Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 same sex marriage
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2017 :  20:13:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against gay marriage. I know a Jewish couple who are against it because marriage is about raising a family....yet they have no children. Hypocrites.
There is not a good secular argument against same sex marriage. When Christians make a secular argument they are just trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land. The problem is, in my opinion, is that Jesus never taught or modeled advancing Christian teachings through governments, neither do any of the new testament writers. Jesus was pretty ambivalent about the authorities and taught for each Christian to tell others, help others and preach the gospel individually. Liberal Christians get this wrong also when they say Jesus would be for government programs to help others. Jesus would say "you do it" I think.

I think the Christian attitude toward same sex marriage is to not oppose government sanctioned same sex marriages and talk to people one on one and in our churches about what we believe and why. This seems more like the biblical model rather than passing discriminatory laws.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2017 :  20:57:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Welcome back, Christian Hedonist!

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think the Christian attitude toward same sex marriage is to not oppose government sanctioned same sex marriages and talk to people one on one and in our churches about what we believe and why.
So what do you believe and why?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2017 :  06:17:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Welcome back, Christian Hedonist!

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think the Christian attitude toward same sex marriage is to not oppose government sanctioned same sex marriages and talk to people one on one and in our churches about what we believe and why.
So what do you believe and why?
I think it is sinful as the bible describes. But I don't think that this particular sin (homosexuality) prevents a person from being a Christian. They have to work their sin out with god just as I do.

I assume you will have an objection to my characterization that it is wrong or that there is something wrong with them. My take is that there is nothing wrong with them that is not wrong with me, meaning sin. So, we need to have a loving attitude toward everyone but that does not mean we are untruthful about our beliefs.

As to the Why? I believe the bible is gods word and is another discussion altogether. I believe my take above is consistent with the teachings of the bible.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2017 :  20:56:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think it is sinful as the bible describes.
Where does the Bible describe homosexuality as sinful?

But I don't think that this particular sin (homosexuality) prevents a person from being a Christian. They have to work their sin out with god just as I do.
Well, isn't that magnanimous of you.

I assume you will have an objection to my characterization that it is wrong or that there is something wrong with them. My take is that there is nothing wrong with them that is not wrong with me, meaning sin.
So which sins of yours should deny the validity of your (presumably) religious marriage?

So, we need to have a loving attitude toward everyone but that does not mean we are untruthful about our beliefs.
I have a sincerely held belief that strawberry ice cream is an abomination, but I don't preach against it. Is "none for me, thanks" being untruthful about my beliefs? What other people do with that abhorrent confection is none of my business. Their consumption of it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I simply do not care what other people do with that disgusting flavor. If they offer it to me, I politely decline.

Why do you care what anyone else does that affects you in no way at all? Why do you have a belief other than "well, I don't feel like that's something I would enjoy"? If everyone is sinful, with their own particular sets of sins, isn't thinking about other people's alleged sins just wasting your time? Don't "judge not, lest ye be judged," or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" come into it anywhere?

Or are you one of the extraordinarily rare people who've had gay guys come up to them and say, "hey, you should divorce your wife and marry me, instead," and keep harassing you about it?

As to the Why? I believe the bible is gods word and is another discussion altogether. I believe my take above is consistent with the teachings of the bible.
The "why" part was for you to expound upon the teachings of the Bible. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that the "why" part would involve chapter-and-verse quotations and your interpretations of them.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1407 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2017 :  10:45:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sin is fiction, invented to control people with guilt and fear.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2017 :  20:50:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Where does the Bible describe homosexuality as sinful?
Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9,

So which sins of yours should deny the validity of your (presumably) religious marriage?
I don't deny the validity of a homosexuals marriage as the US has defined it. I don't think they should be denied marriage. I really don't care if three people want to get married if that is what our society wants. I will not fight against these things. I simply think they are sinful. My marriage is not a marriage because the state says it is. I am married because God says I am. I don't know of any sin that I could commit that would disqualify my marriage. A homosexual couple married by the state can still be Christians and saved.

