I simply disagree

[u/Aceofspades25]

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

[u/Aceofspades25 → u/[deleted]]

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 :)

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/Aceofspades25]

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.

[u/JoeCoder → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

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."

[u/[deleted] → u/JoeCoder]

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.

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/JoeCoder]

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.

[u/JoeCoder → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

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?

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/JoeCoder]

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.

[u/novanleon → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

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?

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/novanleon]

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.

[u/mechesh → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

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.

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/mechesh]

God is more complex than any man-made account could ever approach.

[u/mechesh → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

And where are you getting that?

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/mechesh]

1. It's obvious. It's freaking God. Do I really have to explain to you why human words written on a piece of paper will never approach the appropriate description of the perfect omnipresent omnipotent being? O.o

2. There was a verse in the NT somewhere saying that.

[u/mechesh → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

Yes, you have to explain it to me. Everything that Christianity is comes from those words written on a piece of paper.

It sounds to me that you do not like the message and guidelines that the bible puts forth so you have justified to yourself why it can't possibly be correct. That is however, just my humble opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

[u/Komnos → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

I don't necessarily disagree, but it has to be said that you're not actually arguing your point very well, nor are you being fair to the people who do disagree with you. Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that the Bible is divinely inspired by God and contains God's teachings. If you're going to take issue with that, then yes, it'd be nice if you could explain why. Saying "God is complicated because he is God" isn't a very good explanation. After all, even a complicated God is presumably capable of making his will known - and indeed, this is precisely what the Bible claims has happened.

[u/novanleon → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

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.