"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.

2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation.

2. Because then what decides?

If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important.

We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made.

But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was.

as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality.

Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

Except here we are and for a whole long time - including in places where your God was never worshipped - we've all come up with some pretty similar answers. Is that coincidence? Has murder been outlawed since the Code of Hammurabi simply because everyone got lucky and guessed what the actual God wanted while they made up fake Gods?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

 

[shader]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

 

[larry_boy_44]

larry_boy_44, on 03 May 2013 - 09:28, said:Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist).

I really, really, really hesitate to get drawn in to this because I hate religious and politcal discussion on this board. But I have to ask, why is it important, even remotely so, for morals to be labeled absolute? If morals are defined by the population at large through laws or whatever, and if they serve the betterment of man, why is it in any way relevant as to whether they are "absolutely good" or "absolutely evil?" Is the ability to label something that important? Or even remotely important? I don't get this at all.

Its not. Its a completely philisophical thing.

I don't remember how it got brought up, but I was answering a question.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

You go right to "think rationally", but you also eliminate the ability to consider anything spiritual or supernatural because it isn't "rational". You aren't considering most of what makes us who we are.

The fact is that there is nothing that is "involuntary". Our actions, our feelings, our everything that be controlled and brought into subjection. Is it hard? Yes. But it can be done. We choose who we are (no matter how we "felt" initially).

Proverbs 14:13

<blockquote>

>There’s a way of life that looks harmless enough;

look again—it leads straight to hell.

Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,

but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.<

/span>

It isn't about having a good time and being "happy", happiness is fleeting and meaningless. Its about forever being fulfilled, content, and full of joy and peace. And those things are only found in God.

And I'm not saying this to try and convince you, I know that won't happen. But I think we'd all be better off if we understood where other people are coming from. Hopefully if you read any of what I've said, you understand where people who think like me come from and can use that in your life to try and deal with things that happen around you.

This is a total cop-out. You can justify any awful treatment of your fellow man simply saying that God directs it and being fulfilled, content and full of joy and peace can only be found in God. I don't accept that justification for shabby treatment of your fellow man from Muslims, I don't accept it from Orthodox Jews and I'm not gonna accept it from Christians. You are no different from them in my opinion. It's a bull#### position and we need to get rid of it. And we will, that's how progress works.

Except there are two commands in Christianity that everything else is built on, that is to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

If you're treating someone badly, you aren't loving them and you aren't following God with that action.

Except that you are very obviously treating homosexuals badly by telling them a fundamental part of who they are is wrong and that they should try to repress it. You'll say that's not actually bad treatment because it helps them live a Godly life or whatever, but that is meaningless circular logic, because you can excuse anything as in accordance with God's plan. It's nonsense.

If the bible said that all women should be beaten with a stick twice a week and were not permitted to leave the home, you could say that you're not actually treating them badly, because you're helping them do what God directs and thus live a fulfilled live. It's a get out of jail free card if you refuse to think critically. I'm sure you believe that you're doing the right thing, just like I'm sure Muslim jihadists think they're doing the right thing. But if your religion directs you to seemingly abandon simple human kindness and decency and doesn't allow you to think critically, then it is the wrong way. But thankfully, human progress will take care of that crap. It always does. Just takes some cultures longer than others.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Larry,

You say that nothing is "involuntary". Do you truly believe this? Are you aware that there is a part of the nervous system in all living things that is completely involuntary (and many living things that only have an involuntary nervous system)? And this involunatry control regulates sexual arousal? In addition, the individual hormone levels that determine gender and sexual identity are completely out of the control of the individual. Does this make any sense to you?

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

>>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

I would prefer that you separate the Proverbs, because the individual sayings of King Solomon are not part and parcel with the next one in the chapter. But yes, that's a significantly better translation.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.

2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation.

2. Because then what decides?

If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important.

We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made.

But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was.

as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality.

Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

Except here we are and for a whole long time - including in places where your God was never worshipped - we've all come up with some pretty similar answers. Is that coincidence? Has murder been outlawed since the Code of Hammurabi simply because everyone got lucky and guessed what the actual God wanted while they made up fake Gods?

There's 2 thoughts (well I guess there could be more):

1. God created us with an innate knowledge of some basic morality. (This is actually mentioned in the Bible)

2. the majority of people don't want to worry about dying all the time, so they agree on things they don't like and make them illegal in return for promising not to do it themselves. (Social Contract. Believe Kant was the one who talked about this, right?)

 

[shader]

Larry,

You say that nothing is "involuntary". Do you truly believe this? Are you aware that there is a part of the nervous system in all living things that is completely involuntary (and many living things that only have an involuntary nervous system)? And this involunatry control regulates sexual arousal? In addition, the individual hormone levels that determine gender and sexual identity are completely out of the control of the individual. Does this make any sense to you?

gender is determined by hormone levels?

 

[Buckfast 1]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify. As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer. If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation. 2. Because then what decides? If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important. We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made. But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was. as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality. Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

Wow. The old "how would we know murder is wrong if God didn't put it in his nifty little list of Ten Commandments" argument. This Christian morality argument is so unbelievably juvenile.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

You go right to "think rationally", but you also eliminate the ability to consider anything spiritual or supernatural because it isn't "rational". You aren't considering most of what makes us who we are.

The fact is that there is nothing that is "involuntary". Our actions, our feelings, our everything that be controlled and brought into subjection. Is it hard? Yes. But it can be done. We choose who we are (no matter how we "felt" initially).

Proverbs 14:13

<blockquote>

>There’s a way of life that looks harmless enough;

look again—it leads straight to hell.

Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,

but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.<

/span>

It isn't about having a good time and being "happy", happiness is fleeting and meaningless. Its about forever being fulfilled, content, and full of joy and peace. And those things are only found in God.

And I'm not saying this to try and convince you, I know that won't happen. But I think we'd all be better off if we understood where other people are coming from. Hopefully if you read any of what I've said, you understand where people who think like me come from and can use that in your life to try and deal with things that happen around you.

This is a total cop-out. You can justify any awful treatment of your fellow man simply saying that God directs it and being fulfilled, content and full of joy and peace can only be found in God. I don't accept that justification for shabby treatment of your fellow man from Muslims, I don't accept it from Orthodox Jews and I'm not gonna accept it from Christians. You are no different from them in my opinion. It's a bull#### position and we need to get rid of it. And we will, that's how progress works.

Except there are two commands in Christianity that everything else is built on, that is to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

If you're treating someone badly, you aren't loving them and you aren't following God with that action.

Except that you are very obviously treating homosexuals badly by telling them a fundamental part of who they are is wrong and that they should try to repress it. You'll say that's not actually bad treatment because it helps them live a Godly life or whatever, but that is meaningless circular logic, because you can excuse anything as in accordance with God's plan. It's nonsense.

If the bible said that all women should be beaten with a stick twice a week and were not permitted to leave the home, you could say that you're not actually treating them badly, because you're helping them do what God directs and thus live a fulfilled live. It's a get out of jail free card if you refuse to think critically. I'm sure you believe that you're doing the right thing, just like I'm sure Muslim jihadists think they're doing the right thing. But if your religion directs you to seemingly abandon simple human kindness and decency and doesn't allow you to think critically, then it is the wrong way. But thankfully, human progress will take care of that crap. It always does. Just takes some cultures longer than others.

That is only true if you are right and it is a fundamental part of who they are that they have no choice over. If it isn't, then you're wrong. Everything you say is based on the assumption that your worldview is right, but your worldview doesn't work with the Bible's worldview, so there is more than just adding "The Bible is truth" on top of what you think that would need to happen.

And you can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals (or we could use the Qu'ran), but its irrelevant because it doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't be from God.

 

[Henry Ford]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.

2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation.

2. Because then what decides?

If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important.

We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made.

But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was.

as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality.

Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

Except here we are and for a whole long time - including in places where your God was never worshipped - we've all come up with some pretty similar answers. Is that coincidence? Has murder been outlawed since the Code of Hammurabi simply because everyone got lucky and guessed what the actual God wanted while they made up fake Gods?

There's 2 thoughts (well I guess there could be more):

1. God created us with an innate knowledge of some basic morality. (This is actually mentioned in the Bible)

2. the majority of people don't want to worry about dying all the time, so they agree on things they don't like and make them illegal in return for promising not to do it themselves. (Social Contract. Believe Kant was the one who talked about this, right?)

Please don't get into a discussion about Kant. If you believe that a lack of a God logically means there can be no moral absolutes, you don't understand him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry,

You say that nothing is "involuntary". Do you truly believe this? Are you aware that there is a part of the nervous system in all living things that is completely involuntary (and many living things that only have an involuntary nervous system)? And this involunatry control regulates sexual arousal? In addition, the individual hormone levels that determine gender and sexual identity are completely out of the control of the individual. Does this make any sense to you?

We still choose to act on things.

I'm not saying people who are celibate by choice are never aroused or never have feelings, but they feel that their life is better served and more fulfilled doing something else other than getting in a relationship.

Like I said, i don't get it. But that doesn't mean people don't choose it.

We choose every action we take. We can start off with a certain set of parameters, but as humans we don't have to stay there. I know there are many living things that do nothing voluntarily, that is why we are different. We have a choice with every action we take. To follow those instincts, that base nature of man. Or to fight it and be something different (and I believe better).

No, you can't choose your gender, but you can choose how you act with what you are.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

>>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

I would prefer that you separate the Proverbs, because the individual sayings of King Solomon are not part and parcel with the next one in the chapter. But yes, that's a significantly better translation.

For one, Solomon didn't write all the proverbs.

And for two, were you there when he wrote them? If not, how do you know?

Just because that's how we've always copied them doesn't mean that's how they are. There are quite a few verses in Proverbs that go along with the verse before or after it.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify. As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer. If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation. 2. Because then what decides? If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important. We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made. But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was. as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality. Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

Wow. The old "how would we know murder is wrong if God didn't put it in his nifty little list of Ten Commandments" argument. This Christian morality argument is so unbelievably juvenile.

I didn't say that. I said there is no "absolute right or wrong" without a God of some sort. That doesn't mean we can't agree together not to do it, only that there is no absolute morality.

 

[mad sweeney]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify. As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer. If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation. 2. Because then what decides? If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important. We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made. But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was. as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality. Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

On the contrary, without an afterlife, our lives become infinitely more valuable. If this is all we have, we'll spend more time worrying about making life better for us while we're alive rather than posturing for position in the afterlife.

 

[B-Deep]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

Wrong

slavery disagrees with you

 

[TobiasFunke]

That is only true if you are right and it is a fundamental part of who they are that they have no choice over. If it isn't, then you're wrong. Everything you say is based on the assumption that your worldview is right, but your worldview doesn't work with the Bible's worldview, so there is more than just adding "The Bible is truth" on top of what you think that would need to happen. And you can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals (or we could use the Qu'ran), but its irrelevant because it doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't be from God.

Right. So I have logic and reason and basic perception of human behavior on my side. And you have thousands of depressed or dead people you shamed into believing their existence was "sinful" on yours. I'm fairly comfortable that I'm right. And I know that you think you are right, just as the Muslim Jihadists think they're doing Allah's will and are on their way to 72 virgins in heaven. I guess the only difference is that among the three of us, I'm the only one who doesn't have the blood of dead teenagers on his hands.

 

[McGarnicle]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

 

[mad sweeney]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

We aren't incapable of knowing His will. You just have to want to know His will and stop worrying about what you think so much in order to figure it out.

Yes we are incapable of it. Even if he tells us, he's only telling us what he wants us to know as per his plan. That's Christianity 101. No man shall know the will of God and such. But I do agree that thinking is the last thing people are doing when it comes to living for God.