I have a sincerely held belief that strawberry ice cream is an abomination, but I don't preach against it. Is "none for me, thanks" being untruthful about my beliefs? What other people do with that abhorrent confection is none of my business. Their consumption of it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I simply do not care what other people do with that disgusting flavor. If they offer it to me, I politely decline.
Well God cares so I care. if someone asks me my opinion I will be truthful about it. I don't picket pride parades or weddings etc. You seem to think that me merely having this opinion hurts homosexuals.

Why do you care what anyone else does that affects you in no way at all? Why do you have a belief other than "well, I don't feel like that's something I would enjoy"? If everyone is sinful, with their own particular sets of sins, isn't thinking about other people's alleged sins just wasting your time? Don't "judge not, lest ye be judged," or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" come into it anywhere?
I care about their son because they need to recognize their sin to be saved. Homosexuals are not going to hell because they are homosexual, they are going to hell because they lie, lust, steal etc. just like everyone else. If they put their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins they will be saved. Even if they are homosexuals.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2017 :  20:06:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.

Where does the Bible describe homosexuality as sinful?
Romans 1:26-27
Ooof. God's wrath against the unrighteous. God allows people who do not honor or worship God (Romans 1:21) to turn homosexual. Having buttsex is a punishment from God, not a sin. Not only that, but all such homosexuals must also be...
...filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.- Romans 1:29-31
Honest. The "they" is the same "them" as in Romans 1:26.

Therefore, to say that Romans 1:26-27 shows that homosexuality is a sin, you must also believe that homosexuals are evil, covetous, envious, murderous, lying, heartless, ruthless haters of God. But yet you say there's nothing about homosexuality that can prevent them from being Christians? Romans 1 says otherwise.

Even worse, of course, is Romans 1:32:
Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die...
Yes, Paul says right there that homosexuals (the same "they" again) deserve to die. This, of course, is echoing the commandments in Leviticus (20:13, for example). But Jesus fulfilled the Law, didn't he?

Doesn't matter. The point is that in context, Romans 1 clearly says that God "gave up" those who weren't properly worshipful to homosexuality. Punishment, not sin.

1 Cor 6:9
Don't forget that the end of that sentence in in 1 Cor 6:10:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Shall we assume that this is an exhaustive list, and so lesbians are okay with God?

But Paul is an unreliable witness. He claims that "every" sin other than sexual immorality "occurs outside the body" (1 Cor 6:18), but Jesus taught that even thinking about sinful acts was itself a sin. Paul cannot be trusted to know the mind of God.

I don't deny the validity of a homosexuals marriage as the US has defined it.
I didn't ask about the validity of secular same-sex marriages. I was asking about religious marriages.
I am married because God says I am. I don't know of any sin that I could commit that would disqualify my marriage. A homosexual couple married by the state can still be Christians and saved.
Except for Romans 1.

Well God cares so I care.
No, God has already seen fit to punish those not sufficiently worshipful with homosexuality, and you should declare such people to also be generally evil, since God "gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness..."

if someone asks me my opinion I will be truthful about it.
But you're not being truthful about it. You're saying, basically, "it's a sin, and they need to do what everybody else does regarding their sins," but Romans 1 clearly states otherwise. The sin was not sufficiently honoring God, and the punishment was that God allowed these people to be "filled with all manner of unrighteousness..." Homosexuality is just one tiny aspect of the horrors that "they" commit, and they cannot possibly be Christians while doing so, since this is a punishment for refusing to honor God.

I don't picket pride parades or weddings etc.
Why not? "They" are evil, according to Paul.

You seem to think that me merely having this opinion hurts homosexuals.
Sharing this opinion hurts homosexuals, just like sharing the opinion that blacks are sub-human hurts blacks.

I care about their son because they need to recognize their sin to be saved.
They can't, because their sin was to fail to "honor" or "give thanks to" God (Romans 1:21), and not their homosexuality.

Homosexuals are not going to hell because they are homosexual, they are going to hell because they lie, lust, steal etc. just like everyone else.
Not according to Romans 1. Read the Book, fercryingoutloud.

If they put their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins they will be saved.
Not according to Romans 1. God has "given them up" already.

Even if they are homosexuals.
Only because God allowed them to become so, according to Romans 1.

