Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

So far, you've been arguing for an absolute. And you know as well as I do that "frame of mind" doesn't magically make pink unicorns a reality.

The issue is absolute reality. If information can only be processed by the senses to determine reality, then reality can only be absolute in a persons mind, Because we share most perceptions of reality, we agree, but I can assure you a person having hallucinations absolutely believes what they are seeing is real, you may try and disabuse them of their reality and be able to do so, but you may not, We were talking of legal standards of evidence, and state of mind of a witness at the time they are testifying about is always pertinent. The standard is not absolute knowledge, no one has that, the standard is do the circumstance in totality, including state of mind, lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that their account of events is true. The testimony can be attacked in numerous ways, but the witness is not summarily impeached because everyone knows there aren't pink unicorns, so the witness is lying. I have known embezzlers to pass a polygraph with flying colors, and an interview afterwards shows they did not believe they were stealing, they believed they were simply taking what was well and truly owed them

 

[shmogie]

Shows what you know. The Anchor Commentary and the Sacra Pagina collection of commentaries (possibly two of the most scholastic) both present valid arguments against the writers having known Jesus. Stephen Harris, John Kloppenborg, David Rhoads, John Dominic Crossan, Brandon Scott, Robert Tannehill, Warren Carter, Luke Timothy Johnson, and other notable scholars also agree.


See above.

I am aware of some of them, and read one or two, They are not "widely accepted"

 

[shmogie]

I guess don't see what reason anyone would have to believe that the writers of the Bible were not "like everyone else, trapped in space and time, and limited to the knowledge available at their point in time."
And I'm not sure how anyone would be able to demonstrate or know if they weren't. I mean, they were human like the rest of us, right?

No, I have total faith that they were not like everyone else. Faith is not based upon a demonstration.

 

[shmogie]

Okay, so the notion than the mass killing of children is immoral wasn't strictly Universal amongst early civilizations, and most likely can't be said to have been derived exclusively from Biblical teachings. Many societies considered the mass genocide of women and children, in certain circumstances, to be justifiable.

I have never said anything about Biblical teachings, that has been inferred.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well the evidence of the Gospels stand up to scrutiny, if they were bogus stories I doubt that the parts of them that show total weakness on the part of their writers would have been written. There is virtually no doubt that the Gospels were written around 100 AD, and it is stated that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ, and many were still alive, now if that wasn't true, a really unbelievable thing, don't you think that some record of someone rebutting the statement would exist ? Did a whole group of people lie about this for some unknown nefarious purpose ?

Where can I find and read the accounts of the supposed 500 people who witnessed these things? Anyone can say that 500 people saw a thing. Hey I saw a unicorn the other day and there were 500 people with me who also saw it, so that makes it true, right?

And apparently a bunch of zombies supposedly rose from the grave and wandered the streets when Jesus was crucified. So how come nobody else, anywhere ever mentioned this happening? You'd think that would be a story that would spread around given how strange and unusual that would be.

They make total sense from the standpoint of geography, customs and beliefs of the time, and historical fact, For decades the name of the Roman governor at the time of Christ given in the Bible was doubted, Pilate, because it was not found on any lists of governors in Judea, but finally an engraved marble stele was found near the governors mansion that stated Pilate was governor in the reign of the emperor in power at the time of Christ. For me the answer to some deep philosophical problems can be found in Christianity. I have read Kierkergard, Pascal and other philosophers on these issues. Why is there anything ? Can nothing produce something ? Why does mankind seem to have an inherent cross cultural sense of right and wrong ? Does evil exist, and if so, why is it evil ? anyway you get the idea.

Well, Spiderman comics mention New York and various landmarks there, so Spiderman must be real, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have never said anything about Biblical teachings, that has been inferred.

I believe I was originally responding to these statements:

As to evil, I think a mass murderer of children would be considered as evil in all cultures, but why ? What compels us to hold that the killing of children is wrong, evil ? I believe there are universal laws of good and bad, and traces of them can be found in all cultures, because humanity was at the beginning very aware of these laws, and although they have been severely degraded, a remnant of them remains. There is much more evidence from the Bible that I would be happy to share with you, as well as the reasons for my faith, but unfortunately I am an old guy, with MS, so typing can be a real chore, so hang with me and I will try to answer each of your questions, whatever they may be, but it will take some time

So you are suggesting that there is a cross-cultural set of ethics relating to the mass murder of children, and implying that this in some way provides evidence of Biblical authority. Is this not accurate?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I have total faith that they were not like everyone else. Faith is not based upon a demonstration.

Of course you're entitled to believe whatever you want.

I'm asking if you have some reason to believe this, beyond mere faith. I mean, there really doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were more extraordinary or knew more than anyone else from their time could or would have known.

