Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Because no matter what sin it is it is still a sin and wrong. But certainly I'd speak out more against genocide than women wearing revealing clothing.Simon_Jester wrote:Why do you believe this to be true, instead of drawing a line between, say, mortal and venial sins?
Paul condemns quite clearly the ordination of women in several of his epistles.Why do you believe this to be true?
I do not think homosexuals should give themselves up to a loveless marriage but I think they should know homosexuality is wrong and thus avoid homosexual activity.Alyrium Denryle wrote: Believing that a person who is born with a certain character state should deny their nature and either be celibate and live a life of isolation and misery, or lie to some poor woman is the definition of bigotry.
Certain people by their nature are certainly more likely to lie or commit adultery not because they are strange or depraved but because everyone's personalities have different predispositions than others.Theologically, a person who is an adulterer or who lies chooses to lie or commit adultery. A person who is gay has that ingrained in their DNA. They are born gay. Why exactly would god create someone with a character state he considers an abomination except to make a specific group suffer more than others and then damn them to eternal hellfire when they finally ascent to their nature if not to obtain sadistic jollies from their misery?
I would attempt with some discernment to see if Paul is just advising against it (he advises against marriage for one) or explicity condemns it (in a passage where Paul lists various types of sinners who cannot enter the Kingdom of God).Stark wrote:So you would never do anything Paul condemns, and anything he condemns is wrong?
I remember- they believe that it needed to be useful in the forest first so it could evolve and than was applied to the savana giving a larger advantage, right?There's an article in the current (or just past) issue of Smithsonian wherein some of the people studying the Ari skeleton say that materials found in the same layer indicate that she lived in a forested environment. They seem to think that the whole came-down-outta-the-trees-to-live-on-the-savannah model for development of bipedalism might need revision.
Because his opinions seem to be something more than just advice or preference.Stark wrote:So... if you're already interpreting what he says, why not ignore the obvious misogyny?
Something like that, yes. She had feet that were well-suited both to climbing and upright walking, with a pelvis likewise adapted.Samuel wrote:I remember- they believe that it needed to be useful in the forest first so it could evolve and than was applied to the savana giving a larger advantage, right?There's an article in the current (or just past) issue of Smithsonian wherein some of the people studying the Ari skeleton say that materials found in the same layer indicate that she lived in a forested environment. They seem to think that the whole came-down-outta-the-trees-to-live-on-the-savannah model for development of bipedalism might need revision.
Seem? Something more? You can't even explain why his words should be held to high authority.General Mung Beans wrote:Because his opinions seem to be something more than just advice or preference.Stark wrote:So... if you're already interpreting what he says, why not ignore the obvious misogyny?
Because it's in the Bible and thus inspired by God.Soontir C'boath wrote: Seem? Something more? You can't even explain why his words should be held to high authority.
Ah, haven't seen this argument in a while.General Mung Beans wrote:Because it's in the Bible and thus inspired by God.Soontir C'boath wrote: Seem? Something more? You can't even explain why his words should be held to high authority.
Anyway, your proof that the Bible is inspired by God...?Do you see how ludicrous a claim looks to those who reject this notion? John tells us that "(i)n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (emphasis mine). Your argument is literally circular: you're telling us that he was inspired by God to write out God's Word, which somehow happens to also and simultaneously be God.General Mung Beans wrote:Because it's in the Bible and thus inspired by God.Soontir C'boath wrote: Seem? Something more? You can't even explain why his words should be held to high authority.
It's Logos which is a complex thing that only indirectly translates into English as "Word".Einzige wrote:In accord with the order from On High not to dog-pile, I'd like to continue my tackling of this fellow.
Do you see how ludicrous a claim looks to those who reject this notion? John tells us that "(i)n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (emphasis mine). Your argument is literally circular: you're telling us that he was inspired by God to write out God's Word, which somehow happens to also and simultaneously be God.General Mung Beans wrote:Because it's in the Bible and thus inspired by God.Soontir C'boath wrote: Seem? Something more? You can't even explain why his words should be held to high authority.
I understand this. The early Christians seem to have lifted it wholesale and perverted it from a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus, who used the word to encapsulate what he considered to be the essential nature of the universe - change. That still doesn't make it any more intelligible when applied to a logical context.General Mung Beans wrote:It's Logos Logos which is a complex thing that only indirectly translates into English as "Word".
I don't think you actually addressed my question. I asked why you believe that all sins are equally wrong, not if you believe that all sins are equally wrong. Telling me that you believe it does not tell me why you believe it.General Mung Beans wrote:Because no matter what sin it is it is still a sin and wrong. But certainly I'd speak out more against genocide than women wearing revealing clothing.Simon_Jester wrote:Why do you believe this to be true, instead of drawing a line between, say, mortal and venial sins?