Of course, all of this is ridiculous, anyway. Paul was saying that God has provided sufficient evidence of His Divine Goddiness that everyone should agree that God is God. Paul's "they" refers to anyone who denies what Paul saw as self-evident. Like me. But I am not a murderer, nor a thief, nor deceitful, nor malicious, nor a gossip, nor a slanderer, nor a hater of God, nor an inventor of evil, nor foolish, nor heartless, nor ruthless, nor am I a homosexual, despite Paul saying that I should be "filled with all manner of unrighteousness" because God should be punishing me for failing to honor God properly.

One counter-example is good enough to ruin a generalization. Paul was wrong.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 07/24/2017 :  10:43:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.

Where does the Bible describe homosexuality as sinful?
Romans 1:26-27
Ooof. God's wrath against the unrighteous. God allows people who do not honor or worship God (Romans 1:21) to turn homosexual. Having buttsex is a punishment from God, not a sin. Not only that, but all such homosexuals must also be...
...filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.- Romans 1:29-31
Honest. The "they" is the same "them" as in Romans 1:26.
Why can't a punishment be sinful? The punishment is not being homosexual, it is letting them indulge in their sinful desires and not saving them for a period of time. The they is referring to unbelieving people not homosexuals. As far as the list of sins goes we all have committed them either in thought or deed.

Therefore, to say that Romans 1:26-27 shows that homosexuality is a sin, you must also believe that homosexuals are evil, covetous, envious, murderous, lying, heartless, ruthless haters of God. But yet you say there's nothing about homosexuality that can prevent them from being Christians? Romans 1 says otherwise.
It is not because they are homosexuals that they are being punished. They are being punished for turning away from god that they know exists. If they turned to god and believed they would be saved. The bible says to Christians that we are sinners. 1 Jn 1:8.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1, ESV


Even worse, of course, is Romans 1:32:
Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die...
Yes, Paul says right there that homosexuals (the same "they" again) deserve to die. This, of course, is echoing the commandments in Leviticus (20:13, for example). But Jesus fulfilled the Law, didn't he?
Yes, all sinners deserve to die.

1 Cor 6:9
Don't forget that the end of that sentence in in 1 Cor 6:10:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Shall we assume that this is an exhaustive list, and so lesbians are okay with God?
Why should it be exhaustive? He says the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of god and then lists sins. In Romans 3 he is clear that all have sinned and none are righteous.

But Paul is an unreliable witness. He claims that "every" sin other than sexual immorality "occurs outside the body" (1 Cor 6:18), but Jesus taught that even thinking about sinful acts was itself a sin. Paul cannot be trusted to know the mind of God.
Paul is talking about sinning against your own body. Physical sexual sin is sinning against your own body, thinking of sinning is a sin but not against your own body. This all relates to our bodies holding the holy spirit in us.

Well God cares so I care.
No, God has already seen fit to punish those not sufficiently worshipful with homosexuality, and you should declare such people to also be generally evil, since God "gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness..."
I have addressed this above.

But you're not being truthful about it. You're saying, basically, "it's a sin, and they need to do what everybody else does regarding their sins," but Romans 1 clearly states otherwise. The sin was not sufficiently honoring God, and the punishment was that God allowed these people to be "filled with all manner of unrighteousness..." Homosexuality is just one tiny aspect of the horrors that "they" commit, and they cannot possibly be Christians while doing so, since this is a punishment for refusing to honor God.
Yes I agree. You can honor god but still sin just as I and every other Christian do. The punishment was not homosexuality but god letting them turn to their own sinful desires one of them being homosexuality.

I don't picket pride parades or weddings etc.
Why not? "They" are evil, according to Paul.
Yes, but so am I. As I have said before the bible says Christians still sin.

I care about their son because they need to recognize their sin to be saved.
They can't, because their sin was to fail to "honor" or "give thanks to" God (Romans 1:21), and not their homosexuality.
God did not punish dishonoring people with homosexuality, he punished them with letting them give into their evil and sinful desires, some of them gave into homosexuality as they desired. It does not say they then cannot be saved.

