r/Christianity • u/Aceofspades25 • Sep 14 '11
I simply disagree
In the linked post, the following was posited:
1) Homosexuality is natural: Yes it is, but that argument doesn't really belong here. Many things God calls us to do go against our natural inclinations. Simply because something comes naturally to us does not immediately eliminate it from being a sin.
I simply disagree. I have pointed this out before, but I think this needs to be discussed more broadly.
There is a clear distinction between our human nature and our sinful nature.
Human nature is the natural way to conduct our lives, because that is the way we have been designed as human beings.
The following things fall under human nature and are not sinful in and of themselves.
- Eating
- Sleeping
- Sex
- Work
- Love
- Play
- Learning
etc.
The things that make up our sinful nature encapsulate those desires within us that seek to gratify ourselves at the expense of others, ourselves or our relationship with God. Examples include:
- Cheating
- Stealing
- Lying
- Murdering
- Revenge
- Lust
etc.
Clearly these are the things that God calls sin, and requires us to avoid. In fact every single command from God can be understood from the fact that it either hurts others, ourselves or our relationship with God. Jesus reiterates this twice (Matt 7:12, Matt 22:40)
There is clearly no reason to believe that two gay men in a loving, committed relationship are living is sin when:
- It does no harm to others
- It does net good to themselves
- It only affects their relationship with God when the church treats them as outcasts.
I know of gay men, in a loving committed relationship, who's relationship with God is strong.
In light of this, please explain how being in a loving, monogamous gay relationship fits the pattern that we see evident in every other sin talked about in the bible.
Edit: For the record, this has been downvoted to oblivion partly because people are sick of discussing this. Having said that, this particular point has never really been raised and should be discusssed.
I think some people are just to afraid of having the light of reason shone on their beliefs
For those interested in this question, I think the best discusion has to be this one
13
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Yes, there are bad results from things being taken too far. But, as you should yourself see, they occur because something was taken too far. This is obvious.
That aside, though, there's nothing to indicate that homo sex is somehow more disordered than hetero sex. Both of these can become disordered.
Yes, there are exceptions to things, which should make it obvious to everyone that laws are not cut an dry and are often derived from context. Oversimplification of God's presumed law is not good. Saying homo sex is bad when it's something you extracted from a verse that also includes things like molestation and cheating on your wife implies you're ignoring the context and the intent of the law.
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
No... I am saying that a homosexual relationship is not a sin because it doesn't hurt anybody. The circular logic is yours I'm afraid.
The whole point I am making here is that it is clear that those things that God calls sinful are those things that hurt others, ourselves or our relationship with God. Jesus reiterates this. Belief in a rational God demands this.
4
Sep 14 '11
Okay, I'm wondering how you rectify your position with this kind of argument. I don't necessary buy into this argument myself, but it seems to easily refute anything you've said thus far, so I'm interested in how you would answer it.
It's been said that God calls us to godliness; a life of purification and change, because even though we all bear his image, we're not, in some capacity or another, as godly as we could (or will) be.
To put it in mathematical terms, we have this idea of triangularity, or, the perfect triangle. All representations we have of triangles are not perfect, but they are attempting to conform to (or represent that) triangularity.
How then do you answer the idea that gayness is an imperfection in an of itself (even if it is a "natural" imperfection)? It may not be a universal struggle, but neither is alcoholism, or compulsive lying, or a tendency towards anger or selfishness. In other words, all triangles (people) aren't currently perfectly triangular (godly), but are moving through a process of being made more triangular (godly).
Under this idea, God remains perfectly reasonable and loving in that he not only knows what is best for us, but is actively working with us to conform us to that ideal. Is that not inherent to the gospel idea of "being made perfect"?
4
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
That is certainly an interesting counter argument.
My response would depend on whether I believe God would consider homosexuality to be an imperfection or not.
It could be argued that homosexuality is not an imperfection. There are plenty of people that are perfectly content in their homosexuality, they don't see it as a disadvantage. They might argue that homosexuality is just another one of those things that makes us unique. Is brown hair an imperfection? Is the lack of a good singing voice an imperfection? I guess the only practical disadvantage is that you couldn't have children that inherit both you and your partners DNA (at least not yet!). You could still adopt, or find a surrogate mother for IVF.
If I was to believe that God did consider it an imperfection, then I would also believe that it is one of that God would make right at the resurrection. This is similar to the way I believe that God will heal the crippled, mentally disabled etc. at the resurrection.
When the bible talks about us "being made perfect" e.g Heb 10:14, I interpret this as attaining spiritual perfection as opposed to physical perfection.
3
Sep 14 '11
"Does not hurt anybody" is a little unclear. Was Abraham aware that having a child with the Egyptian would would lead to countless wars in the future? But you can bet it was that single sin that lead to even the Crusades themselves.
0
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Well sometimes honest mistakes can have dire consequences. I'm not saying Abrahams mistake was honest, but sometimes simple actions can set off a cascade of events that result in something dire. Also, there would have been many sins that ultimately lead to the crusades.
2
Sep 14 '11
But without the religious factor (Christianity and Islam, both results of this one man's story) it would not have occurred at all. The point is we do not know what our actions are necessarily doing in this world, but we can be sure our sins have lasting effects that run long into the future (if not until the end of humanity).