 

[shader]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

Wrong

slavery disagrees with you

I'm not saying people who called themselves christians haven't changed their morality. They absolutely have. Their hypocrisy is a big reason why so many hate religion.

I'm saying that christian morality hasn't changed. It's right there in the bible.

 

[mad sweeney]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.

Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner

right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.

Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

Yes, more versions of the inerrant word of god please. That'll help clear things up.

 

[shader]

That is only true if you are right and it is a fundamental part of who they are that they have no choice over. If it isn't, then you're wrong. Everything you say is based on the assumption that your worldview is right, but your worldview doesn't work with the Bible's worldview, so there is more than just adding "The Bible is truth" on top of what you think that would need to happen. And you can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals (or we could use the Qu'ran), but its irrelevant because it doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't be from God.

Right. So I have logic and reason and basic perception of human behavior on my side. And you have thousands of depressed or dead people you shamed into believing their existence was "sinful" on yours. I'm fairly comfortable that I'm right. And I know that you think you are right, just as the Muslim Jihadists think they're doing Allah's will and are on their way to 72 virgins in heaven. I guess the only difference is that among the three of us, I'm the only one who doesn't have the blood of dead teenagers on his hands.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That is only true if you are right and it is a fundamental part of who they are that they have no choice over. If it isn't, then you're wrong. Everything you say is based on the assumption that your worldview is right, but your worldview doesn't work with the Bible's worldview, so there is more than just adding "The Bible is truth" on top of what you think that would need to happen. And you can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals (or we could use the Qu'ran), but its irrelevant because it doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't be from God.

Right. So I have logic and reason and basic perception of human behavior on my side. And you have thousands of depressed or dead people you shamed into believing their existence was "sinful" on yours. I'm fairly comfortable that I'm right. And I know that you think you are right, just as the Muslim Jihadists think they're doing Allah's will and are on their way to 72 virgins in heaven. I guess the only difference is that among the three of us, I'm the only one who doesn't have the blood of dead teenagers on his hands.

Bolded the part where your entire argument falls apart.

You assume they are depressed (or dead) and you assume that someone shamed them.

You have absolutely no way to know that. Besides which, ALL Christians do this (I'd argue all people do it, because we all have desires we repress and ignore and choose not to act upon).

 

[larry_boy_44]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

We aren't incapable of knowing His will. You just have to want to know His will and stop worrying about what you think so much in order to figure it out.

Yes we are incapable of it. Even if he tells us, he's only telling us what he wants us to know as per his plan. That's Christianity 101. No man shall know the will of God and such.But I do agree that thinking is the last thing people are doing when it comes to living for God.

stop thinking <> stop worrying about what you think

the thing is that we all have to realize we CAN be wrong, you don't do that. I know I don't see the complete picture of everything, that there is more out there than I could ever understand.

 

[mad sweeney]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

We aren't incapable of knowing His will. You just have to want to know His will and stop worrying about what you think so much in order to figure it out.

Yes we are incapable of it. Even if he tells us, he's only telling us what he wants us to know as per his plan. That's Christianity 101. No man shall know the will of God and such.But I do agree that thinking is the last thing people are doing when it comes to living for God.

stop thinking <> stop worrying about what you think the thing is that we all have to realize we CAN be wrong, you don't do that. I know I don't see the complete picture of everything, that there is more out there than I could ever understand.

I don't think I'll ever stop laughing every time you decide to tell me what I do or don't do, or understand. It's cute.

 

[B-Deep]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

Wrong

slavery disagrees with you

I'm not saying people who called themselves christians haven't changed their morality. They absolutely have. Their hypocrisy is a big reason why so many hate religion.

I'm saying that christian morality hasn't changed. It's right there in the bible.

i define christian morality as the morality accepted by the majority of Christains (majority of sects, churches, religions, whatever), not necessarily god's morality.