Homosexuals are not going to hell because they are homosexual, they are going to hell because they lie, lust, steal etc. just like everyone else.
Not according to Romans 1. Read the Book, fercryingoutloud.
You have read a lot into the text that is not there. Also, I should have said that they are not going to hell just because they are homosexuals, but because they have other sins as well. Homosexuality is not the defining sin that sends them to hell.

Of course, all of this is ridiculous, anyway. Paul was saying that God has provided sufficient evidence of His Divine Goddiness that everyone should agree that God is God. Paul's "they" refers to anyone who denies what Paul saw as self-evident. Like me. But I am not a murderer, nor a thief, nor deceitful, nor malicious, nor a gossip, nor a slanderer, nor a hater of God, nor an inventor of evil, nor foolish, nor heartless, nor ruthless, nor am I a homosexual, despite Paul saying that I should be "filled with all manner of unrighteousness" because God should be punishing me for failing to honor God properly.
The bible says we are all those things, that's why we need a savior. When we get to heaven all those sins will be gone because we will have the righteousness of Jesus, not ours. This is why homosexuals can be saved. They won't have to answer for that or any other sin, they will be sinless when judged by god.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 07/25/2017 :  12:06:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Why can't a punishment be sinful? The punishment is not being homosexual, it is letting them indulge in their sinful desires and not saving them for a period of time. The they is referring to unbelieving people not homosexuals.
I asked you what makes you think homosexuality is sinful. In Romans 1, it's clearly a punishment for sinning, and not necessarily a sin in and of itself. (See, for example, burning in a lake of fire is a punishment that isn't a sin.)

It is not because they are homosexuals that they are being punished. They are being punished for turning away from god that they know exists.
Yes, I pointed that out. The question is, how do you know all the listed punishments are themselves sins?

Yes, all sinners deserve to die.
Such is the problem with a death cult.

Paul is talking about sinning against your own body. Physical sexual sin is sinning against your own body, thinking of sinning is a sin but not against your own body. This all relates to our bodies holding the holy spirit in us.
And that just makes it bizarre, for the only "physical" sins to be sexual. Circumcision, tattooing, castration, self-flagellation, other literally self-destructive behaviors? They're all okay. Have sex in a way that Paul thought was yucky? Sin against your own body!

Yes I agree. You can honor god but still sin just as I and every other Christian do. The punishment was not homosexuality but god letting them turn to their own sinful desires one of them being homosexuality.
..."They" are evil, according to Paul.
Yes, but so am I. As I have said before the bible says Christians still sin.
So again, if everyone is evil, why do you care about what kind of evil other people engage in?

God did not punish dishonoring people with homosexuality, he punished them with letting them give into their evil and sinful desires, some of them gave into homosexuality as they desired. It does not say they then cannot be saved.
God giving them over to "their evil and sinful desires" seems pretty permanent. How does one come back from that? If God refuses to stop giving you over, how could you possibly overrule Him?

Homosexuality is not the defining sin that sends them to hell.
I'm not sure you've made the case that homosexuality is a sin. Unless "sin" means "something Paul thought was wrong."

The bible says we are all those things, that's why we need a savior.
I guess I've got enough self-esteem to not declare myself a murderer for merely thinking about killing someone when I was a child.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2017 :  13:17:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I asked you what makes you think homosexuality is sinful. In Romans 1, it's clearly a punishment for sinning, and not necessarily a sin in and of itself. (See, for example, burning in a lake of fire is a punishment that isn't a sin.)
2 Corinthians and Jude also refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Yes, I pointed that out. The question is, how do you know all the listed punishments are themselves sins?
I guess I take ungodly passions as synonymous with sin.

So again, if everyone is evil, why do you care about what kind of evil other people engage in?
I don’t. I care that their sins are not forgiven no matter what they are.

God giving them over to "their evil and sinful desires" seems pretty permanent. How does one come back from that? If God refuses to stop giving you over, how could you possibly overrule Him?
You can’t. I don’t think it says it is a permanent condition. It is God who decides who is saved.

I'm not sure you've made the case that homosexuality is a sin. Unless "sin" means "something Paul thought was wrong."
Paul was inspired by god.

