Question for Christians

Post Reply New Topic

Now you've got me worried.

Again, just because it comes natural to someone doesn't mean it's not a sin. If the Catholic Church were to condone homosexuality then not only would the people who commit the act still be sinning, but so would those who condone it. If something is against God's will, it's sinful. Since homosexual sex runs counter to the purpose of sex, it is sinful.

Bataar

Is it conceivable that sex is for the purpose of males and females to have a great time together and foment the social ambiance of humans and having babies is a mere side effect?

The church gives here two explaintions:

1) They are "contrary to the natural law". We just agreed that it the very nature of of homosexual to have sexual desires to people of the sex. How can this be "contrary to the natural law"?

2) "Sacred Scripture" - The same scriptures do ask for killing children for disobedience or see, also in the New Testament, slavery for morally OK. So why picking up this particular piece?



The "purpose of sex"? I think we are a step closer. Sex has with primates a lot of "purposes". One is to maintain the species, also by controlling sex you control the person. There is Latin saying: "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum" - (If you have a person balls - you have his heart and mind [too]). If you control the sexuality, you control a very important part of his personality.

Thanks for reminding me that the Bible is neither consistent nor absolute.

Henriksson, I did neither. Mark came AFTER Leviticus, so to argue that this shows the Bible to be inconsistent seems incorrect, because Jesus is recognized as consciously stating a belief that modifies the earlier belief, as the parenthesis are kept in most bibles. As for absolute, I don't see where that comes into question.

Look, I recognize that you aren't a Christian, but if you actually talked to a knowledgeable Christian about their beliefs in such a manner, they'd just consider you full of nonsense as this modification really isn't a problem for them at all. The fact that Mark modifies Leviticus is an obvious part of Christian theology, and it is the reason why Christianity split from Judaism, because the Jews do not accept Mark or the NT. In fact, unless you are making a higher theological point, there isn't even a necessary problem, as most Christians argue that Jesus marked the beginning of a major theological shift, and take this as a central part of Christian theology. I mean, there is a difference between a fair criticism and an unfair criticism.

Oh, I see. Well, a lot of Christians I've talked to wouldn't consider you a True Christian, so it goes both ways I guess.

The Bible is a highly malleable tool. While I don't think it can be used to be justify just about everything, it can be used to alot.

Does the Bible dislike environmental destruction? Yeah, just read this. No, read this. And so on.

Could this also be applied to homosexual activities?

Whatever their possible physiology might be I sincerely doubt a human male sexual organ is ever quite long enough to reach the stomach.

It would be even more difficult to reach the heart, I guess. At least the anus is linked to the stomach.

Well, a lot of Christians are numb skulls, and some could be theonomists, who uphold the shellfish laws as well. Not only that, but I never said I was a "True Christian", in fact, I rarely say anything about my religion orientation in any direction.


Documents are highly malleable. Theology is a difficult study, and frankly, one could argue very well from indeterminacy, and that the Bible is errant. After all, nobody can be certain about their private interpretation.


A lot of this is just later readers imposing things upon the text that do not necessarily have to be seen there. Frankly, it is pretty obvious where this can be seen to some extent. All that you'd have to do to call the bluff, by asking how this has traditionally been translated, and why past Christians haven't done this stuff.

In any case, the point that internal criticisms are only valid if one is informed does not seem itself questionable. I mean, there are enough reasons to distrust Christianity without appealing to internal contradictions, just as there are reasons to think that Hinduism is false despite the well-documented case of Hindi statues drinking milk.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 10 Apr 2009, 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

No, the major issue is context. I mean, this is a document, so in fairly dealing with it, you have to look at context. Not only that, but overstatement is relatively common in the Bible. I mean, the average person's speech could probably have a lot that is wrong if taken out of context.

Umm... I'd say that the best argument for homosexual activities would probably be based upon a translation/historical issue, because most English versions of the Bible have homosexuality condemned in the New Testament.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (both English Standard Version)

The issue that can be brought up with this is whether the authors translated the Bible correctly, as some of the words used are not perfectly known.

Hmm, your reply really got me thinking, good post.

Weren't both the characters described in the Bible, as well as the authors, theonomists? Would you call them numbskulls too?


That the bible has had many authors and a lot of translations and so on doesn't really help either. It's not like it fell down from the sky.

Well, it was quite late ago that the Bible was written, and this was in a time period when mankind knew little about how the world works, at least vastly less than what we know now. So that's kind of problematic when applied to modern problems and situations. And it's kind of puzzling why anyone takes this book seriously at all...

Well.... actually I might have misused the term, or had a term that overlaps another valid term. There is a group of Christians that believes that all Old Testament laws are still valid, and as such they avoid shell fish and poly-cotton blends. Well, they were probably undereducated people an early context, so, one could call them that. I mean, certainly the people surrounding them were idiots.

Act 28:6 They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

Acts 19:34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"

Now, early Christians are known to be of the lower classes, so they would have been drawn from people who would think like that. As for the authors of the Gospels, it can be argued that Luke may have been a physician, Paul probably had above average education in the philosophy of the days, and John arguably tries to mimic existing Platonic philosophy in the first chapter of John.


Nope, and people who argue that the Bible is a clear read have no knowledge on theology, or an astounding ability to believe in themselves. I mean, you have theology professors who differ wildly on interpretation, across the spectrum. Not only that, but there are critics who intelligibly consider the Bible to be nonsensical. Heck, the Jews think that the Bible is based upon poor interpretations of their Messianic tradition.


Hmm.... I'd say that it is because people have a cultural context that pushes them to believe. Some people do think that Jesus is sufficiently attested to in the Gospels to merit it considered to be true. Others claim that the Holy Spirit currently has touched them. In any case, the Bible isn't completely nonsensical I wouldn't think, and from a secular view, it is worth reading like other books are worth reading.

Hmm.... I'd say that it is because people have a cultural context that pushes them to believe. Some people do think that Jesus is sufficiently attested to in the Gospels to merit it considered to be true. Others claim that the Holy Spirit currently has touched them. In any case, the Bible isn't completely nonsensical I wouldn't think, and from a secular view, it is worth reading like other books are worth reading.[/quote]

The Bible (TNKH and Gospels) have a central place in Western Culture in pretty much the same way that the writings of Homer has a central place in Classical Greet Culture. It is impossible to get a good feel for these cultures without some knowledge of the underlying books. This does not mean these books are True in a factual sense but they have a great value as cultural artifacts and guides.

ruveyn

I was gunna say that, but bit my tongue to be polite. A single piece of food doesn't directly reach to the stomach either. Coming or going.

On a serious note, does the bible even recognise those of us that do not fit strictly into the male/female definition? I don't just mean homosexuals, but also transgenders and people with different chromosome combinations?

I've also heard it said that man creates God in his own image, but I guess that mainly applies to the majority of mainsteam people.

Someone mentioned Mormons earlier. They believe there is more than one god, but only one God of this earth/creation. You will also find that it is not a mainstream belief that God had sex with Mary. Her pregnancy resullted from intervention by the Holy Ghost. Now was that sinful? coz I'm not sure the two of them were married at the time ... or are miraculous events above biblical law?