I left open the idea that God's morality never changes and it is just human understanding of it that changes.

either option leaves the possibility that the morality of most Christian will adjust and not see homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church will be the biggest obstacle, they were not very quick to adopt the whole slavery is bad movement either if i recall (though i am no scholar and may be mistaken)

 

[larry_boy_44]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

We aren't incapable of knowing His will. You just have to want to know His will and stop worrying about what you think so much in order to figure it out.

Yes we are incapable of it. Even if he tells us, he's only telling us what he wants us to know as per his plan. That's Christianity 101. No man shall know the will of God and such.But I do agree that thinking is the last thing people are doing when it comes to living for God.

stop thinking <> stop worrying about what you think the thing is that we all have to realize we CAN be wrong, you don't do that. I know I don't see the complete picture of everything, that there is more out there than I could ever understand.

I don't think I'll ever stop laughing every time you decide to tell me what I do or don't do, or understand. It's cute.

Would you prefer I say "based upon what you say here, i can see that you ________________" instead?

If you wanna troll and be ridiculous and not say how you really feel or what you really think, go ahead and do that. But don't act like people making assumptions about you based on what you say and how you carry yourself is somehow laughable just because you hide behind things.

 

[shader]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

Wrong

slavery disagrees with you

I'm not saying people who called themselves christians haven't changed their morality. They absolutely have. Their hypocrisy is a big reason why so many hate religion.

I'm saying that christian morality hasn't changed. It's right there in the bible.

i define christian morality as the morality accepted by the majority of Christains (majority of sects, churches, religions, whatever), not necessarily god's morality.

I left open the idea that God's morality never changes and it is just human understanding of it that changes.

either option leaves the possibility that the morality of most Christian will adjust and not see homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church will be the biggest obstacle, they were not very quick to adopt the whole slavery is bad movement either if i recall (though i am no scholar and may be mistaken)

I don't define Christian morality that way, but I can see your point if you are defining it that way.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bolded the part where your entire argument falls apart.

You assume they are depressed (or dead) and you assume that someone shamed them.

You have absolutely no way to know that. Besides which, ALL Christians do this (I'd argue all people do it, because we all have desires we repress and ignore and choose not to act upon).

I know a lot of kids are dead, and I know that a lot more of them die when they are shamed into believing that homosexuality is wrong. There's no "assumption there," only truth. Numbers don't lie. Nor does the American Psychological Association.

Run from it all you want, but make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing. Running from the consequences of your actions.

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

>>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

I would prefer that you separate the Proverbs, because the individual sayings of King Solomon are not part and parcel with the next one in the chapter. But yes, that's a significantly better translation.

For one, Solomon didn't write all the proverbs.

And for two, were you there when he wrote them? If not, how do you know?

Just because that's how we've always copied them doesn't mean that's how they are. There are quite a few verses in Proverbs that go along with the verse before or after it.

Okay. There are at least five authors, and there's a pretty good chance it was all brought together long after Solomon's death, but if you'd like to randomly decide which ones belong together as a single block of text, bully for you. I think there's one about profit from an ox right before one about lying that would be really illuminating together when you're high.

 

[Dentist]

I still enjoy "Blow" by Ke$ha more than her other songs.

They all sound about the same, i just like the beat on that one the most.

would not bang though.

 

[Jutz]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

 

[dgreen]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

First, (and maybe others have already covered this - I'm not going to read and try to catch up) I don't believe the desire is the sin. I guess I'd say desire can be a sin, but that's not what I'm referring to when I say "homosexuality is a sin". I think the sin is in the actions/lifestyles and excessive desire. And, yes, the same would go for heterosexuals.

I think I tend to agree with much of what you are saying. I understand that taking a "homosexuality is sin" position does lead to some really tough questions that I frankly can't answer. Personally, I would never cast stones at someone for having homosexual sex, despite claiming that it is sinful. I fully understand that controlling sexual desires isn't the easiest thing to do. Even though I'm married and feel that I'm in the convenient position to have sinless sex, I still have what I'd refer to as sexual sin in my life. I let sexual desires get the best of me and have really struggled with pornography for probably 20+ years now. At certain times in my life, I feel completely incapable of seeing a good looking babe and not letting my mind go crazy. Christians, especially Christian men, should be much more focused on their sin related to porn rather than whether two random guys are living together.

