Print

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

[Willfor]

I'm not sure what your overall point is there except that sins can be forgiven, for that matter.

That was his point.

[Nikov]

How can he hate what you do, and hold you accountable for it, without "blaming" you?

I'm not sure what your overall point is there except that sins can be forgiven, for that matter.

That was his point.

Thanks Willfor.

[Leafsnail]

It's a true point, although as far as I can tell irrelevant to the thread.  I mean, maybe homosexuality can be "forgiven" like others "sins" (it's worth noting that the other sins you mentioned actually, y'know, harm people though), but doesn't forgiveness require you to first renounce your sin and stop doing it?  Ie, wouldn't you somehow have to change your sexuality before this God-who-hates-homosexuality can forgive you of your sin?

[Jackrabbit]

You don't need to go on because, whether you believe it or not, your views on the Bible are based in tradition and selective translation/interpretation. I've already provided an example or two of that. I'm not sure what your overall point is there except that sins can be forgiven, for that matter.

Moreover, I don't want God to forgive me until he's given me a reasonable excuse for getting mad in the first place.

[Willfor]

You don't need to go on because, whether you believe it or not, your views on the Bible are based in tradition and selective translation/interpretation. I've already provided an example or two of that. I'm not sure what your overall point is there except that sins can be forgiven, for that matter.

Moreover, I don't want God to forgive me until he's given me a reasonable excuse for getting mad in the first place.

You peed on His favorite plant.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Fenrir]

As morality is a matter of opinion, as we could hardly decide what should be merely by observing what is, would not such a god be entitled to be angry about whatever it is that angers him? Of course, that would imply that you are also entitled to be angry about his anger, as you too would be entitled to your own opinion, but I see no reason to require an excuse born of reason any more than you need employ reason to justify your favorite color.

One could hardly imagine what depths of boredom would compell such a being would create a world that so profoundly irritates him, but that is beside the point.

[Jackrabbit]

Frankly, you'd think that if he really cared about homosexuals not being homosexual anymore he'dve given a clear reason why it's a bad thing, because to not do so has led to suffering.

[Fenrir]

You are assuming that he cares about that suffering. Of course, I have not studied the Christian god's opinions, so there may well be inconsistancies, but it seems to me that he does not mind suffering if it is applied to someone that has done something that he does not like. Such would explain Hell.

However, I am asking if he really does need a clear reason beyond the fact that he does not like it, and he will toast people that do not comply.

[Jackrabbit]

Well, he is supposed to be kind and loving and not able to make mistakes, but the whole thing is stupid enough that I just don't want to bother. If he's going to send me to hell for being a good person, but expressing my love for another man in a way that makes me feel more whole, then I never wanted to worship him anyway.

[Willfor]

G-Flex posted this in another thread, which is a point I have tried to make in the past, and people have ignored me.

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." -1 Timothy 1 1:9-11 (TNIV)

Question: What does that passage say in the original language (presumably Greek)? Is that a literal translation, or not? I'm looking up different English translations and they all say wildly different things, from "those practicing homosexuality" to "sodomites" to "those who defile themselves with mankind".

The original word is "arsenokoitai". The meaning of this is ambiguous. Such is the problem when so much of people's worldviews depend on modern (or often rather old) translations of a single word from a completely different cultural and sociopolitical context. It's very hard to tell what was even meant, so over the centuries, meanings get shoehorned in and the original word gets pigeonholed into whatever is convenient. See also "fornication".

The classification of sexual behavior in ancient Greece/Egypt/Rome/Israel was very, very different from what it was today. Much of that context isn't something most people are aware of, and they just fill in the gaps using modern classifications, gender roles, and sexual orientations. In fact, some of the context is not fully understood by anyone, because it's been centuries or millenia. It would be like taking modern social commentary from the US and expecting 14th-century Russians to interpret it. They wouldn't draw appropriate conclusions to apply to their own lives because the very concepts and context expressed would be alien to them. Same situation applies here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Part of me wants to just drop it and begin a life of materialistic, carnal bliss.  The other part of me misses God really, really badly.

That's a false dichtonomy. If you drop your theism you don't have to become a hedonistic materialist. I mean, that sounds fun, but that isn't what you have to do.

You can't beat having a friend you can telepathically speak to about anything anytime, who also guides and cares for you, never blames you, but is willing to call you out on personal flaws that are getting out of control.

I want you to reread that sentence and not think about the context of your post when I tell you this: Can you see how similar your view of god is to an imaginary friend that a child would have? That's not intended to be an insult, I'm honestly asking.

