Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
O’Darby, you keep on using the word “depraved”. As I pointed out many posts ago - depravity is a word fitting for sexual assault and other things like that which are legitimately harmful. To use it to describe homosexuality is absurd. In fact, it is horrible, you do no service to your religion (“Orthodox Christianity”) by showing how shallow and immature its morality is.
O’Darby, you keep on using the word “depraved”. As I pointed out many posts ago - depravity is a word fitting for sexual assault and other things like that which are legitimately harmful. To use it to describe homosexuality is absurd. In fact, it is horrible, you do no service to your religion (“Orthodox Christianity”) by showing how shallow and immature its morality is.
It seems to me that a worldview that is so fragile that it simply can't abide strong words being used to describe certain sexual activities that were universally considered deviant a mere generation ago is not a worldview with staying power.
O’Darby, you keep on using the word “depraved”. As I pointed out many posts ago - depravity is a word fitting for sexual assault and other things like that which are legitimately harmful. To use it to describe homosexuality is absurd. In fact, it is horrible, you do no service to your religion (“Orthodox Christianity”) by showing how shallow and immature its morality is.
I think it's great that he makes our point for us.
From the OP: To me, same sex attraction is not a big deal, to others it is sin.
Hmmm . . .I recall a conversation that I was having years ago with someone having just heard a sermon that had emphasized the term 'sin' and as to how one must overcome sin to be right with God. This person couldn't quite grasp what the term 'sin' actually meant. And to tell the truth, neither could I since it would seem that the 'good book' claims that "No one is righteous (i.e., immune from 'sinning'); no, not one (Romans 3:10-12)." The person I was conversing with felt that the preacher giving the sermon that day should probably have been more precise with his definition of 'sin' by letting the congregation know what IS NOT 'a sin'.
So, I'll place that same question in the lap of 'the saints' on this thread. The question is: What IS NOT a sin and is there EVER any possibility of being 'righteous' in the eyes of God? If not, then WHY do Christians get so hung up on the perceived sins of others when they too equally share the very same failure to 'make the mark'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
OK, I'll bite since this is one of my pet topics.
<snip>
The only reason for the 'snip' is because of the length of the response to the above question from O'Darby. The full response, which I read and also appreciated the time and the effort that went into the post, can be found in Post 150.
For me personally, I can't come to terms with the belief that "homosexuality = sin". It doesn't make sense to me. If, rather, "homosexuality was regarded as "not the norm for most", this would be met with a shrug from me and (just like the response from the OP) a "So ...no big deal."
However, for most professed Christians who simply cannot or will not come to terms with the fact that some people ARE 'different from the norm' they also use their 'holy book' to inform those folks that 'God' is displeased with them for some rather obscure reason. In fact, they say that God is SO displeased with them that they are worthy of death! Am I wrong?
By the way, further to the above ...when 'God' states that someone be put to death this is not accomplished humanely. No, much pain is to be experienced before the victim eventually succumbs to death. The killing of someone - and THIS apparently approved of and, indeed, instructed by God - is to throw rocks at them! Yes, throw rocks at them until they are dead! Does this REALLY come across as a mandate from a superior being, the alleged instructions from whom we are to take seriously? Where do we draw the line, folks? When does reason rank above the cruel and archaic commands that the ancient authors of the Bible attributed to 'God'?
By the way, further to the above ...when 'God' states that someone be put to death this is not accomplished humanely. No, much pain is to be experienced before the victim eventually succumbs to death. The killing of someone - and THIS apparently approved of and, indeed, instructed by God - is to throw rocks at them! Yes, throw rocks at them until they are dead! Does this REALLY come across as a mandate from a superior being, the alleged instructions from whom we are to take seriously? Where do we draw the line, folks? When does reason rank above the cruel and archaic commands that the ancient authors of the Bible attributed to 'God'?
I thought of a new way to torture people. I can't say though, I need to try it out first. Seeing how I'm a murderess and have no morals. Stoning. Now there's an ancient, ignorant, torturous practice which really is compatible (sarcasm) with Jesus' very own words:
John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Can't make this stuff up. No, they HAVE made this stuff up. Centuries ago. Let it go, people.
Oh, yes, I realize the limited context in which the term "woke" was originally used. But there's little question its application has expanded and that the sense in which I used it is now the norm. Indeed, "gay," "woke" and many other terms are themselves hijackings of terms that once had quite different meanings.
Riddle us this: How is my supposed "judging and condemnation" of homosexuals ANY different than your "judging and condemantion" of orthodox Christians merely for holding and articulating orthodox Christian beliefs?
There surely are "subjects I don't seem to grasp too well," and perhaps even those I "can't," but logic, rhetoric, philsophical discourse and Christian theology are not among them.
What you don't seem to realize is this...
"Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism." -- Wikipedia
So the term woke began to be used more broadly, to include other injustices other than just racial prejudice and discrimination, and why not? No problem there I don't think, but then as people who were less sensitive about those additional examples of injustice and/or could care less, grew tired of those injustices being pointed out. To counter what irritated them about all that, they began to hijack and abuse the term all to FUBAR. As explained before.