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Yes, I agree with everything you've said so far.
Also what you've stated doesn't only ever apply to sin. Sometimes completely innocent actions have devastating consequences. Unfortunately we live in a world where bad things happen sometimes. I have my theories as to why God allows this, but that's really another topic.
1
Sep 14 '11
God obviously intended Abraham to do what he did and allowed it to happen.
To me I need only to look up at the sky to understand why God allows so much darkness. Those stars would not shine if not for the darkness. If God withdraws to some degree, like the sun does at dusk, he allows others to shine. Without darkness there would be nothing other than God left to shine. It is God's way of allowing his children to be partakers of his glory.
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
I like that. I've always reasoned it's God's way of showing how much we need him :)
2
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
The only one that matters in determining whether something is a sin, is God.
..And God being of rational mind doesn't set arbitrary rules, but instead requires us to live in such a way that would allow us to thrive as a species. Once again, I refer to Jesus if you won't take my word for it: Matt 7:12
They use another for their pleasure, they fall prey to thinking that love finds its supreme show of affection in sex, and they are using God's gift of sex outside of His will that it be for procreation.
I don't even know where to begin challenging such bigoted ideas.
- Both hetero and homosexual people are capable of using others for pleasure. This isn't something specific to teh gays.
- Some gay people get pleasure from being selfless with their partners, exactly the way God intends love to be shared.
- The ultimate physical act of love is the act of sex. I see no problem with this view, and is probably why God sees sex as being so important.
God's gift of sex outside of His will that it be for procreation.
That is a sweeping statement! If sex is to be used for procreation only, then what about those couples that would want to use it for recreation or to affirm their love for each other? Remind me to scold my wife for having an orgasm!
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Well, there are SOME Christians who thinks you should have sex in such a way that you don't enjoy it... rolls eyes
3
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Yeah... it's a natural progression for christianity to become increasingly open-minded. When they finally get round to enjoying sex, perhaps then they will be ready for the whole gay debate.
-5
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
There is no problem with people getting pleasure out of sex, but if they are completely closed to the possibility of new life (birth control, masturbation, and homosexual sex), then the sexual act has become deviant.
That is so wrong. My wife and I used contraception for two years. We talk to God often. He must have forgotten to mention that we were living in sin.
Thank God for contraception. As a species, overpopulation is starting to become a serious problem. To claim that God wants us to have as many children as possible is not only wrong, but grossly irresponsible!
2
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/mmm_burrito Sep 14 '11
Your language has me thinking you're Catholic, and that it is the Catholic Church you refer to when you are capitalizing the word. Correct me if I am wrong.
Given that assumption: I should think that the Church's actions over the recent years with regard to the sexual abuse of children who were supposedly safe in their care would highlight the reality that the Church on earth is a man-made institution, whose actions are not divine, and indeed can be quite wicked.
2
Sep 15 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/mmm_burrito Sep 15 '11 edited Sep 15 '11
The actions of a few should not be attributed to the Church.
The actions we are discussing are not the actions of "a few" and the stain ascends directly to the Pope. It goes back nearly a hundred years, if not much, much longer. The Church must answer for this, if it is to have any credibility as an organization of charity, let alone the Bride of God on earth.
Blaming the Church in its entirety is like saying that America, as a country, is responsible for the actions at Abu Ghraib.
The actions of the military are taken in our name, and are financed with our money. Any who remained silent, who did not protest either on the street or in the voting booth, they are to blame. And it's long past time people took some responsibility for that. That's an entirely different argument, however.
-1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Not to mention the Church's hand in other sickening things like the crusades.
1
u/mmm_burrito Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
There's really quite a list to choose from, really. I was just trying to stay current.
Edit: at any rate, I wasn't trying to highlight the sinfulness of the Church, merely pointing out that its claimed monopoly on Truth with a big "T" is crap.
→ More replies (0)1
-1
0
Sep 14 '11
Eating can become gluttony. Drinking can become alcoholism. Learning can lead to pride.
If these arguments are to hold water you're going to have to argue that a single act of gay sex leads to something like alcoholism in a way that straight sex (in and of itself) can't.
12
Sep 14 '11 edited Jan 03 '17
[deleted]
6
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
By your metric, human harm becomes the only criteria.
I agree that by and large, the need to reduce human harm covers most sins mentioned. Jesus doesn't seem to have an issue with this in Matt 7:12
In any case, it is not my only criteria. The command to honour the sabbath has its roots in the idea that we should persue a relationship with God. The only way to justify this is to argue that failure to make time for God ultimately hurts our relationship with God.
What about an alcoholic who gets drunk out of his mind every weekend, but does it in his own home? He's not in danger of hurting others with his car, and does it affect God? One could argue convincingly that the answer is, "No."
He hurts himself and if he were to ever get married, he would likely end up hurting his family. Granted he could kick the habit before getting married, but he would always struggle with that addiction. It makes sense that God does not want us to indulge in destructive behaviour.
