Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, but there it is, mea maxima culpa :P

Reason I linked the IT article with the good Reverend and Bishop Burrows was really just as an illustration that what it means to be a Christian is demonstrably very different for many Christians regardless of how devout they may or may not be. If you accept that to be the case, while it is reasonable for any Christian to state personally what it means to be a Christian it isn't reasonable to state what it means for any other Christian to be a Christian. Similarly, if what you believe to be objectively true is different from what someone else believes to be objectively true those are actually subjective beliefs until such time as you can arrive at commonly agreeable evidence or method for demonstrating this truth.

I think this is a really helpful post, and illustrates why it's so important to understand the presuppositions we all bring to the table. Everything you've said makes sense within the confines of your worldview, but doesn't within the confines of mine.

Recognising that won't stop us from disagreeing, but at least hopefully we won't be talking past one another.

smacl wrote: »

From a secular perspective the idea is simply acknowledging that these gaps exist, accept them and move on. Folau's turn or burn approach is always going to be objectionable in this context.

Agree or disagree, we all still need to rub along together. That said, Christianity is always going to be confrontational. Human identity and sexuality is a particular flash point in our culture right now, but the idea that we are all lost sinners in need of a saviour, and that such salvation is only and exclusively found in Jesus Christ, is always going to be objectionable.

ChrisJ84

sydthebeat wrote: »

when i said "obscure" even i didnt envisage something as weird as this :

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/us-rugby-league-start-up-interested-in-folau---report/622718

:D:D

it would be hilarious if this happens

Whatever your opinion on the subject of this thread, from a purely rugby perspective that is a bizarre turn of events.

sydthebeat

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Whatever your opinion on the subject of this thread, from a purely rugby perspective that is a bizarre turn of events.

ah he'll hardly sign on to that team to play third tier english rugby league....

but its just funny to see him associated with an off the wall set up.

i can see him actually going and playing MLR rugby in america for good money, a la Nonu and Bastareaud

ChrisJ84

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah he'll hardly sign on to that team to play third tier english rugby league....

but its just funny to see him associated with an off the wall set up.

i can see him actually going and playing MLR rugby in america for good money, a la Nonu and Bastareaud

unlikely alright, but stranger things have happened...

MLR is a good shout, he'll never play at a top level again in the SH or anywhere in Europe. Equally possible that he'll never play rugby again anywhere, which is a real shame.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Agree or disagree, we all still need to rub along together. That said, Christianity is always going to be confrontational. Human identity and sexuality is a particular flash point in our culture right now, but the idea that we are all lost sinners in need of a saviour, and that such salvation is only and exclusively found in Jesus Christ, is always going to be objectionable.

True for more conservative Christianity but not so for all understandings of Christianity. In this country for example, Christians are for the most part secular and beyond being slow to reform the school system, have little desire to impose their belief system and biblical notions of sexual morality on others. This is quite new and things would very different in my childhood.
Homosexuality for example is broadly accepted and carries little if any stigma for most, where just a few short decades ago it would have been considered an abomination. Most extended families will have on or more openly gay person in them at this point. The once staunchly Catholic grannies and granddads are dealing with much loved gay grandchildren, nieces and nephews and previous homophobic attitudes have been consigned to the past. At the same time the various scandals in the church coupled with the unpalatable attitude to sexuality has caused a growing gulf between the laity and the hierarchy. While it might seem like a contradiction to some here, I don't think this gulf makes those involved any less Christian, just less conservative.

smacl

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah he'll hardly sign on to that team to play third tier english rugby league....

but its just funny to see him associated with an off the wall set up.

i can see him actually going and playing MLR rugby in america for good money, a la Nonu and Bastareaud

Article I was reading earlier had him linked to a New York team; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12295138
Alabama might be a better fit

salmocab

smacl wrote: »

Article I was reading earlier had him linked to a New York team; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12295138
Alabama might be a better fit

The New York team is to play in the English league that’s what the poster was referring to, basically it’s the same rumour.

theological

smacl wrote: »

True for more conservative Christianity but not so for all understandings of Christianity. In this country for example, Christians are for the most part secular and beyond being slow to reform the school system, have little desire to impose their belief system and biblical notions of sexual morality on others. This is quite new and things would very different in my childhood.

