Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Leafsnail]

So they're like God's arbitrary pet hates?

[Baffler]

So your position is that God frowns on some activities for no reason at all?

So they're like God's arbitrary pet hates?

No sin I can think of is free of negative consequences. Can you provide an example of an arbitrary restriction?

[hops]

Sin != doing something that causes harm.
Sin == Doing anything God ordered you not to do/not doing anything God ordered you to do.

The more specific definitions on what God did/didn't ordain are up to debate.

Also, Fumple: Understanding what constitutes a sin is an important part of trying not to do it.

So your position is that God frowns on some activities for no reason at all?

Speaking in terms of Christianity, I think the consensus is that there is a reason, but people just don't understand it.

Now, this point is hard to debate because it's impossible to say why it is a good thing to follow the supreme creator, and why He bothered to create us and give us free will if He wanted us to follow His orders.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

So they're like God's arbitrary pet hates?

I don't understand what you mean, can you re word that please? Or explain it a bit
Sorry

[penguinofhonor]

You might be entitled to your opinion, but responding to a sad person with "I don't approve of you" (for whatever reason) is a little tactless.

I try not to do that but yes I have done it
I try to keep it from I don't approve
And instead I think differently but do whatever you want to because I have no control over you


If at any time I start shoving religion down anyone's throat or become a bigot please tell me because I want to refrain from that

I think you've done a remarkable job of stating your opinion without coming across, at least to me, as tactless or bigotted.  You're stating exactly where you get your beliefs from without trying to apply them to others, and have remained calm and collected on the issue.

He's been polite about it. I just think there are times when stating your disapproval is inappropriate, even when put politely.

[4maskwolf]

So they're like God's arbitrary pet hates?

Mmm?

Okay, let's do some bible searching here. When is homosexuality mentioned in the bible directly to or from God.

The only time I can think of is Soddom and Gomorrah (I know I spelled them wrong, bear with me here), and if you remember, God spared the cities. There may be others, but the two main times in the bible that homosexuality is listed as a sin is in the book of Leviticus, which is one of the books where the Ten Commandments are fleshed out for everyday life, and Paul's letters, which, again, are not direct from God. My view is that these were people trying to figure out God's will in the context of the time and place they were living, and in that time and place homosexuality was viewed as a sin.

Again, liberal catholic, so please don't take my words as coming from church teachings.

[Orange Wizard]

Sin != doing something that causes harm.
Sin == Doing anything God ordered you not to do/not doing anything God ordered you to do.

The more specific definitions on what God did/didn't ordain are up to debate.

Also, Fumple: Understanding what constitutes a sin is an important part of trying not to do it.

So your position is that God frowns on some activities for no reason at all?

In effect, yes.
The general idea is that God frowns upon certain activities because he doesn't like them. In the same way I frown upon eating strawberries because I don't like strawberries. Or something like that, anyway.

Also, Fumple: Understanding what constitutes a sin is an important part of trying not to do it.

I'll note again, though: Insofar as I'm aware, the point of christianity is not to avoid sin, but to act as Christ acted -- to walk with Jesus. The avoidance of sin is not a goal, but a consequence. One that can arguably not be achieved if your goal is divergent from pursuing the path of christhood. You cannot avoid sin by trying to avoid sin, only by doing as Christ would. The avoidance of sin comes naturally from that.

That is correct, but it's also important to know what you're aiming for. "Not sinning" is both a goal and a consequence in my eyes. Aiming to live as Christ lived is in and of itself "not a sin", soooo...
It's a bit of a messy topic, really, and one that I'm not really happy with discussing right now. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue it, though.

Fakeedit: So many ninjas. I can't be bothered going back and editing this.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm glad this thread is being calm


http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality



I'm sorry that I'm not good with timing on when and where to state my opinion

[Leafsnail]

No sin I can think of is free of negative consequences. Can you provide an example of an arbitrary restriction?

The proscription of homosexual activity.  If you're gonna say that you have nothing against gays but you still think that homosexuality is a sin then "God hates things for no reason" is a natural inference to take from that.

In effect, yes.
The general idea is that God frowns upon certain activities because he doesn't like them. In the same way I frown upon eating strawberries because I don't like strawberries. Or something like that, anyway.

So is God really childish, or do you think that He (as an all-knowing being) could get over his bigotry, or at least not let it affect how he connects with people?

[4maskwolf]

I'm glad this thread is being calm


http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality



I'm sorry that I'm not good with timing on when and where to state my opinion

Thank you Cryxis, for the list.