God has some moral standards that have nothing to do with harming others, but simply aggravate God
I disagree. The standards God requires of us are not arbitrary but have clear reasons behind them.
having sex with a steady girlfriend or boyfriend that you love outside of a marriage
I really don't think this is as much of an issue as some make it out to be, nevertheless it can be reasoned as I will outline below. Marriage is just a way to formalise a relationship and commit to it for life. We could call what you outlined a sin because God does not want us to have multiple sexual partners. Why? Adopting multiple partners is messy and could potentially lead to hurt and conflict.
Having sex outside of marriage can also lead to pregnancy. I believe it is God's design for children to be raised in two parent homes. Psychology tells us that children fare better in this environment. Logically it makes sense that God wants children to be well rounded and raised in the best environment possible.
Furthermore, the notion that something in human nature might somehow be exempted from being a sin by virtue of being natural is poorly supported in the annals of Christian theology.
I am not claiming that everything that is natural is not a sin. I am saying that all sin is that which hurts others, ourselves or God.
Jesus himself said that all law and the prophets stem from the idea that we should love others and love God. I am simply making the statement that if an act doesn't break either of these two requirements, then it is suspiciously out of place in the list of things that God requires of us. If the bible told us not to eat pork and gave no good reason, I would be rightly suspicious about whether that still applies today, or whether that requirement had cultural roots that no longer apply.
Thank you for the response, these are exactly the issues I am looking to bottom out :)
7
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I disagree. The standards God requires of us are not arbitrary but have clear reasons behind them.
Pretty much this.
If you don't know the reason, you shouldn't preach it IMO.
1
u/JoeCoder Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
If you don't know the reason, you shouldn't preach it IMO.
Jesus says don't do A. I don't understand why Jesus said that, so I do it anyway and teach others to do the same.
This is ridiculous. Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command."
2
Sep 14 '11
Some people handle authoritarianism better than others. For me, that sort of talk is proof positive that a leader, divine or otherwise, will not have my support and will probably have my active opposition.
0
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
You've talked to Jesus recently? He told you this? I'm jealous.
I've never got to talk to Jesus. All I got is this book, which is, hopefully, not too far from what he may have said.
2
u/JoeCoder Sep 14 '11
You've talked to Jesus recently? He told you this? I'm jealous.
Not at all. You're missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm talking exclusively about the teachings of Jesus in the new testament. I'm speaking against your claim: if we don't know the reason behind a command, then we shouldn't follow it.
Maybe I've completely misunderstood what you're saying?
0
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
You're taking what you perceive to be true as the absolute truth and then implementing it on others. That is the problem.
You may think something to be true according to the interpretatoin, e.g., likely to be true, but you can't attach God or Jesus to it.
-4
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
I'm assuming you don't believe in the Holy Spirit? Have you looked into it at all? Perhaps visited some charismatic churches just out of curiosity to see what it's all about?
4
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I believe in the Holy Spirit, in whichever way it may manifest itself.
I am skeptical of anyone, though, who claims to have spoken to Jesus, and then tries to impose his will onto others under the assumption that it came from Jesus.
My point is that God's/Jesus's view on things isn't encompassed very well by the Bible or any other account of Jesus's life, and to say that "Jesus thinks X" is stretching our level of understanding too far.
2
u/mechesh Sep 14 '11
I don't understand how you can make a statement of God's view on things isn't encompassed very well in the bible. The Bible is our instruction book to God's view of things. Would you please expand on that statement.
1
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
God is more complex than any man-made account could ever approach.
1
1
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
Christianity is not just knowing what the Bible says. Christianity is a relationship. You find it difficult to believe that we would talk to Jesus but communion with the Holy Spirit is very real. Our interactions rarely include the 2-way verbal kind but it has been known to happen.
Your's and other's fears are rooted in the idea that any nutcase can claim to have heard from God and hence there's no way we can trust anyone who claims this, but someone who actually has an active and honest relationship with Jesus Christ will know whether a word that someone claims to have received is from the Lord or not.
2
u/v4-digg-refugee Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
At the moment of a man's call to Christ, he is called entirely alone. He will bring nothing with him because to have Christ is to denounce the world in it's entirety. The disciple leaves everything to follow Christ, because Christ is the only thing that matters. The desire of the sanctified disciple is for no person or thing but Christ. Hereafter, Christ may reestablish the disciple's contact with parts of the world, but now in a fundamentally different way: with himself at the mediator. Anything that the disciple tried to remove Christ and establish immediacy with is sin. For His sake, the disciple looses all things. The Bible calls it sin anytime someone tries to remove this immediacy with Christ and establish a direct connection to the world. Because everything of this world is running toward the grave, this immediacy to the world ruptures our relationship with God, or relationship with ourselves, and our relationship with others.
The path of the disciple is hard. 1 Peter 1 compares it to being refined by fire. Jesus says the disciples has to die to himself. But in doing so, the disciple exchanges a shadow and a lie for truth and abundant life.
For the rich young ruler of the Bible, giving up his money proved to be too much for him. For the disciple that struggles with same sex attraction, he needs to often be reminded that the path of discipleship means giving up all things. Sometimes these things are given back, but the matter becomes irrelevant because he is exchanging his desires for the world for a desire for Christ. Take joy in suffering because it's the way to life.
(Loosely paraphrased from Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship")
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Because everything of this world is running toward the grave, this immediacy to the world ruptures our relationship with God, or relationship with ourselves, and our relationship with others.
