim is true.

At any rate, this all demonstrates that I have given very good and solid reasons to believe Christianity may in fact be true, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available to us, and you have not given one single reason as of yet, to dismiss these claims, other than, "the scholars say so", and you cannot even defend what the "scholars" have to say?

All that has been demonstrated through your reasoning is confirmation bias. Facts and evidence are inconsequential to the validity or invalidity of unfalsifiable claims as previously explained. If you want me to take your facts and evidence seriously, demonstrate where they are supporting a falsifiable hypothesis.

From here, you want to insist that teaching our children these things would be immoral, and you want to talk about someone else being, "arrogant"? I would imagine you do not take to kindly when Christians suggest that what others do would be immoral. However, you do not seem to mind at all, insisting that what Christians do would be immoral.

It isn't arrogance when the facts and evidence support the given falsifiable claim. The falsifiable claim was that many LGBTQ youth in many Christian homes suffer a disproportionate amount of emotional and psychological abuse compared to LGBTQ youth in homes where they are treated with dignity and respect. If the claim is false, then the data will demonstrate that LGBTQ youth in Christian homes are not suffering a disproportionate amount of emotional and psychological abuse. A review of the unbiased data does not falsify the given claim. So, if you are unsatisfied with the scientific conclusion, then produce unbiased data that falsifies the given claim.

The fact of the matter is, we have facts, evidence, reason, and logic, in support of the claims of Christianity. Ergo, we have facts, evidence, reason, and logic, in support of the existence of God. You can in no way refute these facts, which means you have no way in which to support your idea that homosexual behavior would be an acceptable behavior.

My purpose was never to refute the given unfalsifiable claim that homosexuality is a sin or support the unfalsifiable claim that homosexual behavior is acceptable to God. My purpose is to demonstrate where a high degree of confidence in any unfalsifiable belief is unjustifiable regardless of the facts, evidence, reason, and logic offered in support of them. Put simply, you cannot know if Christian doctrine is true but you can know it is true that Christian doctrine is directly responsible for causing object harm in the way it is often applied. If homosexuality is a sin, then the church's method for discouraging homosexuality is also a sin as evidenced by the objective harm it causes where none would otherwise exist.

I do not condemn, nor insist that homosexuals, are immoral because only a god could do such a thing. However, you seem to have taken the place of a god, and are able to detect who the immoral people really are.

When you succeed in objectively demonstrating the existence of God, I'll consider what that God declares to be moral and immoral. However, the existence of God would not necessitate my compliance with his subjective morality. Human morality is something we must work together to define for ourselves as a species. God is welcome to offer his recommendations, but only we can decide how we like to be treated. If your unfalsifiable version of God exists and does not approve of homosexuality, I would still support loving monogamous homosexual marriages between consenting adults because it is how I would like to be treated if I were gay. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Better yet, do unto others in accordance with how they prefer you do unto them. Not everyone wants to be treated the same way as you would have them treat you. Can I get an Amen!

So then, if I have every reason to believe the Christian claims would be in fact true, and all you have is the argument of the "scholars" which I have successfully refuted, then would it not be immoral for me to point out the fact that you seem to have no argument, other than what others have to say, that you cannot defend, and refuse to at least inform these folks that I can indeed defend what it is I believe, and this may cause you some harm now, but may save you from, way worse harm later, and allow them to decide where they would like to land on the issue?

The only way you can refute my main argument is to demonstrate that your claim is falsifiable and that it can survive every test designed to falsify it. In the mean time, all you have is an unfalsifiable argument which can be neither proved nor disproved despite the quantity and quality of evidence you believe supports it.

The thing is, when I was coming up being exposed to Christianity, I did not struggle with the issue of homsexuality, but there were a whole lot of other sins I did indeed struggle with, and they did cause me serious emotional stress, and guilt. As I have become older I have come to realize that sin is common, and natural to all of us as humans, which should cause some relief, but simply because a behavior is natural for me, does not make it okay.

There are some natural human behaviors that can be changed and some that cannot be changed. For example, a heterosexual person cannot change their sexual orientation even if they can control when they will act on their sexual desires. Being heterosexual is not always problematic; only when heterosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are unhealthy or harmful does their sexual orientation become a problem. In the same way, homosexuality is not always problematic; only when homosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are unhealthy or harmful does their sexual orientation become a problem. There is no verifiable problem to be found anywhere when homosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are healthy and loving.

The bottom line here is the fact that there is a very real probability that the Christian claims are indeed true, because there are real facts, real evidence, and real reasons to believe them, and I, nor any other Christian are responsible for these things. Therefore, even if all of us as Christians would agree with you, and you were able to erase these very real probabilities from your mind, it would still not erase these very real probabilities from reality.

There is no way to calculate the probability that an unfalsifiable claim is true or false. Rather than increase the probably that an unfalsifiable claim is true, the only thing facts and evidence does is feed confirmation bias. Here is why:

Probability is a type of ratio where we compare how many times an outcome can occur compared to all possible outcomes. If we don't know if an outcome is possible or what all the outcomes could be, we can't calculate a probability. For instance, the probability of rolling a 6 with a standard six-sided die is 1 in 6 (16.7% chance). If we were prevented from observing how many sides a mystery die had and were limited to speculating as to which alpha-numeric characters could be featured on each face of this die, we wouldn't be able to calculate the probability of rolling a 6. This is because we couldn't know if a 6 was featured on one of its unknown number of faces. It could be that the mystery die has a different letter featured on each of its faces instead of numbers or it might contain a combination of letters and numbers. Maybe the faces of the mystery die are decorated with random symbols instead of numbers. We could only speculate.

Therefore, any claim about rolling a 6 on a this mystery die would be unfalsfiable because we couldn't know if it was even possible to roll a 6 unless we knew a 6 was featured on one of the faces. So, because we can't know if rolling a 6 is a possibility, we cannot calculate the probability of rolling a 6. Referring to evidence like the fact that other die have been previously observed with a 6 on one of their faces does nothing to increase the probability that we will roll a 6 using the unobservable mystery. However, because we want to strongly believe it is not only possible to roll a 6 using this mystery die but that rolling a 6 is more probable than any other proposed outcome, our confirmation bias interprets the facts and evidence as being supportive of our unfalsifiable claim. In reality though, the mystery die is prism-shaped with the number 9 posted on each of its faces giving us a 100% chance of rolling a 9 and a 0% chance of rolling a 6.

