Why should Immoral people change?

reply to post by eight bits

I proposed for discussion a possible alternative statement to yours prefaced by "Or, alternatively..." I went on to make a statement in my own voice that my proposed alternative explanation would portray Christian thinking as consistent with the truth about homosexuality.

It was more than just a "possible alternative statement"....
You said "alternatively, they recognize that it is a normal and healthy lifestyle, just because that's the truth of the matter."

You established what you saw as the "truth" as the reason why Christians accept homosexuality as normal and healthy.

You've struck out twice trying and failing to show Paul even mentioning, much less condemning, loving voluntary adult same-sex relationships.

Struck out twice? Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
The first verse from 1 Corinthians, you said the greek word was actually a reference to pederastry. Though this was highly debatable, I let it go as I didn't want to have a back-and-forth on a trivial issue... so I presented a second verse from Romans.

The verse from Romans, you pointed out that was a reference to a punishment for idolatry. So it basically establishes that homosexuality / desire for other men... was something that Paul describes as "degrading" and a punishment from God.... and also as a thing that should not be done.

But in any case, that has nothing to do with the same acts perfomed by adult non-idolator volunteers, motivated by their love for one another. The passage says nothing at all about them.

In case of the idolaters, they were given in to degrading passions that causes them to do the "things that should not be done"....In the case of the non-idolaters, they make the conscious choice to engage in the same degrading passions and do the "things that should not be done". In both cases, the men end up doing the thing that should not be done.

"The passage says nothing at all about them."
Well the passage establishes certain physical acts as "things that should not be done". Where the verse that teaches the thing that should not be done.... can be done if men "love" each other?

Not a sex act in the lot. I guess that's why your cherry-picking broke off even more abruptly than usual.

Not in THAT lot, that you cherry picked....read the lot before that.

The Christians who would care and students of the issue already know what Romans 1 says, and anybody at all who is following the thread can just look it up. So why even try to pull a fast one?

Who are some of those Christians? Do you have a link to their websites or blogs?
I'd like to hear their take on this matter as well. From what I read, Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as the thing that should not be done. You're trying to pull a fast one here by claiming it doesn't.

es, and thank God, we're fixing that, too.

Your'e "fixing" that because Christianity is simply adapting to a secular ideas, as I said earlier. The Bible still calls homosexuality a "thing that should not be done."

reply to post by logical7


They are sacrifices that have to be met to keep people enlightened on how to act.

If I wanted to sway a whole bunch of people out of racism and into racial tolerance. Ofcourse alot won't listen because like politics people get caught up in the paradigm they grew up in.

So you create something destructive like the KKK to wake people up.

There is a turning point that needs to happen in each persons life. I have found some things that have been like miracles involved me thinking about someone, wishing well for them, praying for them, seeking their well being. And that person shows up a few days later.

So, its not like most will just trade their mansions for simple robes and helping......though this would help their souls enormously. But, its more likely through efforts, prayers and envisioning someone responding that Family of Good and Love, and the universe will bring in what they need to make that change, either something that stirs their love or something that brings them to some hardship, but I don't think its right to pray for hardship for anyone, but see them waking up easily and effortless and starting to assist, to give to others, some require major healing first.

reply to post by eight bits


Buckie,

I am a Christian.
I understand completely that homosexuality is wrong.

Based on this:
What is the difference between humor and odor?
Humor is a shift of wit.
What did one gay sperm say to the other gay sperm?
How are you supposed to find an egg in all this s**t?


So how is homosexuality wrong.
1. It is impossible to produce a natural offspring as a result of this kind of copulation.
2. Anal intercourse produces an orgasm that is two to three times an intense and
pleasurable than penis/vagina intercourse and as such anal intercourse is done for
pleasure and nothing else.
3. Everyone loves pleasure right.
4. Homosexuality is an action, and preceeding every action is a choice. Choice emanates from the use of the will.
5. Heterosexuals that choose to be celibate before marriage are choosing to not act on their sexual desires.
6. The same is true of a homosexual who chooses to be celibate.
7. There are other sins that I have been tempted to act on, like stealing.
8. Having morals. I choose to not act so that I do not sin.

reply to post by slugger9787


If homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't produce offspring then being a nun or a Catholic priest is wrong because they are forbidden from marrying or producing offspring.

