|
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
|
On September 13 2013 14:38 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
Tithing. Obviously. God's Word.
|
On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more.
Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now.
|
On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now.
It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
|
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
I'm sure that IronMan spoke directly to Jesus himself rather than listening to some youth group leader or baptist minister before coming to his views though. You should give him some more credit.
|
On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God  Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise?
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin.
Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that.
|
On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it.
Read what you just wrote.
"Not a choice"
"Naturally predisposed to it"
There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice.
God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to.
|
On September 13 2013 16:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Read what you just wrote. "Not a choice" "Naturally predisposed to it" There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice. God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to.
What do you mean a weighted choice? I mean, obviously people have the choice of whether or not to act on the urges associated with being gay. So in that sense, yes, it is a weighted choice, and nearly everyone believes that, religious or not.
Although I'm not really a good person for you to be having this argument with, because I tend to agree with you. Homosexuality is innate, and I don't think anyone is hurt by it; I don't accept some vague biblical condemnations which have no moral justification included as proof that something is immoral. So someone else here will probably have to explain the Christian perspective on why homosexuality is wrong.
|
On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that.
I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
|
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Because according to Chrisitans, the mutual feeling of love and affection is irrelevant, the problem is that a couple of dudes 2000 years ago wrote down that it was wrong because a dude in heaven said so. Who cares that a childs life is ruined, the dude didn't do as the heaven-man said!
I know it sounds ridiculous, but it makes sense to them.
|
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that.
|
On September 13 2013 17:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years. Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that.
I think the whole point is that whether or not it's innate is irrelevant. Pedophilia is immoral because it hurts children. Homosexuality is immoral because of irrational beliefs. The comparision that "since Pedophilia is immoral, it makes sense that homosexuality can be immoral too" is offensive since they are considered immoral for completely different reasons.
|
On September 13 2013 17:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:39 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Read what you just wrote. "Not a choice" "Naturally predisposed to it" There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice. God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to. What do you mean a weighted choice? I mean, obviously people have the choice of whether or not to act on the urges associated with being gay. So in that sense, yes, it is a weighted choice, and nearly everyone believes that, religious or not. Although I'm not really a good person for you to be having this argument with, because I tend to agree with you. Homosexuality is innate, and I don't think anyone is hurt by it; I don't accept some vague biblical condemnations which have no moral justification included as proof that something is immoral. So someone else here will probably have to explain the Christian perspective on why homosexuality is wrong.
From what it seems to me, it's not that every Christian personally makes the moral decision that homosexuality is wrong - they're usually just following the set of morals they believe God has. They figure that he's a lot more powerful and knowledgeable than them or any human, so he's probably right. (Or from the more cynical perspective, he has control over everyone's lives, so it's probably best to agree with the guy who's able to make your existence miserable for the rest of forever.)
It might be irrelevant, but what I don't get is how politicized homosexuality has become. I get why Christians might disagree with it, but why make (or keep) gay marriage illegal? Christians generally don't advocate for banning other activities associated with sinning - for instance worshipping other gods/religious figures seems like just about the biggest sin you can achieve, yet you don't see Christians trying to ban the practice of Islam, Hinduism, etc. Why single out homosexuality?
|
On September 13 2013 17:34 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:27 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years. Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that. I think the whole point is that whether or not it's innate is irrelevant. Pedophilia is immoral because it hurts children. Homosexuality is immoral because of irrational beliefs. The comparision that "since Pedophilia is immoral, it makes sense that homosexuality can be immoral too" is offensive since they are considered immoral for completely different reasons.
Well the pedophilia argument is almost always brought up in the context of:
Atheist: So you think homosexuality is wrong, huh?
Theist: I believe it's wrong, yeah.
Atheist: But homosexuality isn't a choice, man! It's something you're born with! How is it wrong to just be who you are?
Theist: Well just because you're born with something doesn't mean it's right. People are born with a predisposition toward violence, and that's wrong. Others are born with a predisposition toward pedophilia, or adultery, or Nickelback.
So the argument is not that homosexuality is wrong because its so similar to pedophilia. It's a response to the argument that homosexuality is innate, so it must be okay; the response being that many innate things are still wrong, and pedophilia is an example.