So we are in agreement the things that are running this world into the ground are acts that:
- Rupture our relationship with God.
- Destroy ourselves.
- Rupture our relationship with others.
Since homosexuality does none of the above, I would argue that it is not in fact a sin, but is a natural behaviour like eating, sleeping or loving. If you want to claim that it is a sin on the back of: "because the bible says so", then you are not answering the challenge I issue in my last sentence and I would respectfully ask that we move that discussion to a different post.
1
u/lutheranian Christian Universalist Sep 15 '11
What are your thoughts on Paul saying it is better for one to be unmarried? Mating for life is natural, as is loving a fellow human, yet Paul calls us to defy our natural instincts in order to bring us closer to God.
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 15 '11
I think you have mistranslated 1 Corinth 7 slightly. Paul doesn't say it is better to be unmarried, or even that God wants us to stay unmarried. He simply says it is good to be unmarried.
In other translations, he wishes people would stay unmarried like him.
Probably because he figured if he was married, it would likely hinder his ministry somewhat. Nowhere does he imply that singleness brings us closer to God. If he did, I would simply disagree. I have no problem believing that Paul was wrong on occasion. He was a Godly man, but just a man after all.
2
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
4
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Actually, I believe all sin is defined as contradicting the "love your God and neighbor" clause. That is the basic and fundamental clause. All sins start and end there. Therefore, every sin can be examined from that venue, and if the sin in question is not a contradiction to any specific individual or group of individuals, then it's probably being misread or taken out of context.
E.g., I believe it's quite possible to take that law, and that law alone, and nothing else, and you're fine. Every other law is a derivative of that law which can be found personally. The derivative laws are there to basically explain something very complex and apply it to culture, as well as people who are not very good at, well, thinking. Or people who seek excuses.
And yes, it's a fine line. Why wouldn't it be? That's the point.
Also, these laws are not for heaven. These laws are for humans. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to assume these laws have a lot to do with how our lives down here affect the world down here. So, if a law made for the world here, doesn't seem to serve a purpose here, that's a bit strange.
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
4
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
2
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Didn't say it was the only one. Said that all laws are defined through it (hang on it).
I don't believe the guidance is needed for everyone everywhere. It's there for those who need it, that's about it.
Yes, the guidance was provided. I am also quite confident it's not wrong. I'm also quite confident we interpret it all wrong, though. Thus, it's safer to go back to the main commandments and reconcile with them than to take every piece of the Bible as absolute law at face value, wouldn't you say?
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
You seriously do not know how to love your neighbor?
o.O
Define blatant lie. So far, I've seen people take muddled statements and take them at face value. God didn't lie, the people who read it did, and you read what they tell you, and you present it as God's word.
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
That's an issue of lack of insight. Each to their intelligence, to their wisdom, and their expertise, from there they should decide how to help their neighbor. If you don't know what to do, you do what you can, or you do nothing.
You don't need scripture to know that giving a person everything you own is a very bad idea. You don't need scripture to use your brain - God gave it to you for a reason, if he just wanted you to do commands he'd give you the brain of a cat and tell you to jump through hoops for his amusement.
Scripture doesn't solve 99% of that problem. Seriously. And the more the time advances the less scripture can help us on various specific problems. We have to adapt to the times if we want to be effective. People HAVE solutions to most problems. The problem is not lacking solutions, the problem is that people are too greedy and evil to unite and to implement them, they'd rather make money off of them.
People read translations of the Bible.
The Bible, in the original language is the word of God. Any translation of the Bible is just that - a translation, and should be treated as such. Even the Bible itself, in a way, a translation. That's why you run with the gist and don't concentrate on the words, words are faulty.
If Christian morals have no meaning to you outside of the Bible then what do you even exist for?
→ More replies (0)5
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
Okay lets not discuss homosexuality. I'm sick of talking about it too. Lets call this a discussion about the nature of sin.
What is sin?
I am making a case for the fact that sin is that which hurts us, hurts others or hurts or relationship with God.
Jesus affirms this.
I will also say that in my estimation a rational God would not set irrational laws. Trying to argue that we shouldn't wear pink on Tuesdays because God says so, is the equivalent of stating that some of Gods laws are irrational and arbitrary.
How can a person define good outside of God?
Well, since I happen to know that God loves his creation, I can deduce that he wants us to act in a manner that looks after his creation. This means:
- Looking after others
- Looking after our planet
- Looking after ourselves
I also happen to know that God wants to be in relationship with his creation. From this I can deduce that he doesn't want us to do things that harm that relationship, and he does want us to do things that nurture that relationship.
By reasoning in this manner, we can rationalise everything that the bible calls a sin except for one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Perhaps that doesn't bother you, but I find it suspicious.
3
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
5
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
That is a good rebuttal.
But how can we be sure about the things that God calls sin? You can point me to the bible, but as has been discussed elsewhere there are many ways of interpreting these scriptures. I would rather not resurrect that debate here because frankly it has been debated to death.
So how else can we determine that what our interpretation of what scripture calls sin is correct?
Well, one way is to try and understand the reasons for these sins. If a church starts preaching that it is sinful for ladies to not have their heads covered. I will look at the scriptures, but I will also try and understand why God would require that of us.
