|
On January 29 2013 14:36 wozzot wrote:
If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because
I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense in 2013
I don't believe we are saying that in fact. We are more providing understanding to the concepts leading up to said decision. Marriage and God are being actively redefined and I expect it to continue for much time to come. Although, the only ideas we have left for marriage are bestial and incestuous. Age will also change I imagine as we keep rolling back the age of consent, which is still higher than years back when.
|
On January 29 2013 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant. Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
Also, your religion is a choice.
Even if you have been religious whole your live, you can still abandon it, like my gran did at old age.
Your sexual preferences are not a choice.
You cannot chose which person attracts you.
|
On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
The comment I responded to was simply trolling. Nothing more. If you wanted to have a debate on the concept of which you speak I would be willing.
|
On January 29 2013 14:42 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:21 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant. Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay. Also, your religion is a choice. Even if you have been religious whole your live, you can still abandon it, like my gran did at old age. Your sexual preferences are not a choice. You cannot chose which person attracts you.
Being white is not a choice. I cannot change my race. That doesn't stop the United Negro College Fund from discriminating against me. Are they evil for discriminating against me? Not at all. I don't fit their requirements, and it is perfectly natural to have them.
|
On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing.
+ Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22
+ Show Spoiler +Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18
+ Show Spoiler +For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
|
On January 29 2013 14:41 Buff345 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:31 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote:
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly. So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did. I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are. The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you. My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose. I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public
Agreed, but Jesus also forgave sins, something we cannot. He also gave declarations of, "go and sin no more." This concept, is of course of great debate... is there actually a need to stop sinning if grace is a gift? Can we be denied salvation only by a full turn away from God? I unfortunately don't remember the discussions I've had. (as it is late.) However, there is strong evidence on the notion of turning away from sin. So at what point do you enforce that? Or is it simply a God thing and we don't intervene? However, to openly welcome homosexuals into a church without an attempt at their change is almost a defiance of what the Bible says. It becomes acceptance and approval, not helping.
A difficult path it is... however I must retire as I am having problems typing. It was good chatting with everyone and I hope you all get a good night's sleep. Perhaps I'll look in on this topic tomorrow and see it explode to 50 pages. I may have to skim it then. 
|
On January 29 2013 14:50 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:41 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 14:31 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote:
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly. So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did. I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are. The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you. My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose. I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public Agreed, but Jesus also forgave sins, something we cannot. He also gave declarations of, "go and sin no more." This concept, is of course of great debate... is there actually a need to stop sinning if grace is a gift? Can we be denied salvation only by a full turn away from God? I unfortunately don't remember the discussions I've had. (as it is late.) However, there is strong evidence on the notion of turning away from sin. So at what point do you enforce that? Or is it simply a God thing and we don't intervene? However, to openly welcome homosexuals into a church without an attempt at their change is almost a defiance of what the Bible says. It becomes acceptance and approval, not helping. A difficult path it is... however I must retire as I am having problems typing. It was good chatting with everyone and I hope you all get a good night's sleep. Perhaps I'll look in on this topic tomorrow and see it explode to 50 pages. I may have to skim it then.
I think this is actually a great discussion that i think would eventually come down to "what is sin?" and would help a lot of peoples perception of christianity. But yea, its late this isnt the place. Time to go watch Thorzain
|
On January 29 2013 14:47 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again). Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing. + Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim.
The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered.
Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
|
On January 29 2013 14:41 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:36 wozzot wrote:
If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because
I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense in 2013 I don't believe we are saying that in fact. We are more providing understanding to the concepts leading up to said decision. Marriage and God are being actively redefined and I expect it to continue for much time to come. Although, the only ideas we have left for marriage are bestial and incestuous. Age will also change I imagine as we keep rolling back the age of consent, which is still higher than years back when.
Which is why adult men were marrying 13 year olds right? >_> I just don't get how religions think they own the concept of marriage. Sure you own the concept of a christian marriage which is conceived a commitment between the couple and God but you don't own the overarching concept of marriage.
|
Okay, I'll bite.
I'm a theology student at a top school with intention of joining the pastoral ministry.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Homosexuality as we now know it is not addressed in the Bible. Leviticus is talking about banned pagan temple practices. (Never mind that Jesus abrogates the OT purity code by saying "It is from within the heart" [not from outside the body] "that sin comes."