But the thing is, if you conclude that Christianity is false, and that there would be no such thing as sin, then I will not condemn you, or insist you are immoral. But somehow, I get the feeling that you will not return this favor?

I could not conclude that Christianity is false or true because it is unfalsifiable. Also, I do not condemn you or insist you are immoral; I condemn Christianity as being immoral. You are just another of Christianity's victims for whom I feel compassion.

The point is, there is no need in an adult staying in Church struggling against these issues, unless they are somehow convinced Christianity is true. Otherwise they are certainly free to leave the Church and pursue any lifestyle they wish, and I know many examples of this as well.

That is precisely the problem with Christianity. It compels perfectly normal and healthy people (except those who abuse drugs and engage in other such objectively harmful behaviors) to believe they are broken and in need of repair. Christian propaganda psychologically manipulates these good people into thinking they are sick and then offers them a snake-oil remedy.

Outlier???? My friend, Butterfield was the head of the LGBTQ at Syacrouse, and was an extremely active member in that community. She was hardly an "outlier".

Allow me to educate you on the definition of an outlier. A point that exists apart from a normal distribution of related points is an outlier. The exact value of the outlying point is irrelevant. In the same way, Butterfield's prior status as a well-known advocate for LGBTQ rights does not invalidate the fact that her personal experience does not currently align with the normal distribution of other LGBTQ people in the overall community. Another example of an outlier would be Bart Ehrman. He was once a very dedicated Christian who attended seminary college with the goal of becoming a preacher but later abandoned his faith in favor of atheism. As far as I know, that is not the normal outcome for the majority of dedicated Christians who attend seminary college. Therefore, Bart Ehrman is an outlier to the normal distribution of seminary students. As such, it would be a logically fallacious to reference Bart Ehrman's personal journey as an argument for atheism.

Next, what is "the reality of the wider LGBTQ community" which would differ from the experience of Butterflied? She was a lesbian, and had been in this relationship for years. She was the head of the LGBTQ community for the University. She abhorred Christians, and believed Christianity to be abusive, and she attempted to combat against Christianity by writing against it. So then please explain how her reality would be any different? Maybe you need to read some of what she has to say before making such statements?

Every person's story is unique and shaped by an incalculable number of variables. For any of an infinite number of reasons, Butterfield's life circumstances led her to make those decisions for herself. It is logically fallacious to presume Butterfield's story could apply equally well to the wider LGBTQ community. If you are having trouble understanding this point, consider how Bart Ehrman's life was remarkably similar to the lives of most other seminary students before he became an atheist. Given that reality, are you suggesting Christians should model their lives after Bart Ehrman's based on their shared similarities because you seem to want lesbians to model their lives after Butterfield's based on what they have in common?

So are you suggesting she wasted her life for years, not simply being in this sort of relationship but also heading up these organizations, and writing in favor of her lifestyle, and being vehemently opposed to Christianity, and this was not the real her?

I'm suggesting the possibility cannot be ruled-out no matter how unrealistic you might believe it to be.

This is sort of comical, because if a Christian were to insist that folks do not have these sort of tendencies, then I am sure you would object, and insist that we must take their word for it, but now all of a sudden we must, and have to question this one, right? I wonder why?

No double-standard here. The reason for suggesting the possibility was not to challenge the way she describes herself but to challenge the way you use her story to justify imposing your unfalsifiable beliefs on other people.

I may have chose a wrong word by using "normal" but I do not know what other word to use here? I, nor Butterfield would argue that folks do not have these sexual tendencies, or desires. Rather, her argument is, instead of giving into these, tendencies, and desires, she has decided to struggle against these things, in order to pursue what she has become convinced of. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Thanks for clarifying. Still, it is logically fallacious to assume her personal story is a justification for imposing your unfalsifiable belief on other people.

Okay, so would it be immoral in your opinion, for someone like Butterfield to join the Church because of what they have been convinced of, and struggle against the desires she naturally has?

It would only be immoral if she was being psychologically manipulated? I can't speak to that in her case because I'm unaware of the circumstances that led to the decisions she's made. I can say it would be immoral for her to try and impose her falsifiable belief on other people. (Before you accuse me of a double-standard again, I am not imposing an unfalsifiable belief on anyone because my claim about the objective harm being caused by Christianity is falsifiable as previously explained.)

This is not in any way "subject to debate" but we do not have the time or the space to get into this, therefore I will simply say that if one does not want to live in a monogamous marriage then they should either find a Church that allows such things, and or, do not attend Church at all.

All unfalsifiable claims can be debated even though it is impossible to ever declare a clear winner.

For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I've written a fairly detailed commentary on Romans 1:26-27 already in another post. Long-story short, it is just another unfalsifiable claim within another unfalsifiable claim. Theologians could debate these scriptures for an eternity and never discover the absolute truth.

Now, I am not insisting that you accept this as true, and you can believe Christianity to be false, but you cannot say, "there doesn't appear to be a justifiable reason for homosexual Christians to presume they must resist or deny their sexual orientation". And this would not be the only passage I could refer to, but it does in fact make the point that this type of behavior, would not be "natural", and would be "shameful" as ar as Christianity is concerned.

Once again, I do not believe Christianity is false or true because it would be logically fallacious to take a positive position on a unfalsifiable claim. Unfalsifiable claims about Biblical interpretations are useless because it is impossible to demonstrate they are true or false.

So then, is the Church to simply white out passages like the one above, which may cause someone grief? Or, does the Church have the responsibility to convey exactly what the Bible has to say, and allow those who believe to remain in the Church, while allowing others who may not believe to leave?

It is not my problem if the church is confined by a paradox. I'm not the one who believes in the unfalsifiable claim that the church has the capability of exactly conveying the unfalsifiable claims of the Bible.