I guess I've got enough self-esteem to not declare myself a murderer for merely thinking about killing someone when I was a child.
You are not a murderer because you thought of killing someone, you are a murderer in your heart if you are angry with someone without cause. Matthew 5:21-22.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2017 :  19:03:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

2 Corinthians and Jude also refer to homosexuality as a sin.
I can't find the 2 Cor reference. Chapter and verse?

Jude 1:7 ESV:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Only if you're fairly unimaginative, sexually, do "sexual immorality" or "unnatural desire" automatically equate to homosexuality. Don't forget that lots of heterosexual couples engage in activities far beyond standard PIV, and plenty of homosexuals do not enjoy buttsex.

Also don't forget that Sodom was judged because the bad people there wanted to have sex with angels, not men. (And anyone who praises Lot for his actions is a sick, sad individual.)

Yes, I pointed that out. The question is, how do you know all the listed punishments are themselves sins?
I guess I take ungodly passions as synonymous with sin.
Since "ungodly passions" are all we have (because we are not Divine), I guess that fits well with your "we are all sinners" theory. Do you think it's possible for a mere mortal to have a "godly passion?" Could God be passionate about anything? Stamp collecting certainly doesn't seem like it'd be a godly passion, does it? Breeding show dogs? Inventing a perpetual-motion machine? These are all examples of human passions. And you see them as sins?

Or by "ungodly," do you mean "anti-godly," in which case you'd be defining sins as behaviors which contradict God's will, so you'd be circularly defining sins as sins. I don't think you'd do that.

So again, if everyone is evil, why do you care about what kind of evil other people engage in?
I don’t. I care that their sins are not forgiven no matter what they are.
Then it can't possibly matter what their sins are, either. Unless you're Catholic.

You can’t. I don’t think it says it is a permanent condition. It is God who decides who is saved.
Yes, and I have questions about that in the other thread.

Paul was inspired by god.
Said by many psychopaths throughout history. What makes Paul different?

You are not a murderer because you thought of killing someone, you are a murderer in your heart if you are angry with someone without cause. Matthew 5:21-22.
But I've always had a cause for my anger. According to Bible Gateway, it is only some translations that insert "without cause."

But more important, the ESV translation of Matthew 5:21-22 doesn't say that being angry without cause makes you a murderer, it says that it merits the same punishment as murder. There are so few punishments in the Bible that this is unsurprising (see the ridiculous variety of commandments for which breaking them merited death), but it doesn't make the "sins" synonymous.

Of course, now I need to find out where you stand on the "brother" argument. Some say that "brother" there only meant "other Christians" so that being angry with non-Christians wouldn't be "liable to judgment." Similarly for "neighbor" so that Christians can be racist asswipes instead of loving their neighbors as they love themselves. There was plenty of othering and tribalism going on in the New Testament (the whole point of the Good Samaritan parable is lost if we're supposed to see the Samaritan as just another human like ourselves), so why should we conclude that "brother" and "neighbor" weren't intended to only include some small subset of humanity?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2017 :  10:09:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.


Only if you're fairly unimaginative, sexually, do "sexual immorality" or "unnatural desire" automatically equate to homosexuality. Don't forget that lots of heterosexual couples engage in activities far beyond standard PIV, and plenty of homosexuals do not enjoy buttsex.

Also don't forget that Sodom was judged because the bad people there wanted to have sex with angels, not men. (And anyone who praises Lot for his actions is a sick, sad individual.)
The people had no idea that the two angels disguised as men were angels. The cities were judged for sexual immorality as well as being unconcerned for the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49-50.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me....” If you look up the word detestable in Ezekiel it is the same word used in the same way in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an abomination.

Since "ungodly passions" are all we have (because we are not Divine), I guess that fits well with your "we are all sinners" theory. Do you think it's possible for a mere mortal to have a "godly passion?"
Yes, but it will be tainted with sin.