For a religion that supposedly promotes love over everything else, why do they try to suppress homosexual love? Love is love, no matter who it is. To ridicule and suppress it is WRONG, and Jesus would be sickened by it.

Scorpie

You established what you saw as the "truth" as the reason why Christians accept homosexuality as normal and healthy.

And you asked me the basis for my statement, not for anybody else's views. When I answered, you tried to pass off my answer about my own basis as if it were the basis shared by a religious group to which I did not belong, and for whom I do not speak.

You were untruthful about the other group, and you were untruthful about me. I called you on it.

Struck out twice?

Yes, once in 1 Corinthians and then again in Romans. Anybody who's interested can look up Paul. They will see that he says not one word against voluntary same-sex relations among mentally competent adults.

That you read something else into Paul is a nice illustration that "what a text says" is a misleading way to say "what some reader reads." Obviously, other people read these texts differently than you do. No problem. In doing so, they contradict you, but they do not contradict themselves.

Not in THAT lot, that you cherry picked....read the lot before that.

The issue was what things Paul said should not be done. That is the second lot, the things which you omitted from your false, and purposefully falsified, editing of the passage. None of the second lot are sex acts.

On other matters:

If you'd like to locate websites featuring Christians who know what Romans 1 says, then I suggest that you googlebing romans 1 exegesis christian. That is obvious.

From what I read, Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as the thing that should not be done.

And so, someone who reads it differently contradicts you. They do not contradict themselves, contrary to your untruthful claim about them. That, too, is obvious.

Your'e "fixing" that because Christianity is simply adapting to a secular ideas,

No, we're fixing a secular problem by peacefully encouraging secular legislation. People of all faiths help to achieve equal rights and extinguish bigotry, not just Christians. God bless them.

slugger

Among the two billion Christians worldwide, there is a diversity of views on many subjects, including the rectitude of same-sex intimacy. However, the issue being addressed here lately is whether a Christian who believes differently than you do contradicts herself. That is a different issue from who's right, you or her.

Obviously, I have no basis to tell a Christian who's right about Christian religious doctrine. Regardless of personal faith, however, any person of goodwill can discuss whether somebody is consistent in the views they express.
-

reply to post by eight bits

You were untruthful about the other group, and you were untruthful about me. I called you on it.

You made the statement that Christians recognize homosexuality as normal and healthy, because its the "truth"... the truth according to yourself.

So on what basis do you think Chrsitians are accepting homosexuality as normal and healthy? It cant be the bible because homosexuality is a "thing that should not be done". I believe its because Christianity is adapting to secular ideals. Why do you think it is?

The issue was what things Paul said should not be done. That is the second lot, the things which you omitted from your false, and purposefully falsified, editing of the passage. None of the second lot are sex acts.

I am talking about the first lot. Pauls reference to homosexual acts as being things that should not be done proves that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.
As for the second lot, it does not make the first lot magically disappear. The statement about homosexuality being a thing that should not be done remains.

And so, someone who reads it differently contradicts you. They do not contradict themselves, contrary to your untruthful claim about them. That, too, is obvious.

There is a contradiction when the Bible calls something a shameful act and a thing that should not be done, and cultural Christian agnostics such as yourself call it a "healthy and normal" lifestyle.


God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Shameful lusts = men committing shameful acts with other men.... the things that should not be done.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by logical7

So what is the reason for the civil war in Syria? You can't blame one side then give the other a free pass all because they share the same religion as you.

when did i give a free pass to Syrians? I had said, they are not following Islam and this wouldn't have happened if they were.
The civil war in Syria is a hybrid of what happened in Egypt and Libya. A shia minority dictator is ruling a sunni majority. A Part wants him gone because he is a dictator, a part because he is shia and he has big support too because he is fine. The mistake he did was he din't bend down to USA, that mostly is fatal, ask Saddam and Gaddafi. The dictators in Saudi and Bharain are no different but they have protection because they kiss @** of USA and are ok with Israel.

reply to post by wildtimes

Oh. Really? I'm thinking that the Middle East is becoming a very volatile and dreadful, violent place

is it maybe because its a battle ground for powers sitting safely far away!
How many wars were fought on american soil(except the civil)?
How many profited the USA?
How many have they actually won without dropping atom bombs?!!

ME is volatile from the time oil was found there, but that wouldn't be the reason, it is sure Islam!!