Of course I have heard of other Churches in which the children are almost forced to accept what is being taught, and I completely understand there are abuses occurring, and I can assure that I am actively speaking out against such abuses.

Credit where credit is due.

My point is, your problem seems to be with those Churches who may use abusive methods, and not the fact that the Church teaches exactly what they claim to believe. If this is the case, then I am all in with you, my friend!

Yes and no. Yes, I have a problem with those churches. No, sometimes teaching exactly what the church claims to believe amounts to abuse when the belief is unfalsifiable yet is used to justify the condemnation of an entire demographic of people.

I have already demonstrated that if there are Churches who do such things, they are not getting their instructions from the Bible, because Paul clearly says, "what do I have to do with judging outsiders"? So again, how can Christianity be the blame for such behavior? Again, your problem is not with Christianity, but rather with Christians who do not behave in the way they are instructed.

Your claim that your brand of Christianity is the only true Christianity is unfalsifiable. Therefore, I am justified in lumping together all the unfalsifiable versions of Christianity that cause object harm.

Allow me to give you another example using a true story. My wife, and I had just left an NFL football game, and we happen to pass this man who was on the side of the road, with kids, who I would imagine were in his youth group at Church, and he, and the kids were holding up signs with messages such a "sinners are going to hell", and other such nonsense.

I was infuriated, and told my wife to pull over, and I threw the car door open and got out and confronted this man face to face, and scolded him for doing such a thing right in front of the kids, so that they could hear. Again, my point is, I am just as much opposed to these abuses as you are, but more importantly, so is the Bible!

Once again, credit where credit is due.

All they could possibly be waiting on, is for other Christians to get the white out, out, and white out passages like the one above, along with others which clearly say this sort of behavior would be, "unnatural". Again, I am not insisting that all accept the Bible as truth. I am simply saying one cannot insist that the Bible does not teach such things.

Your claim that the interpretations of the Bible provided by your church are infallible is an unfalsifiable claim. Unfalsifiable claims are inherently debatable.

I don't think so! I can attest, my wife, and all of my friends will attest, that it would be impossible to, "psychologically manipulate" me. I do not play that game!

So says every person who has ever been psychologically manipulated. I couldn't claim it would not be possible for me to be psychologically manipulated. The whole point of psychological manipulation is that people don't realize when it is happening to them.

My point is, there can be no LGBTQ Christians, unless they have decided to struggle against these things, and I am here to struggle with them, while they help me with my struggles. Otherwise, they are outside the clear teachings of the Bible, as demonstrated above, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to be a part of a Church which upholds the Bible, which they do not believe?

Psychological manipulation is why they would choose to be part of the church.

Oh, I think I can, and believe I have demonstrated as much. As an example, how could Christians justify judging those outside the Church, when they are clearly told, that is not their business? They cannot! I could go on, and on, demonstrating such things.

All unfalsifiable claims are debatable.

I am fine with the conclusions you have come to, and how you have arrived there, as long as you do not insist there would be no reason to believe Christianity would be true.

I've never insisted there were no reasons to believe Christianity was true; only that no amount of reasons and evidence can ever demonstrate unfalsifiable claims are true or false.

This seems really convenient. In other words you will allow anyone to interpret the Bible any way they like, but you would not do such a thing with all written material. In other words, you and I are communicating through writing, and even though I am not a very good communicator in the least, you do not seem to have to much trouble interpreting what I am saying for the most part, but somehow when it comes to the Bible, we just can't tell, right?

Unlike the Bible, I can ask you as the author of your own writings for clarifications when something you wrote could have multiple equally plausible interpretations. We are also writing to each other in a language that is contemporary and familiar to each of us.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 123 by bluegreenearth]

My recommendation would be to teach children in Christian homes that some theologians believe homosexuality is a sin and some theologians do not. Whether homosexuality is actually a sin or not is an unfalsifiable claim that can be neither proved nor disproved.

While I certainly appreciate your "recommendation", I believe that I would, and did (since my children are grown now) take a different route. Allow me to explain to you exactly what I taught my children about "homosexuality".

When it comes to "homosexuality" I told my children absolutely nothing! Notta! Zero! When it comes to what they heard in Church concerning "homosexuality" it would be the same. Nothing, notta, zero. In other words, they never heard a sermon on the subject of homonsexuality, nor have they been in any Sunday School class that taught anything about, "homoseuality". Therefore, what they may know about this subject, they did not learn from me, nor the Church, because I, nor the Church found any reason to teach on this subject at all.

Of course, you will more than likely ask, what we did when we arrived to the passages which mention homosexuality", and I will point out that there are not that many at all which actually do, and when and if it does, it will list homosexuality along with many other behaviors that would be classed as, "sexual immorality" and therefore there would be no need in focusing in one particular one, since they would all be the same.

Next, allow me to share with you exactly what I was taught as a child about "homosexuality". Again, that would be, nothing, notta, zero. My parents never said a word to me about "homosexuality." Also, I never heard a sermon, nor sat in any Sunday School class where anything was taught about homosexuality, other than if this may have been mentioned in a verse we may have been looking at that would have listed other behaviors that would have been classed as "sexual immorality".

In other words, I never heard a sermon, nor sat in a Sunday School class, where the focus was on the subject of, "homosexuality", and my parents never, ever, mentioned the subject to me.

With this being the case, allow me to share with you a true story. As I grew up, I never gave "homosexuality" much thought at all. The only thing I knew about it was that myself, and most all of the other kids in the neighborhood, and at school, would call each other derogatory names that would be associated with, "homosexuality". What I am saying is, I kinda knew what it meant, but I had no earthly idea at the time that any such thing would even exist. In other words, although I knew what the word "homosexual" meant, I had no idea that there was anyone who would actually be, a "homosexual".

My wife, and I started dating when I was 17 years old. Once we had been dating for a good many months, when I came to pick her up one night, she informed me that she had to stop by her brother's home for a moment to take care of some business. While on the way, she told me that she had to warn me about something before we got to her brother's home. Can you guess what it was? That's right, she told me he was a, "homosexual".