Could God be passionate about anything? Stamp collecting certainly doesn't seem like it'd be a godly passion, does it? Breeding show dogs? Inventing a perpetual-motion machine? These are all examples of human passions. And you see them as sins?
No. These are not sins in and of themselves. I can’t find a bible verse against stamp collecting for instance. But this activity will have sin involved. Maybe coveting a stamp someone else has etc. Having an ungodly passion would be being passionate about a particular sin, maybe killing or theft etc.

Or by "ungodly," do you mean "anti-godly," in which case you'd be defining sins as behaviors which contradict God's will, so you'd be circularly defining sins as sins. I don't think you'd do that.


Then it can't possibly matter what their sins are, either. Unless you're Catholic.
Isn’t this what I just said. And no, I am not Catholic.

Paul was inspired by god.
Said by many psychopaths throughout history. What makes Paul different?
It comes down to faith that god gives you.

You are not a murderer because you thought of killing someone, you are a murderer in your heart if you are angry with someone without cause. Matthew 5:21-22. But I've always had a cause for my anger. According to Bible Gateway, it is only some translations that insert "without cause."
I don’t believe the without cause is actually in the text but it is implied because of other verses about righteous anger.

But more important, the ESV translation of Matthew 5:21-22 doesn't say that being angry without cause makes you a murderer, it says that it merits the same punishment as murder. There are so few punishments in the Bible that this is unsurprising (see the ridiculous variety of commandments for which breaking them merited death), but it doesn't make the "sins" synonymous.
God says you are just a guilty as a murderer if you are angry at someone. He is talking to the Pharisees where they believed outward actions determined what was a sin, Jesus said that keeping the letter of the law does not save you Gal 2:16.

Of course, now I need to find out where you stand on the "brother" argument. Some say that "brother" there only meant "other Christians" so that being angry with non-Christians wouldn't be "liable to judgment." Similarly for "neighbor" so that Christians can be racist asswipes instead of loving their neighbors as they love themselves. There was plenty of othering and tribalism going on in the New Testament (the whole point of the Good Samaritan parable is lost if we're supposed to see the Samaritan as just another human like ourselves), so why should we conclude that "brother" and "neighbor" weren't intended to only include some small subset of humanity?
Brother here indicates an actual brother or believer. However, in Ephesians4:26-31, James 1:19-20, Col 3:8 etc. Being angry with others is condemned in the bible without reference to who it is. Taking away from this passage that you can be aswsipes to non-believers contradicts many other passages and is missing the point of this passage.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2017 :  19:28:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

The people had no idea that the two angels disguised as men were angels.
Please quote chapter and verse where it says that the angels were disguised as men. Both Genesis 18 and 19 refer to them as "men" except for Genesis 19:1 and 15.
18:2 [Abraham] lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.

18:16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom.

18:22 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom...

19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening...

19:5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?...

19:8 ...Only do nothing to these men...

19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.

19:12 Then the men said to Lot...

19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot...

19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him...
Nowhere does the story say that the people of Sodom don't know that the "men" are angels. Nowhere does it say that Abraham and Lot can see angels for what they are, while others see them as merely human. I see no evidence that they were angels "disguised" as men.

Genesis 18:2, 16 and 22, and Genesis 19:10, 12 and 16 all refer to the angels as "men," but they are third-person, omniscient narrative verses, just like Genesis 19:1 and 15. In which verses is the narrator being unreliable?

That's a rhetorical question. Genesis 18:2 refers to God hisownself as one of the three "men," but we all know God isn't a man. Therefore, the author can't be trusted to get the words right in Genesis 19:5 (or 8), and the extra-biblical idea that the angels were "disguised" as men is demonstrated to be nothing more than throwing cover for a crappy writer and/or a sinking hypothesis.

Look at it this way: if it were simple buttsex the Sodomites were after, then Lot, Lot's wife, Lot's daughters and Lot's "sons-in-law" (fiancees to his daughters) should all have been targets, 'cause they all have butts. Lot lived in Sodom for decades before the angels showed up (ever since Abraham saved him in Genesis 14), so if it were merely humans the rest of the Sodomites were after, all six of them would have been raped, repeatedly until Genesis 19. But Lot (monster that he was) clearly states that his daughters hadn't been touched, so we must reject this hypothesis.