The sentence "Most Christians are secular" doesn't make sense. In what sense? Politically, personally, societally?

I agree that the Government shouldn't favour any religion in dealing in law. But if by secular you mean that people live without any regard for Jesus Christ and God's word revealed in Scripture they have departed the faith.

Secondly - I don't seek to impose my opinion on anyone, I seem to share it with others. It's what you're doing right now on this issue. You're trying to persuade us to ditch a Christian understanding of sexuality. I happen to think what God has revealed is much better than what you are offering.

Chris put it brilliantly in another post. He often does, I'm often a bit more blunt and coarse:

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think this is a really helpful post, and illustrates why it's so important to understand the presuppositions we all bring to the table. Everything you've said makes sense within the confines of your worldview, but doesn't within the confines of mine.

Recognising that won't stop us from disagreeing, but at least hopefully we won't be talking past one another.

I noticed you skipped this bit in your reply to him but it explains why you keep talking past us.

smacl

theological wrote: »

The sentence "Most Christians are secular" doesn't make sense. In what sense? Politically, personally, societally?

All three if you think about it. Personally, insofar as they don't feel bound by religious rules when making moral decisions, politically as they favour clear separation between church and state, and societally as they don't wish to impose their religious beliefs on others. If you look at the broader definition of secularism from the national secular society it goes as follows;

The principles of secularism which protect and underpin many of the freedoms we enjoy are:

Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.
Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.
Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage.

I agree that the Government shouldn't favour any religion in dealing in law. But if by secular you mean that people live without any regard for Jesus Christ and God's word revealed in Scripture they have departed the faith.

Government aside, from the above I think people practice their faith more in accordance with their own conscience and what their religion means to them. Degrees and manifestations of religiosity clearly vary. From a secular perspective, whether or not you consider this person or that person to be a Christian is no more than your own opinion. Making statements on the religious status of others based on that opinion not reasonable.

Secondly - I don't seek to impose my opinion on anyone, I seem to share it with others. It's what you're doing right now on this issue. You're trying to persuade us to ditch a Christian understanding of sexuality. I happen to think what God has revealed is much better than what you are offering.

But this thread isn't about you, it is about Israel Folau who is very much trying to impose his opinion on others. His instagram page still contains the following



Repent! is not an invitation it is a command. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to ditch their understanding of sexuality. I'm saying that those people pushing their deeply offensive notions of sexuality on others should face the consequences for doing so.

(Edit: Looking at my previous post, it is also about Ireland in the recent past where homosexuality was illegal and considered an abomination by the church).

Chris put it brilliantly in another post. He often does, I'm often a bit more blunt and coarse:

I noticed you skipped this bit in your reply to him but it explains why you keep talking past us.

I didn't skip anything as Chris hasn't actually addressed me with a question here, merely made a comment which stands on its own. As opposed to this post for example.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Government aside, from the above I think people practice their faith more in accordance with their own conscience and what their religion means to them. Degrees and manifestations of religiosity clearly vary. From a secular perspective, whether or not you consider this person or that person to be a Christian is no more than your own opinion. Making statements on the religious status of others based on that opinion not reasonable.

Within your own worldview yes. This is why Chris said, from a Christian perspective we differ with you.

There's no point repeating "from a secular perspective" and expecting us to agree with you. We won't.

smacl wrote: »

Repent! is not an invitation it is a command. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to ditch their understanding of sexuality. I'm saying that those people pushing their deeply offensive notions of sexuality on others should face the consequences for doing so.

God commands people to repent. It is his opinion that God has said this.

It is Scriptural also:

Acts 17:30-31 wrote:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

smacl wrote: »

I didn't skip anything as Chris hasn't actually addressed me with a question here, merely made a comment which stands on its own. As opposed to this post for example.