Why do you believe Paul's condemnation to be relevant? Speaking for myself, I do not care in the slightest if Paul thought ordaining women was a bad idea, any more than I care if Paul thought shaving or brushing one's teeth was a bad idea. Why should I care? Because the Bible contains text written by Paul?Paul condemns quite clearly the ordination of women in several of his epistles.Why do you believe this to be true?
In other words, live lives of loveless solitude. How wondrously cruel. You have yet to answer the question, under what sane moral standard is homosexuality to be considered wrong? Why would a deity who hates homosexuality enough to consider it an abomination (which BTW even the jews who follow the old testament law to which we as gentiles are not bound do not translate or interpret as such) create it in humans and for that matter hundreds of non-human species? If God did not create it then Satan would have had to ask permission to do so (as per Job), why would god allow its creation? If Satan is tempting people into it, what exactly are they being tempted with?I do not think homosexuals should give themselves up to a loveless marriage but I think they should know homosexuality is wrong and thus avoid homosexual activity.
Yeah, but if you talk to mainstream rabbis (even modern orthodox ones) the prohibition within the Torah is far far more particular than christians make it out to be. The hebrew word Abhal(sp) has a very specific meaning which from the latin is translated as abomination, but in this case is a temple crime. In other words, a prohibition against ritualized homosexuality. No gay orgies as part of temple rites.Kanastrous wrote:Well, fun types like the Haredim and various subgroups in general regard homosexuality as an abomination even today - witness the trouble they make over gay pride-type events when the matter comes up, in Israel.
Unless you prefer to exclude them as a whacky fringe, which I guess one could do although for a whacky fringe they seem to wield disproportionate political power, in Israel (and therefore by unfortunate extension, when it comes to certain specific issues, in the USA...)
Because the wages of any sin is death (spiritually).Simon_Jester wrote:I don't think you actually addressed my question. I asked why you believe that all sins are equally wrong, not if you believe that all sins are equally wrong. Telling me that you believe it does not tell me why you believe it.
I believe the books that are in the Bible were inspired by God.Why do you believe Paul's condemnation to be relevant? Speaking for myself, I do not care in the slightest if Paul thought ordaining women was a bad idea, any more than I care if Paul thought shaving or brushing one's teeth was a bad idea. Why should I care? Because the Bible contains text written by Paul?
How did these documents come to be in the Bible, and does this process give us logical reasons to assume that everything in the Bible must be relevant?
I think homosexuality is a sin not from Mosaic Law but from the New Testament where Paul says the "effeminate" will not enter the Kingdom of God.Alyrium Denryle wrote:In other words, live lives of loveless solitude. How wondrously cruel. You have yet to answer the question, under what sane moral standard is homosexuality to be considered wrong? Why would a deity who hates homosexuality enough to consider it an abomination (which BTW even the jews who follow the old testament law to which we as gentiles are not bound do not translate or interpret as such) create it in humans and for that matter hundreds of non-human species? If God did not create it then Satan would have had to ask permission to do so (as per Job), why would god allow its creation? If Satan is tempting people into it, what exactly are they being tempted with?I do not think homosexuals should give themselves up to a loveless marriage but I think they should know homosexuality is wrong and thus avoid homosexual activity.
So you will be an asshole if god tells you to?General Mung Beans wrote: I believe the books that are in the Bible were inspired by God.
It was counted as a sin in both the Mosaic Law and Paul. Leviticus mandates death by stoning for any man "who lieth with another man as with a woman" or some such. Horribly barbaric and not at all the sort of book which should be used as a guide for the conduct of a modern society.General Mung Beans wrote:I think homosexuality is a sin not from Mosaic Law but from the New Testament where Paul says the "effeminate" will not enter the Kingdom of God.Alyrium Denryle wrote:In other words, live lives of loveless solitude. How wondrously cruel. You have yet to answer the question, under what sane moral standard is homosexuality to be considered wrong? Why would a deity who hates homosexuality enough to consider it an abomination (which BTW even the jews who follow the old testament law to which we as gentiles are not bound do not translate or interpret as such) create it in humans and for that matter hundreds of non-human species? If God did not create it then Satan would have had to ask permission to do so (as per Job), why would god allow its creation? If Satan is tempting people into it, what exactly are they being tempted with?I do not think homosexuals should give themselves up to a loveless marriage but I think they should know homosexuality is wrong and thus avoid homosexual activity.
And I believe Taste of Home magazine is inspired by a goddess, and if we only ever eat food made from the recipes it offers, we will live forever. Just kidding. My point is, you have offered no proof. Your assertion is no more valid than the comedic assertion I just offered.General Mung Beans wrote:I believe the books that are in the Bible were inspired by God.Simon_Jester wrote:Why do you believe Paul's condemnation to be relevant? Speaking for myself, I do not care in the slightest if Paul thought ordaining women was a bad idea, any more than I care if Paul thought shaving or brushing one's teeth was a bad idea. Why should I care? Because the Bible contains text written by Paul?
How did these documents come to be in the Bible, and does this process give us logical reasons to assume that everything in the Bible must be relevant?