If it were merely male humans the Sodomites wanted, then Lot and the two fiancees would have been regular victims of the rapey mobs, and why would one keep living in a place where stepping outside meant getting jumped (remember: Lot wanted to keep living in Sodom), so they must have been untouched as well. So the idea that the angels had new, untouched human male butts while Lot's family didn't must be rejected as well.

A third idea might be that everyone in Sodom knew that Lot was under Abraham's protection (dude did conquer four kings to save Lot and get the possessions of Sodom back), and so wouldn't mess with him. The idea that having human male homosexual sex with two strangers could drive the Sodomites into such a frenzy that they'd suddenly decide to ignore the threat of Abraham's military might is simply ridiculous. Two more mere mortal men might show up in town the next morning for them to rape, so why risk Abraham's wrath over the two that are hiding in Lot's place? The Bible doesn't say the Sodomites were stupid.

So what's left? The Sodomites knew the "men" were angels, and wanted to boink them because they were angels, and damn the consequences (note that even after being blinded, they were still trying to get into Lot's home).

The cities were judged for sexual immorality as well as being unconcerned for the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49-50.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me....” If you look up the word detestable in Ezekiel it is the same word used in the same way in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an abomination.
Indeed, but not every abomination is homosexuality. Also, the "sins" of Sodom are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and only in Ezekiel are "detestable things" pointed out. Some scholars say that focusing on the last clause in Genesis 19:5 is to miss the forest for a single tree.

Do you think it's possible for a mere mortal to have a "godly passion?"
Yes, but it will be tainted with sin.
Then how can it be "godly?" God doesn't sin.

Having an ungodly passion would be being passionate about a particular sin, maybe killing or theft etc.
So "ungodly passions" aren't limited to homosexuality.

Then it can't possibly matter what their sins are, either. Unless you're Catholic.
Isn’t this what I just said.
You said you'd be truthful when speaking about what you believe to other people. And if the truth is that they are sinners, and everything they do is "tainted with sin," then their homosexuality is irrelevant.

Paul was inspired by god.
Said by many psychopaths throughout history. What makes Paul different?
It comes down to faith that god gives you.
Your faith that Paul's inspiration was fact, and the inspiration claimed by serial killers is false? Who are you to judge?

Brother here indicates an actual brother or believer. However, in Ephesians 4:26-31, James 1:19-20, Col 3:8 etc. Being angry with others is condemned in the bible without reference to who it is.
That's not true.

Ephesians is allegedly by Paul. Ephesians 4:17-24 ensure that we know he's addressing new Christians. Ephesians 4:25 makes that even more explicit:
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.
And so does the final verse:
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Also, verse 31 goes waaay farther than "don't be angry at other people:"
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

James 1:19-20 is talking about getting angry at hearing "the word."

I'll agree with you on Col 3:8, but Paul says that those things are bringing (present tense) the wrath of God. If so, God's pretty slow.

Taking away from this passage that you can be aswsipes...
Hey, watch out for that "obscene talk from your mouth."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2017 :  10:07:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

The people had no idea that the two angels disguised as men were angels.
Please quote chapter and verse where it says that the angels were disguised as men. Both Genesis 18 and 19 refer to them as "men" except for Genesis 19:1 and 15.
18:2 [Abraham] lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.

18:16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom.

18:22 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom...

19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening...

19:5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?...

19:8 ...Only do nothing to these men...

19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.

19:12 Then the men said to Lot...

19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot...

19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him...
Nowhere does the story say that the people of Sodom don't know that the "men" are angels. Nowhere does it say that Abraham and Lot can see angels for what they are, while others see them as merely human. I see no evidence that they were angels "disguised" as men.

Genesis 18:2, 16 and 22, and Genesis 19:10, 12 and 16 all refer to the angels as "men," but they are third-person, omniscient narrative verses, just like Genesis 19:1 and 15. In which verses is the narrator being unreliable?

That's a rhetorical question. Genesis 18:2 refers to God hisownself as one of the three "men," but we all know God isn't a man. Therefore, the author can't be trusted to get the words right in Genesis 19:5 (or 8), and the extra-biblical idea that the angels were "disguised" as men is demonstrated to be nothing more than throwing cover for a crappy writer and/or a sinking hypothesis.

