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.
We choose what to believe in terms of the Bible and to what extent it has anything to do with God, what a god might want and/or if a god even exists. You choose to believe what you do about this, and this is a matter of judgement on your part.
"Recognizing as sin that which the Bible defines as sin is not judging or playing God."
Every time you tie homosexuality "and other sexual immortality" as sinful, you perpetuate the same judgement. Obviously a condemnation of people who are homosexual or not inclined same as you from a sexual standpoint. It is not to normalize nor moralize. No need to celebrate anything either. If you don't want to celebrate something just don't, but why get in the way of those who do want to celebrate that something? Or think negatively about it. Just let others be is all. Stop this kind of anti-gay propaganda shrouded by the likes of the Bible. No matter what you believe or what book you choose for guidance. It is just wrong to treat other people the way you suggest for the reasons you do.
You don't need to judge anyone or play God but you certainly do by recognizing the Bible as the truth of these matters. No different from how other people judge and act upon their choice of other books for guidance. Whether it be the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or Mein Kempf. In return, people will judge you and others according to what guides them in this way. Simply claiming a belief in any of these books as worthy does not excuse the judgements or propaganda promoted by any of these books.
Does not matter whether homosexuality is genetic or not. Does not matter whether someone has a genetic predisposition toward alcohol either. It's the labeling of these people as "sinful" or what they are doing as "sin" that matters. That is what's wrong and inexcusable.
You explain you don't believe anything that can be at the expense of what the Bible "clearly" teaches. Sure seems to me that anyone who wants to consider "Jesus' overarching message" should not believe anything that can be at the expense of that message.
Clearly your quote promotes the same sort of thinking. Let's not be so open minded that we become "tolerant of sin." How about we use this term "sin" only in terms of how it applies to you directly, personally. You want to claim you are not a sinner in any of these respects. Great. Good for you and whomever you think is judging you in these ways. Leave others alone. Free of such judgement and negative labeling. About this you should and will be judged by others. Not well and rightfully so.
Google tells me "just a bunch of semnatics" is "a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's." As I said in another post, this is my fundamental objection to your posts. You do seem to assume your opinion is inherently more valid than that of anyone who disagrees with you, as though your opinion should be the self-evident default opinion of any reasonable person.
What I choose to believe is indeed a matter of judgment on my part, a judgment and conviction that the Bible and Christianity are where ultimate Truth is to be found. Both the OT and NT characterize sexual immorality, incluiding homosexuality, as sinful. I'm not making any independent judgment about homosexuality. I simply accept that it and some of my own proclivities are sinful because this is part and parcel of my belief that the Bible is God's Word. Unlike some Christians for whom the Bible is just a Chinese menu of teachings they may or may not choose to accept, an orthodox Christian is not free to say "I believe the OT and NT are simply wrong on this issue - I don't think homosexuality is sinful at all." The Chinese menu approach eventually eviscerates Christianity of any claim to Truth.
I understand your viewpoint, but it seems to me your thinking is muddled or at least premised on the notion that your opinion is self-evidently more valid than mine. Let's examine some of your statements:
"You don't need to judge anyone or play God but you certainly do by recognizing the Bible as the truth of these matters." Well, yes, we orthodox Christians do "recognize the Bible as the truth of these matters." You obviously don't. Fair enough, but why is our position inherently less valid than yours? As stated, it isn't a matter of us judging or playing God but simply of accepting the teachings of a religion we regard as ultimate Truth. By suggesting we shouldn't recognize the Bible as the truth, what are you saying except that you regard our religion as false and think we should follow your lead?
"If you don't want to celebrate something just don't, but why get in the way of those who do want to celebrate that something? Or think negatively about it. Just let others be is all. Stop this kind of anti-gay propaganda shrouded by the likes of the Bible. No matter what you believe or what book you choose for guidance. It is just wrong to treat other people the way you suggest for the reasons you do." I have never had any discussion, let alone a confrontation, about homosexuality with any homosexual. Never. Not a word. What is the "anti-gay propaganda" you think I should "stop"? Should I stop believing the biblical teachings because you disagree with them? Show me in any post where I have suggested "treating other people" in an objectionable way. When you say "it is just wrong" you reveal the fundamental flaw in your thinking. To accept the biblical teaching on homosexuality is "just wrong" because ... why? Because you disagree with it, and your opinion is self-evidently more valid?
