Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Greatest I Am]

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

[DefenderofTruth]

The unanswered question still remains... Do you put a sexual identity above faith in God? Do you put your choice in a partner above God? Does this seem right to you?

Well, the question you ask is a rather abstract one for me. Any God that you speak of doesn't come from a physical source but from a book ...right? Have you ever seen God? Has God ever spoken to you audibly? No? So, it's faith in this unseen and unheard from God from the pages of a book that you would put above a human relationship with someone you love ...right again?

You know, if God actually exists in the manner that Christians believe Him to then He would surely understand that his 'existence in book form' is all that any of us can go by to indicate that He exists at all. Wouldn't it have been a better idea - especially since 'salvation' is dependent on a belief in God/Jesus - for God to put in an occasional physical appearance every now and again so that no one can dispute his existence? 'Faith' is subjective and cannot either be substantiated or measured.

Thats a very important question if you are a Christian.

Well, perhaps so. But surely this should not be to the exclusion of actual facts (objective) and common sense reasoning ...?

Ok so you are saying Christianity, and what we know about Christ is not a Word from a Holy God... If you disbelieve the scripture then there would be no authority in its word which deems it irrelevant to source any knowledge from it to you, but if you are a Christian then the authority of the scripture is valid. So if this is a debate of whether or not Christianity believes homosexuality is a sin, that is just an irrelevant question to you?


"Faith" is an attribute to a persons state of being, absolutely it is subjective. But Christianity is not subjective but instead objective and if we wish to consult with Christian belief then we would look to see what scripture says about something.

hense "Thats a very important question if you are a Christian."

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1368 by DefenderofTruth]

But Christianity is not subjective but instead objective and if we wish to consult with Christian belief then we would look to see what scripture says about something.

Is it objective though? There are 40,000 denominations and counting Christianity continues to splinter even within denominations. It seems to me there is a lot of subjectivity to it. There are some even valid arguments that homosexuality isn't a sin depending on how you interpret the Hebrew and Greek.

There are plenty of Christian denominations that even have gay weddings. I just attended my aunt's gay wedding. The Presbyterians have gay marriage as a religious rite. So is it really that objective?

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 1368 by DefenderofTruth]

But Christianity is not subjective but instead objective and if we wish to consult with Christian belief then we would look to see what scripture says about something.

Is it objective though? There are 40,000 denominations and counting Christianity continues to splinter even within denominations. It seems to me there is a lot of subjectivity to it. There are some even valid arguments that homosexuality isn't a sin depending on how you interpret the Hebrew and Greek.

There are plenty of Christian denominations that even have gay weddings. I just attended my aunt's gay wedding. The Presbyterians have gay marriage as a religious rite. So is it really that objective?

I dont deny that people can have subjective beliefs even about Christianity, in fact maybe all of us have some degree of subjective beliefs about any beliefs we hold, but the scripture is here no matter what any of our personal subjective beliefs are. No matter what you and i believe, the scripture has a message. A message which is apart from what you or i believe. That makes it a objective message apart from our beliefs. The scripture tells us Christ is the Son of God, that message is set apart from what anyone believes, and in fact God is set apart from what we believe individually. Or let me rephrase, a "Holy" God is set apart from what you or i believe.

The word "Holy" literally means "set apart" and "sacred", the very idea of a "Holy" God is an objective truth rather then subjective. It is believed that a "Holy" God came from outside of us, and apart from us. And i believe that is true, i didn't come up with "Jesus saves", and i couldn't have came up with the message of Christianity. It has been revealed to us from a "Holy" God. And the "revelation" from a "Holy" God is the nature of how belief in Christianity works. It is by "revelation" that people believe Christ is the Crucified Messiah. That is a revelation apart from us, and revealed to us by a "Holy" God. That is an objective belief that came from outside of us.

I see people all the time make God subjective, but they are not appealing to a "Holy" God. They ponder the subject and come to conclusions on their own accord, saying things like "God is a universal conscious", or something like that. But the "Holy" God's message came from outside of us and revealed to us, apart from our own thinking, that Christ is the Crucified Messiah.

In order to confess a "Holy" God, one must appeal to the objectiveness of the Holy God which tells us He sent his Son that we might believe. That is the nature of an objective "Holy" God. That we don't confess ourselves and our own thinking but instead confess God.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to DefenderofTruth]

It's not just that their beliefs about Christianity is subjective it is the interpretation of scripture that is subjective. It is not written in an objective way. One of the earliest disputes Christians was whether or not Jesus was the son of god, whether he even had a physical body, or whether or not he was even divine.

Following the Apostolic Age, from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.[27][28] As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body

These beliefs derive from the subjective scriptures they had to work with. If there is an objective truth about Christianity it is certainly not found in the scriptures.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1370 by DefenderofTruth]

The word "Holy" literally means "set apart" and "sacred", the very idea of a "Holy" God is an objective truth rather then subjective. It is believed that a "Holy" God came from outside of us, and apart from us. And i believe that is true, i didn't come up with "Jesus saves", and i couldn't have came up with the message of Christianity.

Your idea that the word holy means an objective truth is just your subjective opinion. My mind is set apart from your mind does that make my mind an objective truth? Sacred simply means something of intense value or worthy of worship? Holy does not literally mean an objective truth you have interpreted it to mean that.

It has been revealed to us from a "Holy" God. And the "revelation" from a "Holy" God is the nature of how belief in Christianity works. It is by "revelation" that people believe Christ is the Crucified Messiah. That is a revelation apart from us, and revealed to us by a "Holy" God. That is an objective belief that came from outside of us.