Well, I have to tell you, I began to laugh, because I thought she was making some sort of fun the way in which we as kids did in the neighborhood. In other words, I thought she must not like him that much, and was simply trying to communicate that to me. However, and to my great surprise, she was not doing that at all, but was rather communicating to me, that I was about to meet a real live, "homosexual".

Believe it or not, this is a true story, which demonstrates clearly that my parents never said a word to me about such things, nor could I have heard such things in the Church, other than when and if these things would have been talked about with all the other things which would have been listed as, "sexual immorality" which I myself would be guilty of, which means I would be suffering guilt, and shame myself.

So then, while there may be Churches which focus in on such behaviors, my parents, with the Church I grew up in, along with myself, did not focus in on "homosexuality" nor any other sin, in an attempt to shame anyone in particularly. Rather, we were all "equal opportunity" offenders, which would have included ourselves.

However, if I were going to focus in on one particular subject, no matter what that subject may be, I may indeed explain to them what one theologian may teach as opposed to another, but I also think it wise to actually place the Bible in front of them in order for them to determine for themselves what the Bible actually teaches about such things, as opposed to what either of the other theologians.

As such, Christian Children should be taught

Oh, so now you are an authority on what "Christian Children should be taught"?

unbiased scientific research

Exactly how have you determined this to be, "unbiased scientific research"? Because you see, I have pretty much demonstrated there must, and has to be a "biased" concerning those scholars who hold to the idea that Luke, and Acts, would have been written in the 80's-90's since they never mention the evidence which would demonstrate the date they hold to would not be possible, and it is also demonstrated in the fact they want to hold some sort of doubt about Paul being the author of a letter which would clearly demonstrate their error.

Ergo, I would like to know what the PROOF would be that this would be, "unbiased scientific research", and that there would be no bias in the research at all? The only thing which would demonstrate this would be "PROOF", of the claim, because remember it is you who champions the "unfalsifiable claim idea".

This is exactly why I do not put a whole lot of stock into what others may say, and or their opinions, no matter what side they may be on, nor how much education they may have, because all of us are prone to bias, and or prejudice. Therefore, you will very rarely see me sight the ideas, opinions, and beliefs, of any of these folks, even if they happen to side with me, because I understand it holds no bearing upon the matter, until there is "PROOF". So where is this "PROOF"?

unbiased scientific research has demonstrated that homosexuals are biologically normal people

I have never argued that, "homosexuals are NOT biologically normal people".

with a normal sexual orientation for which they should not be shamed or be made to feel ashamed.

Now here, it would depend on what is meant by, "normal?" Do we mean, these folks actually have these desires, and they come to them naturally? If this is the case, then I would agree, but I do not know that, "normal" would be a good word?

As an example, science tells us, there are folks who have been diagnosed with what has been called, pyromania, and they will also tell you that these desires are real, natural desires to these folks. Now, would you call these desires, "normal"? Does science call them, "normal"? No, they do not. Rather, they call this a disorder.

Of course, your argument is going to be that what causes these behaviors to be a disorder is because it can cause harm to one's self, and, or others. However, all you are doing is to set yourself up to be some sort of god, because you have no way to demonstrate that these other behaviors which would not do harm to others would not be any sort of disorder, other than your opinion.

However, I happen to agree with you to an extent. In other words, since you and I can in no way demonstrate whether it would be a disorder, or not, then all we have is what behaviors would do harm to one's self, and, or others, but I do not see how this could be determined as, morality, since we have no gauge.

In fact, to me we really seem to be acting selfishly here. In other words, we are really not concerned as to whether these behaviors would actually be disorders, but are rather gauging our ideas on the effect such behavior may have on us, which would include one's self.

Next, if we are dealing with what you, and I would agree would be disorders such as, pyromania, since we would agree this disorder comes naturally to this person, I don't believe the goal should be in any way to cause, shame, and guilt upon this person, but to rather attempt to explain to them, we understand that it comes naturally, and then begin to work, out of love, and compassion in order to help them overcome such behavior, even if they cannot overcome the desire.

Of course, as we attempt to do this, it may indeed cause, guilt, and shame to this person, but are we not to address such an issue because it may in fact cause them guilt, and shame?

Because you see, the Gospel does not deal with particular sins, in any way. Rather, the Gospel is, "Good News" that sin, in general, no matter what it is, has been dealt with. Therefore, the "Good News" does not eliminate sin, nor the desires associated with sin, but has rather eliminated the guilt, and shame, associated with sin.

Therefore, we as Christians have been freed to struggle against our sin that is common among all men, but more importantly, we have been freed from the guilt, and shame of our sin.

Now, those who reject, Christianity, and the Gospel, are certainly free to define anything they like as normal behavior, and are free to participate in any behavior they wish. So then, how would what the Church teaches have any effect upon those who are convinced it is a bunch of garbage?

If we are talking about, children in the Church, we have already dealt with this in that, if there are Churches harping on one particular sin, as opposed to others, in an attempt to cause such guilt, and shame on these folks, to the neglect of other sin, then we should not be holding Christianity responsible for such things, since Christianity, as I have said is an, "equal opportunity" offender of sinners, no matter the sin, since all sin would be equal.

Christians parents should not indoctrinate their children to believe unfalsifiable claims are either true or false.

in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌn�t/
verb
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

If this is the definition you are using, then I absolutely agree with you. I did not teach my children to simply accept what I believe. Rather, along with teaching them what it is I believe, and why I believe it, I also clearly taught them not to simply accept what anyone has to say, including myself, because I also explained to them I am not infallible, and am prone to error, just like everyone else, and I therefore told them, and taught them how to think for themselves.

I have been a champion of this in the Church, and I am absolutely convinced this is the way in which we should operate as a Church, because we would all be better off with those who can think critically. In this way, when children become older, and do not believe what the Church teaches, they are free to leave, and pursue any lifestyle they wish, while those who remain will actually know what they believe, and why they believe it. So we have no argument here.