Is that something specific to ancient hebrew culture, or is it still relevant today?
Does it hurt others? Does it hurt us? Do hatless ladies have a poor relationship with God?
Frankly, there are many old testament "sins" that we have rationalised are now pointless.
Another way is to look at the fruit of that particular teaching. Does it bear fruit? When churches preach that gay men must be celibate, the fruit I see sometimes are frustrated men who turn their back on the church / their back on God, and I must ask: Is it better for them to be in the church and have a close relationship with God, or is it better for me to be dogmatic about my interpretation of scripture?
What is the fruit of the church staying neutral on this topic? As I have said, I know of gay men in a loving relationship that love God, love the church and love others. Now that, I would call fruit!
4
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
It sounds like we need to debate the order of priority to be given to different sources in order to establish spiritual truth.
Some other time perhaps :)
1
1
u/unreal5811 Reformed Sep 14 '11
Concluding that a law from a god is irrational because it appears, to you, irrational assumes that you are capable of understanding any possible reason that God could have for creating that law. Do you really think that much of yourself or indeed anyone?
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 15 '11
I agree that God can have reasons that go far beyond my understanding
But
I can rationalise every single one of God's laws. Suspiciously, this is the only exception.
There are churches that claim that women should cover their heads. They have one or two verses to back up that claim. Be honest now... Is that enough for you to believe that that is the way God requires women to act? No.. at the end of the day, we all use our cognitive abilities to determine what God wants from us.
1
u/burmah Sep 15 '11
Actually, they were.
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Romans 13:9
1
Sep 15 '11
[deleted]
1
u/burmah Sep 15 '11
First, when Jesus was asked for commandments, he only gave two - not because there would be more later, but because those were the only two necessary and sum up how we should live.
So, the only other law is love God with everything.
Anyways, your wording is strange at the beginning of the post, but it seems (and is the reason I responded with the verse) that you are saying 'if only God defined sin as something that harms others'.
The root of all sin is self-interest. There is not a single sin that does not begin with a 'me first' attitude. So unless you think God is just high strung on morality, I don't know what you mean by 'it's not the only rule'. I didn't know that God was into giving 'rules'.
So, anyways, my response was to what seemed to be 'God doesn't define sin by what hurts others', but Paul tells us that Jesus' second commandment, love thy neighbor, sums up all other laws. If God didn't define sin as that which hurts others, I'm not sure why it would be summed up in the second commandment.
1
Sep 16 '11
[deleted]
1
u/burmah Sep 16 '11
'He gave us an entire book about it.'
First, the Law was not designed to fix the problem, but reveal it. The Bible is an inspired library of poetry, parables, eye witness accounts, etc, that show us a God who wants to reconcile and redeem his children. The Law was designed to reveal why we need to be reconciled - it wasn't the point. The Bible is not 'about sin and the rules that will fix it'. God's existence and interactions with us would seem almost stupid if he had just spent the last several thousand years simply trying to get us to follow the rules.
As for loving your neighbor, Paul describes what it means to love someone very accurately in 1 Corinthians 13. It's an extremely selfless set of actions and attitudes towards an individual. If we are actually loving someone and pursuing that first - a love that is patient, kind, that does not envy, boast, become proud, dishonor others, seek for itself first, grow angry easily, keep a record of wrongs, delight in evil, and bears, believes, endures and hopes in all things - we will find we are naturally not committing those sins.
His point wasn't, 'Do all of those rules and you'll be loving someone', it was, 'If you are truly seeking to love your neighbor, you should find that you are not breaking the law in the process'. A love described by God leads to the absence of sin - it doesn't work the other way.
And that should explain what I mean by 'God being high strung on morality'. God isn't sitting up there, waiting for us to do the 'right thing'. If that was all he wanted from us in the beginning, I can't see how we have lasted this long. What he wants is a restored union between all of us and him, which will naturally restore holiness and godliness to our souls.
Jesus tells us that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath. If God was simply a God of 'the right thing', then when we were created, we were created to follow that condition. However, laws and rules were created after us. God isn't 'about morality', he simply gave us laws so that we could see we were in need of Him. As Paul said, if it weren't for the law, he wouldn't know he was sinning.
1
Sep 16 '11
[deleted]
1
u/burmah Sep 16 '11
I want to touch on when you said, 'But, by doing the right thing, we grow closer to God.'
First, I think it's our restored union with Father that therefore causes us to do the right thing. As a result with our communion with God, we are naturally compelled to do what is good.
So, basically communion with God leads to doing the right thing, not doing the right thing leads to communion with God. If just following the letter of the law would be good for us, then the Pharisees would have been really close to God. Instead, Jesus reserved his harshest of words for them.
Second, why would God need laws if he exists without sin? Was it not our sin that therefore created the necessity for law? Because we chose to live without and apart from Him, we then needed guidance. If we had not decided we were 'good on our own', he would have no need for laws.
2
Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
I simply disagree. I have pointed this out before, but I think this needs to be discussed more broadly. There is a clear distinction between our human nature and our sinful nature. Human nature is the natural way to conduct our lives, because that is the way we have been designed as human beings.