You condemn wars and stealing resources but fail to acknowledge that situation in ME is due to greed of your country, see the full picture wildtimes.
The extremists were a bunch of loud mouth jerks till they were given weapons and funds to fight for western interests.
Who will you blame if Iran supplies WBC with arms and bombs and they start blasting gay bars? Only WBC, Only iran, both? Or Christianity!!
Or you'l grab collars of real peaceful christians serving in soup kitchens and demand, "What are you doing about it, do something!!!"

if intellectuals like you have such thinking then i shiver to think about the opinion of more ignorant masses in USA. The war mongers have succeeded

even if they drop a nuclear bomb on ME maybe most Americans will shake their heads and say,"That was so wrong Honey!" and go and have dinner and sleep.

You are ignorant about Islam, you admit it yet refuse to take my word that Islam is not the problem and continue to snap back especially when your 'way of life' is criticized.
i only ask for intellectual sincerity to look at merits of ideas irrespective of where they come from.

I don't see how the West is 'decaying'.

the fish does not see water.
Another example is the experiment of frog and boiling water.
If a frog is thrown in boiling water it will jump out.
But if the frog is kept in normal water thats slowly heated it will remain and die.
You don't percieve the slow heating up. Outsiders feel its getting lukewarm in the west and so they are resisting western values.

you STILL have not addressed that
'little problem.'

i have, a few times now. There are nutters in every society, please don't give guns to our nutters for getting material profits and maintaining supremacy of power!
Its kind of difficult to control them when they have a gun and the only way to bring them down is to use guns against them and then people ask why is war going on in Syria!
USA is supporting those nutters with everything except direct military and air support, what are Americans doing to stop it? They are feeding and growing another taliban and then will attack directly to "liberate women" "bring peace" "remove nutters(they planted)" just like in Afghanistan
and then its Islam and muslims that are the problem!!
I am disappointed with you wildtimes.

Scorpie

I believe its because Christianity is adapting to secular ideals. Why do you think it is?

That's what we were discussing pages ago. You obviously didn't like my answer then. You've been complaining about it, and rewriting it, ever since.

Let me try a different approach. Healthiness and normalcy are not religious questions. Maybe sin is, or how to conduct yourself in a Bronze Age Israelite society is, but healthiness and normalcy aren't. Why should Christians, a religious group, have any special reason for forming their opinions about non-religious questions, these or any other non-religious questions, that would be different from anybody else's thinking about non-religious questions?

I can't think of any reason why Christians would be different. Of course, anyone might see something normal and healthy as sinful. For example, many Christians report thinking that masturbation is sinful, even though they appreciate its normalcy and healthiness.

I am talking about the first lot.

According to Paul, the first lot was a punishment for idolatry. I believe we've already covered this.

There is a contradiction when the Bible calls something a shameful act and a thing that should not be done, and cultural Christian agnostics such as yourself call it a "healthy and normal" lifestyle.

Cultural Christian agnostics don't usually preach the Bible. What has this to do with religious Christians contradicting your reading of their Bible?

Shameful lusts = men committing shameful acts with other men

Yes, sex without love, especially sex acts performed without the full agreement of the will, because God has prescribed these acts as punishment, may well cause misplaced shame and even remorse in the victims. As might private heterosexual acts within a marriage when performed under the same conditions. So what?

reply to post by logical7

ME is volatile from the time oil was found there, but that wouldn't be the reason, it is sure Islam!!

The Middle East is volatile from the time it began, and the sectarian wars and ethnic wars are not caused by Westerners.

I'm disappointed with you, too, logical7, because you don't track our discussions or what you already know about me. I live in a city, not a 'small town,' for example.

I have never said that war or sending aid to rebels is appropriate, I have repeatedly stated that war is wrong, Isreal should NOT be supported, and the USA needs to butt out of the world, use our own resources, and develop non-oil energy. It was the industrial moguls who began the monster that is now the "military-industrial complex." People like Rothschild, JP Morgan, etc. Look it up. It is THEY who are running things, the "cabal" shadow government who don't give a second thought to the slaughtering of innocents.

I think the world banking system is a mess, and that Wall Street is absolutely corrupt. I did not cause those things, build them, or dream them up. You are talking about raw greed, power, and ruthlessness - and it happens all over the world. You can't single out the USA as the "only problem" - nor can you blame "Christians." Corruption is rampant in China, Africa, the Middle East, EVERY PART OF THE WORLD.