Instead, they should teach their children how to think critically and how to think for themselves before introducing them to unverifiable religious concepts.

I agree here, other than, I would teach them how to think for themselves, along with what it is I believe, along with how, and why I have come to believe it, which will give them an idea of whether I am actually thinking critically about what I believe.

No, I don't just believe that stuff; I acknowledge that stuff as another equally plausible explanation for an unfalsifiable claim. A well supported rational argument for an unfalsifiable claim has the same chance of being true or false as a poorly supported irrational argument for an unfalsifiable claim.

First, we all use words, and terms that do not best explain what we are trying to communicate. With that being said, the one thing you are failing to realize is the fact that Christianity is either, true, or it is false. In other words, one explanation of the claims found in the Bible, would NOT "have the same chance of being true or false". In other words, the explanation is either true, or it is false.

Therefore, intellectual honesty demands a person at least remain agnostic about these sorts of claims.

The one thing that no one can remain "agnostic" about is the fact that we have these claims by the NT writers. The other thing you cannot remain "agnostic" about is, that there is indeed a reason why, and how we have come to have these writings. In other words, there is a reason we have these claims.

Now, you can remain "agnostic" about these reasons, by saying we cannot be sure, but you cannot remain "agnostic" about the fact that they are either true, or false.

Now, if you would like to take your "agnosticism" concerning the fact that we cannot be sure, to keep you from investigating the claims, then that is fine by me. But "agnosticism" does not in any way change the fact that, these claims are either true, or they are false.

So then, it would seem best to me, to allow everyone to investigate these claims for themselves, along with the facts, and evidence involved, and encourage them to think critically, and allow them to make up their own mind about them, instead of insisting that they must believe them, or must remain, "agnostic".

This is why I only provisionally accept the conclusions of the experts; because they are working with falsifiable claims. They have attempted to disprove their own hypotheses but were unsuccessful.

However, I did in fact falsify their claim, because there is no way in which an author writing in the 80' or 90's could have possibly begin to use the words "we", and "us", when describing the events, as if he were there to witness the events, unless there was some sort of deception going on.

Couple this with the fact that we have Paul writing a letter referring to this very same author in one of his letters, and it becomes unreasonable to conclude that these authors would have been able to pull off such a thing, and this becomes clear when these "experts" have to come to the conclusion that Paul could not be the author of this letter, because they understand that if Paul was the author, then this would be very good evidence in support of the claims.

Now, I have went threw this letter the "experts" claim that Paul did not write right here on this site, and when one does such a thing, they clearly will come to understand that it is unreasonable to suggest that Paul would not have been the author, to the point it is, impossible to say.

So then, when you want to refer to being "intellectually honest" this goes both ways. You cannot give an opine that your opponent may be "intellectually dishonest" while ignoring the "intellectual dishonesty" of those whom you cite.

However, this doesn't guarantee their hypotheses will never be disproven. As such, scientific conclusions of falsifiable claims are never to be believed by faith but conditionally acknowledged as the most reasonable natural explanations based on the supporting evidence.

Again, you are certainly free to use your mind any way you see fit. As for me, I do not, "conditionally acknowledge as the most reasonable natural explanations based on the supporting evidence" the word of others, no matter who it may be, and this would include religious leaders, politicians, news media, and scientist, unless there was some sort of proof to demonstrate such opinions, and then they would not be opinions, but rather facts.

If you would like to see the conclusions of a scientific investigation overturned, all you need to do is falsify the hypothesis that scientists were unable to.

Okay, so let's take the "theory of evolution". How would this be "falsifiable"? It is no different with the claims made in the NT. Either these claims are true, or they are false. It makes no difference if they can be falsified or not. In the same way, there is no way to "falsify" the theory of evolution", but it is either true, or it is false, and it makes no difference if it is "falsifiable" or not. With this being the case, according to your logic, we should all be agnostic toward "evolution" since it is an "unfalsifiable claim".

Meanwhile, because unfalsifiable claims can be neither proved nor disproved, there is nothing there for science to explain away.

First, would this include, "evolution"? Next, we are not talking about science here. Science, is not in the business of explaining to us if an event has occurred or not, but rather if such an event would be scientifically possible. If this event would be scientifically impossible, this would not necessarily mean that the event did not happen. Rather, it simply means that if it did happen, science could not explain it.

In any case, the scientific approach towards investigating the truth of falsifiable claims is 99% more reliable than using faith to conclude an unfalsifiable claim is true.

My friend, I am a firm believer in science, and the scientific method. However, I am not under the delusion that there are not scientists who do not have an agenda they are attempting to protect, and this would include creationists, along with evolutionists.

But again, when we are talking about the claims made in the NT, we are not talking about a scientific matter.

All that has been demonstrated through your reasoning is confirmation bias. Facts and evidence are inconsequential to the validity or invalidity of unfalsifiable claims as previously explained. If you want me to take your facts and evidence seriously, demonstrate where they are supporting a falsifiable hypothesis.

Your continued use of the term, "unfalsifiable claim" is not helping you out here. The fact is, "Christianity, is either true, or it is false, and whether it can be demonstrated to be true, or false would have no bearing upon the matter at all.

Next, there must, and has to be very good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, because we have the facts, and evidence in support, which you cannot deny, and you have no explanation for these facts, and evidence.

It isn't arrogance when the facts and evidence support the given falsifiable claim. The falsifiable claim was that many LGBTQ youth in many Christian homes suffer a disproportionate amount of emotional and psychological abuse compared to LGBTQ youth in homes where they are treated with dignity and respect. If the claim is false, then the data will demonstrate that LGBTQ youth in Christian homes are not suffering a disproportionate amount of emotional and psychological abuse. A review of the unbiased data does not falsify the given claim. So, if you are unsatisfied with the scientific conclusion, then produce unbiased data that falsifies the given claim.

We are talking about two different things here. I am talking about simply pointing to the Biblical claims, and given the reason, along with the facts, in support of these claims to our children, along with teaching them to think critically, and allowing then to make up their own mind. While you seem to be insisting that I am referring to brain washing them.

