There in lies the difference between rational, scientific, logical thought and emotionally based, subjective, irrational, cult like false theology. And secularists like to make fun of the Christians, at least the ones who can’t hold their own in an apologetics based discussion.
So let’s discuss apologetics. Apologetics is based upon rational, objective thought. When someone challenges the validity of a claim by a specific belief system, the members of that belief system better have a response filled with hard evidence to back up their claims.
Example. The Book of Mormon. It fails epically in this. Why? It was written by a single individual at a single point in history, and is subdivided into chapter and verse in it’s original rendition. These facts clearly make it a pathetic specimen for literary analysis. It’s extremely easy to prove it to be a load of horse crap, the rantings of a single individual, and not of a divinely inspired source.
The same is true of the Quran. The Muslim religion can also be easily and utterly destroyed by rational thought and ab extreme lack of apologetics based foundation.
So you see, I CAN say that one belief system is less valid than another, to say you can’t is just plain stupid and is a true rejection of scientific rational thought.
What if the Judeo-Christian Bible you might ask? Well, it was written over a period of thousands of years, through the hands of many authors, in three different ancient languages originally. Being a natural, organic writing, it was not originally divided into chapter and verse, because no one writes things chapter/verse unless they are writing a work of fiction. Because there are so many translations as well as transcriptions, we have a mountain of data to compare between from different points in time.
This allows us to perform literary analysis to determine the authenticity of what we have now verses the original thought when it was penned. That means we can hold it accountable because the more time and hands involved in it’s formation, the more discrepancies there should be in it’s collective thought both in contradictions in thought as well as changes in its thoughts presented over time, the evolution of the belief system.
We should be able to rip it to shreds with logical rational thought. However, that is not the case. While there are evolved beliefs stemming from incorrect, out of context understandings of various scripture, we have picked the Bible to pieces enough to know that the original thought presented is perfectly cohesive and has not changed over time despite the history of the various texts within.
We cannot do literary analysis like that with the U.S. Constitution even. A historical document who’s history is well known, but would be easier to make a claim against it being a conspiracy of fiction made up by the Tea Party, and challenging our history of how our nation came to exist. In other words, it’s easier to make a stronger case against the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, or any other written document in the history of mankind than it is the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Apologetics question:. Are the claims made by the LGBT true and accurate? What claims have they made? That they are “born that way”. That they “have no choice”. That their actions are “natural” and not “immoral”.
We already know there is no gay gene. Even the LGBT had mix feelings about the possibility of their being one. I know this because I heard various homosexuals back in college express a fear of “if there is a gene then a cure might be developed”. Clearly indicating that theirs is a choice that they don’t desire to cure. Born that way, disproven.
We know that, even if there is a gene for some disorder, there still is a choice! We see this with alcoholism. We know that there is a genetic predisposition to being alcoholic, yet we don’t have alcoholics leaning on some invisible “born this way” crutch. We also know that habitual sin can be injected into our DNA and passed down from generation to generation The Bible actually tells us this fact as well as we can observe this phenomena.
That leaves us with “natural” and “moral”. Let’s rip that false belief all to hell too. We don’t even have to be Christian to do this either. You see, as a former Gnostic Atheist, I concluded that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Why? For the same reason that schizophrenia and various other mental anomalies are “mental disorders”. They disrupt the natural functions of the organism in question. This is how we decide that cancer is a bad, evil thing and not a good thing, with or without a Bible in hand. How do we come to determine that a particular behavior is irrational, unnatural and immoral if we don’t believe in a god of any kind? When it goes against natural laws, in the case of the LGBT, natural biological laws that we have observed, tested, classified and documented.
Imagine if dogs randomly started jumping off of cliffs on a consistent basis. You would have two groups of thought on the issue. Those who conclude it is a mental disease/irrational behavior because it goes against natural order/law and those who conclude the dogs must enjoy it, it’s their choice, they were born that way, stop being flying-dogaphobic. Rational Objective thought vs Irrational Subjective thought.
We know a car is broken when the engine is misfiring because the order of the spark plugs firing are slightly out of sync and go against the laws associated with physical mechanics. We know that a person is certifiably insane when their thoughts and actions are not inline with reality. This is called psychosis.
It’s quite simple actually. No amount of emotional posturing or grandstanding or politics will ever change that perfect rational reality of things, of natural law. Anyone who rejects rational thought and logic on this, rejects all law and is fighting against not only the Word of G-d, but natural law as well. So you see, one belief is superior to another, depending upon the foundation of that belief, which is why apologetics exist in the first place.
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” Romans 2:14-15