The current system is clearly unsustainable, any fool can see that. How do you suppose I feel about my children having children? At this point the idea scares me - had I known how corrupt and orchestrated foreign relations are, I might not have had children myself.

You are trying to blame innocents for the malfeasance of people that go unaccountable to anyone. These groups meet in closed places, and they have access to EVERY world leader. They create "false flag events" to make trouble.
They oppress and enslave others, blackmail them, and perpetuate wars to line THEIR pockets, not to give ME a peaceful life. "Collateral damage" is a sick, twisted euphemism for murder.

The POTUS has been speaking about withdrawal from other countries - he works with the United Nations under established "agreements" - he was elected in no small part because he pledged to END the war in Iraq, and the country was sick of "W", who in my opinion is an idiot and a complete tool.

You continue to spew your blame on 'the West' and it is misplaced. It goes to the corrupt ultra-rich warmongers and dictators, and has nothing to do with "religion" or "morals." Capitalism is the problem.

I thought you sincerely wanted to learn more about regular Westerners, and I have done my level best to answer your questions and to understand where you are coming from. I do not disagree with your premise that Oil and Money are huge problems, and I never have. But you went beyond that and blamed the entire "West" as though we are all in on it - which is ridiculous and unfair.

You cannot for one minute sit there and tell me that the dictators who were challenged during the "Arab spring" were good, moral, lawful, benevolent, or humble people. I don't think the West should have intervened, and I've said so.

Blaming women who don't hide their arms and legs and hair is absolutely childish and ridiculous. Blaming "lack of Islam" is also ridiculous. We are done here. You are not really interested in fostering mutual regard and understanding.

You are interested only in slandering anyone who isn't Muslim. Turning the world Muslim will NOT stop the chaos in the world. Cooperation, laying down of arms, and seeing to the welfare and health of ALL PEOPLE is the answer. Clean water, food, shelter, safety, and dignity.

reply to post by wildtimes


i appreciate and agree with your reply.

I thought you sincerely wanted to
learn more about regular Westerners,

no, i already know about a lot of regular westerners and i know they are good people including you. I know majority people everywhere are nice and helpful.

You are interested only in slandering
anyone who isn't Muslim. Turning the
world Muslim will NOT stop the chaos
in the world.

no i am not, i respond as you do. I don't believe that the world should turn Muslim.

Cooperation, laying down of arms, and seeing to the
welfare and health of ALL PEOPLE is the
answer. Clean water, food, shelter,
safety, and dignity.

yes, and how to do it? Who will do it?

reply to post by wildtimes

Blaming women who don't hide their arms and legs and hair is absolutely childish and ridiculous.

did i ever do it? My belief is that a woman should be respected the most and my religion taught me that.

Blaming "lack of Islam" is also ridiculous.

i did say that, and thats my opinion, muslims should follow Islam more and i can understand why it troubles you. Its because you feel Islam(religions) is(are) a problem. My Islam is not the same Islam that troubles you.
You calling opinions of others 'ridiculous' is also very telling.

We are done here.

as you wish.

You are not really interested in fostering mutual regard and understanding.

thats not true. Mutual regard and understanding can only happen when you respect my view and my religion at least till you start understanding it. If you hold on to your ignorant ideas and treat them as knowledge and wisdom then yes, there will be no bridges or communication.

Salam.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


love and lust
often get confused.

love defined from bible:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
New International Version (NIV)

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

using love as a qualifier explain why murder and suicide rates for homosexual groups is so high.?
why is death from STI so high?
explain why multiple partners in one year is so high?
explain why one gay man intentionally gives another gay man AIDS by tearing the rubber?
explain how these fall under the definition of love.

reply to post by logical7

Mutual regard and understanding can only happen when you respect my view and my religion at least till you start understanding it. If you hold on to your ignorant ideas and treat them as knowledge and wisdom then yes, there will be no bridges or communication.

You have been telling me about your religion for MONTHS now, and I have absorbed everything you presented......I DO understand your view.

Yet you persist in saying that I am ignorant. You are young, and have a lot to learn.

I am not ignorant. You are mistaken.

And also wrong...... about me.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes

 

yes, and how to do it? Who will do it?

Love is how, Me is who. Not that complicated

reply to post by sacgamer25


Hi, sac. I'm really frustrated here.