"You explain you don't believe anything that can be at the expense of what the Bible 'clearly' teaches. Sure seems to me that anyone who wants to consider 'Jesus' overarching message' should not believe anything that can be at the expense of that message." To the woman taken in adultery, Jesus said "Go and sin no more," not "Adultery really isn't a sin in my book." The clear biblical position is that homosexuality is a sin. We can be 100% confident this was and is Jesus' position if He is who orthodox Christians believe Him to be. Jesus' overarching message was mercy and compassion toward sinners, not eradicating all notions of sin. There is no inconsistency in believing the biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful while treating homosexuals with the same compassion Jesus showed toward all sinners. Orthodox Christians do not have the freedom to "not believe" what the Bible clearly teaches; that's the Chinese menu approach that ultimately renders Christianity unrecognizable.
"Clearly your quote promotes the same sort of thinking. Let's not be so open minded that we become 'tolerant of sin.' How about we use this term 'sin' only in terms of how it applies to you directly, personally. You want to claim you are not a sinner in any of these respects. Great. Good for you and whomever you think is judging you in these ways. Leave others alone. Free of such judgement and negative labeling." My actual invented quote was "Don't become so tolerant of sin you lose all sight of biblical morality." It captures the essential point. According to biblical morality, homosexuality is sinful. If we decide for ourselves what is and isn't sinful (in many theologies here, of course, nothing is sinful) we eventually lose any concept of morality - it's all just personal opinion. Perhaps you think it all is, or should be, personal opinion, but that's not Christianity. The entire Gospel message is predicated on the individual's recognition of sin, the individual's confession and repentance of sin, and God's forgiveness of sin through Christ. If sin is whitewashed out of existence, the Gospel message makes no sense.
Because you aren't a Christian, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that you hold and promote the views you do. I don't insist my views are inherently more valid than yours or should be the default views of anyone else. I merely say my views are in accordance with the biblical teachings on homosexuality and the longstanding position of orthodox Christianity. I can hold those views with great conviction without confronting, harassing or persecuting homosexuals (as your post pretty much implies I must do). Why should I refrain from articulating the orthodox Christian position on an internet discussion forum when you and others feel free to attack that position and promote pro-LBGBTQ views? Isn't this an example of what the critics of wokeism often point out: a curiously one-sided notion of tolerance that doesn't extend to those who hold views differing from the woke paradigm?
Google tells me "just a bunch of semnatics" is "a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's." As I said in another post, this is my fundamental objection to your posts. You do seem to assume your opinion is inherently more valid than that of anyone who disagrees with you, as though your opinion should be the self-evident default opinion of any reasonable person.
What I choose to believe is indeed a matter of judgment on my part, a judgment and conviction that the Bible and Christianity are where ultimate Truth is to be found. <Snip>
Your conviction is puzzling to me since I came to Christianity through my encounter with God's consciousness in deep meditation and the matching descriptions of Jesus in the Bible. But I have and had no such belief that the Bible contained the ultimate Truth, quite the opposite in fact as an atheist at the time.
Of course, since the descriptions of Jesus's mind (the "mind of Christ") exactly matched the consciousness of God I encountered, I am obviously confident that JESUS is the ultimate Truth, the Way, and the Life but not the Bible. Can you tell me what exactly convinced you that the BIBLE is the ultimate Truth instead of Jesus???? This is a sincere question because I can see no reason whatsoever to believe it given the enormous inconsistency, contradictions, and utter barbarity in the Bible.
How can a person be born gay when they don't even have the biological ability to be sexual.
Just as the diets of people vary from region to region, sexual attraction is an acquired taste.
It's called genetics. We're all born with the parts that are responsible for sex. And urges. And different types of attractions. Haha, it's an acquired taste to be gay? Maybe for some. I have a gaydar, don't you? Am I gay or straight? I am female. Completely celibate. I'm suppressing latent homosexual feelings. Or am I?
