|
Sin
Mar 2, 2011 23:39:01 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 2, 2011 23:39:01 GMT -5
It's true because he says it's true
Why does he say it's true?
Because it is
Why is it true?
Because he says it is
This goes in circles
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 2, 2011 23:46:25 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 2, 2011 23:46:25 GMT -5
Well, wanna hear my rational reason?
Love is beautiful.
Mutual love is even better. Most loves are mutual, and it's a beautiful thing.
So if in your heart of hearts, if there is love between two people, why is it nOt allowed? What if the majority of sexuality were instead on the opposite scale, and straight people were being prosecuted?
Think about it.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 0:13:40 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 3, 2011 0:13:40 GMT -5
Well, if god said not to be heterosexual, we wouldn't be. He didn't say that though.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 1:45:14 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Mar 3, 2011 1:45:14 GMT -5
I never said you could not use religion - and you two with all of your double posting and rather meaningless arguments have spammed the first two pages!!!
I invite you to use religion, morals, and whatever other tools you want TO DEFINE sin. If you define sin as what God says is wrong, then be prepared for questions like - how do you know God said it was wrong? If you use morals to say that sin is something morally unethical, then be prepared for arguments over a difference in ethical opinion. USE THESE TOOLS, I WANT to see people actually discussing a cold hard definition of a concept that is used (mostly by religion) to discourage different behaviors (i.e. method of social control).
Also the passage from Leviticus is phrased as follows.
"You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible. " And while one interpretation is that one should not have homosexual experiences, another is that one should not lie with a man in the same manner that one lies with a woman - as it is detestible. Different interpretation - but the same words.
Also - this was only written in the bible as a section of the old testament, all of which rules were abolished (if you read the gospel, I suggest Matthew chapter 22) when Jesus said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
In this SINGLE quotation, which I do not see that anyone would argue against, Jesus abolishes the rules of the old testament that qualify what is law.
If you choose to base your argument that Homsexuality is a sin based on the argument in Corrinthians then let me quote it:
In this please note, that Paul (someone who never met Jesus and was not a Christian mind you), says "All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" meaning that none of the things that had been listed before were unlawful - but rather things that could be used to classify someone as unrighteous. Also note that despite how unrighteous someone is, Paul says in this passage that they can inherit the Kingdom of heaven due to the belief and following of Jesus Christ and God.
So, if even within the Bible, something can be misinterpreted as a sin - how do we define what a sin is?
|
|
0netnet0
Meteor
The things I do for love...
Posts: 50
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 7:22:20 GMT -5
Post by 0netnet0 on Mar 3, 2011 7:22:20 GMT -5
Agh. Never mind. I see where in the Bible it says that. I'll paraphrase: Here's my problem with that. One very simple question: Why? Well, I don't know how it is in Christianity, but I know that the quote from the Bible is a direct translation of that one in the Old Testament. I know, that in Judaism the whole basis of it come from what we call "Pru Urvu" which in English means basically means "Multiply and become many," meaning "have a bunch of kids." Now, here comes the tricky part - some people interpret that as having one boy and one girl. Some people interpret that as having one child. The majority of the religious people interpret it "have as many as you possibly can". The religious people know that in the menstrual cycle a woman loses one half of a potential child - something she cannot control. But - a man who masturbates or has sex with a man, is basically wasting millions of halves of potential children. Both things are in his control. And there's your problem. I personally don't believe this, I just know that this is how it works in Judaism, and I think, also in Christianity (obviously it varies.)
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 11:05:23 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on Mar 3, 2011 11:05:23 GMT -5
Man, if I lived back in the day i would be such a good inquisitor.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 11:32:07 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 3, 2011 11:32:07 GMT -5
Oops, read that wrong. My fault
Eww, why are you using Old King James?
You... just said the same thing twice
How does that abolish anything?
Again with the Old King James. This isn't the 1600's
Acts 9 when Saul is converted into Paul. Also he says somewhere that he learned a lot from Jesus. Can't remember exactly where that is. I'll keep looking
No no, you're missing the point. He's saying that he will not be brought under the power of the sin of those things. As for the "all things are lawful", he means even legal things can be bad.
This is correct. You are however missing one of the biggest points in Christianity. Forgiveness. Through forgiveness to Jesus Christ you can still inherit the kingdom of heaven. Is it still forgiveness if you go back and do it again and again and again? No.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 13:00:08 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 3, 2011 13:00:08 GMT -5
Found it. Galations 1:11
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 15:09:33 GMT -5
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Mar 3, 2011 15:09:33 GMT -5
The whole first page reminded to "Does God say so because it's right? Or, is it right because God says so". I think a sin is an "immoral" act according to a religion. Different religions may have different sins. What makes something a sin? Being that I think a sin is a religious concept, I'd say that a sin is something that is wrong according to a god/God, there is no need for it to actually be something really wrong or that reason would dictate as immoral
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 15:53:17 GMT -5
Post by Alex on Mar 3, 2011 15:53:17 GMT -5
Let me just say the bible wasn't written by God, but by normal people. This people can put their thoughts there in any way they please.
