4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
Yippee! I knew there was something!! You see not all Christians accept scripture unthinkingly. I think God wants us to challenge these things and ask why or even update scripture (heresy??)
There is nothing wrong with questioning (in fact the Bible commands us to), but if you don't believe in the veracity of scripture, you stand on very different ground to Jesus and Paul, and all the apostles. Accept it or not, admit you don't understand some of it; heck admit you actively dislike some of it. But picking and choosing is a dangerous (and not entirely honest) game.
P.S. Your example of a hermaphrodite is a bit misleading. Every hermaphrodite I have known or read about has been certain of their sex and sexuality - and that is why most of them have surgery. However the conundrum points to a general truth I believe - and that is that God deals with people, not just men and women. We are people before we are men or women. Gender can be a real furby, and very misleading (which is why, I believe, Jesus said that in heaven noone is given in marriage, but they are like the angels. In other words, gender is no longer a distinction. Notice I'm talking about gender, and not sexuality. They are two different things.)
5 edits
Originally posted by t0lkienEven on the understanding that the question was posed within a Christian framework, I dispute your claim that the only real issue here is what God thinks (you made that claim earlier, and it is informing basically all your offerings here). No, even to a Christian that should not be taken as the only real issue. Like any normative agent, the Christian should orient his efforts toward what is right and in accord with the virtues. This certainly doesn't have anything necessarily to do with what God thinks -- just take another look at his rotten thoughts and behavior throughout the OT. And the rational Christian has no reasons to think God's view on this matter is correct, anyway: God has never presented argument for his view against homosexuality, and what biblical discussion you've mentioned just invokes the naturalistic fallacy (a perfect example of this fallacy is when you earlier took it relevant to this discussion that the bible suggests homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "cause for concern'😉. No, we're going to have to think critically for ourselves here, just as knightmeister is doing. Sometimes the teacher is mistaken or his teachings get corrupted.
You want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
There is nothing wrong with questioning (i inction. Notice I'm talking about gender, and not sexuality. They are two different things.)
The problems with your ignorant approach include these: first, what God thinks, as it is commonly interpreted, is clearly wrong here; and second, there will always be bigots as long as people continue presupposing the "veracity" of some bigoted scripture. Sadder still, many from early age are conditioned through inculcation to presuppose the veracity of this nonsense.
Do you have some argument against homosexuality that doesn't just invoke the naturalistic fallacy (where it has been invoked either in respect to what, descriptively, God thinks; or to what, again descriptively, is natural or unnatural)?
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo if we think that sex outside of marriage is a sin due to Biblical passages that suggest so even if they are heterosexuals are we bigoted against fornicators as well?
Even on the understanding that the question was posed within a Christian framework, I dispute your claim that the only real issue here is what God thinks (you made that claim earlier, and it is informing basically all your offerings here). No, even to a Christian that should not be taken as the only real issue. Like any normative agent, the Christian sh ...[text shortened]... descriptively, God thinks; or to what, again descriptively, is natural or unnatural)?
Originally posted by whodeyThis brings up an interesting question. If you want to make same sex marriage illegal because it is a sin why do I not hear the fundies screaming about making sex outside of marriage illegal for the same reason?
So if we think that sex outside of marriage is a sin due to Biblical passages that suggest so even if they are heterosexuals are we bigoted against fornicators as well?
Actually, come to think of it, you could make a much more convincing secular argument for not allowing sex outside of marriage than you can for same sex marriage. I don't happen to buy the argument, but it could be made, and it would be a heck of a lot more convincing than this tiresome appeal to tradition and 'naturalness' we get in the same sex marriage discussions.