We have no debate here! There should be no Church harping on a particular behavior, in an attempt to shame, or guilt anyone, but rather to the point we are all sinners, no matter what sins we may struggle with, because none are worse than others.

Put simply, you cannot know if Christian doctrine is true but you can know it is true that Christian doctrine is directly responsible for causing object harm in the way it is often applied. If homosexuality is a sin, then the church's method for discouraging homosexuality is also a sin as evidenced by the objective harm it causes where none would otherwise exist.

If you look at the way in which you word this, we have no debate, other than I would go on to say, "we have very good reason, facts, logic, and evidence to support the Christian claims. Again, if we are talking about, "methods" then I am in agreement with you.

However, the Bible barely mentions homosexuality, and when it does it is usually in connection with many other sins, and this means that if a Church is harping on one sin, as opposed to another, in order to shame, and guilt folks, then I would agree the "method" is wrong, and unbiblical.

When you succeed in objectively demonstrating the existence of God, I'll consider what that God declares to be moral and immoral.

This is not my concern.

However, the existence of God would not necessitate my compliance with his subjective morality.

Well, if the "existence of God" were to be demonstrated I highly doubt that His morality would be "subjective" but I would agree that you would not have to be "compliant".

Human morality is something we must work together to define for ourselves as a species.

My friend, you have far more faith in the "human species" than I could ever have.

Human morality is something we must work together to define for ourselves as a species. God is welcome to offer his recommendations, but only we can decide how we like to be treated. If your unfalsifiable version of God exists and does not approve of homosexuality, I would still support loving monogamous homosexual marriages between consenting adults because it is how I would like to be treated if I were gay.

Again, we have no argument. Let's recall I have homosexual friends, and family, who are welcomed into my home, and I am welcomed into their home. Moreover, and more importantly, let us also recall the quote form Paul, "what business is it of mine to judge outsiders"?

The only way you can refute my main argument is to demonstrate that your claim is falsifiable and that it can survive every test designed to falsify it. In the mean time, all you have is an unfalsifiable argument which can be neither proved nor disproved despite the quantity and quality of evidence you believe supports it.

What I can, and have demonstrated is the fact that the Christian claims are either true, or they are false, and being "unfalsifiable" would not have a thing to do with it. In the meantime, there is indeed very good, and solid evidence in support of the claims, and you have no way in which to explain these facts away.

There are some natural human behaviors that can be changed and some that cannot be changed. For example, a heterosexual person cannot change their sexual orientation even if they can control when they will act on their sexual desires. Being heterosexual is not always problematic; only when heterosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are unhealthy or harmful does their sexual orientation become a problem. In the same way, homosexuality is not always problematic; only when homosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are unhealthy or harmful does their sexual orientation become a problem. There is no verifiable problem to be found anywhere when homosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are healthy and loving.

Allow me to give you a quote, which may be saying in a Christian way, what you are attempting to say. "I am not a sinner because I sin, rather I sin, because I am a sinner".

In other words, I cannot change the sinful desires I have, because they come natural to me as a natural sinner. However, I can struggle against these things, and attempt to keep the desires, from affecting my behavior.

There is no way to calculate the probability that an unfalsifiable claim is true or false. Rather than increase the probably that an unfalsifiable claim is true, the only thing facts and evidence does is feed confirmation bias. Here is why:

Probability is a type of ratio where we compare how many times an outcome can occur compared to all possible outcomes. If we don't know if an outcome is possible or what all the outcomes could be, we can't calculate a probability. For instance, the probability of rolling a 6 with a standard six-sided die is 1 in 6 (16.7% chance). If we were prevented from observing how many sides a mystery die had and were limited to speculating as to which alpha-numeric characters could be featured on each face of this die, we wouldn't be able to calculate the probability of rolling a 6. This is because we couldn't know if a 6 was featured on one of its unknown number of faces. It could be that the mystery die has a different letter featured on each of its faces instead of numbers or it might contain a combination of letters and numbers. Maybe the faces of the mystery die are decorated with random symbols instead of numbers. We could only speculate.

Therefore, any claim about rolling a 6 on a this mystery die would be unfalsfiable because we couldn't know if it was even possible to roll a 6 unless we knew a 6 was featured on one of the faces. So, because we can't know if rolling a 6 is a possibility, we cannot calculate the probability of rolling a 6. Referring to evidence like the fact that other die have been previously observed with a 6 on one of their faces does nothing to increase the probability that we will roll a 6 using the unobservable mystery. However, because we want to strongly believe it is not only possible to roll a 6 using this mystery die but that rolling a 6 is more probable than any other proposed outcome, our confirmation bias interprets the facts and evidence as being supportive of our unfalsifiable claim. In reality though, the mystery die is prism-shaped with the number 9 posted on each of its faces giving us a 100% chance of rolling a 9 and a 0% chance of rolling a 6.

This all goes back to when I said we all use words, and terms sometimes which do not really reflect what we are attempting to say. My whole point here is, there are very good reasons, logic, evidence, and facts to support the Christian claims, and you have no explanation for these things, other than to claim, "they are unfalsifiable" as if this would be a reason to dismiss them, when it would seem to be a reason to consider them, when they are such extraordinary claims.

I condemn Christianity as being immoral.

By whose standards?

You are just another of Christianity's victims for whom I feel compassion.

This sounds more like a Christian attempting to persuade an Atheist.

That is precisely the problem with Christianity. It compels perfectly normal and healthy people (except those who abuse drugs and engage in other such objectively harmful behaviors) to believe they are broken and in need of repair.

So, would you like us to continue to work on, "those who abuse drugs and engage in other such objectively harmful behaviors" while leaving the rest alone?

Christian propaganda psychologically manipulates these good people into thinking they are sick and then offers them a snake-oil remedy.

Opinion noted!

