ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.
If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?
maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.
Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.
Christianity and homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
One cannot deny that Christians in general do not live up to the ideals of Christ. Some do better than others, but none of us is perfect.goat wrote:That seems to be a very odd theology, since IMO, many who proclaim that Satan has no power over them because they accept Christ and 'refuse to be deceieved' often have deeds, and words that I find immoral or destructive. They 'talk the talk', but do not 'walk the walk'. Often, the louder the talk, the less of the walk.micatala wrote:It is not that Christ's sacrifice eliminated evil from the world. Rather, the standard theology would say that evil is or will be 'ultimately' defeated, and that those who accept Christ will ultimately triumph over evil, living with God in everlasting life. Satan has no power over those who 'refuse to be deceived.'
Still, I think the doctrine is, if not perfectly stated by me, one that many Christians do subscribe to.
On the other hand, it is also clear that many Christians have been inspired by their faith and the example of Christ to live better, more more, more productive, more humane lives than they would have otherwise.
If a person can't throw a baseball through a barn door at 50 feet even after receiving correct instruction and training on how to do so, it may not be the fault of the instructions but rather the person implementing them.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #52
Hello Micatala,
I apologize Ive taken so long to reply. Sometimes my schedule does not allow me to correspond as frequently as I would like.
"Regardless of the manner of creation, if we hold that God is the ultimate creator, does that make him responsible for everything that happens in creation?" Micatala
Why? Is the parent of an adult child responsible for their childs behavior? Of course not!
"Regardless of the reason, assuming God created man with free will, does this remove responsibility from God for man's actions?" Micatala
Did man not choose to disobey God freely and on his own?
Yes.
"Does man's free will implicitly limit God's omnipotence?" Micatala
Why suggest this? Does not allowing man to have free will and act on his own accord not demonstrative of Gods omnipotence? Would not requiring man to "act like a robot" demonstrate Gods limited power out of fear that man may act in ways that He could no longer control?
Why does God allowing man to have free will mean that God must be limited in power?
"Now, animals are not commonly thought to possess free will. THey are considered part of creation. If homosexuality exists in animals, then it is a part of creation and is natural." Micatala
We are not called to be like animals, acting according to instinct as opposed to intelligence. Instead we are told to be like God (Matthew 5:48).
"If the only reason we would not make God responsible for what happens in creation is free will, then God is responsible for homosexuality. Biologically, it seems to me man is also a part of creation, and so homosexuality in man is also 'natural', and thus, created by God." - Micatala
How? Is sin not "natural" to man? Using your reasoning, sin must therefore be created by God. Nonsense.
"A very simplistic answer is that sin is the opposite of God's will. So if there were no God, there could be no sin as nothing would be against His will.
So while God did not create sin, it could not exist without Him." - Dale
"Would we agree with this definition? Is it complete or are there other aspects of what constitutes sin?" Micatala
Here is another definition of sin from an on-line dictionary and is probably a bit more accurate and has the advantage of being more simplistic.
"Sin:
1. transgression of divine law.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sin
"Another definition I have heard is that sin is an act or attitude which separates one from God. In this definition, the defining factor is not the act, but it's effect on ones relationship with God. Under this definition, it is possible that act A is sinful when committed by X but not sinful when committed by Y." - Micatala
The "attitude" you speak of is addressed by part two of the definition that I have provided above. As you can see the "attitude" you speak of is a "willful or deliberate violation". The person committing the sin is guilty because they know the act that they are committing is against Gods will. As such, it makes no difference if the act is committed by person "X" or "Y" as both know the act is unlawful and is, therefore, sin for both.
"Romans 14 is one passage where this possibility is discussed. An act which is committed 'without faith' or 'not in good conscience' is sinful." Micatala
Romans 14:
"1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31
You are taking this verse completely out of context. It is an admonition not to do anything that would cause distress among mutual believers. In other words, keep the peace.
Also, you seem to be forgetting the preface of Romans 14which would be Romans 13 (but Ill only use verses 13 and 14).
Romans 13: 13-14:
"Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." (emphasis mine)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;
"I have proposed that if homosexuals can come to no other conclusion than that God made them that way, and if they have prayed and are clear in their conscience that homosexuality or homosexual sex is not sinful, then they are probably right." Micatala
So now our standard is to be what we think is morally right and not what God tells us is right?
Are you sure that is such a good idea?
"Given that Christians in general allow individual Christians to decide on their own which Biblical proscriptions are sinful (for them) and which are not" - Micatala
Im probably only misunderstanding what you are trying to say. But you seem to be making quite the assumption here. Perhaps you could provide more of an explanation for all of us.
"I would suggest the appropriate thing to do is follow the same practice with respect to homosexuality. Given that we allow sexual expression for heterosexuals, we should do the same for homosexuals." Micatala
The Bible only allows for "sexual expression for heterosexuals" in the context of marriage. Homosexual practice is forbidden by the Bible. How can we in good conscious condone such behavior?
I apologize Ive taken so long to reply. Sometimes my schedule does not allow me to correspond as frequently as I would like.
"Regardless of the manner of creation, if we hold that God is the ultimate creator, does that make him responsible for everything that happens in creation?" Micatala
Why? Is the parent of an adult child responsible for their childs behavior? Of course not!
"Regardless of the reason, assuming God created man with free will, does this remove responsibility from God for man's actions?" Micatala
Did man not choose to disobey God freely and on his own?
Yes.
"Does man's free will implicitly limit God's omnipotence?" Micatala
Why suggest this? Does not allowing man to have free will and act on his own accord not demonstrative of Gods omnipotence? Would not requiring man to "act like a robot" demonstrate Gods limited power out of fear that man may act in ways that He could no longer control?
Why does God allowing man to have free will mean that God must be limited in power?
"Now, animals are not commonly thought to possess free will. THey are considered part of creation. If homosexuality exists in animals, then it is a part of creation and is natural." Micatala
We are not called to be like animals, acting according to instinct as opposed to intelligence. Instead we are told to be like God (Matthew 5:48).
"If the only reason we would not make God responsible for what happens in creation is free will, then God is responsible for homosexuality. Biologically, it seems to me man is also a part of creation, and so homosexuality in man is also 'natural', and thus, created by God." - Micatala
How? Is sin not "natural" to man? Using your reasoning, sin must therefore be created by God. Nonsense.
"A very simplistic answer is that sin is the opposite of God's will. So if there were no God, there could be no sin as nothing would be against His will.
So while God did not create sin, it could not exist without Him." - Dale
"Would we agree with this definition? Is it complete or are there other aspects of what constitutes sin?" Micatala
Here is another definition of sin from an on-line dictionary and is probably a bit more accurate and has the advantage of being more simplistic.