Jesus sums up the real meaning of "the law and the prophets" as love for God and for others, and gives as the basic rule of morality the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. ALL sin in the Bible comes from failing to meet this command; all righteousness comes from fulfilling it. The law is NOT about this or that purity regulation. It is about living with love in your heart toward all, even your most bitter enemies.
[As a secondary aside, the BSA is not a Christian organization. I'm an Eagle Scout. It is an organization that demands some kind of religious adherence, but there are religious awards in the program for just about every faith out there. I earned the "God and Country" one for Protestants.]
|
On January 29 2013 14:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:47 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again). Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing. + Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim. The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered. Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik).
I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
|
On January 29 2013 15:05 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:47 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again). Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing. + Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim. The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered. Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik). I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified. Show nested quote +
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought.
Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention.
At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim.
|
the invective against homosexuality in the new testament is just pseudo-Paul slandering Roman sexual mores. This should be obvious to anybody who has thought about the political situation in which those texts were written.
edit: anybody with two brain cells should be able to see that there's no way that the essence of Jesus' teaching is compatible with homophobia.
|
Things like this always bother me. A lot of hooplah for something that's imaginary. People shouldn't be questioning whether the bible detests homosexuality or not it should be questioning the foundation of the whole thing.
|
You think Imaginary things are not important?
|
On January 29 2013 16:10 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 15:05 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:47 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again). Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing. + Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim. The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered. Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik). I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought. Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention. At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim.
Firstly I just want to acknowledge that some Christians do indeed struggle with homosexuality. I had the opportunity to speak with a man at great length and he disclosed to me that he was gay, though he didn't practice homosexuality was desired greatly to get away from it. Though not relevant to this conversation, in case you're wondering I was simply supportive and didn't try to bash him into a straight life.
Secondly, when I classified sexual sins as being in another category, it was just because in the Bible Paul says that the sexually immoral sins against oneself. I think that is a different class than sinning against someone else, for better or for worse.
I will concede that I'm have an extremely difficult time arguing against the victimless sin argument (perhaps except drunkenness...maybe) so I'm going to have to think about that much more. If, as a Christian, I believe that I've been entrusted with the knowledge of eternal life - full, eternal life - and I earnestly believe that actively practicing homosexuality unrepentantly will render someone unable to receive that gift I think I have an obligation to have the discussion. I do think the way Christians are currently having the discussion is...lacking, but to refuse to have the conversation is, in my mind, essentially declaring that I hate someone so much that I know how they can be saved and I'd rather watch them die. Christians claim to have the revealed word of God, and if God reveals within his word that any sexual sin does victimize the person who is doing it, I think it is my obligation to express that as well. But lovingly.
On January 29 2013 16:29 RodrigoX wrote:
Things like this always bother me. A lot of hooplah for something that's imaginary. People shouldn't be questioning whether the bible detests homosexuality or not it should be questioning the foundation of the whole thing.
We (Theologians) do. There are several fields including literary criticism, textual criticism, historical criticism etc where the purpose is to dig behind the face value of the text and ascertain if Mark really did write the gospel, or if and when events in the Bible took place.
|
|
|
On January 29 2013 16:32 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 16:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 15:05 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:47 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 14:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this. I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out. Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again). Well, from a biblical perspective homosexuality isn't victimless. In fact, I think it is valid to interpret the text to say that homosexuality has a more egregious victim than other sins like stealing. + Show Spoiler +“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 The point, from a biblical perspective, is that it is a sin, and if you're the one practicing it you sin against yourself which is worse than sinning against others, and most importantly that sin earns you death like working a job earns you a paycheck. From that perspective, the immediate victim is the person doing it, even if they don't feel like a victim. The purpose of quoting victimless was to emphasize it being subjective. For example, murder is a "sin" universally accepted by society regardless of religious belief, because the result is a victim being murdered. Thus, by "victimless" I meant the group of sins that do not result in observable harm. Sins that no one would naturally think were sins if it were not told to us. Homosexuality is above and beyond singled out from this group. There isn't anything else close (afaik). I think that I'll agree with you that some Christians go too far and hate homosexuals, which is not condoned or endorsed, and then you have hateful people who hide behind Christianity like the Westburo baptists, but I think the rhetoric behind the conversation that we (as Christians) are having is that the sexual sin is in a different category from your "standard" sins and perhaps require a different level of emphasis? I also wonder if it has something to do with what you said about certain sins being universal. If we claim to have the knowledge of God, and claim that there are certain things that please God and certain things that displease God there is little point in continually telling a society who thinks murder is sinful that murder is sinful. For a culture that believes murder is fine, I suspect Christianity would have that as a hot button topic like homosexuality is now. I will concede that I think many of the methods Christians adopt in trying to 'deal' with this isn't the best, but I do think it is a necessary conversation to have as long as we (as Christians) desire to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified.
