Homosexuality

[Flake]

@BoringSupreez

No one chooses to be gay. No one wakes up and says 'I'll only be happier if I choose a way of life where millions of people hate me without even knowing me'. We all want to get along, we all want to fit in. It's the things that are out of our control that make us stand out.

but at the same time I'm kinda squicked out by the thought of them engaging in carnal relations. Then again, I'm also kinda squicked out about fat people getting it on.

Same here. Then again, I'm kinda squicked out (can I borrow that phrase, btw?) by the thought of pretty much anyone who is not me and mine getting it on.

Conversely, I once asked a good friend of mine (who is gay) what he thought of straight sex. He thought the whole idea was perverse.

[BoringSupreez]

It doesn't actually say Church, and I'm always with at least one other Christian. My family is, around 85% of my friends are, and I do currently go to Church every Sunday. I'm just saying, it doesn't need to be Church.

God commands that we worship him, but if you can do that outside of an organized church, I guess that's fine. "Church," in the way we think of it, is basically just a structure for Christians to gather together for worship. It makes things more coordinated, and facilitates things like funding outreaches like ice cream socials and helping the poor. Plus it helps Christians find other Christians who have similar beliefs, so that hopefully there's not too much disagreement about doctrine in the congregation.

On the bolded area, think of the people Jesus was commonly around... prostitutes, theives, gamblers, etc... and yet of these suggestions, I know many who are deeply religious. (Yes, I know prostitutes.)

Jesus hung around those types of people, to be sure, but they weren't his core group that he fell back on. Right before he was betrayed, he was with his three (or was it four?) closest disciples, not prostitutes. His main purpose in visiting unbelievers was to spread his word and offer forgiveness if they would repent. He didn't visit them just to "chill," you know? They weren't his closest friends.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.

My point was just that one didn't neccesarily have to go to the Church as many percieve it. In my grandpa's case, he prays whenever he feels the need with my grandma. That's 2, so they're good.


So, back on topic...

In a way I think it's worse to show people a huge amount of tolerance while at the same time believing in your heart of hearts that they're going to be punished for all eternity. I think naked hatred is much more honest.

If they ask for forgiveness, they don't go to hell, in my eyes. Simple as that. Confess that you believe that you were wrong, ask for forgiveness, and you are forgiven. This applies to homosexuals along with any other type of sinner. Like mjmjr said, Hitler might not have been damned if he had confessed and asked for forgiveness in the end.

[mjmjr25]

In a way I think it's worse to show people a huge amount of tolerance while at the same time believing in your heart of hearts that they're going to be punished for all eternity. I think naked hatred is much more honest.

And now into the logical fallacies section of my post. "Hate the sin, don't hate the sinner", doesn't that mean you're still hating something God created, namely sin? Also, the divine inspiration thing. You are convinced deep in your core that you understand the underlying fabric of reality vis a vis your religion. I can show you someone of a completely different faith who has the exact same feeling about their beliefs.

I sin myself, I hate that I know something to be wrong / immoral and I still do it. I don't hate myself, nor am I condemned to hell. This is the whole point, popo. Redemption from sin through Christ. So, no, it isn't dishonest at all - not close. My son lies to me sometimes - I hate that he lies to me, I loathe dishonesty. I love my son. Your inference suggests if I tolerate him, i'm ultimately being dishonest about loving him? I should show naked hate toward him? Way off track on that line of thinking.

God did not create sin. Sin was brought into a perfect world through a fallen angel, and then through man. I don't expect you believe that, but I think it is worth correcting the notion that God brought sin into the world.

[harper]

God did not create sin. Sin was brought into a perfect world through a fallen angel, and then through man. I don't expect you believe that, but I think it is worth correcting the notion that God brought sin into the world.

Right, the devil that God created. Dun dun dun!

[mjmjr25]

God did not create sin. Sin was brought into a perfect world through a fallen angel, and then through man. I don't expect you believe that, but I think it is worth correcting the notion that God brought sin into the world.

Right, the devil that God created. Dun dun dun!

Angels are not robots. Humans are not robots.

[Flake]

Are we really going to take this into "Argument from evil" or "fallacy of omnipotence" territory?

[harper]

Are we really going to take this into "Argument from evil" or "fallacy of omnipotence" territory?

It was bound to at least be mentioned. haha

[MrPopo]

My son lies to me sometimes - I hate that he lies to me, I loathe dishonesty. I love my son. Your inference suggests if I tolerate him, i'm ultimately being dishonest about loving him? I should show naked hate toward him? Way off track on that line of thinking.

You missed one critical thing from what I was saying. When your son lies you help him to see the error of his ways so that he can be redeemed. You do not tolerate his lying, but you do tolerate the fact that people are flawed and will make mistakes from time to time. By contrast you have people who claim they are fine with homosexuals and have homosexual friends but also believe deep down that they're evil. That's the part that bothers me.

Also, the whole point about forgiveness is pretty fucked up when you really think about it. If one has to return to God's teachings in order to not face an eternity of punishment then doesn't that mean that free will is God just giving people a noose to hang themselves with?

God did not create sin. Sin was brought into a perfect world through a fallen angel, and then through man. I don't expect you believe that, but I think it is worth correcting the notion that God brought sin into the world.

I'm dipping into the notion that God created everything. Whether or not he initially placed it in the world it had to have existed prior to mankind gaining the knowledge of it. And my Genesis is rusty (I was so disappointed when I realized it wasn't a section in the Torah about Sega), but if I recall right it was the fruit of a tree God created that contained the knowledge of good and evil. So God created sin, and sin always exists. But without knowledge of it you cannot engage in it.

[sabrage]

Somewhat tangential to what Popo is saying: Let's assume that there really is a literal God, and that the Bible was written in accordance with His will. It should follow, then, that the only logical path would be to follow that book, because if we don't we will be punished with eternal damnation. But on an existential level: what exactly makes those teachings moral, right and justifiable? Is it the simple fact that God is more powerful than we are? Does it really just come down to a case of might makes right? What makes God any different than a traditional monarch or dictator, but without a figurehead for the public to turn on?