"Sin:
1. transgression of divine law.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sin
"Another definition I have heard is that sin is an act or attitude which separates one from God. In this definition, the defining factor is not the act, but it's effect on ones relationship with God. Under this definition, it is possible that act A is sinful when committed by X but not sinful when committed by Y." - Micatala
The "attitude" you speak of is addressed by part two of the definition that I have provided above. As you can see the "attitude" you speak of is a "willful or deliberate violation". The person committing the sin is guilty because they know the act that they are committing is against Gods will. As such, it makes no difference if the act is committed by person "X" or "Y" as both know the act is unlawful and is, therefore, sin for both.
"Romans 14 is one passage where this possibility is discussed. An act which is committed 'without faith' or 'not in good conscience' is sinful." Micatala
Romans 14:
"1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31
You are taking this verse completely out of context. It is an admonition not to do anything that would cause distress among mutual believers. In other words, keep the peace.
Also, you seem to be forgetting the preface of Romans 14which would be Romans 13 (but Ill only use verses 13 and 14).
Romans 13: 13-14:
"Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." (emphasis mine)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;
"I have proposed that if homosexuals can come to no other conclusion than that God made them that way, and if they have prayed and are clear in their conscience that homosexuality or homosexual sex is not sinful, then they are probably right." Micatala
So now our standard is to be what we think is morally right and not what God tells us is right?
Are you sure that is such a good idea?
"Given that Christians in general allow individual Christians to decide on their own which Biblical proscriptions are sinful (for them) and which are not" - Micatala
Im probably only misunderstanding what you are trying to say. But you seem to be making quite the assumption here. Perhaps you could provide more of an explanation for all of us.
"I would suggest the appropriate thing to do is follow the same practice with respect to homosexuality. Given that we allow sexual expression for heterosexuals, we should do the same for homosexuals." Micatala
The Bible only allows for "sexual expression for heterosexuals" in the context of marriage. Homosexual practice is forbidden by the Bible. How can we in good conscious condone such behavior?
Post #53
No problem! I know how that goes!Dale wrote:Hello Micatala,
I apologize Ive taken so long to reply. Sometimes my schedule does not allow me to correspond as frequently as I would like.
I would agree to a point regarding parents. However, parents are not commonly thought to be omnipotent or omniscient. In addition, when we are speaking of aspects of creation which do not involve the exercise of free will, then the parent/child analogy breaks down. The child has no choice as far as the physical aspects he inherits from the parents. Neither does the parent. On the other hand, if we assume God as the ultimate creator, he would commonly be considered to have a choice as to how creation turned out. Under this assumption, he certainly could have created a universe in which animals and humans had no possibility of homosexual inclinations. Since he did not do so, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that he is ultimately responsible for the presence of homosexual inclinations and behavior.Dale wrote: "Regardless of the manner of creation, if we hold that God is the ultimate creator, does that make him responsible for everything that happens in creation?" Micatala
Why? Is the parent of an adult child responsible for their childs behavior? Of course not!
I partially agree. Going back to your child parent analogy, applying this idea only to God and man with respect to aspects where man does exercise free will.Dale wrote: "Regardless of the reason, assuming God created man with free will, does this remove responsibility from God for man's actions?" Micatala
Did man not choose to disobey God freely and on his own?
Yes.
A parent might allow a child to exercise free will over certain areas. However, a parent can err in his judgment as far as how much 'free will' the child is capable of responsibly exercising. It is one thing to allow a 16-year old to drive the family car around town. It is another to allow him to take a cross-country road trip. Personally, if a parent allowed a 16-year old to go on the road for two weeks on his own and he ended up wrecking the car, I would consider the parent more responsible than the child.
If God empowers man to employ free will, He is inherently limiting his own power to direct man's actions. Even thoutgh he is doing this voluntarily, he is implicitly limiting His own power. I am suggesting this because it seems to me to be the reality."Does man's free will implicitly limit God's omnipotence?" Micatala
Why suggest this? Does not allowing man to have free will and act on his own accord not demonstrative of Gods omnipotence? Would not requiring man to "act like a robot" demonstrate Gods limited power out of fear that man may act in ways that He could no longer control?
Why does God allowing man to have free will mean that God must be limited in power?
By allowing free will, God has empowered people like Hitler to commit horrendous atrocities, and if one assumes He could have stopped this and yet didn't because He bound Himself to allow free will, this means he is limiting the effect of His omnipotence.
What we are called to be is irrelevant to the point. People and animals are created with homosexual tendencies. If you want to make the case that people should go against these natural tendencies for other reasons, please do so, but that does not negate the fact that homosexuality is part of creation, is natural, and thus can ultimately be ascribed to God.Dale wrote:"Now, animals are not commonly thought to possess free will. THey are considered part of creation. If homosexuality exists in animals, then it is a part of creation and is natural." Micatala
We are not called to be like animals, acting according to instinct as opposed to intelligence. Instead we are told to be like God (Matthew 5:48).
No, sin is not natural to man. Man existed prior to the existence of sin. IMV, sin is only possible when one has a relationship or at least a conception of God. When man got to the point where he was capable of moral judgment, an understanding of God, etc., then sin became part of the picture.Dale wrote:"If the only reason we would not make God responsible for what happens in creation is free will, then God is responsible for homosexuality. Biologically, it seems to me man is also a part of creation, and so homosexuality in man is also 'natural', and thus, created by God." - Micatala
How? Is sin not "natural" to man? Using your reasoning, sin must therefore be created by God. Nonsense.
I also don't think it is 'nonsense' to suggest that the existence of sin is, if not created by God, at least the ultimate responsibility of God. Certainly each individual commission of a sin by an individual is that person's choice. But that person would never have had the capacity to make that choice if not endowed with that power by God.
In addition, under the assumption that homosexuality is biological in nature, and not moral or spiritual in nature, as is evidenced by its existence in the animal kingdom, it is invalid to compare homosexuality per se with sin.
Here is another definition of sin from an on-line dictionary and is probably a bit more accurate and has the advantage of being more simplistic.
"Sin:
1. transgression of divine law.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sin
"Another definition I have heard is that sin is an act or attitude which separates one from God. In this definition, the defining factor is not the act, but it's effect on ones relationship with God. Under this definition, it is possible that act A is sinful when committed by X but not sinful when committed by Y." - Micatala
The "attitude" you speak of is addressed by part two of the definition that I have provided above. As you can see the "attitude" you speak of is a "willful or deliberate violation". The person committing the sin is guilty because they know the act that they are committing is against Gods will. As such, it makes no difference if the act is committed by person "X" or "Y" as both know the act is unlawful and is, therefore, sin for both.