Every person's story is unique and shaped by an incalculable number of variables. For any of an infinite number of reasons, Butterfield's life circumstances led her to make those decisions for herself. It is logically fallacious to presume Butterfield's story could apply equally well to the wider LGBTQ community. If you are having trouble understanding this point, consider how Bart Ehrman's life was remarkably similar to the lives of most other seminary students before he became an atheist. Given that reality, are you suggesting Christians should model their lives after Bart Ehrman's based on their shared similarities because you seem to want lesbians to model their lives after Butterfield's based on what they have in common?

Allow us to go back to where I first mentioned Misses Butterfield. It was in response to you saying,

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters and tries to convince these perfectly normal people that their sexuality and identity is an abomination for which they should feel ashamed.

My point was then, Butterfield seemed be willing to accept what she became convinced of as the truth, as opposed to taking offense to the fact that the Bible may in fact consider her former life to be a sin. In other words, she seems to be perfectly happy that others did not consider the offense she might take, but rather loved her enough to share the truth with her, in spite of the offense she might take. And by the way, these folks never preached to her, "homosexuality is a sin".

I'm suggesting the possibility cannot be ruled-out no matter how unrealistic you might believe it to be.

Yep! We seem to be getting nowhere. There are certainly those who will suggest, and believe anything, as long as it supports what they would like to believe.

No double-standard here. The reason for suggesting the possibility was not to challenge the way she describes herself but to challenge the way you use her story to justify imposing your unfalsifiable beliefs on other people.

You just now "challenged the way she describes herself". Next, and more importantly, when, and where have I use Butterfield's story to "justify imposing my unfalsifiable beliefs on other people"? These things were not imposed of Butterfield, so how could I be using it in that way?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 123 by bluegreenearth]

You know, I spent several hours here addressing your objections, point, by point, and can demonstrate this because I have it saved, but then I began to realize, you, and I have no debate at all.

You see, you are the one who opened this OP, and you did so by asking for the "strongest reason for believing in Christianity". Well, because this is what I am interested in, and because it is in my wheelhouse, I decided to join in, but I did not bight upon the one reason, because among other reasons I thought something must be up, here.

At any rate, I give very good reasons for my belief, so much so that you even admit as much, and you have not as of yet demonstrated that I would not have good reasons to believe these things.

You then turn the discussion into a debate concerning the methods used by some Churches to abuse the "gay community" and I have agreed with you on almost every point concerning this issue, but more importantly have demonstrated where the Biblical writers would be in agreement with you.

So then, you do not really seem to be concerned as to whether there may be real reasons, facts, and evidence to believe the Christian claims, but rather that these claims may be harming the "gay community".

While I may not agree with you on all the points involved, I do believe I have demonstrated, not only in this discussion, but also elsewhere, where I have stood up, and spoken out against other Christians concerning this matter you seem so concerned about.

However, my main concern is, in the end, Christianity is about the Gospel, which means "Good News"! Because you see, the Gospel does not deal with particular sins, in any way. Rather, the Gospel is, "Good News" that sin, in general, no matter what it is, has been dealt with. Therefore, the "Good News" does not eliminate sin, nor the desires associated with sin, but has rather eliminated the guilt, and shame, associated with sin.

Therefore, we as Christians have been freed to struggle against our sin that is common among all men, but more importantly, we have been freed from the guilt, and shame of our sin.

Now, those who reject, Christianity, and the Gospel, are certainly free to define anything they like as normal behavior, and are free to participate in any behavior they wish. So then, how would what Christianity teaches have any effect upon those who are convinced it is a bunch of garbage?

If we are talking about, children in the Church, we have already dealt with this in that, if there are Churches harping on one particular sin, as opposed to others, in an attempt to cause such guilt, and shame on these folks, to the neglect of other sin, then we should not be holding Christianity responsible for such things, since Christianity, is an "equal opportunity" offender of sinners, no matter the sin, since all sin would be equal.

However, as already noted, the goal of Christianity is to remedy this guilt, and shame,
which folks may have.

Now, I would like to share with you exactly how I opened my initial response to this post of yours, and see where you may object?

Allow me to explain to you exactly what I taught my children about "homosexuality".

When it comes to "homosexuality" I told my children absolutely nothing! Notta! Zero! When it comes to what they heard in Church concerning "homosexuality" it would be the same. Nothing, notta, zero. In other words, they never heard a sermon on the subject of homonsexuality, nor have they been in any Sunday School class that taught anything about, "homoseuality". Therefore, what they may know about this subject, they did not learn from me, nor the Church, because I, nor the Church found any reason to teach on this subject at all.

Of course, you will more than likely ask, what we did when we arrived to the passages which mention homosexuality", and I will point out that there are not that many at all which actually do, and when and if it does, it will list homosexuality along with many other behaviors that would be classed as, "sexual immorality" and therefore there would be no need in focusing in one particular one, since they would all be the same.

Next, allow me to share with you exactly what I was taught as a child about "homosexuality". Again, that would be, nothing, notta, zero. My parents never said a word to me about "homosexuality." Also, I never heard a sermon, nor sat in any Sunday School class where anything was taught about homosexuality, other than if this may have been mentioned in a verse we may have been looking at that would have listed other behaviors that would have been classed as "sexual immorality".

In other words, I never heard a sermon, nor sat in a Sunday School class, where the focus was on the subject of, "homosexuality", and my parents never, ever, mentioned the subject to me.

With this being the case, allow me to share with you a true story. As I grew up, I never gave "homosexuality" much thought at all. The only thing I knew about it was that myself, and most all of the other kids in the neighborhood, and at school, would call each other derogatory names that would be associated with, "homosexuality". What I am saying is, I kinda knew what it meant, but I had no earthly idea at the time that any such thing would even exist. In other words, although I knew what the word "homosexual" meant, I had no idea that there was anyone who would actually be, a "homosexual".

My wife, and I started dating when I was 17 years old. Once, after we had been dating for quite some time, when I came to pick her up one night, she informed me that she had to stop by her brother's home for a moment, to take care of some business. While on the way, she told me that she had to warn me about something before we arrived at her brother's home. Can you guess what it was? That's right, she told me her brother was a, "homosexual".