 

[sojourner]

The issue is absolute reality. If information can only be processed by the senses to determine reality, then reality can only be absolute in a persons mind, Because we share most perceptions of reality, we agree, but I can assure you a person having hallucinations absolutely believes what they are seeing is real, you may try and disabuse them of their reality and be able to do so, but you may not, We were talking of legal standards of evidence, and state of mind of a witness at the time they are testifying about is always pertinent. The standard is not absolute knowledge, no one has that, the standard is do the circumstance in totality, including state of mind, lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that their account of events is true. The testimony can be attacked in numerous ways, but the witness is not summarily impeached because everyone knows there aren't pink unicorns, so the witness is lying. I have known embezzlers to pass a polygraph with flying colors, and an interview afterwards shows they did not believe they were stealing, they believed they were simply taking what was well and truly owed them

If the evidence points to homosexuality as a normal, human sexual orientation,attested to by expert witnesses and corroborated by other expert witnesses, that simply trumps anything that may have been said by some indefinable, invisible being ages ago. Unless one ascribes magical properties to the bible that simply aren't reasonable, in light of what the bible is.

 

[sojourner]

I am aware of some of them, and read one or two, They are not "widely accepted"

Yeah, they are. Perhaps not in some little corners of the world where evidence is trumped by blind belief, but in the scholastic world of peer-reviewed experts on biblical exegesis, they are.

 

[shmogie]

I was speaking of translations in general, which is why I also mentioned religious texts and philosophy. They all have, inherently, the same problems when being translated.

Actually, I do.

First, if a doctor promises something like that, beware. If it's a terminal illness and they say it will be a success, they are probably not wise.
Second, if it is a terminal illness, it can be known that it exists, based on symptoms and lab-results. However, diagnosing is not an exact science. Tons of disorders, diseases, and conditions share many overlapping and similar symptoms. The very act of going to a doctor means you have faith in their confidence to properly diagnose you and choose what will hopefully be an effective treatment option, because many people also put faith in the assumption nothing bad will go wrong when they are put on a medication. But, for a surgeon, we don't have to have as much faith in a surgeon because their work is of a line that can speak for itself. If a surgeon is a patent holder with specialized treatments, is ranked highly by credible sources, is frequently cited, makes frequent speaking appearances, then you know you're dealing with someone who has proven they are capable. But even then there are still mistakes that can happen and, as you have to acknowledge any time you are put under, "unforeseen circumstances" may complicate things. But if the surgeon has few reviews, isn't well known, and seems to be just another surgeon, then you are placing an elevated amount of faith in them.
And there are things that you are more likely to survive, such as being diagnosed with early melanoma, which is generally very survivable, compared to being diagnosed with pancreas cancer, which only has about 50% six-month survival rate, which drops to 20% by one-year. It's not usually an "I don't know if I'll survive," but rather varying degrees of "likely" and "not likely." And doctors don't make promises, but rather "do everything they can" and "do they best they can." (which is how you know it's not looking likely).

So's your baseless skepticism.


Any number of agendas -- dating back to the gospel writers, themselves! Each writer had a different agenda for telling the story of Jesus the way he did. And as translating committees make decisions concerning transliteration vs. meaning retention and readability, those decisions are also agenda-driven.


The same could be said of you, revising what was meant by the author to say what you want them to say. In fact, the exegetical process works to weed out such "revisions" based on misunderstanding. You ought to try it sometime.

So's your baseless skepticism.


Any number of agendas -- dating back to the gospel writers, themselves! Each writer had a different agenda for telling the story of Jesus the way he did. And as translating committees make decisions concerning transliteration vs. meaning retention and readability, those decisions are also agenda-driven.


The same could be said of you, revising what was meant by the author to say what you want them to say. In fact, the exegetical process works to weed out such "revisions" based on misunderstanding. You ought to try it sometime.

Okay, so the notion than the mass killing of children is immoral wasn't strictly Universal amongst early civilizations, and most likely can't be said to have been derived exclusively from Biblical teachings. Many societies considered the mass genocide of women and children, in certain circumstances, to be justifiable.

Yeah, they are. Perhaps not in some little corners of the world where evidence is trumped by blind belief, but in the scholastic world of peer-reviewed experts on biblical exegesis, they are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but yet since Japan would not surrender in WW2, and an estimated 200,000 American soldiers would be killed in conventional attacks on the Japanese home islands

Then what of the blockades that many wanted, which have greatly reduced the amount of suffering and deaths on both sides? Japan was already down, defeated, and negotiating surrender when the first atomic bomb was dropped.

My question has been, and still is, why do societies have these moral/legal distinctions ?

Because morality is often the basis of social and or personal values and traditions, whereas law is best applied towards things that people just shouldn't do, such as steal and kill. Mixing religious morality and legal laws tends to be one of the combinations of power that end badly for many.

 

[shmogie]

re "shadow wolf" My first wife was afflicted with cancer, and we went to the best university hospital we could find for treatment. The head of surgery told my wife that the margins of her tumor were clear, it had not spread to her lymph nodes, and he felt strongly that her surgery would be successful. We had Faith in him, and she was very comforted by his words. Ultimately, in the long run, she lost her battle at age 36. Nevertheless at the time of her surgery, for both my wife and I, based upon the evidence of his qualifications, and where he worked, we had FAITH in him and his words. You can pontificate on what a physician should or should not say, or the percentages of survival, all the stuff you posted,et.al. But I have been there, I know from experience of what I speak

 

[shmogie]

Then what of the blockades that many wanted, which have greatly reduced the amount of suffering and deaths on both sides? Japan was already down, defeated, and negotiating surrender when the first atomic bomb was dropped.