How can a person be born gay when they don't even have the biological ability to be sexual.
Just as the diets of people vary from region to region, sexual attraction is an acquired taste.
Sexual attraction is subconscious. Whether it's present genetically/inherently or not, is irrelevant, IMO.
Whatever someone's orientation or taste or preference, attraction is clearly a fact, and not a conscious rational decision, so even if there were a such thing as the concept of "sin", any form at all of sexual attraction, can't be that.
That would be like saying feeling hungry is a sin.
Sexual attraction is subconscious. Whether it's present genetically/inherently or not, is irrelevant, IMO.
Whatever someone's orientation or taste or preference, attraction is clearly a fact, and not a conscious rational decision, so even if there were a such thing as the concept of "sin", any form at all of sexual attraction, can't be that.
That would be like saying feeling hungry is a sin.
How can a person be born gay when they don't even have the biological ability to be sexual.
Just as the diets of people vary from region to region, sexual attraction is an acquired taste.
Being gay is more than just sex. I knew I was gay since I was in kindergarten. I knew then I felt a non-sexual attraction to men. When the TV show Maverick came out in 1957, I had my first heartthrob in Jack Kelly. (I'm old now!). It was no different than the episode on Andy Griffith where little Opie had a crush on his teacher, Helen - except it was a same sex crush. It was not acquired.
I’m a lot less prudish now that I’ve escaped fundamentalist Christianity.
I am neither prudish nor a fundamentalist, not by a longshot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your conviction is puzzling to me since I came to Christianity through my encounter with God's consciousness in deep meditation and the matching descriptions of Jesus in the Bible. But I have and had no such belief that the Bible contained the ultimate Truth, quite the opposite in fact as an atheist at the time.
Of course, since the descriptions of Jesus's mind (the "mind of Christ") exactly matched the consciousness of God I encountered, I am obviously confident that JESUS is the ultimate Truth, the Way, and the Life but not the Bible. Can you tell me what exactly convinced you that the BIBLE is the ultimate Truth instead of Jesus???? This is a sincere question because I can see no reason whatsoever to believe it given the enormous inconsistency, contradictions, and utter barbarity in the Bible.
You are obviously free to hold and promote whatever beliefs you wish. This forum is a safe haven for you because the terms of service prohibit the pushback you would experience if you were to expose your beliefs to a wider audience, Christian or secular.
There is no Jesus without the Bible. All we know about Jesus is contained in the NT. Jesus Himself emphasized the definitional importance of the Scriptures. There is no Christianity without the Bible. In orthodox Christianity all teaching, all claimed revelation and mysticism, is evaluated by its conformity to the Bible.
Without the Bible, Jesus is just an amorphous idea in someone's head. Hey, that's you! What possible response could you have to someone who is convinced he or she mystically encountered a unique Mohammad or Buddha, one entirely at odds with the historical figures and with your Jesus?
Your beliefs have no foundation at all, except ... you.
You measure the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible by ... you.
The Bible is challenging. Understanding it as a coherent whole is challenging. I believe it's meant to be challenging. But it does provide the entire framework for what Jews and Christians believe and what Jesus believed and taught. It is the foundational document. I accept it as God's message to humanity regardless of whether I personally like or approve of everything in it.
Unlike you, I don't measure God by ... me. I don't measure the Bible by ... me. My religion is not ... me.
Sexual attraction is subconscious. Whether it's present genetically/inherently or not, is irrelevant, IMO.
Whatever someone's orientation or taste or preference, attraction is clearly a fact, and not a conscious rational decision, so even if there were a such thing as the concept of "sin", any form at all of sexual attraction, can't be that.
That would be like saying feeling hungry is a sin.
Sexual drive is a natural part of being human.
Having a sexual drive is not a sin; however it can be directed in ways that are disordered, unhealthy, and sinful.
Feeling hungry is not a sin; but if one's hunger were directed in disordered ways that are not healthy or good, then we would have no problem saying that there's something wrong with them.
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.