If there is no understanding of God, does this mean there is no sin, as there is no 'willful or deliberate' violation of God's will?
The admonition not to do harm to one's brother is only part of what Paul is saying here. It is also a passage which clearly allows that act X when committed by A might be sinful but that the same act might not be sinful when committed by B.Dale wrote:"Romans 14 is one passage where this possibility is discussed. An act which is committed 'without faith' or 'not in good conscience' is sinful." Micatala
You are taking this verse completely out of context. It is an admonition not to do anything that would cause distress among mutual believers. In other words, keep the peace.
As to the context from Romans 13.
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[c]
I don't see that you can explicitly consider the end of chapter 13 as a "preface" to 14 from the context. In addition, note that the main point is that "love is the fulfillment of the law".
Also, if you are equating all homosexual sex with "sexual immorality and debauchery" I think this is quite an unfair and subjective characterization. Would we characterize all heterosexual sex in these terms?
In addition, note the emphasis on the "nearness of salvation". In this letter and elsewhere, Paul clearly implies he expects Jesus to return in the near future. This is why, for example, he suggests that it is better for "all to remain celibate as I am". However, he does allow that it is OK for people to marry if they are unable to handle celibacy. If we allow this for heterosexuals, why would we not for homosexuals? To expect homosexuals to remain celibate when we do not expect heterosxuals to carry this same burden, which even Paul admits is an unbearable load for most, are we not being not only unfair, but hypocritical?
"I have proposed that if homosexuals can come to no other conclusion than that God made them that way, and if they have prayed and are clear in their conscience that homosexuality or homosexual sex is not sinful, then they are probably right." Micatala
So now our standard is to be what we think is morally right and not what God tells us is right?
Are you sure that is such a good idea?
The problem is that I don't view your opinion as what God is telling us, I view it as what you and other believers of similar views believe. If one really does view every jot and tittle of the Bible as God's literal word that must be obeyed, then I would submit that there isn't one Christian in a 1000 that actually believes this. We ALL have some areas of the Bible where we have decided, hopefully after prayer and ample reflection, that this proscription either doesn't mean what it seems to say, or is over-ruled by a more relevant or compelling teaching, or simply doesn't apply outside of the more limited context in which we find it. I think a good case can be made that Paul's admonitions against homosexuality are archaic cultural views (like his views on women speaking in church or not cutting their hair) and that he likely was not speaking of homosexuality as we understand it today but only in a more limited context of idolatry or as acts committed in deliberate rebellion to God.
A committed Christian who also happens to be a homosexual does not fit into this category at all.
"Given that Christians in general allow individual Christians to decide on their own which Biblical proscriptions are sinful (for them) and which are not" - Micatala
Im probably only misunderstanding what you are trying to say. But you seem to be making quite the assumption here. Perhaps you could provide more of an explanation for all of us.
Many Christians allow that divorce and remarriage is not sinful.
The vast majority of Christians ignore quite a number of OT proscriptions. Those concerning diet, clothing, personal grooming, gender roles, etc.
How many Christians sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor?
A few Christians consider polygamy allowable, and they frankly have a good biblical basis for thinking this way.
Some Christians consider all killing, even in war, as sinful. Others allow that there are circumstance, including but not limited to war, where killing is not a sin.
These are just a few examples.
Last edited by micatala on Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #54
Deleted inadvertent duplicate post.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #55
Hello Micatala,
"I would agree to a point regarding parents. However, parents are not commonly thought to be omnipotent or omniscient. In addition, when we are speaking of aspects of creation which do not involve the exercise of free will, then the parent/child analogy breaks down. The child has no choice as far as the physical aspects he inherits from the parents. Neither does the parent. On the other hand, if we assume God as the ultimate creator, he would commonly be considered to have a choice as to how creation turned out. Under this assumption, he certainly could have created a universe in which animals and humans had no possibility of homosexual inclinations. Since he did not do so, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that he is ultimately responsible for the presence of homosexual inclinations and behavior." - Micatala
When God, as the "ultimate creator", looked at his finished creation He saw that it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
It wasnt "perfect". But it was "very good".
And, point of fact, Gods creation had no "homosexual inclinations" or any sin, for that matter. Sin was only introduced into the scene later.
"Since he did not do so, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that he is ultimately responsible for the presence of homosexual inclinations and behavior." - Micatala
To draw this conclusion you have to accept that God is the author of sin. Is he? If we can do as we will--with the free will that we possess--is God the author of sin?
"I partially agree. Going back to your child parent analogy, applying this idea only to God and man with respect to aspects where man does exercise free will.
A parent might allow a child to exercise free will over certain areas. However, a parent can err in his judgment as far as how much 'free will' the child is capable of responsibly exercising. It is one thing to allow a 16-year old to drive the family car around town. It is another to allow him to take a cross-country road trip. Personally, if a parent allowed a 16-year old to go on the road for two weeks on his own and he ended up wrecking the car, I would consider the parent more responsible than the child." Micatala
I agree! If a parent let a child make a cross-country trip I would have to say that the child is more responsible than the parent!
However, as we return to the child / parent analogy, lets not forget that God is perfect and does not make mistakes. He does, however, allow us to make mistakes.
"If God empowers man to employ free will, He is inherently limiting his own power to direct man's actions. Even thoutgh he is doing this voluntarily, he is implicitly limiting His own power. I am suggesting this because it seems to me to be the reality." Micatala
Your statement assumes:
1. That God chooses to direct the actions of all men. I read in the Bible where God will direct the actions of Believers. But not of all men. Is there some Scripture that you can point me to if Ive missed something?
2. That by allowing free will to man, that God cannot intervene into what man is doing a put a stop to it. Do you remember the story of the Tower of Babel. Who proved to be more powerful, God or man?
"By allowing free will, God has empowered people like Hitler to commit horrendous atrocities, and if one assumes He could have stopped this and yet didn't because He bound Himself to allow free will, this means he is limiting the effect of His omnipotence." Micatala
I think you have to assume that God empowered Hitler. I see no evidence that He did. And wasnt Hitler defeated and his war machine utterly destroyed? Can you say that God had no hand in delivering to Hitler such a defeat?