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperYou make an interesting point which is that there seems to be more politically correct sins within the church than other sins. For example, if a heterosexual couple moved in together before marriage, it would probably not be seen the same by most as if two homosexual people moved in together even though scripture seems to be against both and both may be called sins within the church. Another example is that I have seen "sinners" treated differently within the church at various times depending on their sin of choice such as a "ladies man" compared to a known homosexual. I think it has to do with familiarity. It is human nature to reject things that are foriegn and not understood than things that are familar and easier to comprehend. As Christians, we must gaurd against this. There is no doubt that many people have suffered at the hands of misguided souls who persecute homosexuals simply because they are different. For example, homosexuals were thrown into concentration camps in Nazi Germany because they were different and it had nothing to do with being Christian or religious. I think this is what I am accused of, however, that is not my position. My position is that God has set guide lines for our sexual conduct within the scriptures and it is up to us to follow them if we be followers of the God of the Bible. I feel as though God knows what is best for me and for the rest of mankind even when it may not make sense at times or even if my own will must be submitted to that of Gods will. For example, if I really want to have sex with someone, whether it be heterosexual/homosexual, do I submit my will to that of God's will revealed by scripture or do I do my own thing?
This brings up an interesting question. If you want to make same sex marriage illegal because it is a sin why do I not hear the fundies screaming about making sex outside of marriage illegal for the same reason?
Actually, come to think of it, you could make a much more convincing secular argument for not allowing sex outside of marriage than you can f s tiresome appeal to tradition and 'naturalness' we get in the same sex marriage discussions.
As for making "sexual sins" against the law, that is a different thread altogether!!
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyGod has also set up guide lines against gluttony. Once again, do you include those who partake in gluttony in your list of those judged unworthy of membership or leadership?
My position is that God has set guide lines for our sexual conduct within the scriptures and it is up to us to follow them if we be followers of the God of the Bible. I feel as though God knows what is best for me and for the rest of mankind even when it may not make sense at times or even if my own will must be submitted to that of Gods will.
You throw out "God's will" and "God knows what's best for [us]" when it comes to homosexuality. You are more than willing to require those that you are prejudiced against to submit, but do you require those that you don't have such prejudice against to submit? Do you require those who partake in gluttony to submit under penalty of judging them unworthy of membership or leadership?
Your hypocrisy is appalling
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWho said anything about gluttony? Why are you so fixated on gluttony? Do you think I am a glutton?
God has also set up guide lines against gluttony. Once again, do you include those who partake in gluttony in your list of those judged unworthy of membership or leadership?
You throw out "God's will" and "God knows what's best for [us]" when it comes to homosexuality. You are more than willing to require those that you are prejudiced against to submi ...[text shortened]... alty of judging them unworthy of membership or leadership?
Your hypocrisy is appalling
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyGod has also set up guide lines against gluttony. Once again, do you include those who partake in gluttony in your list of those judged unworthy of membership or leadership?
Who said anything about gluttony? Why are you so fixated on gluttony? Do you think I am a glutton?
Why won't you answer the above question?
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIf you go around informing all your opinions through merely what the bible says because you presuppose its veracity, I have no doubt you will be bigoted relative to a great number of issues -- as in, demonstrating unfounded intolerance. You'll also be irresponsible and fundamentalist, where I think the the defining feature of fundamentalism lies just in assigning higher priority to mere doctrinal conformity than to the set of virtues that the doctrinal accounts are supposed to embody. I think this problem is not just specific to the bible, but to any largely rule- or command-based account that is given too much normative priority. And I think it is a general strike against rule-based or divine command accounts relative to virtue ethics approaches.
So if we think that sex outside of marriage is a sin due to Biblical passages that suggest so even if they are heterosexuals are we bigoted against fornicators as well?
I don't know why you think, through your faith in the OT for example, you are placing your trust in some knowledgeable divine agent. There aren't any good reasons to think other than this: you are placing your trust in a bunch of men who lived and died long ago; and who in terms of factual knowledge about the physical world were collectively pretty dense by today's standards; and who seem pretty morally perverse in places. Where I live the anthropologic climate is largely not such that gays are treated as inferior persons; and not such that if two responsible and consenting adults share monogamous intimate relations out of wedlock, their intimate acts of love will thereby be viewed as "sinful" with all the pejorative baggage that accompanies that word. That's progress compared to the world that you're projecting. It's also a more compassionate world.