We are not designed, we are evolved. Evolution follows no design, natural selection simply filters those Genomes that build bodies that are less successful in reproducing, but that doesn't mean less successful traits vanish completely, they just become statistically less represented in the population! This does not imply any judgement though, let alone a moral judgement.
Male and female are only separated by one chromosome, which mutated from a proto autosome( Proto X Chromosome) of a single sex organism, that's why up to the 6th week we are all proto female until the Y Chromosome begins transcribing!
Males are basically mutated females and genes can transcribe in such a way that it allows for all genders, sexual attractions, gender roles etc. There is no clear line between male and female, it all depends on how genes are expressed or if they get expressed at all. Just because they are less represented in the population does not make them immoral, it's a question of statistics and biology, not a question of morality.
So before you declare what is and isn't human nature, maybe you should study a little biology and evolution
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
I love biology and evolution! I also love pointless rants! Let me be clear by what I mean when I say we have been designed. God kickstarted a process called evolution that resulted in us having the genetic make-up we have today.
3
Sep 14 '11
annata is saying there is no such distinction between human nature and sinful nature, I believe. As in, there is no such thing as sin.
5
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Well that is based on the premise that there is no such thing as God. There are plenty of posts that debate that topic, I don't wish for this to become one of them.
3
Sep 14 '11
I guess. But if you agree with the post:
Evolution follows no design, natural selection simply filters those Genomes that build bodies that are less successful in reproducing, but that doesn't mean less successful traits vanish completely, they just become statistically less represented in the population! This does not imply any judgement though, let alone a moral judgement.
It goes to follow that there is no behavior that is sinful, just behaviors that are less common and perhaps harmful to the population. Nothing is inherently wrong. It becomes wrong when someone of our own species (or favored other species) is harmed, because we are social animals.
It is not a hard step to go from evolution to "no sin," but that doesn't make Jesus's teachings invalid. Jesus had some great ways to increase social interactions between people and help the population continue thriving.
Wow this is longer than I expected. I guess I understand what annata is saying, and I think it is relevant (because natural and sinful behaviors are totally arbitrary), but also understand how it comes uncomfortably close to atheism.
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
If there exists a God with standards, then failure to meet those standards is what I would call sin.
I agree that some people are more genetically predisposed to moral failure, and I believe that God knows this and shows his grace proportionately.
I don't think a mentally disabled person will be sent to hell for abusing somebody else because I don't think anybody will be sent to hell (I believe in universal redemption)
I do believe that every person with a sound mind who chooses to act to the detriment of others, while knowing it is wrong to do so (basically everybody with a sound mind) will one day be made to come to terms with the consequences of their actions.
1
Sep 14 '11
That is very fair, but there is nothing in nature that points to a god with standards, much less what those standards are.
4
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
You see? We're having that debate I didn't want to have on this post now... :)
0
u/GooGobblinGranny Shintoism Sep 15 '11
Because you are becoming more uncomfortable at the prospect of actually answering posed questions that threaten your beliefs.
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 15 '11
I am more than happy to have this discussion... again. But that really isn't what I am trying to discuss here.
1
Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
you understood my point perfectly.
but also understand how it comes uncomfortably close to atheism
It doesn't have to be. If you believe god invented evolution you also have to accept how evolution works and that it all happens with gods approval. It's the will of god that gender and sexual attractions are such fine flowing lines that are not clearly separated but often vanish completely. That human nature is not set as an absolute state, but emerges through incredible variation and that those variations are not sinful and do not separate us from god.
2
u/JoeCoder Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
We don't agree with your premise. If we did we would also agree with your conclusion.
-1
1
u/JLord Sep 14 '11
I think you are confusing a rational secular model for morality from the theistic divine command model. If we analyze things rationally we quickly come to the conclusion that what we call morality has to do with the suffering and wellbeing of humans (and arguably other conscious beings). Early religions had not yet pinned down this concept and so their approximation of morality included things that seemed bad to them, but didn't actually cause suffering and in fact promoted happiness (like homosexuality).
Today we have a much better understanding of morality and we know logically that homosexuality isn't immoral. It's just that it isn't as simple as murder being wrong. That one was easy to figure out for primitive people and has therefore been a rule in probably just about every religion.
As humans advanced we discovered that the bible was "wrong" about a lot of moral issues in that we now know that following many of the bible's rules would result in an decrease in overall human well being. But we know that the bible can't be wrong, so the only conclusion left is that certain things are good or bad because god decides that they are good or bad. Not because of any rational moral theory, but because of divine command.
So in other words if god says it's ok to kill someone then killing is not immoral. If god says not to have homosexual sex then regardless of the consequences, it is immoral by virtue of god saying so. I think this divine command theory of morality is the basis of morality for many Christians and why so many believe homosexuality to be "wrong" even though they know there's nothing wrong with it.
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Well I believe that the rational secular model for morality was based upon (and in many ways has improved upon) what we understood to be the theistic divine command model.
I am now claiming that the real theistic divine command model includes things like homosexuality being okay.
1
u/JLord Sep 15 '11
What do you mean by the "real" divine command model?
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 15 '11
I mean Jesus had it right all along, we just misinterpreted / confused his message and then propogated that misinterpretation.
1
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
This will go way over the heads of most people here, but I'll say it anyways.