I, like many serious Christians, do not believe that the Bible considers stable homosexual relationships to be inherently sinful. The Bible as such never deals with homosexuality as we know it. 1 Cor. 6 uses Greek words that indicate the dominant and submissive partners in Greek pederasty (sex between an older man and a boy in his teens). Yes, Paul is pretty down on pederasty. Christians should be too. It is not a "victimless crime," but involves real and clear damage.
Didn't know that. I even went and checked the greek, and then double checked it against my lexicon. Guess I'll need to pull that one from my examples and chew on that as food for thought. Yes, the main point is that for some reason Christians seem to focus on homosexuality. The point I'm making is that it is because most Christians themselves do not experience any of the urges of homosexuality, so it is extremely easy to vilify it. At the same time, they do experience lust and have temptation towards the majority of all the other sins. As such, it is not as easy to openly condemn in masse when so many participate in it themselves. Sure, it's looked down upon, but it's not even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I question your comment that homosexuality is somehow in a different category than your "standard" sins? Unless you're saying that's what my rhetoric was implying, which was not my intention. At the same time, while your murder argument would most likely hold true, I don't quite see the relevance. Despite the fact murder is generally seen as intrinsically wrong (although many view it as necessary and do it within remorse), I could not imagine that most sane people could ever conclude homosexuality is inherently wrong without being explicitly told it was. But throwing that out the window and going with your theoretical scenario for the sake of argument, the relevance of victim vs victimless sin is still present. With murder, there is a clear victim. With homosexuality, there is no apparent victim. There is no evidence that suggests there is a victim. The only thing you can even base an argument on that there is a victim is that you are told by God that the person engaging in the homosexual act is a victim. Firstly I just want to acknowledge that some Christians do indeed struggle with homosexuality. I had the opportunity to speak with a man at great length and he disclosed to me that he was gay, though he didn't practice homosexuality was desired greatly to get away from it. Though not relevant to this conversation, in case you're wondering I was simply supportive and didn't try to bash him into a straight life. Secondly, when I classified sexual sins as being in another category, it was just because in the Bible Paul says that the sexually immoral sins against oneself. I think that is a different class than sinning against someone else, for better or for worse. I will concede that I'm have an extremely difficult time arguing against the victimless sin argument (perhaps except drunkenness...maybe) so I'm going to have to think about that much more. If, as a Christian, I believe that I've been entrusted with the knowledge of eternal life - full, eternal life - and I earnestly believe that actively practicing homosexuality unrepentantly will render someone unable to receive that gift I think I have an obligation to have the discussion. I do think the way Christians are currently having the discussion is...lacking, but to refuse to have the conversation is, in my mind, essentially declaring that I hate someone so much that I know how they can be saved and I'd rather watch them die. Christians claim to have the revealed word of God, and if God reveals within his word that any sexual sin does victimize the person who is doing it, I think it is my obligation to express that as well. But lovingly.
There's a reason throughout all my posts I've used phrases such as "most" and "generally." I'm fully aware that some Christians struggle. Personally, I think it's a pity, and it's only self-damaging and leading to a more miserable existence.
And my point was focusing generally on the sexual sins. Of all of them, homosexuality seems to be the only one that is singled out to the degree it is. All the other ones are not seemingly any less sinful, yet are much more excepted and tolerated.
You also fail to make the argument why practicing of homosexuality in particular will deny someone eternal life. Does the one who engages in premarital sex unrepentantly, as you so put it, and then dies before marriage be deprived of eternal life? I'd take a guess that probably a minority of Christians now are virgins before marriage (pulling the number from my ass). A large portion of those most likely had no reservations in doing so and would continue to do so. If they never get married before death.... for whatever reasons, they're condemned too?
So many things, seemingly arbitrary, are evil because we're told. You'd think if these sins were inherently evil it would be ingrained in us. It would "make sense." But it clearly doesn't make sense. Nothing about it is intrinsic. Sad, if you ask me.
|
well, while we're quoting Leviticus as such an ironclad source for contemporary morality...
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20: 9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
|
On January 29 2013 16:59 StayPhrosty wrote:
well, while we're quoting Leviticus as such an ironclad source for contemporary morality...
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20: 9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
That is the not worst of it. It also says you cannot eat shrimp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