Are all revelations identically the same? What about people who have revelations of different gods or religions? Do Christians even receive the same revelations? The Gnostics belief system is based off of revelation yet their revelation was significantly different than others? Is there anything objective about a persons revelation?

I see people all the time make God subjective, but they are not appealing to a "Holy" God. They ponder the subject and come to conclusions on their own accord, saying things like "God is a universal conscious", or something like that. But the "Holy" God's message came from outside of us and revealed to us, apart from our own thinking, that Christ is the Crucified Messiah

.

Did you come up with capitalism or were you taught about it? If you were taught about it this means it came frame outside of yourself. It was revealed to you from a mind apart from your own. Does that mean capitalism is an objective truth?

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to DefenderofTruth]

It's not just that their beliefs about Christianity is subjective it is the interpretation of scripture that is subjective. It is not written in an objective way. One of the earliest disputes Christians was whether or not Jesus was the son of god, whether he even had a physical body, or whether or not he was even divine.

Following the Apostolic Age, from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.[27][28] As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body

These beliefs derive from the subjective scriptures they had to work with. If there is an objective truth about Christianity it is certainly not found in the scriptures.

Is evolution a subjective truth too then? Because people debate the mechanisms that try to explain how it happens?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to DefenderofTruth]

Ideas and beliefs are typically subjective. Mathematics are typically objective. If evolution is genetic variation over time all you have to do to prove it is take genetic samples from a parent and it's offspring and compare for variation. If there is variation evolution is a factual i.e. Objective statement.

Now evolution in of itself is a subjective word that people define differently. So there is subjectivity within that framework.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to DefenderofTruth]

Ideas and beliefs are typically subjective. Mathematics are typically objective. If evolution is genetic variation over time all you have to do to prove it is take genetic samples from a parent and it's offspring and compare for variation. If there is variation evolution is a factual i.e. Objective statement.

Now evolution in of itself is a subjective word that people define differently. So there is subjectivity within that framework.

Maybe if someone said something like "evolution is a bad way to describe change in species" it would be subjective, because the word "bad" is completely subjective. But if we are investigating evolution and its mechanisms, and one person might say "evolution works by an undirected process", and another might say "evolution works by a directed process", these statements are both objective statements about an objective subject. Just because they go against each other and both can't be true doesn't make it a subjective subject. It is irrelevant to whether they believe it or not that evolution might be a directed or undirected process, their personal beliefs about how evolution works is irrelevant to to if its true or not.

Now if they said "evolution is a bad way to explain change in species", that becomes a subjective statement which is based off of personal belief. It is his/her personal belief that evolution is a 'bad' way to explain something.

So if there is disputes about the factual nature of something, that does not mean it is then therefor subjective like you suggested. That is just two competing objective statements about something. So to dispute on "Christ is divine" or "Christ is mortal" doesn't make it subjective. It has nothing to do with their personal beliefs if it is true or not, thats not what determines if Christ really was divine or mortal. If Christ really was a mortal it isn't because one of them believed that, and it isn't subjective. The statement "Christ is the Son of God", or "Christ is the Crucified Messiah", or "Christ merely a human", or "Christ is a mythology"... Whether or not these are true have nothing to do with personal belief and they are not subjective statements.

Whether Christ really is a mythology, or Christ really is the Son of God, it has nothing to do with subjective personal beliefs of what you or i might think, but instead is determined by what the reality of Christ really is... Its not subjective..

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1375 by DefenderofTruth]

That is just two competing objective statements about something

Facts only have one objective statement I.e. The fact itself. For example 2+2=4

There is no two competing objective statements about 2+2=4

So when you say

evolution works by an undirected process"

"evolution works by a directed process"

You are dealing with a subjective opinion. The directed vs undirected portion of these statements is where it becomes subjective. They both can't be true ergo these are not examples of objective statements. They are dependent on the belief of the entity making the statement, hence their subjectivity.

Now if you were to state evolution is a directed process and here are the facts xyz. The subjective opinion can be supported by objective evidence. There is nothing objective about an opinion.

What you are trying to say is 2+2=X and 2+2=y are objective statements where x≠y. Only one statement is correct yet it remains undetermined as to which one is. So anyone making a claim to the veracity of either one of these statements is making a subjective statement based on their belief of x or y.

If you could show the value of x or y then you could make an objective statement.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 1375 by DefenderofTruth]

That is just two competing objective statements about something

Facts only have one objective statement I.e. The fact itself. For example 2+2=4

There is no two competing objective statements about 2+2=4

So when you say

evolution works by an undirected process"

"evolution works by a directed process"

You are dealing with a subjective opinion. The directed vs undirected portion of these statements is where it becomes subjective. They both can't be true ergo these are not examples of objective statements. They are dependent on the belief of the entity making the statement, hence their subjectivity.

Now if you were to state evolution is a directed process and here are the facts xyz. The subjective opinion can be supported by objective evidence. There is nothing objective about an opinion.

What you are trying to say is 2+2=X and 2+2=y are objective statements where x≠y. Only one statement is correct yet it remains undetermined as to which one is. So anyone making a claim to the veracity of either one of these statements is making a subjective statement based on their belief of x or y.

If you could show the value of x or y then you could make an objective statement.

An objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true. (Butte College, "Objective and Subjective Claims", butte.edu)

Just because it is objective doesn't necessarily make it true, that is why we can have different objective statements that conflict with each other and beliefs based on objective facts can be wrong. It doesn't mean that they are therefor subjective because the wrong conclusion was made on bases of factual information, they are still objective statements and beliefs but just come to wrong conclusions.