Look at it this way: if it were simple buttsex the Sodomites were after, then Lot, Lot's wife, Lot's daughters and Lot's "sons-in-law" (fiancees to his daughters) should all have been targets, 'cause they all have butts. Lot lived in Sodom for decades before the angels showed up (ever since Abraham saved him in Genesis 14), so if it were merely humans the rest of the Sodomites were after, all six of them would have been raped, repeatedly until Genesis 19. But Lot (monster that he was) clearly states that his daughters hadn't been touched, so we must reject this hypothesis.

If it were merely male humans the Sodomites wanted, then Lot and the two fiancees would have been regular victims of the rapey mobs, and why would one keep living in a place where stepping outside meant getting jumped (remember: Lot wanted to keep living in Sodom), so they must have been untouched as well. So the idea that the angels had new, untouched human male butts while Lot's family didn't must be rejected as well.

A third idea might be that everyone in Sodom knew that Lot was under Abraham's protection (dude did conquer four kings to save Lot and get the possessions of Sodom back), and so wouldn't mess with him. The idea that having human male homosexual sex with two strangers could drive the Sodomites into such a frenzy that they'd suddenly decide to ignore the threat of Abraham's military might is simply ridiculous. Two more mere mortal men might show up in town the next morning for them to rape, so why risk Abraham's wrath over the two that are hiding in Lot's place? The Bible doesn't say the Sodomites were stupid.

So what's left? The Sodomites knew the "men" were angels, and wanted to boink them because they were angels, and damn the consequences (note that even after being blinded, they were still trying to get into Lot's home).


Disguised may have not been the correct word. I don't think they new they were angels. In other texts when angels show up the people are affected. Many bow down and are afraid. No one was afraid of these angels and that is why I don't think anyone new they were angels.

Indeed, but not every abomination is homosexuality. Also, the "sins" of Sodom are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and only in Ezekiel are "detestable things" pointed out. Some scholars say that focusing on the last clause in Genesis 19:5 is to miss the forest for a single tree.
Ok

Do you think it's possible for a mere mortal to have a "godly passion?"
Yes, but it will be tainted with sin.
Then how can it be "godly?" God doesn't sin.
I agree god does not sin. We can still have the passions of god such as trying to obey his word but we will fall short of perfection which is his standards. Lets say I have a passion for painting art but I am not very talented that way. Is the passion invalid?

Having an ungodly passion would be being passionate about a particular sin, maybe killing or theft etc.
So "ungodly passions" aren't limited to homosexuality.
No.

You said you'd be truthful when speaking about what you believe to other people. And if the truth is that they are sinners, and everything they do is "tainted with sin," then their homosexuality is irrelevant.
No, just not more relevant than any other sin.

Your faith that Paul's inspiration was fact, and the inspiration claimed by serial killers is false? Who are you to judge?
God tells us not to condemn others for their sin but he does tell us to judge righty, meaning judge what is true or not true according to god.

Taking away from this passage that you can be aswsipes...
Hey, watch out for that "obscene talk from your mouth."
My mouth never said the word




Sorry I took so long to respond.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2017 :  21:41:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Disguised may have not been the correct word. I don't think they new they were angels. In other texts when angels show up the people are affected. Many bow down and are afraid. No one was afraid of these angels...
But that's wrong. Both Abraham and Lot bowed down before these angels. Abraham was definitely terrified of saying the wrong thing. The monster Lot knew that the "men" were so special that he offered up his virgin daughters to the mob. If that's not "affected," I don't know what is.

...and that is why I don't think anyone new they were angels.
I think you're going to need to run a few searches, and determine quantitatively how often people were "affected" by angels in order to present a cogent argument. "I don't think" is no longer good enough. See this thread.

Indeed, but not every abomination is homosexuality. Also, the "sins" of Sodom are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and only in Ezekiel are "detestable things" pointed out. Some scholars say that focusing on the last clause in Genesis 19:5 is to miss the forest for a single tree.
Ok
"Ok"? What do you mean by "Ok"?

More later.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.7 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000