I just can't seem to break down the wall of misunderstanding.
I'm weary from trying.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

Mutual regard and understanding can only happen when you respect my view and my religion at least till you start understanding it. If you hold on to your ignorant ideas and treat them as knowledge and wisdom then yes, there will be no bridges or communication.

You have been telling me about your religion for MONTHS now, and I have absorbed everything you presented......I DO understand your view.

Yet you persist in saying that I am ignorant. You are young, and have a lot to learn.

I am not ignorant. You are mistaken.

And also wrong...... about me.

should i then say that you didn't say this?

Blaming women who don't hide their
arms and legs and hair is absolutely
childish and ridiculous. Blaming "lack
of Islam" is also ridiculous.

i never said the 1st part, so either you are commenting on opinion of others who do blame women or you assume that i do it too.
Calling my statement "ridiculous" also does not help in showing mutual respect.
Telling i am 25(actually 28) to disregard my opinions as immature is also not helpful.
Why do you jugde my views against your rigidly held views?
When i(or anyone) says that there is heaven and hell, why you have to refute it? When nobody knows for sure, including you. I know your stand but you need to let it go and agree to things you agree.
You believe in a Creator that forgot the creation, actually you don't even think that The Creator can remember, see, hear etc(correct me if i am wrong)
I believe in God that didn't just create but is also sustaining creation and is all aware.
My belief has a potential to change behaviour and increase morality by many different ways( a common origin makes people connected, reward to be good, punishment etc)

your belief leaves everything at the whims of the individual. Only good people with such belief will try to be moral but bad ones have no reason to change more so if immorality is acctually fulfilling their greed and lust and being moral will spoil the fun!

A belief should promote morality and discourage immorality otherwise its as good as no belief.

A simple question, if an immoral person suddenly starts having the belief you have, will it motivate him enough to make him moral?
Kindly also tell that belief in a few lines.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Hi, sac. I'm really frustrated here.

I just can't seem to break down the wall of misunderstanding.
I'm weary from trying.

there is no wall of misunderstanding. There is an unresolvable difference in beliefs. When i question the effectiveness and validity of your belief, you snap back at mine and ignore its effectiveness. The validity of beliefs of both of us is equal. None is superior or can be taken as 'fact' while discussing, we both should remember that.
So try discussing effectiveness.

I say without a belief in God, the society will gradually drift towards immorality. It does not limit to atheists but also namesake theists who behave without internalising their beliefs and it does not improve their actions.
The base desires like greed, lust etc can only be countered by the spiritual side of humans and by developing it and a belief in God makes it possible.
The wrongs done for material longings can be countered by promise of a better reward later in short delayed gratification.
Also promise of punishment for wrongs is an effective demotivator.

So do you objectively acknowledge the merits before pointing mistakes or possible misuse of this belief?

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Hi, sac. I'm really frustrated here.

I just can't seem to break down the wall of misunderstanding.
I'm weary from trying.

there is no wall of misunderstanding. There is an unresolvable difference in beliefs. When i question the effectiveness and validity of your belief, you snap back at mine and ignore its effectiveness. The validity of beliefs of both of us is equal. None is superior or can be taken as 'fact' while discussing, we both should remember that.
So try discussing effectiveness.

I say without a belief in God, the society will gradually drift towards immorality. It does not limit to atheists but also namesake theists who behave without internalising their beliefs and it does not improve their actions.
The base desires like greed, lust etc can only be countered by the spiritual side of humans and by developing it and a belief in God makes it possible.
The wrongs done for material longings can be countered by promise of a better reward later in short delayed gratification.
Also promise of punishment for wrongs is an effective demotivator.

So do you objectively acknowledge the merits before pointing mistakes or possible misuse of this belief?

Here is the only fact you need. Pursue love and you will find love. Everything else is religion, if our beliefs separate us from loving one another, should we not put them aside so we can more righteously pursue loving one another.

Religion is for those who seek righteousness apart from God. There is nothing that can bring you closer to heaven than unconditional love. The concept of unconditional love thwarts the very notion of religion. Religion places conditions on God's unconditional love. How can one man claim to be more deserving of God's love than another?

If anyone can make the claim that they deserve God's love should it not be apparent that nothing separates them from love?

The only truth is love; there is no righteousness apart from love. Whenever two people come together in the name of love they find love. Everything else is religion, and religion creates separation and therefore is against love. God is love, religion is against God.