The only time I'd really consider confronting someone about their homosexual sin is if that person is a Christian and believes they are sinning and wants to change. Outside of that, I really don't see the point. If there's a homosexual who isn't Christian, my main concern about them shouldn't be what they are doing in the bedroom. If there's a homosexual Christian who doesn't think they are sinning, I see no reason to confront that because they've heard the story before. If it is really sinful, God will work on it with them just as He works with me on my sins. It's not my job to cleanse people of their sin. I can't do that and I shouldn't strive to do that.

I've reached a point that I'll admit that someone could probably make an argument that homosexuality isn't a sin and I would buy it and change my position. However, that argument, for me, would need to involve what I read in the Bible. It couldn't just boil down to "It just doesn't make sense." The criteria for whether something is sinful doesn't require that it makes sense to me. It would be really nice if it did make sense, but it's not a requirement.

 

[dgreen]

I don't know who Ke$ha is.

 

[shader]

Bolded the part where your entire argument falls apart.

You assume they are depressed (or dead) and you assume that someone shamed them.

You have absolutely no way to know that. Besides which, ALL Christians do this (I'd argue all people do it, because we all have desires we repress and ignore and choose not to act upon).

I know a lot of kids are dead, and I know that a lot more of them die when they are shamed into believing that homosexuality is wrong. There's no "assumption there," only truth. Numbers don't lie. Nor does the American Psychological Association.

Run from it all you want, but make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing. Running from the consequences of your actions.

I find it despicable that you are trying to win an argument by pinning on Larry some kind of blame for some depressed teenagers that die because of being gay. There are many reasons why teenagers commit suicide. It's a sad world we live in. http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/injury_prevention/children/fact_sheets/10-19_years/suicide_prevention_10-19_years.htm

Yes, some commit suicide because they are gay and don't fit in. And possibly some have been through horrible "torture" sessions to "beat the gay out of them" or something, and that's shameful. But Larry isn't at fault, so quit acting so self-righteous.

 

[B-Deep]

I don't know who Ke$ha is.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Bolded the part where your entire argument falls apart.

You assume they are depressed (or dead) and you assume that someone shamed them.

You have absolutely no way to know that. Besides which, ALL Christians do this (I'd argue all people do it, because we all have desires we repress and ignore and choose not to act upon).

I know a lot of kids are dead, and I know that a lot more of them die when they are shamed into believing that homosexuality is wrong. There's no "assumption there," only truth. Numbers don't lie. Nor does the American Psychological Association.

Run from it all you want, but make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing. Running from the consequences of your actions.

Pretty sure I've said that I don't agree with "conversion therapy"... but in case I haven't, I don't agree with "conversion therapy". Its not helpful and what I've seen of it borders on abuse.

As for the suicides, they are awful. Pretty sure I posted the article Rolling stone did about what was happening in Minnesota here when they published it (or maybe I just sent it to a bunch of people from here). But to act like someone saying that they believe that having homosexual relations is immoral is going to drive someone to suicide is ignoring a whole bunch of other factors. But you know that, it just doesn't help you rail against Christians to admit it.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

>>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

I would prefer that you separate the Proverbs, because the individual sayings of King Solomon are not part and parcel with the next one in the chapter. But yes, that's a significantly better translation.

For one, Solomon didn't write all the proverbs.

And for two, were you there when he wrote them? If not, how do you know?

Just because that's how we've always copied them doesn't mean that's how they are. There are quite a few verses in Proverbs that go along with the verse before or after it.

Okay. There are at least five authors, and there's a pretty good chance it was all brought together long after Solomon's death, but if you'd like to randomly decide which ones belong together as a single block of text, bully for you. I think there's one about profit from an ox right before one about lying that would be really illuminating together when you're high.