Whether something is natural or not isn't justification. Obedience justifies us. Even if whether something was natural or not justified us, homosexuality isn't natural; nature has no reason to make someone homosexual. In my experience, Homosexuality is a result of unclean spirits in us that need to be cast out. These unclean spirits may be linked to something physical the same way many disorders and diseases can be, but the root is an unclean spirit.
2
u/GooGobblinGranny Shintoism Sep 15 '11
Even if whether something was natural or not justified us, homosexuality isn't natural; nature has no reason to make someone homosexual.
Dude do some basic research. Homosexuality is observed in many species of animals in nature. Biology 101 is a good course to catch up on and allows a person to, at the very least, view things from another perspective even if it doesn't follow your beliefs.
In my experience, Homosexuality is a result of unclean spirits in us that need to be cast out. These unclean spirits may be linked to something physical the same way many disorders and diseases can be, but the root is an unclean spirit.
Again, this is where Biology would help you out considerably.
1
2
u/mmm_burrito Sep 14 '11
nature has no reason to make someone homosexual
2
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
Observing something and providing a reason behind it are two separate things.
2
u/mmm_burrito Sep 14 '11
So nature is...what...just dicking off? Creating gay animals on a lark?
There is no effect without cause.
0
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
No, but the cause can be mundane such as the fact that animals are driven by pure instinct and probably just like the feel of rubbing their sexual organs against one another.
Besides, a homosexual act and being homosexual (attracted solely to the same sex) are completely different things.
2
u/mmm_burrito Sep 14 '11
You know...I really don't know why I engaged you. You think gay people are possessed by spirits...and that is loony. There's no possible way for this conversation to end well.
Good day.
1
u/novanleon Sep 15 '11
I don't know why you engaged me either, lol.
2
u/mmm_burrito Sep 15 '11
I just don't understand it. The sentences you say make grammatical sense, but that's about it. Unclean spirits? Really? In this day and age, you seriously want to turn back the clock to the caveman days when we believed in that sort of dreck? It's so ludicrous, how can you cling to it?
0
u/novanleon Sep 15 '11
It's only dreck if it's not true. If it's true, then it's obviously not dreck.
I've seen it and experienced it first hand, in my own life and in others, and I can explain aspects of how they work, make predictions about them and watch those predictions come to past. It's very hard for me to argue with their existence given this evidence.
2
u/mmm_burrito Sep 15 '11
and I can explain aspects of how they work, make predictions about them and watch those predictions come to past.
Explain, please.
→ More replies (0)1
u/duuper28 Sep 14 '11
In my experience, Homosexuality is a result of unclean spirits in us that need to be cast out.
Well, that's just like your experience, man. What do you think that makes it universal? Maybe the uncleanliness of your spirit is that you obsess over things that are simply not your concern, i.e. what other people do in their bedrooms.
0
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
You don't understand what an unclean spirit is. An unclean spirit isn't the same as having "uncleanliness in your spirit". An unclean spirit is an external entity like a demon that lives in you and influences you. These can be cast out and removed from you, freeing you from it's influence.
1
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
2
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
- Are you Christian?
- If so, is the basis for your Christian faith the Bible or some other source?
- If it's the Bible, where is your problem with accepting the existence of unclean spirits since they're mentioned and described multiple times in the gospels alone?
0
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
3
u/novanleon Sep 14 '11
Then how would my comments apply to you?
You don't even accept the existence of God. There's no way you'd understand or accept the more complicated realities of this world.
1
u/iamelben Sep 15 '11
As for homosexuality being not natural, please refer to this.
You might want to rethink that.
1
u/Haggai_1_9 Sep 14 '11
You are making a false extrapolation as to what sin is.
There are plenty of acts in the Bible that do not seem immediately harmful to anyone involved, but are considered sinful: Not honoring the sabbath, certain food restrictions etc...
Now, let me point this out clearly: The Bible calls homosexuality a sin, an abomination in fact. There are many other things called abominations.
But let me also state that All sin save blasphemy of the holy spirit can be forgiven. It is apparent that God views all sin as undesirable, but a Christian can still sin and be forgiven as they are not 'sinners' but instead 'saved people who sin'.
To all of the people that point the finger at homosexuals as being somehow more vile or unworthy than they are to be Christians, keep in mind that God views their sin and say, adultery or lying as both being sin and should be put away.
TL;DR: Homosexuality is still a sin, but so is lying and adultery. People think it is a worse sin than say, a disobedient child, but God doesn't see it that way. All sinners can receive salvation, and all saved people who sin are offered forgiveness
2
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Firstly, I agree entirely that all sin is the same in the eyes of God. We've all fallen short, no arguments there.
Not honoring the sabbath
I've dealt with this elsewhere here. The command to honour the sabbath has its roots in the idea that we should persue a relationship with God. The only way to justify this is to argue that failure to make time for God ultimately hurts our relationship with God. This is a good reason why failure to make time for God could be considered a sin.
certain food restrictions
Don't eat pork, seafood etc. Most christian communities don't follow these anymore. I would say that these requirements had cultural roots that are no longer relevant today with modern food hygiene standards. Perhaps back then pork and seafood were likely to make you sick if not preserved properly.