"What we are called to be is irrelevant to the point. People and animals are created with homosexual tendencies. If you want to make the case that people should go against these natural tendencies for other reasons, please do so, but that does not negate the fact that homosexuality is part of creation, is natural, and thus can ultimately be ascribed to God." Micatala
While Im not aware of any studies that have been performed to determine if animals are homosexual, I am aware that there have been multiple studies to determine if humans have been "created" to be homosexual (biologically homosexual). To date, there have been no finding to suggest that homosexuality is biological (created). So, with respect, I dont think you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is "created" and thus cannot ascribe homosexuality to God.
"No, sin is not natural to man. Man existed prior to the existence of sin. IMV, sin is only possible when one has a relationship or at least a conception of God. When man got to the point where he was capable of moral judgment, an understanding of God, etc., then sin became part of the picture." Micatala
A fair point, sir! Yes, man existed prior to sin. But I will use myself as an example. I was born into a fallen state. Sin was very natural to me.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12
And while you raise a fair point, I think I will be safe to remain with my original comment.
"I also don't think it is 'nonsense' to suggest that the existence of sin is, if not created by God, at least the ultimate responsibility of God. Certainly each individual commission of a sin by an individual is that person's choice. But that person would never have had the capacity to make that choice if not endowed with that power by God." - Micatala
But God did give us that choice! Not to choose to sin. But to choose Him! Without the choice you and I are mindless robots not capable to any real relationship with God and not capable of any real love.
"In addition, under the assumption that homosexuality is biological in nature, and not moral or spiritual in nature, as is evidenced by its existence in the animal kingdom, it is invalid to compare homosexuality per se with sin." Micatala
But again, you have to make the assumption--without evidence--that homosexuality is biological. You also have to become "god" for yourself, deciding what is and what is-not sin.
And that job has been taken
"If there is no understanding of God, does this mean there is no sin, as there is no 'willful or deliberate' violation of God's will?" Micatala
I dont know. But for our purposes, you and I have Gods Word--the Bible--and know what sin is.
"The admonition not to do harm to one's brother is only part of what Paul is saying here. It is also a passage which clearly allows that act X when committed by A might be sinful but that the same act might not be sinful when committed by B." Micatala
Im afraid that I do not understand how.
"I don't see that you can explicitly consider the end of chapter 13 as a "preface" to 14 from the context. In addition, note that the main point is that "love is the fulfillment of the law"." Micatala
Im not trying to trick you and didnt intend for just the "end of chapter 13" to be used as the sole preface for chapter 14, but only shared a part to make a point.
And, yes, love is the fulfillment of the law.
But what is love, Micatala?
"Also, if you are equating all homosexual sex with "sexual immorality and debauchery" I think this is quite an unfair and subjective characterization. Would we characterize all heterosexual sex in these terms?" Micatala
Outside of marriage? Absolutely.
"In addition, note the emphasis on the "nearness of salvation". In this letter and elsewhere, Paul clearly implies he expects Jesus to return in the near future. This is why, for example, he suggests that it is better for "all to remain celibate as I am". However, he does allow that it is OK for people to marry if they are unable to handle celibacy. If we allow this for heterosexuals, why would we not for homosexuals? To expect homosexuals to remain celibate when we do not expect heterosxuals to carry this same burden, which even Paul admits is an unbearable load for most, are we not being not only unfair, but hypocritical?" Micatala
We allow this for heterosexuals because this is the only provision that God has allowed for sexual relations. And if homosexuality was biological then you might have a point about this being "unfair" or "hypocritical".
"The problem is that I don't view your opinion as what God is telling us, I view it as what you and other believers of similar views believe. If one really does view every jot and tittle of the Bible as God's literal word that must be obeyed, then I would submit that there isn't one Christian in a 1000 that actually believes this. We ALL have some areas of the Bible where we have decided, hopefully after prayer and ample reflection, that this proscription either doesn't mean what it seems to say, or is over-ruled by a more relevant or compelling teaching, or simply doesn't apply outside of the more limited context in which we find it. I think a good case can be made that Paul's admonitions against homosexuality are archaic cultural views (like his views on women speaking in church or not cutting their hair) and that he likely was not speaking of homosexuality as we understand it today but only in a more limited context of idolatry or as acts committed in deliberate rebellion to God." Micatala
Well, sir, you are free to believe as you choose and I hope that regardless of your choice of beliefs you will consider me something of a friend.
Yes, I do believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that it is all true. However, I do not believe that it all applies to today. The Old Testament was written for only the Jews and only applied to Old Testament times. It has never applied to Gentiles.
However, the New Testament applies to all of us.
Now, your comments on Pauls admonitions against homosexuality being "archaic cultural views" are old complaints. However, Paul speaks to homosexual acts, only. And only in the sense that they are acts of an unnatural function..
And while idolatry certainly played a part of life in Pauls day (and some could argue it does so today), the idolatry that Paul describes is one where a general atmosphere or environment of rebellion is created that allows for the rebellion of the homosexual act and not "they worshipped idols so they committed a homosexual act".
"A committed Christian who also happens to be a homosexual does not fit into this category at all." Micatala
Correct.
"Many Christians allow that divorce and remarriage is not sinful." Micatala
Sad, but true.
"The vast majority of Christians ignore quite a number of OT proscriptions. Those concerning diet, clothing, personal grooming, gender roles, etc." - Micatala
WellIve already explained the Old Testament, havent I?
"How many Christians sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor?" Micatala
Im not one of em.
"A few Christians consider polygamy allowable, and they frankly have a good biblical basis for thinking this way." Micatala
I would have to take issue with this. Simply because polygamy is in the Bible does not make it allowable. Incest, rape and murder are in the Bible, too, but nobody would say that these are allowed.
"Some Christians consider all killing, even in war, as sinful. Others allow that there are circumstance, including but not limited to war, where killing is not a sin." Micatala
And a better understanding of the Bible would answer these questions.
"These are just a few examples." - Micatala
Yes, we could probably come up with more, couldnt we?
How sad.
"I would agree to a point regarding parents. However, parents are not commonly thought to be omnipotent or omniscient. In addition, when we are speaking of aspects of creation which do not involve the exercise of free will, then the parent/child analogy breaks down. The child has no choice as far as the physical aspects he inherits from the parents. Neither does the parent. On the other hand, if we assume God as the ultimate creator, he would commonly be considered to have a choice as to how creation turned out. Under this assumption, he certainly could have created a universe in which animals and humans had no possibility of homosexual inclinations. Since he did not do so, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that he is ultimately responsible for the presence of homosexual inclinations and behavior." - Micatala
When God, as the "ultimate creator", looked at his finished creation He saw that it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
It wasnt "perfect". But it was "very good".
And, point of fact, Gods creation had no "homosexual inclinations" or any sin, for that matter. Sin was only introduced into the scene later.