You could learn from his comments. You could gain a lot from exploring the assumptions that we make instead of simply restating the same thing.

Also - the answer to that question is no. This isn't about me, it is about what God says in Scripture. Again - the fundamental impasse of assumptions between you and I.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Within your own worldview yes. This is why Chris said, from a Christian perspective we differ with you.

There's no point repeating "from a secular perspective" and expecting us to agree with you. We won't.

I'm not asking you to agree with the secular perspective though, merely that this is the perspective from which I'm making my own assertions. Much like when you say 'from a Christian perspective', though I'd suggest it is a very narrow Christian perspective you're talking about which might be better stated as 'from a conservative evangelical Christian perspective'. As you've already noted, your take on things is very different say to that of the Bishop and Reverend in the article I previously linked. So for example, given Bishop Burrows states “I have come to feel that homophobia must be fought in our society as an evil” and comparing that to Folau's position, it doesn't seem reasonable to assert that there is any single all-encompassing Christian perspective.

theological

smacl wrote: »

I'm not asking you to agree with the secular perspective though, merely that this is the perspective from which I'm making my own assertions. Much like when you say 'from a Christian perspective', though I'd suggest it is a very narrow Christian perspective you're talking about which might be better stated as 'from a conservative evangelical Christian perspective'. As you've already noted, your take on things is very different say to that of the Bishop and Reverend in the article I previously linked. So for example, given Bishop Burrows states “I have come to feel that homophobia must be fought in our society as an evil” and comparing that to Folau's position, it doesn't seem reasonable to assert that there is any single all-encompassing Christian perspective.

As far as I'm concerned, unless we're willing to look at our assumptions and discuss how we arrive at our conclusions this conversation is over. There is nothing to be gained from soapboxing the same point repeatedly on multiple threads.

We've heard you - we simply disagree and we have our reasons for it.

smacl

theological wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, unless we're willing to look at our assumptions and discuss how we arrive at our conclusions this conversation is over. There is nothing to be gained from soapboxing the same point repeatedly on multiple threads.

We've heard you - we simply disagree and we have our reasons for it.

By 'we' who exactly are you talking about, or do you perhaps consider yourself the spokesperson for everyone else on this forum or perhaps Christendom in general? Saying "this conversation is over" is fine and dandy but this is an open conversation in an open forum and for the most part, it hasn't been your good self with whom I've been enjoying dialog.

Rather ironic that you take this stance in a thread about the intolerance of tolerance.

theological

smacl wrote: »

By 'we' who exactly are you talking about, or do you perhaps consider yourself the spokesperson for everyone else on this forum or perhaps Christendom in general? Saying "this conversation is over" is fine and dandy but this is an open conversation in an open forum and for the most part, it hasn't been your good self with whom I've been enjoying dialog.

Rather ironic that you take this stance in a thread about the intolerance of tolerance.

I'm saying there is scope for conversation if we stop repeating the same thing over and over. We're not getting anywhere. That's soapboxing. We've heard you. There are opportunities to further our conversation down different avenues that we've not replied to you on already.

By "we" it seems to be everyone that I have seen on this forum who replies to you from a Christian perspective.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

True for more conservative Christianity but not so for all understandings of Christianity. In this country for example, Christians are for the most part secular and beyond being slow to reform the school system, have little desire to impose their belief system and biblical notions of sexual morality on others. This is quite new and things would very different in my childhood.
Homosexuality for example is broadly accepted and carries little if any stigma for most, where just a few short decades ago it would have been considered an abomination. Most extended families will have on or more openly gay person in them at this point. The once staunchly Catholic grannies and granddads are dealing with much loved gay grandchildren, nieces and nephews and previous homophobic attitudes have been consigned to the past. At the same time the various scandals in the church coupled with the unpalatable attitude to sexuality has caused a growing gulf between the laity and the hierarchy. While it might seem like a contradiction to some here, I don't think this gulf makes those involved any less Christian, just less conservative.