Best to just let all that rest now, because it's been "screwed, blued and tattooed" enough to the point now where it no longer means what it used to mean. Still, there are those like you who want to continue beating up on a term that has long been stretched from it's original meaning for purposes of a conservative agenda that wants to actually undermine that original meaning and purpose. No conservatives make the point of reminding everyone what the original meaning and purpose was for example. Now what it means is twisted to the point of ridiculous, by conservatives. Enough already. Mission accomplished.
How is my supposed "judging and condemnation" of homosexuals ANY different than your "judging and condemantion" of orthodox Christians merely for holding and articulating orthodox Christian beliefs?
Great question, and although I think you have been given the answer more than once in a variety of ways, again let me see if I can do better, but first..., is it supposed judging and condemnation or is it just judging and condemnation?
Either way, the difference is this. I am against any and all beliefs that unfairly and unjustifiably cast others in a negative light simply because they are different and causing no harm to anyone else. No matter what they think justifies doing so. Accordingly, I see the difference as significant. In particular the difference is about rationale. The criteria by which we judge and how it affects others. My opinions about this don't involve any punishment or condemnation applied to people simply because they are different. My judgement has to do with what is right or wrong thinking along these lines. Nothing to do with how people are different in terms of their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Long as they simply "live and let live" without negatively affecting others. That's the big difference that it seems you are simply unable to see or accept.
So big a difference I am at a loss to understand how you can ask the question...
Well Good luck with that, because most of philosophy, science and especially psychology will say otherwise. As an adult, having an imaginary friend who epitomizes the ultimate in a dysfunctional and in many ways abusive relationship is NOT what most sane people would call rational or healthy.
As for the LGBTQ movement, well, if you really are a history teacher, then you would know that movement, societies, values naturally evolve and change. Forcing archaic beliefs on others might work for a short time, but in the end, people will do what people want to do. And the LGBTQ movement is not something to fear, it is something to accept as the reality of our culture and times.
Which change, and the healthy and well adjusted person realizes that and does not allow something which does not concern them affect their worldview or life. Are you not a Homosexual? Well, I am not one either. But if someone else is, why would I care? What bearing on my life and world could/should it possibly have?
Answer: none.
That is why I am going to have to drop the poster from the list, because so far he/she has not contributed anything to this forum other than to hurl insults without offering an intelligent or even engaging argument.
We have too many of those on here already.
I will say this We have gays at the church that I sometimes attend (I go for the music and charity only) They are all very talented people who volunteer their time to the music ministry and I appreciate the talent and abilities they offer. I could never in my dreams sing as well as they do. SO....Why would I care to whom they are married or dating?
You remind me of another point I wanted to emphasize...
Anyone who knows anything about philosophy and, in particular, psychology, also should know that people can and will come to believe and conclude any variety of beliefs and notions. No matter how outlandish, ridiculous or flat-out-wrong, they will believe what they do with complete conviction for whatever their reasons. Accordingly, we've all got to more deeply consider what thinking, criteria and truths ultimately make for better over worse. Right over wrong. All of us who understand this psychological dynamic will also understand that core beliefs such as these are difficult if not impossible to convince other people to change.
Where does this leave us?
As always for the best of the arguments to be presented and then for those still in the developmental stage of learning and understanding to judge as they will. Accordingly, we can only count on the next generation to judge for the better. Hopefully not worse. Too bad there aren't more youngsters reading these threads, because they are the ones we've all got to look toward for a better future. A better way.
I would disagree with the sentiment that misunderstanding what woke is all about or that being critical about using the term these days is good cause to dismiss anyone, because it's a very common and important part of the national dialogue these days. No outlier by any means. Yet another perspective that can definitely use a bit of a tune up far as I'm concerned. So I have tried.
The analysis starts with God. God is perfection in all His attributes. Absolute moral perfection is God’s standard. (Spare me your tedious OT rants, folks.
Then spare us your tedious assertions without evidence. But it is interesting that you need to dismiss the evidence, sorry, 'rants' , that go against your assertions.
That you need to ignore evidence is a big clue there is something wrong with your world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
In orthodox Christian theology, absolute moral perfection is God’s nature and standard.)
And how do you know absolute moral perfection is your god’s nature and standard? You cann ot rely on the OT, you have just dismissed that as evidence.
What is at least a major interest of mine is defending orthodox Christianity as a rational and philosophically sound belief system.
Definitely a topic that deserves a different thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
To do this typically requires more than the inane gibes and one-liners in which internet forum regulars typically specialize. Because my position as a high school history teacher for nearly four decades allowed me the luxury of a great deal of free time, I wrote and continue to write extensively for Christian publications - hundreds of articles and significant contributions to at least a dozen books - and many of my posts were essentially written years before they appear here. I attempt to leave no room for sloppy, shallow thinking in response, even though it seems to be the norm since internet forums are typically more like cocktail parties than serious discussions.
Extensively for Christian publications. I see a small flaw in your advertisement. You may take that as an inane gibe or one-liners if you wish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see a small flaw in your advertisement. You may take that as an inane gibe or one-liners if you wish.