"Since he did not do so, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that he is ultimately responsible for the presence of homosexual inclinations and behavior." - Micatala
To draw this conclusion you have to accept that God is the author of sin. Is he? If we can do as we will--with the free will that we possess--is God the author of sin?
"I partially agree. Going back to your child parent analogy, applying this idea only to God and man with respect to aspects where man does exercise free will.
A parent might allow a child to exercise free will over certain areas. However, a parent can err in his judgment as far as how much 'free will' the child is capable of responsibly exercising. It is one thing to allow a 16-year old to drive the family car around town. It is another to allow him to take a cross-country road trip. Personally, if a parent allowed a 16-year old to go on the road for two weeks on his own and he ended up wrecking the car, I would consider the parent more responsible than the child." Micatala
I agree! If a parent let a child make a cross-country trip I would have to say that the child is more responsible than the parent!
However, as we return to the child / parent analogy, lets not forget that God is perfect and does not make mistakes. He does, however, allow us to make mistakes.
"If God empowers man to employ free will, He is inherently limiting his own power to direct man's actions. Even thoutgh he is doing this voluntarily, he is implicitly limiting His own power. I am suggesting this because it seems to me to be the reality." Micatala
Your statement assumes:
1. That God chooses to direct the actions of all men. I read in the Bible where God will direct the actions of Believers. But not of all men. Is there some Scripture that you can point me to if Ive missed something?
2. That by allowing free will to man, that God cannot intervene into what man is doing a put a stop to it. Do you remember the story of the Tower of Babel. Who proved to be more powerful, God or man?
"By allowing free will, God has empowered people like Hitler to commit horrendous atrocities, and if one assumes He could have stopped this and yet didn't because He bound Himself to allow free will, this means he is limiting the effect of His omnipotence." Micatala
I think you have to assume that God empowered Hitler. I see no evidence that He did. And wasnt Hitler defeated and his war machine utterly destroyed? Can you say that God had no hand in delivering to Hitler such a defeat?
"What we are called to be is irrelevant to the point. People and animals are created with homosexual tendencies. If you want to make the case that people should go against these natural tendencies for other reasons, please do so, but that does not negate the fact that homosexuality is part of creation, is natural, and thus can ultimately be ascribed to God." Micatala
While Im not aware of any studies that have been performed to determine if animals are homosexual, I am aware that there have been multiple studies to determine if humans have been "created" to be homosexual (biologically homosexual). To date, there have been no finding to suggest that homosexuality is biological (created). So, with respect, I dont think you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is "created" and thus cannot ascribe homosexuality to God.
"No, sin is not natural to man. Man existed prior to the existence of sin. IMV, sin is only possible when one has a relationship or at least a conception of God. When man got to the point where he was capable of moral judgment, an understanding of God, etc., then sin became part of the picture." Micatala
A fair point, sir! Yes, man existed prior to sin. But I will use myself as an example. I was born into a fallen state. Sin was very natural to me.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12
And while you raise a fair point, I think I will be safe to remain with my original comment.
"I also don't think it is 'nonsense' to suggest that the existence of sin is, if not created by God, at least the ultimate responsibility of God. Certainly each individual commission of a sin by an individual is that person's choice. But that person would never have had the capacity to make that choice if not endowed with that power by God." - Micatala
But God did give us that choice! Not to choose to sin. But to choose Him! Without the choice you and I are mindless robots not capable to any real relationship with God and not capable of any real love.
"In addition, under the assumption that homosexuality is biological in nature, and not moral or spiritual in nature, as is evidenced by its existence in the animal kingdom, it is invalid to compare homosexuality per se with sin." Micatala
But again, you have to make the assumption--without evidence--that homosexuality is biological. You also have to become "god" for yourself, deciding what is and what is-not sin.
And that job has been taken
"If there is no understanding of God, does this mean there is no sin, as there is no 'willful or deliberate' violation of God's will?" Micatala
I dont know. But for our purposes, you and I have Gods Word--the Bible--and know what sin is.
"The admonition not to do harm to one's brother is only part of what Paul is saying here. It is also a passage which clearly allows that act X when committed by A might be sinful but that the same act might not be sinful when committed by B." Micatala
Im afraid that I do not understand how.
"I don't see that you can explicitly consider the end of chapter 13 as a "preface" to 14 from the context. In addition, note that the main point is that "love is the fulfillment of the law"." Micatala
Im not trying to trick you and didnt intend for just the "end of chapter 13" to be used as the sole preface for chapter 14, but only shared a part to make a point.
And, yes, love is the fulfillment of the law.
But what is love, Micatala?
"Also, if you are equating all homosexual sex with "sexual immorality and debauchery" I think this is quite an unfair and subjective characterization. Would we characterize all heterosexual sex in these terms?" Micatala
Outside of marriage? Absolutely.
"In addition, note the emphasis on the "nearness of salvation". In this letter and elsewhere, Paul clearly implies he expects Jesus to return in the near future. This is why, for example, he suggests that it is better for "all to remain celibate as I am". However, he does allow that it is OK for people to marry if they are unable to handle celibacy. If we allow this for heterosexuals, why would we not for homosexuals? To expect homosexuals to remain celibate when we do not expect heterosxuals to carry this same burden, which even Paul admits is an unbearable load for most, are we not being not only unfair, but hypocritical?" Micatala
We allow this for heterosexuals because this is the only provision that God has allowed for sexual relations. And if homosexuality was biological then you might have a point about this being "unfair" or "hypocritical".
"The problem is that I don't view your opinion as what God is telling us, I view it as what you and other believers of similar views believe. If one really does view every jot and tittle of the Bible as God's literal word that must be obeyed, then I would submit that there isn't one Christian in a 1000 that actually believes this. We ALL have some areas of the Bible where we have decided, hopefully after prayer and ample reflection, that this proscription either doesn't mean what it seems to say, or is over-ruled by a more relevant or compelling teaching, or simply doesn't apply outside of the more limited context in which we find it. I think a good case can be made that Paul's admonitions against homosexuality are archaic cultural views (like his views on women speaking in church or not cutting their hair) and that he likely was not speaking of homosexuality as we understand it today but only in a more limited context of idolatry or as acts committed in deliberate rebellion to God." Micatala
Well, sir, you are free to believe as you choose and I hope that regardless of your choice of beliefs you will consider me something of a friend.
Yes, I do believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that it is all true. However, I do not believe that it all applies to today. The Old Testament was written for only the Jews and only applied to Old Testament times. It has never applied to Gentiles.
However, the New Testament applies to all of us.