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong.
|
Well, from my point of view, that isn't really a realistic discussion. I don't think any pro-gay person literally says "since you were born homosexual, it's automatically OK". They are saying since you're born with it, it's not a choice, so it's ridiculous to run around praying for people to stop it because it's a sin. They can't stop being homosexuals because they were born with it, and on top of that, it hurts no one and is all about love and affection, so they shouldn't have to suppress it either.
There's no room here to bring up pedophilia, other than saying "If homosexuality is not a choice, then so isn't pedophilia". Fine, no one cares. Pedophilia is immoral for real reasons, whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant. Hell, as a determinist, I don't think anything is a "real" choice. That doesn't impact morality at all from my perspective.
|
Society has a lot of arbitrary rules that don't really make a lot of sense when you think about them. Men need to dangle an extra piece of fabric around their neck in order to look "professional". People get offended when you say certain words which have the exact same definition as other words which aren't offensive. "Homosexuality is bad" might be another one.
Hundreds or thousands of years ago there was probably a good reason or explanation for all of these, but while the causes might have become irrelevant the resulting practices simply became established in tradition.
|
On September 13 2013 18:17 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Society has a lot of arbitrary rules that don't really make a lot of sense when you think about them. Men need to dangle an extra piece of fabric around their neck in order to look "professional". People get offended when you say certain words which have the exact same definition as other words which aren't offensive. "Homosexuality is bad" might be another one.
Hundreds or thousands of years ago there was probably a good reason or explanation for all of these, but while the causes might have become irrelevant the resulting practices simply became established in tradition.
While I agree on the tie, the very fact that one word is offensive and another isn't means their definitons aren't exactly identical. I mean, the basic meaning might be the same, but the actual meaning is different which is why people react different to it.
The cool thing with traditions though is that they change. Especially in the case where the tradition is bullshit, which is why civilized people don't have death penalites, sacrifice, only voting for males and tons of other crap which we dropped because it sucked. Same will hopefully happen with the irrational problems some have with homosexuals.
|
On September 13 2013 13:58 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. The bible gives specific instruction to the Israelites on who they are allowed to enslave, it says specifically that the slaves are their property, and that they are allowed to beat them nearly to death. How is this not approval?
Ah, I thought we had moved on to non-ceremonial law stuff. Israel-specific laws were Israel-specific for a reason. God chose them as His chosen people, which meant that everyone else who did not become an Israelite were declaring enmity with God, and as such were "fair game" for slavery. Certainly after Jesus we don't have any right to go out and enslave others, but at the time the Israelites were allowed to enslave certain of their enemies.
On September 13 2013 14:38 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
They believe the words spoken to them, basically. I think it's snake oil when a guy like Benny Hinn can stand up and say if you donate money to him, souls go to heaven. But they see some apparent miracles happen, and the guy is inspired by the Spirit! So who are we to say he's not actually true?
A lot of it has to do with where they see the authoritative word of God coming from. If every Tom Dick and Harry has God's word coming to them (via prophetic visions and so on) then anyone who says they have the word of God must have it! And if we say anything negative about that, then that's hindering the work of the Holy Spirit (in their way of thinking).
But on the other hand, if you think of the Bible as being the complete canon of the inspired word of God, then people saying they are prophesying are going to be taken with many grains of salt
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects.
Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person.
The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Both sexual desires which were previously taboo, along with bestiality and adultery. Now homosexuality and adultery are considered acceptable, and perhaps it won't be long before pedophilia and bestiality are considered acceptable, if it isn't already in some places.
On September 13 2013 17:53 ChristianS wrote:
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong.
The harm principle is pretty flawed, because it relies on a given definition of "harm". I think it's harmful for children to not be smacked when they do something wrong, other people think it's harmful for children to be smacked when they do something wrong. We both think the same thing is or isn't harmful, so we can each claim harm principle when talking to each other on the issue. A personal suggestion from myself to you is that you work out a better moral guideline than "harmful = bad, not harmful = ok". I say this without knowing if your beliefs about morality extend deeper than that, apologies if I'm making too many assumptions.
|
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not...
|
On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not...
Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