And you can't just say "God said so". There is no proof and it is ignorant.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 16:17:44 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 3, 2011 16:17:44 GMT -5
Psst.. Homosexuals CAN reproduce.. Isn't it funny how the Bible is completely outdated?
I mean, you wouldn't expect something written 1000s of years ago to be outdated...
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 16:22:18 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 3, 2011 16:22:18 GMT -5
Insane_Zang: Because the language from the 1600s is much more beautiful for this type of document. While I don't agree with the document itself, I do admire the beautiful arrangement of text.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 16:31:47 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Mar 3, 2011 16:31:47 GMT -5
BTW Zang, is not saying the same thing twice. The use of words and their subtleties allows for different interpretations. I.e. it is detestable to lay with a man in the same way as it is to lay with a woman could mean that, the method in which I choose to lay with them must be different, otherwise the act is detestable. I could lay with a woman back to back, and a man front to front and this is not detestable, since the manner of laying is different. While one interpretation relates to sex, the words do not necessarily suggest the act of having sex, just the physical method of laying with someone.
The point this brings up is that if you read the bible and take your examples from it, keep in mind that words from the bible can be interpreted different ways. While you may interpret a rule one way, I may interpret it differently - who's to say that you're more right? or that I'm more right?
Since your definition of right (at least the only one you have posted thus far in this thread) is that "What God says is right" then we have no idea which of our interpretations is correct as God has not spoken regarding the interpretation.
Also - if you want to read the bible, you should not read new versions - they are revised by men who are flawed, corrupted, and make plenty of translational mistakes, the older the version the better the bible.
In response to Lyserg (who thankfully actually answered my question), interesting concept of sin. So if something is a sin, it is only a sin to those that hold the religion? If someone sins, then they have to follow the religion in which it is considered a sin? In that case a murderer, in the eyes of someone who believes murder is a sin, is a sinner, while in his own eyes - has not sinned at all, simply murdered.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 17:29:56 GMT -5
Post by Alex on Mar 3, 2011 17:29:56 GMT -5
Another thing: Use the edit button! Your double posts are getting on my nerves. xD
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 17:34:17 GMT -5
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Mar 3, 2011 17:34:17 GMT -5
So if something is a sin, it is only a sin to those that hold the religion? If something is a sin it is a sin only to those who do believe it's a sin (hm... that sounded like a meaningless tautoly, but I think it actually makes sense ;D). Additionally, it seems to me that the one who ultimately punishes sin is the god of each religion. Example: People from (let's say) Religion-X think that showing one's ears in public is a sin and blasphemy against their beliefs and their god. But for some guy who doesn't believe in Religion-X, showing one's ears is not wrong, and to call him a sinner for doing so can be meaningless to this person. First because he is not a believer in Religion-X, and then because the god they worship is non-existant to him, and so is the punishment, plus the moral views and commandments of X's god may be meaningless to him and should not affect this person (unless this person lives in a Religion-X based society, then he/she would be obligated to follow their morals or be punished in whatever way their religion says he/she should be), even if X's god morals coincide a little with his moral system. It's up to this person's morals and ethics to decide whether or not showing his ears in public is a bad thing. In that case a murderer, in the eyes of someone who believes murder is a sin, is a sinner, while in his own eyes - has not sinned at all, simply murdered. Exactly, it's up to the murderer and his own moral and belief system or world-view to decide if he has done wrong or not (but, society is still able to punish him for what society believes to be wrong).
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 18:20:43 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 3, 2011 18:20:43 GMT -5
alex: Fiiinnneee.. :/ Here are my rules for life: 1. Harming others, directly or indirectly, physically or mentally, is BAD. 2. BASIC RIGHTS. Why can't we all live like ^? Obviously there are more specific things, but I'm too lazy to list them right now.
|
|
vichilux
Star
Hatsune Miku LALALALALA :D
Posts: 699
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 20:42:48 GMT -5
Post by vichilux on Mar 3, 2011 20:42:48 GMT -5
Well, if god said not to be heterosexual, we wouldn't be. He didn't say that though. Lol, speak for yourself... wait, what? ;D *Remembers Zang's banhammer* I mean! *thinks of something constructive to say* *thinks more* Alright, I got nothing... you can't blame me though! *is not atheist because Supernatural says there are gods* *is also being ironic*
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 21:00:34 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 3, 2011 21:00:34 GMT -5
Zang, I really hope you change your mind.. At some point. It's not a choice. It's like being left-handed. In fact..
LATIN TIME
Word | Parts | Definition Sinistra sinistrae, f. left-handed
Look similar to.. Sinister??? DUH Duh duh..
As we evolve, we get smarter and smarter. Now we know that left-handed people aren't evil. And I hope that very soon, homosexuality will be synonymous with left-handedness.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 21:39:04 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Mar 3, 2011 21:39:04 GMT -5
Guys - this is not an argument about homosexuality - it just so happens that that current example is on the table - use your arguments to address the notion of sin and not the notion of homosexuality unless your argument uses the example.
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 3, 2011 22:09:22 GMT -5
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 3, 2011 22:09:22 GMT -5
Ah..
Sorry..
|
|