Now, your comments on Pauls admonitions against homosexuality being "archaic cultural views" are old complaints. However, Paul speaks to homosexual acts, only. And only in the sense that they are acts of an unnatural function..
And while idolatry certainly played a part of life in Pauls day (and some could argue it does so today), the idolatry that Paul describes is one where a general atmosphere or environment of rebellion is created that allows for the rebellion of the homosexual act and not "they worshipped idols so they committed a homosexual act".
"A committed Christian who also happens to be a homosexual does not fit into this category at all." Micatala
Correct.
"Many Christians allow that divorce and remarriage is not sinful." Micatala
Sad, but true.
"The vast majority of Christians ignore quite a number of OT proscriptions. Those concerning diet, clothing, personal grooming, gender roles, etc." - Micatala
WellIve already explained the Old Testament, havent I?
"How many Christians sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor?" Micatala
Im not one of em.
"A few Christians consider polygamy allowable, and they frankly have a good biblical basis for thinking this way." Micatala
I would have to take issue with this. Simply because polygamy is in the Bible does not make it allowable. Incest, rape and murder are in the Bible, too, but nobody would say that these are allowed.
"Some Christians consider all killing, even in war, as sinful. Others allow that there are circumstance, including but not limited to war, where killing is not a sin." Micatala
And a better understanding of the Bible would answer these questions.
"These are just a few examples." - Micatala
Yes, we could probably come up with more, couldnt we?
How sad.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #56
correct me if i am wrong, but is'nt 'sin' going against God's will and decree? So if God allowed us free will (that, the option to disobey him) doesnt that stand to reason that he affectivly created sin?To draw this conclusion you have to accept that God is the author of sin. Is he? If we can do as we will--with the free will that we possess--is God the author of sin?
Also, if God is omnipotent, then technically everything is his fault, for if he wished every action and event is capable of his manipulation.
it would seem here, that free will doesnt really exist: one can do whatever they wish, but God will punish them horribly if they go against him.1. That God chooses to direct the actions of all men. I read in the Bible where God will direct the actions of Believers. But not of all men. Is there some Scripture that you can point me to if Ive missed something?
2. That by allowing free will to man, that God cannot intervene into what man is doing a put a stop to it. Do you remember the story of the Tower of Babel. Who proved to be more powerful, God or man?
this thinking seems inherently flawed: everything evil isnt god, and everything good is god... never mind the fact that WWII consisted of America, Russia,Britian vs Nazi Germany. Contributing success demeans the efforts of those who accomplished.I think you have to assume that God empowered Hitler. I see no evidence that He did. And wasnt Hitler defeated and his war machine utterly destroyed? Can you say that God had no hand in delivering to Hitler such a defeat?
If God wanted to include himself in the possitive outcome of WWII, he should have stopped it instead of letting it continue, but "helpin the good guys win".
While Im not aware of any studies that have been performed to determine if animals are homosexual, I am aware that there have been multiple studies to determine if humans have been "created" to be homosexual (biologically homosexual). To date, there have been no finding to suggest that homosexuality is biological (created). So, with respect, I dont think you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is "created" and thus cannot ascribe homosexuality to God.
the point of citing animal homosexuality, is to show that homosexual tendancy is natural, and panoramic to many creatures of the planet; so if homosexuality is natural to animal and human nature, how could this not be the responsibility of the creator?
if he didnt want it, why is it here?
so, based on this quote, without the choice of sin or god, we would be mindless robots?But God did give us that choice! Not to choose to sin. But to choose Him! Without the choice you and I are mindless robots not capable to any real relationship with God and not capable of any real love.
in fact, it was my mind that chose to dismiss god. And without god, i am capable of love.
the choice of god comes to this: Choose between what you can see and prove, and what you cant ever prove but want to be there.
Faith is literaly belief without proof.
this is unreasonable.
What else is unreasonable, is this choice thing.
God did not give us a real choice.
it was as much of a choice as communist voting, or a dictatorship.
heres an example:
Frank: hey there Tom, here is a choice
Tom: Im listening
Frank: You can either take this hamburger, or take this hotdog
Tom: ok, lemme think
Frank: Before you choose, if you take the hotdog, i will shoot you in the leg, five time, with a pistol.
Tom: Oh... um, hamburger.
That was a wise choice that Tom made. Hamburgers are deliciouse, and much better than bullets in the legs. You need legs to walk around. And besides, being shot hurts, and hotdogs hurt your tummy.
The point here, is that there is no REAL choice, just a rhetorical one.
alright, this post i wanted to debate was just too long winded. im done for right now.
Post #57
Hello AClockWorkOrange,
"but is'nt 'sin' going against God's will and decree? So if God allowed us free will (that, the option to disobey him) doesnt that stand to reason that he affectivly created sin?" AClockWorkOrange
By this reasoning it seems that rape is never the fault of the rapist--its really Gods fault.
The kidnapper is not at fault--its Gods fault.
The murderer is not at fault--its really Gods fault.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
"Also, if God is omnipotent, then technically everything is his fault, for if he wished every action and event is capable of his manipulation." AClockWorkOrange
Having the power to control all things and actually controlling all things are two very different arrangements. I have the power to prevent my very young grandson from ever spilling milk on the kitchen floor again (by simply never give him anymore milk). However, if I decide to give him the milk and he spills it, is it my fault?
"it would seem here, that free will doesnt really exist: one can do whatever they wish, but God will punish them horribly if they go against him." AClockWorkOrange
Not at all true
""Everything is permissible"but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"but not everything is constructive." - 1 Corinthians 10:23
"the point of citing animal homosexuality, is to show that homosexual tendancy is natural, and panoramic to many creatures of the planet; so if homosexuality is natural to animal and human nature, how could this not be the responsibility of the creator? if he didnt want it, why is it here?" AClockWorkOrange
I think you will have a difficult time attempting to equate animal behavior with human behavior. Animals act instinctively without intellect. Dogs will eat their own feces. Black Widows kill and eat their mate after sexual relations. Snakes abandon their newborns and allow them to fend for themselves. These are very "natural" things that animals do, but I dont really think that you mean to suggest that just because animals do them it is right, appropriate or proper for humans to do these same things.
But, yes, homosexuality is "here" and the Bible has been very clear about calling it a sin.
"But God did give us that choice! Not to choose to sin. But to choose Him! Without the choice you and I are mindless robots not capable to any real relationship with God and not capable of any real love." - Dale
"so, based on this quote, without the choice of sin or god, we would be mindless robots?" - AClockWorkOrange
Not exactly what I meant.
What I was trying to relay is that without choice--without free will--then, yes, would we not be robots? Without free will, would we not have to be told what to do, how to act, etc. with respect to everything?