I'm just trying to show that the categorical stances you take from your book are false and a good example of the fundamentalist attitude I describe above. Let compassion, not some words you read, inform your deliberations here: take my initial example of homosexuality I presented some posts ago,* and tell what you think about it. Taken just as it is, what's wrong with it?
----
*Page 4.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSpeaking of intolerance, what of my position? Are you intolerant of it? What behavoir qualifies as intolerant? Is it disagreeing with someone intolerant? If so, I am intolerant and so are you. Perhaps you say I am intolerant for suggesting that members within a church are asked to step down because of behavoir that counters the behavoir they agreed to uphold when they joined. If so, I am intolerant. However, as I stated earlier, a church does not necessarily have to have its members agree to any particular moral code in which case they should not be expected to uphold any moral code whatsoever.
If you go around informing all your opinions through merely what the bible says because you presuppose its veracity, I have no doubt you will be bigoted relative to a great number of issues -- as in, demonstrating unfounded intolerance. You'll also be irresponsible and fundamentalist, where I think the the defining feature of fundamentalism lies just in hat you think about it. Taken just as it is, what's wrong with it?
----
*Page 4.
My view of intolerance is mandating that people adhere to a set of beliefs. Within the church people are free to come and go. People are free to find church's that uphold their moral standards and this crosses a variety of beliefs and morals other than homosexuality. Its called freedom of religion. Conversly, in Europe it is my understanding that people can be imprisoned for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. For me, this is intolerance. It is also a violation of freedom of speech. In essence, this morality is being forced upon the population as a whole.
As I stated earlier, part of my position rests in my faith regarding homosexuality. You are free to deride and poke fun of people within the OT as if morals are effected by the passage of time. Does it matter if it happened yesterday, ten years ago, or a thousand years ago? Either one believes that God spoke to these people or they do not. I have read various arguements as to why homosexuality should be considered OK. Especially if one is not a person of faith as I have stated earlier. In fact, I do not expect those who are not of faith to see the matter the way that I do and this includes you.
Speaking of arguements as to why homosexuality should be considered moral, I have spoken to people who argue that prostitution should be legalized and how we should not judge them. I have spoken to people who have justified adultery with such arguements as, I no longer am in love with them or I had a connection with someone and I could not help myself because it was ment to be, or they were not meeting my needs at home, or its the 21rst century, everyone does it etc. etc. In fact, anything and everything can be argued and as long as someone wishes to defend a particular moral position, for whatever reason, arguing is merely a weapon to defend that belief system, whatever it may be. Thus, I find that arguing does not lend itself to exposing the truth about the matter, rather, it is simply a means of defending what you believe. This is partially why I am a person of faith. My morality does not exist to serve me by defending my behavoir to others via arguements, rather, I recognize the authority of scripture and adhere to it the best I know how. This is often difficult, however, it helps prevent me from defending behavoir that I could otherwise agrue away as being OK. It prevents me from living merely to please myself by defending what I want to do with aguements so that others may embrace my behavoir while pleasing my own personal desires.
Having said that, I post here not to convert you to my way of thinking so much as I am giving you different perspectives on the matter. Hopefully I have presented my perspective so that you may understand it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI found an interesting scripture on gluttony.
God has also set up guide lines against gluttony. Once again, do you include those who partake in gluttony in your list of those judged unworthy of membership or leadership?
Why won't you answer the above question?
Matthew 11:18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he has a devil. The Son of man came eathing and drinking and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."
Here we see Christ being accused of being a glutton as well. I guess I am in good company. 😉
Looking up gluttony in the Bible, I found only 2 references to it in the OT. I also wonder if it could be compared to eating pork mentioned by Paul as material rather than spiritual in nature. Also, what constitues gluttony? How much is to much to eat?