I would say those two make sense. The way that seems right to a man (happiness) ends in death (heaviness).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't know who Ke$ha is.

Oh, we all wish we could be so blessed...

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bolded the part where your entire argument falls apart.

You assume they are depressed (or dead) and you assume that someone shamed them.

You have absolutely no way to know that. Besides which, ALL Christians do this (I'd argue all people do it, because we all have desires we repress and ignore and choose not to act upon).

I know a lot of kids are dead, and I know that a lot more of them die when they are shamed into believing that homosexuality is wrong. There's no "assumption there," only truth. Numbers don't lie. Nor does the American Psychological Association.

Run from it all you want, but make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing. Running from the consequences of your actions.

Pretty sure I've said that I don't agree with "conversion therapy"... but in case I haven't, I don't agree with "conversion therapy". Its not helpful and what I've seen of it borders on abuse.

As for the suicides, they are awful. Pretty sure I posted the article Rolling stone did about what was happening in Minnesota here when they published it (or maybe I just sent it to a bunch of people from here). But to act like someone saying that they believe that having homosexual relations is immoral is going to drive someone to suicide is ignoring a whole bunch of other factors. But you know that, it just doesn't help you rail against Christians to admit it.

Right. You don't favor conversion therapy- you just think they should convert on their own or repress their sexual desires for their entire lives. That seems healthy. I can't imagine anything bad happening if we do that.

For you to say that the attitude in the bolded text isn't a HUGE factor in creating the culture of shame that helps drive these people to depression or suicide is absurd. The role that anti-homosexuality Christians play in this whole mess is incredibly obvious.

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.

You have bedded me down in lush meadows,

you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word,

you let me catch my breath

and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,

I’m not afraid

when you walk at my side.

Your trusty shepherd’s crook

makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.

You revive my drooping head;

my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me

every day of my life.

I’m back home in the house of God

for the rest of my life.

I happen to like the message.

But I just posted it because I was using it for some stuff. Would you prefer I post a different version?

>>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness.

I would prefer that you separate the Proverbs, because the individual sayings of King Solomon are not part and parcel with the next one in the chapter. But yes, that's a significantly better translation.

For one, Solomon didn't write all the proverbs.

And for two, were you there when he wrote them? If not, how do you know?

Just because that's how we've always copied them doesn't mean that's how they are. There are quite a few verses in Proverbs that go along with the verse before or after it.

Okay. There are at least five authors, and there's a pretty good chance it was all brought together long after Solomon's death, but if you'd like to randomly decide which ones belong together as a single block of text, bully for you. I think there's one about profit from an ox right before one about lying that would be really illuminating together when you're high.

I would say those two make sense. The way that seems right to a man (happiness) ends in death (heaviness).

Well, as long as you think they sound okay together, they must have been intended as one thought and be talking about the same thing. Might as well just quote them as being the same Proverb in your discussions.

 

[badmojo1006]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

What headline should I change it to so people stop posting in this thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

What headline should I change it to so people stop posting in this thread?

"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack."

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

What headline should I change it to so people stop posting in this thread?

***LHUCKS Appreciation Thread***

 

[B-Deep]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

What headline should I change it to so people stop posting in this thread?

"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack."

i'd post there

 

[Plorfu]

It was during camp. He was carrying potatoes in it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Never fails, any discussion of Ke$ha's music inevitably veers into interpretations of Scripture.

What headline should I change it to so people stop posting in this thread?

"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack."

i'd post there

You just did.

 

[Dentist]

actually one of my buddies showed up at the house yesterday, got out his junk, rang the doorbell, and i answered it to a full on dong shot.

it was hilarious/disturbing. I got pranked

 

[Guest]

Maybe this will finally kill it.

Oh, a long time ago, and it was glorious.

ETA: Pron doesn't count, right?

Can I get a ruling?