"in fact, it was my mind that chose to dismiss god. And without god, i am capable of love." - AClockWorkOrange
So by choosing God, how am I not capable of love?
"the choice of god comes to this: Choose between what you can see and prove, and what you cant ever prove but want to be there.
Faith is literaly belief without proof.
this is unreasonable." AClockWorkOrange
But the evidence, the proof of God is all around us. There have been libraries of information written on this same subject.
I will agree with you that faith without proof is unreasonable. Thank goodness there is so much evidence to reassure us.
"What else is unreasonable, is this choice thing.
God did not give us a real choice." - AClockWorkOrange
Yes, I dont like the word "choice" when it comes to "choosing" ones sexuality. For those who struggle there truly seems to be no choice. Thank goodness for those that want it, help is available.
"alright, this post i wanted to debate was just too long winded. im done for right now." AClockWorkOrange
Alright my friend. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
"but is'nt 'sin' going against God's will and decree? So if God allowed us free will (that, the option to disobey him) doesnt that stand to reason that he affectivly created sin?" AClockWorkOrange
By this reasoning it seems that rape is never the fault of the rapist--its really Gods fault.
The kidnapper is not at fault--its Gods fault.
The murderer is not at fault--its really Gods fault.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
"Also, if God is omnipotent, then technically everything is his fault, for if he wished every action and event is capable of his manipulation." AClockWorkOrange
Having the power to control all things and actually controlling all things are two very different arrangements. I have the power to prevent my very young grandson from ever spilling milk on the kitchen floor again (by simply never give him anymore milk). However, if I decide to give him the milk and he spills it, is it my fault?
"it would seem here, that free will doesnt really exist: one can do whatever they wish, but God will punish them horribly if they go against him." AClockWorkOrange
Not at all true
""Everything is permissible"but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"but not everything is constructive." - 1 Corinthians 10:23
"the point of citing animal homosexuality, is to show that homosexual tendancy is natural, and panoramic to many creatures of the planet; so if homosexuality is natural to animal and human nature, how could this not be the responsibility of the creator? if he didnt want it, why is it here?" AClockWorkOrange
I think you will have a difficult time attempting to equate animal behavior with human behavior. Animals act instinctively without intellect. Dogs will eat their own feces. Black Widows kill and eat their mate after sexual relations. Snakes abandon their newborns and allow them to fend for themselves. These are very "natural" things that animals do, but I dont really think that you mean to suggest that just because animals do them it is right, appropriate or proper for humans to do these same things.
But, yes, homosexuality is "here" and the Bible has been very clear about calling it a sin.
"But God did give us that choice! Not to choose to sin. But to choose Him! Without the choice you and I are mindless robots not capable to any real relationship with God and not capable of any real love." - Dale
"so, based on this quote, without the choice of sin or god, we would be mindless robots?" - AClockWorkOrange
Not exactly what I meant.
What I was trying to relay is that without choice--without free will--then, yes, would we not be robots? Without free will, would we not have to be told what to do, how to act, etc. with respect to everything?
"in fact, it was my mind that chose to dismiss god. And without god, i am capable of love." - AClockWorkOrange
So by choosing God, how am I not capable of love?
"the choice of god comes to this: Choose between what you can see and prove, and what you cant ever prove but want to be there.
Faith is literaly belief without proof.
this is unreasonable." AClockWorkOrange
But the evidence, the proof of God is all around us. There have been libraries of information written on this same subject.
I will agree with you that faith without proof is unreasonable. Thank goodness there is so much evidence to reassure us.
"What else is unreasonable, is this choice thing.
God did not give us a real choice." - AClockWorkOrange
Yes, I dont like the word "choice" when it comes to "choosing" ones sexuality. For those who struggle there truly seems to be no choice. Thank goodness for those that want it, help is available.
"alright, this post i wanted to debate was just too long winded. im done for right now." AClockWorkOrange
Alright my friend. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #58
By this reasoning it seems that rape is never the fault of the rapist--its really Gods fault.
The kidnapper is not at fault--its Gods fault.
The murderer is not at fault--its really Gods fault.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
no, it doesnt sound reasonable, which is i why i dismiss the christian god.
?Having the power to control all things and actually controlling all things are two very different arrangements. I have the power to prevent my very young grandson from ever spilling milk on the kitchen floor again (by simply never give him anymore milk). However, if I decide to give him the milk and he spills it, is it my fault
it is your fault if you strike the child knowing completely that he would spill that milk.
this is semantic: it is not beinficial becuase God punishes you for your infractions: disobeying God.Not at all true
""Everything is permissible"but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"but not everything is constructive." - 1 Corinthians 10:23
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4
But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. Chronicles 36:16
"Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
Isaiah 10:5
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36
we are animals, and share many many many characteristics. What seperates us is that we evolved intellectually, and were able to remove ourselves from the state of nature.I think you will have a difficult time attempting to equate animal behavior with human behavior.
People still exhibit bizzar and detrimental behaviors (or simply "different" behaviors) the difference lying between us and animals is that human communities are far more judgemental. behavior is all a matter of relativity, really.
I cite any cultural difference as an example.
where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic.What I was trying to relay is that without choice--without free will--then, yes, would we not be robots? Without free will, would we not have to be told what to do, how to act, etc. with respect to everything?
not my point.So by choosing God, how am I not capable of love?
my point is, God is not love, that emotion exists with or without a belief in a deity.
i would love some proof, please provide.But the evidence, the proof of God is all around us. There have been libraries of information written on this same subject.
I will agree with you that faith without proof is unreasonable. Thank goodness there is so much evidence to reassure us.
it seems that all the proof you have (correct me if i am wrong) is essentially pointing at something and saying "something had to create this".
speculation is not good enough proof to me, i am sorry.
there should not be a struggle, without honesty in your sexuality, your life is so very hard and psychologically damaged. Gay people should be gay. Straight people should be straight.Yes, I dont like the word "choice" when it comes to "choosing" ones sexuality. For those who struggle there truly seems to be no choice. Thank goodness for those that want it, help is available.
Post #59
Hello AClockWorkOrange,
I apologize for taking so long in getting back to you.
"no, it doesnt sound reasonable, which is i why i dismiss the christian god." AClockWorkOrange
So why dismiss Him? Are there no other options to consider? Are there no better understanding of Scripture to consider? Are you sure that youve considered all aspects?