The obvious ones, the ones that speak directly against homosexuality, come from Paul's letters (mostly Romans) and from Leviticus. Which I discussed my opinion of above, but as has been stated, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[hops]

Wait, who started the homosexuality debate again? I mean, I did start the transexuality thing, but I'm not sure if the homosexuality discussion spontaneously came from it or if somebody mentioned a sad related to homosexuality.

Also @Leafsnail I find it silly to apply human qualities to a supernatural being, even with the fact that humans are created in Their image. Perhaps it could be that there is a fundamental reason why certain things are disliked by Him, but I don't think He even has emotions, so hate isn't exactly in God's dictionary.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Well considering the fact that everyone sins
God looks over that and still loves us
I mean he did send his son to die to save us
(By the way Jesus was real and I will do digging to find the information on it and he was crucified that is truth but the belief in him as gods son is where argument comes in)
So why are you only pinning a few sins and not all, everyone sins
God is not a bigot, he loves you

[Frumple]

So they're like God's arbitrary pet hates?

I don't understand what you mean, can you re word that please? Or explain it a bit
Sorry

Leaf's playing the old "Is it good because god wills it or does god will it because it's good" spiel (which goes back at least as far as Plato, yes). If there's no reason beyond god's preference, then it's an arbitrary restriction -- there's no reason for it beyond the divine's preference. Calling it a pet hate is as fair a labeling as any, at least when it's a restriction on action (such as "No mixed cloths" or whathaveyou).

Of course, if there is reason beyond the divine's preference...

Well, the outside asks, rightly, why God's preferences matter -- if there is a fundamental principle the divine uses as axioms for their decrees, why not just cut out the proverbial intermediary?

It's the aside, but I've always seen it sorta' as God's ultimate trick question. The only reason to do good in the name of God instead of just doing good, at least insofar as I'm aware, is salvation. And therein lies the trap, because if you seek to do good for selfish reasons (the salvation of your soul), then you taint that good. Quite possibly to the point of denying you salvation, heh -- bible has a number of warnings about practicing faith for the better of the self (There's a bit of matthews on the subject -- 6:1-34, iirc -- as an example). Of course, you could say that you seek to do good in the name of God in order to save the souls of others, but then you're implicitly saying that God is such a being that it will punish mankind for good acts... which is definitely a good bit of blasphemy re: the whole omnibenevolence bit, imo.

[Orange Wizard]

Sin != doing something that causes harm.
Sin == Doing anything God ordered you not to do/not doing anything God ordered you to do.

The more specific definitions on what God did/didn't ordain are up to debate.

Also, Fumple: Understanding what constitutes a sin is an important part of trying not to do it.

So your position is that God frowns on some activities for no reason at all?

Speaking in terms of Christianity, I think the consensus is that there is a reason, but people just don't understand it.

Now, this point is hard to debate because it's impossible to say why it is a good thing to follow the supreme creator, and why He bothered to create us and give us free will if He wanted us to follow His orders.

Interestingly, my church teaches that we don't have free will, in a very specific sense. While I can still make a "free" choice between having chicken sandwiches or cheese, we cannot make the choice between following Christ or not doing so.
It's called the Doctrine of Election. It's tied into a few other teachings (collectively called the Doctrines of Grace) that get more and more uncomfortable the more you learn about them.
I'm not going to discuss them here (because they're really serious flamebait) so you can either Google them or PM me about it.

In effect, yes.
The general idea is that God frowns upon certain activities because he doesn't like them. In the same way I frown upon eating strawberries because I don't like strawberries. Or something like that, anyway.

So is God really childish, or do you think that He (as an all-knowing being) could get over his bigotry, or at least not let it affect how he connects with people?

So, the assumption being made here is that we can understand God's reason for making a certain law. As far as we can tell, there is no reason (strawberries probably wasn't the best example here), but the belief is that God has a reason whether we like it or not.

As an aside (I'm really not trolling here, please please please don't turn this into flaming war of death), if God is an all-knowing being, would it not be possible for him to know more than us about a particular topic, and know why it's wrong, even if we cannot see or understand that? I say again, this sounds flamey but I really don't mean it that way.

E: So many ninjas
E2:

It's the aside, but I've always seen it sorta' as God's ultimate trick question. The only reason to do good in the name of God instead of just doing good, at least insofar as I'm aware, is salvation...

This is actually tackled by the Doctrines I mentioned earlier, particularly by saying that it's actually God's choice for us to do good in his name, rather than ours.

[Frumple]

Conceptually, but it would also be possible for such a god to explain it in a way that we can understand why the act should be avoided. And said critter would kinda' be necessitated to do so, if it's omnibenevolent.

Unless, of course, you consider god's morality to be different from man's, which is a hell of a can of worms that, t'me, completely strips man of any reason to give any weight to the morality of god. So better for the good of god to be the good of man, and vice versa.