If the church came to the conclusion that it was sinful in regards to scripture, I would have to know more about the problem at hand in terms of how they are exhibiting this behavoir to others in the church. For example, just because someone says they are attracted to members of the same sex does not necessarily mean they are "in sin", rather, what matters is whether or not they give into sinful inclinations that we all are born with. Also, if they were approached about the problem and were attempted to be corrected, it would matter greatly on how they recieved such correction. Did they recieve it willingly or in a spirit of contention?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou give absolutely no lee-way for homosexuals despite the fact that all references that I know of that deal with homosexuality refer to lust, homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. and not committed relationships.
I found an interesting scripture on gluttony.
Matthew 11:18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he has a devil. The Son of man came eathing and drinking and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."
Here we see Christ being accused of being a g they recieved such correction. Did they recieve it willingly or in a spirit of contention?
Yet when it comes to gluttony you're more than willing to look to give latitude. This despite that fact that references to gluttony are much more cut and dried. Is there any wonder that so many are turned off by the hypocrisy shown by "Christians" such as yourself? The way you use scripture to draw a hard-line to further your bigotry, yet back-pedal when something applies to yourself or people that you know.
Proverbs 23:20-21
Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine,
Or with gluttonous eaters of meat;
21 For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe one with rags.
Proverbs 28:7
He who keeps the law is a discerning son, But he who is a companion of gluttons humiliates his father
Proverbs 23:2
And put a knife to your throat If you are a man of great appetite
Deuteronomy 21:20-21
"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is a difference between being a sinner and mingling with them in order to witness to them. In other words, Christ did not hang with sinners, rather, he hung with his disciples even though he visited those who were sinners occasionally. Christ was neither a drunkard nor a glutton yet you seem to think he was both as did the pharisees whom Christ refered to as hypocrites and venomous vipors.
You give absolutely no lee-way for homosexuals despite the fact that all references that I know of that deal with homosexuality refer to lust, homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. and not committed relationships.
Yet when it comes to gluttony you're more than willing to ...[text shortened]... death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.
Does it seem odd to you that the scriptures give no lee-way as you say in reference to those who have "committed" relationships unless it is a union between a man and a woman? In fact, Christ himself said in Matthew 5:32 that if one divorces his wife to marry another, that is leaving one committed relationship for another, that they will then commit adultery with thier new partner. He also said in Mark 10:6-7 that from the beginning God made them male and female and that this was the design intended by God.
If homosexual relationships that are committed are OK, why then do we see NO allowance for this in either the OT nor NT?
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhen did I say or even imply that Christ was a drunkard or a glutton? The way you keep putting words in my mouth, I have to add liar to your list of attributes as well as bigot and hypocrite.
There is a difference between being a sinner and mingling with them in order to witness to them. In other words, Christ did not hang with sinners, rather, he hung with his disciples even though he visited those who were sinners occasionally. Christ was neither a drunkard nor a glutton yet you seem to think he was both as did the pharisees whom Christ refere s that are committed are OK, why then do we see NO allowance for this in either the OT nor NT?
The scriptures don't address committed homosexual relationships at all so far as I know. It doesn't take a stance, yet YOU judge that they are unfit to be members or leaders in church? To make matters worse, you fail to take such a hard line against gluttons for which there is no doubt of their sin.
You call yourself a Christian, yet you seem oblivious to the teachings of Jesus.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo what other Christian beliefs that are offensive are on the choping block I wonder? How about:
When did I say or even imply that Christ was a drunkard or a glutton? The way you keep putting words in my mouth, I have to add liar to your list of attributes as well as bigot and hypocrite.
The scriptures don't address committed homosexual relationships at all so far as I know. It doesn't take a stance, yet YOU judge that they are unfit to be members ...[text shortened]... their sin.
You call yourself a Christian, yet you seem oblivious to the teachings of Jesus.
1) The teaching that Christ is the only way to the Father
2) Some will experience damnation.
3) Not all religions point to the same God.
I figure that so long as I continue to offend people as did Christ I am doing my job.