"it is your fault if you strike the child knowing completely that he would spill that milk." - AClockWorkOrange
I never said anything about striking the child. I will, however, have to clean up after him--a natural consequence. It falls completely in-line with that whole "you reap what you sew" philosophy. Act in a certain way and there may be good or bad consequences to follow. Having something bad happen to you (AIDS, anal cancer, colostomy bags, etc.) are not punishments. Theyre simply the natural outcome of a specific form of behavior.
"this is semantic: it is not beinficial becuase God punishes you for your infractions: disobeying God.
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4
But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. Chronicles 36:16
"Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
Isaiah 10:5
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36" - AClockWorkOrange
Very well--if you say so. But please give that last piece of Scripture you quoted some consideration.
"we are animals, and share many many many characteristics. What seperates us is that we evolved intellectually, and were able to remove ourselves from the state of nature.
People still exhibit bizzar and detrimental behaviors (or simply "different" behaviors) the difference lying between us and animals is that human communities are far more judgemental. behavior is all a matter of relativity, really.
I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
What separates us from the animals is that we were made in His image. Yes, some people do exhibit some pretty bizarre behavior such as the Virginia Tech gunman.
"behavior is all a matter of relativity, really. I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
If you can cite cultural differences to suggest that behavior is relative then please do so. However, please consider this
If cultural differences can show that all behavior is "relative", then it stands to reason that all cultures are equal. So lets compare other cultures to the traditional American culture.
What about a culture that celebrates high-jacking of multiple planes and using them as missiles to destroy buildings and 3,000 people?
What about a culture that will throw acid in the face of women that do not cover their faces.
What about a culture that will kill a sister or daughter who is a victim of rape to "protect the families honor"?
What about a culture that will refuse to allow little girls from leaving a burning building until they cover their hair?
or shoots them in the back?
Are these simply "cultural differences" or have we simply been "judgmental" and identified an inferior culture?
"where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic." AClockWorkOrange
Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task.
"my point is, God is not love, that emotion exists with or without a belief in a deity." AClockWorkOrange
It works in reverse, too. God exists with or without a belief in the Deity. Also, please consider 1 John 4:8 "because God is love.
"it seems that all the proof you have (correct me if i am wrong) is essentially pointing at something and saying "something had to create this".
speculation is not good enough proof to me, i am sorry." - AClockWorkOrange
No speculation will be necessary. Here is a good place to start
https://ww2.micahtek.com/nexolive/nShop ... N=40679287
Now, be ready to do your homework. The responsibility is on you.
"there should not be a struggle, without honesty in your sexuality, your life is so very hard and psychologically damaged. Gay people should be gay. Straight people should be straight." AClockWorkOrange
But there is a struggle and it typically begins within the homosexual person to fight the feelings that they are having because they inherently know that something is wrong. And it is hard for them and many struggle with it. But they struggle not to give in but to overcome. And for those that reach out for help and are able to find it and are able to overcome same-sex attractions and have happy, fulfilling heterosexual lives.
I apologize for taking so long in getting back to you.
"no, it doesnt sound reasonable, which is i why i dismiss the christian god." AClockWorkOrange
So why dismiss Him? Are there no other options to consider? Are there no better understanding of Scripture to consider? Are you sure that youve considered all aspects?
"it is your fault if you strike the child knowing completely that he would spill that milk." - AClockWorkOrange
I never said anything about striking the child. I will, however, have to clean up after him--a natural consequence. It falls completely in-line with that whole "you reap what you sew" philosophy. Act in a certain way and there may be good or bad consequences to follow. Having something bad happen to you (AIDS, anal cancer, colostomy bags, etc.) are not punishments. Theyre simply the natural outcome of a specific form of behavior.
"this is semantic: it is not beinficial becuase God punishes you for your infractions: disobeying God.
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4
But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. Chronicles 36:16
"Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
Isaiah 10:5
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36" - AClockWorkOrange
Very well--if you say so. But please give that last piece of Scripture you quoted some consideration.
"we are animals, and share many many many characteristics. What seperates us is that we evolved intellectually, and were able to remove ourselves from the state of nature.
People still exhibit bizzar and detrimental behaviors (or simply "different" behaviors) the difference lying between us and animals is that human communities are far more judgemental. behavior is all a matter of relativity, really.
I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
What separates us from the animals is that we were made in His image. Yes, some people do exhibit some pretty bizarre behavior such as the Virginia Tech gunman.
"behavior is all a matter of relativity, really. I cite any cultural difference as an example." AClockWorkOrange
If you can cite cultural differences to suggest that behavior is relative then please do so. However, please consider this
If cultural differences can show that all behavior is "relative", then it stands to reason that all cultures are equal. So lets compare other cultures to the traditional American culture.
What about a culture that celebrates high-jacking of multiple planes and using them as missiles to destroy buildings and 3,000 people?
What about a culture that will throw acid in the face of women that do not cover their faces.
What about a culture that will kill a sister or daughter who is a victim of rape to "protect the families honor"?
What about a culture that will refuse to allow little girls from leaving a burning building until they cover their hair?
or shoots them in the back?
Are these simply "cultural differences" or have we simply been "judgmental" and identified an inferior culture?
"where is the free will in a theistic society? everything you do has to be up to gods standards, so all free will is purely cosmetic." AClockWorkOrange
Yes, everything has to be up to Gods standards and alone none of us can ever hope to accomplish that. However, with the acceptance of Gods Son we can accomplish this heady task.
"my point is, God is not love, that emotion exists with or without a belief in a deity." AClockWorkOrange
It works in reverse, too. God exists with or without a belief in the Deity. Also, please consider 1 John 4:8 "because God is love.
"it seems that all the proof you have (correct me if i am wrong) is essentially pointing at something and saying "something had to create this".
speculation is not good enough proof to me, i am sorry." - AClockWorkOrange
No speculation will be necessary. Here is a good place to start
https://ww2.micahtek.com/nexolive/nShop ... N=40679287
Now, be ready to do your homework. The responsibility is on you.
"there should not be a struggle, without honesty in your sexuality, your life is so very hard and psychologically damaged. Gay people should be gay. Straight people should be straight." AClockWorkOrange
But there is a struggle and it typically begins within the homosexual person to fight the feelings that they are having because they inherently know that something is wrong. And it is hard for them and many struggle with it. But they struggle not to give in but to overcome. And for those that reach out for help and are able to find it and are able to overcome same-sex attractions and have happy, fulfilling heterosexual lives.
-
olivergringold
- Apprentice
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:39 pm
Post #60
Homosexuals struggle with the decision to come out of the closet because they face the judgmental scowls of people who take scripture literally. If you set aside your historically distorted, ancient fictions and began appreciating life as a singular experience then they wouldn't have to struggle with their identity.