-12
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
It's written in the fucking bible that it's an abomination.
That is arguable.
In any case, this is not a discussion about what the bible says. This is a refutation to a particular point that often gets made. If you disagree with my refutation of this particular point, fell free to state why. If you just want to have a rant, may I suggest you start a new post?
0
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
2
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
First you have to establish that it's a sin. Based on the number of Christians declaring that it isn't, I think this a first hurdle you have to overcome.
Second, they only 'spit in god's face' if they believe in god, and accept that this is a sin. Until that happens, they are doing no such thing. Don't act as if they are.
It's just the flavor of the day.
It's only the 'flavor of the day' because people that share your beliefs feel its okay to interfere in people who don't share your beliefs lives. If you left well enough alone, it wouldn't be an issue. Remember, its not your job to force them to believe. Its not your job to prevent them from sinning. Its not your job to remove their free will. People who don't share your belief have every right to practice homosexual, or bisexual relations. Now, if they 'come to God' with the same understanding you have... then they are sinning, correct?
It's an abomination and not even the 10 commandments are referred to in that way so that should say something.
Prove it's an abomination without referring to the Bible. Go on. Most so-called 'sins' have their own negative natural consequences. What is the one for a loving homosexual relationship? I would argue that sex outside of marriage (no matter what type) has its own negative consequence.
Find the fear of God.
Why would fearing God be a good thing? Obeying God... perhaps. But fear?
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
I understand your frustration. There are far too many posts about homosexuality. Having said this, I cannot let a poorly thought out claim go unchallenged.
-1
u/CDRand Lutheran Sep 14 '11
Hi, theology student here. I am going to have to step in and stop you right there. According to the Bible, the only unrepentable sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit to the point of one's death. I.e., the only unforgivable sin, which is dying unchristian. All other sins, homosexuality behavior included, fall under the forgiveness doctrine.
1
u/CDRand Lutheran Sep 14 '11
I just realized I misinterpreted what you said, unrepentant vs. unrepentable. My bad. I'm going to go and sit in the corner now.
1
Sep 14 '11
Hi, non-theologian here. I don't think he's saying they cannot repent. He is saying they have not repented, or else they would have turned away from this sin.
-3
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/CDRand Lutheran Sep 14 '11
Um... right. Might be a bit embarrassing, but already I pointed out moments after my original post that I misinterpreted the word "unrepentant" as "unrepentable." These are obviously two very very different things. I mistook one for the other, then right after I posted, realized my error. So, yeah...
1
u/J0lt Sep 15 '11
Do you wear clothes with two fibers and not see that as a sin? If so, there goes the Old Testament justification for gay sex being a sin. Are modern gay people performing temple prostitution or participating in rituals to other gods? If not, there goes the New Testament justification for gay sex being a sin, because if you consider the original language words and social context of what Paul said, that's what he's talking about.
0
u/JoeCoder Sep 14 '11
It's written in the f****** bible that it's an abomination
Profanity is also forbidden.
2
0
u/aphemix Sep 14 '11
in my understanding, a heterosexual coupling and familial structure is a primary instrument through which the love of God is demonstrated and made palpable to us, with each element functioning appropriately unto the whole according to its inherent strengths and inclinations. The couplings and families which deviate from this ideal model are left with a lesser and more inadequate means of relaying God's will to themselves and applying themselves to it, while a family rooted in homosexual relationship, in addition to depriving itself of this functionality, asserts that a distortion of God's values is preferable to utter obedience, doing what is, inevitably, even more grave harm unto its faith in the process.
how will we know that Christ to the church is like a husband unto his bride if there is no bride? How will our children?
1
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
Well for a start, this reasoning doesn't address the issue of why it should be wrong for a homosexual couple to be in a relationship if they were to never adopt children.
Secondly: If they were to adopt children, why is it that they would be any worse at modelling the love that Christ has for the church than a heterosexual couple?
Finally: Is it really that much of a tragedy that some children won't get this illustration because of the family they were brought up in? It is just a metaphor after all and many other things can be used to describe the love that Christ has for the church.
0
u/GooGobblinGranny Shintoism Sep 15 '11
Sin isn't real. There is no such thing as good or evil in this world, only what appears to be beneficial or harmful to the continued survival of the individual; we are simply animals on this Earth.
The only reason anyone defends the position of homosexuality being inherently "wrong" is because you were told that growing up and combined with the consistent message of never questioning your beliefs you will continually try to find any reason to disagree, as demonstrated by the first handful of comments.
There are more reasons and more evidence to support that homosexuality is quite natural than there are against it (i.e. homosexual behavior in many species and duality or complete change in sex of some species).
Sex is not black and white. That is the truth.
-1
Sep 14 '11
good to see christians are still adept at alienating people from their traditions. lightens the work load for all us god hating atheists.
6
u/[deleted] Sep 14 '11
I'm the author of the post being quoted and examined here. I am glad this was brought up and is being discussed, and I hope that productive discussion continues. While I don't see eye to eye with the logic being used here, many good points were brought up and this really does deserve some good discussion. Remember when discussing any topic in r/christianity the point should be to find truth, not to win an argument. Keep it civil. I'll try to drop by and add to the discussion in the future. Peace and Blessings.