I believed God created me straight, but then something happened during my childhood (NOT rape) that led me to becoming gay.  My mother is very overbearing, bossy, and always more than willing to get into a screaming argument with my dad anytime.  When dad was flying for the air force, we moved around a lot, so I never had a chance to make real friends, especially with girls, and see that my mother is the exception, not the rule.  Or I could just be gay.  Which reminds me.  Does anyone have a link to a site or news article about the current theory (or proven fact) about how or why people end up gay?

This is a complicated subject, but I'll give you my educated guess. You can see that, in general, people are willing to "bend" their sexuality due to circumstance from things such as people in jail who will call themselves "Prison Gay". This does not mean that they've made themselves gay, but that they've entered a homosexual relationship due to the obvious lack of opposite sex partners. If released, these people will almost always go back to heterosexual relationships.

So there are two factors here: Genetic and Enviornmental. Do not go thinking that the genetic part of this is a single "gay gene", because it isn't. Anything as complicated as sexuality would be a polygenic trait simply by default. Nonetheless, our genetics estabish a base for an individual's sexuality, and this can be anything from exclusively homosexual, to totally and completely bisexual, to exclusively heterosexual, to anything else in between.

Now, for environmental, do not, I repeat, do not believe that this means you can make yourself straight. Ex-gay facilites have been proven time and time again to be harmful to a person's mental health. The environmental is less about your enviornment changing your true sexuality than it is changing your perception of sexuality due to a limited selection of potential mates. Such as the prison example I gave eariler. However, you don't need to be behind bars to be effected by environmental factors. A mental state of fear about one's genetically estabished sexuality can allow for self-denial.

Like I said, this is my educated guess on the subject. Hypothesis, not theory.

[G-Flex]

How can he hate what you do, and hold you accountable for it, without "blaming" you?

I'm not sure what your overall point is there except that sins can be forgiven, for that matter.

That was his point.

Thanks Willfor.

Being able to forgive someone for something, and blaming them for that thing, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, forgiving someone implies that you blamed them for it in the first place. Hell, calling it "sinful" implies blame; something isn't a sin if you aren't culpable for it, after all.

G-Flex posted this in another thread, which is a point I have tried to make in the past, and people have ignored me.

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." -1 Timothy 1 1:9-11 (TNIV)

Question: What does that passage say in the original language (presumably Greek)? Is that a literal translation, or not? I'm looking up different English translations and they all say wildly different things, from "those practicing homosexuality" to "sodomites" to "those who defile themselves with mankind".

The original word is "arsenokoitai". The meaning of this is ambiguous. Such is the problem when so much of people's worldviews depend on modern (or often rather old) translations of a single word from a completely different cultural and sociopolitical context. It's very hard to tell what was even meant, so over the centuries, meanings get shoehorned in and the original word gets pigeonholed into whatever is convenient. See also "fornication".

The classification of sexual behavior in ancient Greece/Egypt/Rome/Israel was very, very different from what it was today. Much of that context isn't something most people are aware of, and they just fill in the gaps using modern classifications, gender roles, and sexual orientations. In fact, some of the context is not fully understood by anyone, because it's been centuries or millenia. It would be like taking modern social commentary from the US and expecting 14th-century Russians to interpret it. They wouldn't draw appropriate conclusions to apply to their own lives because the very concepts and context expressed would be alien to them. Same situation applies here.

The meaning of "fornication" (where the original word in Greek is "porneia", I believe) is especially interesting. The idea that it means "all sex outside of that between a man and his wife" is... fairly arbitrary, to be honest, and very traditional. Its actual meaning is a little unclear, but for example, I highly doubt that the concept of consensual sex between two adults in a long-term monamorous relationship (adults even by modern standards, mind you) would even be all that relevant to the ancient Israelites, Greeks, or Romans. If anything, the idea that you'd be in that situation at all and not married would have been bizarre, so the idea that they'd explicitly rule out sex within seems odd indeed, seeing as how if the idea applied to them at all, it applied to them in a vastly different way than it does now. Keep in mind that centuries ago, men marrying fourteen-year-olds wasn't exactly uncommon.

[Grakelin]

Frankly, you'd think that if he really cared about homosexuals not being homosexual anymore he'dve given a clear reason why it's a bad thing, because to not do so has led to suffering.

Dope, he clearly doesn't want us to be homosexuals because it turns us into salt.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Frankly, you'd think that if he really cared about homosexuals not being homosexual anymore he'dve given a clear reason why it's a bad thing, because to not do so has led to suffering.

Dope, he clearly doesn't want us to be homosexuals because it turns us into salt.

Achievement Unlocked: Best Logic

[Jackrabbit]

That's a fair point.

I don't want to be salt.