Well, I have to tell you, I began to laugh, because I thought she was making some sort of fun the way in which we as kids did in the neighborhood. In other words, I thought she must not like him that much, and was simply trying to communicate that to me. However, and to my great surprise, she was not doing that at all, but was rather communicating to me, that I was about to meet a real live, "homosexual".

Believe it or not, this is a true story, which demonstrates clearly that my parents never said a word to me about such things, nor could I have heard such things in the Church, other than when and if these things would have been talked about with all the other things which would have been listed as, "sexual immorality" which I myself would be guilty of, which means I would be suffering guilt, and shame myself.

So then, while there may be Churches which focus in on such behaviors, my parents, with the Church I grew up in, along with myself, did not focus in on "homosexuality" nor any other sin, in an attempt to shame anyone in particularly. Rather, we were all "equal opportunity" offenders, which would have included ourselves.

However, if I were going to focus in on one particular subject, no matter what that subject may be, I may indeed explain to them what one theologian may teach as opposed to another, but I also think it wise to actually place the Bible in front of them in order for them to determine for themselves, what the Bible actually teaches about such things, as opposed to what either of the theologians had to say, but as I said, I saw no need in doing this at all concerning, homosexuality.

So again, I will be more than happy to discuss with you concerning the topic of the thread, which is reasons to believe the Christian claims. However, we seem to have no debate on whether there are abuses going on in the Church, and the methods that may be used, because as I have said, I have spoken out against these things here in this discussion, as well as elsewhere in the face of Christians.

So then, unless your argument is, it is immoral for me to be a Christian, or that it would be immoral for me to talk to others concerning what I am convinced of to be the truth, or that it is immoral for me to actually explain to others what the Bible actually has to say, while allowing them to read it for themselves, helping them to think critically about what I am explaining to them, then I do not see where we have a debate.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 123 by bluegreenearth]

The reason for suggesting the possibility was not to challenge the way she (Butterfield) describes herself but to challenge the way you use her story to justify imposing your unfalsifiable beliefs on other people.

I also wanted to be sure to address this as well. I never used the story of Butterfield in order to "justify imposing my unfalsifiable beliefs on other people". Because you see, as Butterfield describes her story, Christianity was not imposed upon her. Rather, according to her, she was in the process of writing a book which was opposed to Christianity, and it was in this process that she became convinced that Christianity was indeed true, on her own.

Let us also recall when I brought Butterfield into the conversation. It was in reponse to this,

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters and tries to convince these perfectly normal people that their sexuality and identity is an abomination for which they should feel ashamed.

So then, my point was, Butterfield came to the conclusion that Christianity was indeed true on her own, and it had nothing to do with, "homosexuality". In other words, she did not come to this conclusion by others insisting that, "she was not normal, and that her sexuality, and identity was an abomination for which she should feel ashamed".

If there are those who are having these ideas "imposed" upon them, then this would certainly be wrong, because Christians are never commanded to impose their beliefs upon others. Therefore, the point was, Butterfield would be an example of one who came to this conviction without these things being imposed upon her, because "homosexuality" never entered into the equation.

With all this being the case, how could it possibly "seem that I would want lesbians to model their lives after Butterfield's based on what they have in common" when it would have had nothing to do with this in the least?

I will also point out, that I clearly understand that Butterfield's story has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity being true, or false, which had nothing to do with me bringing her story into the conversation. Again, it had everything to do with the fact that these beliefs she now holds were not imposed upon her, and so bringing Bart Ehrman into the conversation would be completely irrelevant to my point.

So again to be clear, my point in bringing Butterfield into the conversation had nothing to do with wanting lesbians to model themselves after Butterfield, and it had nothing to do with demonstrating that Christianity must be true, because it does not. Rather, it had everything to do with Butterfield coming to her conclusions based upon the facts, and evidence, (which is the subject of the thread) and the beliefs she now holds were in no way imposed upon her.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

I don't have any reason for not trusting what I read from the evangelists. Do you?

You mean like 1st century evangelists who claimed a at least three people came back from the dead?
But there is no record for two of them, and the record for the first is questioable.
Where is the celebrity of Lazarus reaching out to the world from the grave? He should have interviewed kings and Caesars, and his story of what death was like would be required reading in schools.
Except it is not, because it does not exist, and neither did he.

[Tcg]

Rather, it had everything to do with Butterfield coming to her conclusions based upon the facts, and evidence, (which is the subject of the thread) and the beliefs she now holds were in no way imposed upon her.

Could you document which facts and evidence she states her conclusions were based on? I've read a bit of her story and have never seen this presented.


Tcg

[Realworldjack]

Rather, it had everything to do with Butterfield coming to her conclusions based upon the facts, and evidence, (which is the subject of the thread) and the beliefs she now holds were in no way imposed upon her.

Could you document which facts and evidence she states her conclusions were based on? I've read a bit of her story and have never seen this presented.


Tcg

What I can tell you is, Misses Butterfield was a tenured professor of English at the university of Syracuse. She was also a lesbian, in a lesbian relationship for years. She was the head of the LGBTQ at the university, and was a very well respected, and active member of the LGBTQ community, so much so that she was active in combating Christianity head on, and was in the process of writing a book which was opposed to Christianity.

It was during this process of writing this book, and doing her research in which she began reading the Bible for herself, and in doing so, she became convinced of the truth of Christianity, and she credits her education, along with her understanding of language, which lead her to this conclusion.

I want to again stress the fact that I do not bring Butterfield up in any way in order to demonstrate that Christianity must, and has to be true. This has nothing to do with it at all. Rather, it has to do with the fact that, what she has become convinced of, was not imposed upon her in any way, and that she lost a tremendous amount by making such a major life shift, and she was willing to face these loses in order to gain what she had become convinced of.

So then, maybe it would be best for you to read her story for yourself, instead of depending upon me to give you this information.

With this being said, I have given very good reasons, facts, evidence, and logic to support the claims made by the NT writers, so much so that "bluegreenearth" admits as much.

Therefore, if you would like to debate this issue, I would be more than happy to do so, and allow Misses Butterfield to speak for herself, since she is more than qualified to do so.