Because morality is often the basis of social and or personal values and traditions, whereas law is best applied towards things that people just shouldn't do, such as steal and kill. Mixing religious morality and legal laws tends to be one of the combinations of power that end badly for many.

No, Japan was not negotiating a surrender, their government made it clear they would never surrender. The Japanese navy was destroyed, and imports were stopped, but based upon the resources they had, it would have taken a decade to starve them out , and many more would have died than died by the nukes, the military would live as they would get first shot at the food and supplies. Because of the Bushido code ingrained in the Japanese culture, every citizen was programmed to defend the homeland to the death.

 

[shmogie]

I believe I was originally responding to these statements:


So you are suggesting that there is a cross-cultural set of ethics relating to the mass murder of children, and implying that this in some way provides evidence of Biblical authority. Is this not accurate?

No, it is not accurate

 

[viole]

I know many people who needed Gods grace to change from a conditions or conditions wrought by their choices. IF a person is given the faith to believe that God will help them overcome the web of their choices, and that is what they want, that in itself is a free choice. Seeking help from a source of help when you want help from the results of countless free choices that have led to addiction, habit, or whatever is wisdom

So, you really believe sexual orientation is a choice.

I cannot possibly think myself, or anyone else, being able to choose to be sexually attracted by women, or men. With the possible exceptions of the sexually eclectic ones, of course.

That leads me to the only logical conclusion: whoever really believes that he/she can choose whether to spend the night with a man or a woman, is bisexual. By definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Of course you're entitled to believe whatever you want.

I'm asking if you have some reason to believe this, beyond mere faith. I mean, there really doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were more extraordinary or knew more than anyone else from their time could or would have known.

A few, if the Gospels are accurate and written by 100 AD, then Christ, spoke of the destruction of the temple by the Romans 35 years before it occurred. You will counter with " it was all made up after 70 AD", I will counter with, the evidence as posited by many scholars is that it is accurate, stalemate. The skeptics have been saying that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Now there is the ossuary,based upon material and decoration were of an important man, with the inscription of whose bones were inside, James, the brother of Jesus. It has finally been declared authentic. The Gospels and subsequent letters say that Jesus had a brother named James who became the leader of the Jerusalem church. You will counter with either or both, A) Jesus and James were common names, so the box inscription means nothing, B) the box is a fake. I will counter with the evidence leads me to believe the box very likely confirms that Jesus and James existed just as described in the Bible, stalemate. There are prophecies in the Bible written long before the events they describe, and history or current events prove they they are accurate. You will counter with A) they are subject to "interpretation" or B) they are the result of blind luck.or C) they are bogus. I will counter with the evidence is strong enough for me to believe they are accurate prophecies written long before they occurred. Stalemate This could go on forever, but it is useless, stalemate

 

[shmogie]

So, you really believe sexual orientation is a choice.

I cannot possibly think myself, or anyone else, being able to choose to be sexually attracted by women, or men. With the possible exceptions of the sexually eclectic ones, of course.

That leads me to the only logical conclusion: whoever really believes that he/she can choose whether to spend the night with a man or a woman, is bisexual. By definition.

Ciao

- viole

You are free to believe whatever you choose

 

[shmogie]

Where can I find and read the accounts of the supposed 500 people who witnessed these things? Anyone can say that 500 people saw a thing. Hey I saw a unicorn the other day and there were 500 people with me who also saw it, so that makes it true, right?

And apparently a bunch of zombies supposedly rose from the grave and wandered the streets when Jesus was crucified. So how come nobody else, anywhere ever mentioned this happening? You'd think that would be a story that would spread around given how strange and unusual that would be.



Well, Spiderman comics mention New York and various landmarks there, so Spiderman must be real, right?

You are free to believe whatever you choose, as am I

 

[sojourner]

You are free to believe whatever you choose, as am I

So long as the application of that belief doesn't cause dehumanizing fallout.

 

[shmogie]

So, you really believe sexual orientation is a choice.

I cannot possibly think myself, or anyone else, being able to choose to be sexually attracted by women, or men. With the possible exceptions of the sexually eclectic ones, of course.

That leads me to the only logical conclusion: whoever really believes that he/she can choose whether to spend the night with a man or a woman, is bisexual. By definition.

Ciao

- viole

A person with a certain physical and genetic makeup is either a male or female, Based upon those physical characteristics, it is clear, what each gender is designed for re the sex act. There is no clear compelling evidence that there is a gene, inherent to homosexuals alone that unerringly compels them to a sex act that is contrary to the physical design of their body. No one is arguing that they do not have every right to do whatever floats their boat. If they choose to have sex with the exhaust pipe of a car, or a broom handle they have every right to do so. Until there is evidence that there is a gene or genetic factor that marks homosexuals different from plain old X and Y genes that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to make them in every case where present a homosexual, then they are just men and women doing what they choose to do. Now, call me the names, stir yourself into your own fit of righteous anger, blah, blah, blah but until you bring me exactly the kind of evidence I require, I and millions and millions and millions across the globe will believe what we believe