J Gresham Machen wrote a great book in the 1920s called "Christianity and Liberalism." His basic point is that if Christian ideas and doctrines are emptied of objective meaning (sin, salvation, who God is and what he is like etc.) then at some point it ceases to be Christianity and becomes something else, even if it retains some churchy traditions and idiom. Similarly, the question "What is a Christian" is one that has an objective and unchanging answer.

There is room in Christianity for all sorts of different traditions, and beliefs can vary on all sorts of secondary matters. But if someone cannot read something like the Apostles Creed and honestly say it reflects what they believe then they are deluding themselves if they still claim to be a Christian.

The other thing that strikes me is that, practically, we all live as if objective truth exists. If I say that I'm a man, husband, father etc. then we all understand what those things mean, and that they aren't granted meaning simply by my laying claim to them. Otherwise life would just be an incoherent mess (or, more so than it is already!)

eagle eye

Yeah, I'm not religious but if you call yourself Christian and don't follow the rules then you are a hypocrite and not really a Christian.
If it says in the Bible that sexual acts between men are wrong then you are not a Christian if you do not agree with that. Instead you belong to some other cult religion.
On the other end of the scale are those who claim to be religious and believe that physically assaulting gay people is right. These people are not Christians either, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you should carry out actions like that. They are also hypocrites and members of a cult religion.
All those people are going to hell just like the gays!

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not religious but if you call yourself Christian and don't follow the rules then you are a hypocrite and not really a Christian.
If it says in the Bible that sexual acts between men are wrong then you are not a Christian if you do not agree with that. Instead you belong to some other cult religion.
On the other end of the scale are those who claim to be religious and believe that physically assaulting gay people is right. These people are not Christians either, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you should carry out actions like that. They are also hypocrites and members of a cult religion.
All those people are going to hell just like the gays!

It is posts like the above which lead me to the opinion that much of the homophobia blamed on Christianity has much more to do with rather ugly conservatism than religion.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

J Gresham Machen wrote a great book in the 1920s called "Christianity and Liberalism." His basic point is that if Christian ideas and doctrines are emptied of objective meaning (sin, salvation, who God is and what he is like etc.) then at some point it ceases to be Christianity and becomes something else, even if it retains some churchy traditions and idiom. Similarly, the question "What is a Christian" is one that has an objective and unchanging answer.

There is room in Christianity for all sorts of different traditions, and beliefs can vary on all sorts of secondary matters. But if someone cannot read something like the Apostles Creed and honestly say it reflects what they believe then they are deluding themselves if they still claim to be a Christian.

The other thing that strikes me is that, practically, we all live as if objective truth exists. If I say that I'm a man, husband, father etc. then we all understand what those things mean, and that they aren't granted meaning simply by my laying claim to them. Otherwise life would just be an incoherent mess (or, more so than it is already!)

It is certainly one point of view, but not the only one and I'd respectfully suggest that there's been more than enough blood spilled in the history of Christendom between various Christians interpretation of what it means to be a 'true' Christian. I take your point on the desire for coherency but am of the opinion that we live in a changing world. Given that we're on a thread discussing tolerance for example, would you consider a man who is legally married to another man to be his husband? Would you consider a transgender man who was born female but identifies as a man to be a man or a woman? Would you consider a man who adopts a child to be that child's father or would you consider the child's biological father to be the father? These are three questions that address the specific examples of objective truth that you've raised but I'd assert whatever your answers might be, they would be subjective. (Feel free to consider the questions rhetorical and not answer, the intent is not to put you on the spot so much as illustrate the fallibility of considering belief objective).

theological

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not religious but if you call yourself Christian and don't follow the rules then you are a hypocrite and not really a Christian.
If it says in the Bible that sexual acts between men are wrong then you are not a Christian if you do not agree with that. Instead you belong to some other cult religion.
On the other end of the scale are those who claim to be religious and believe that physically assaulting gay people is right. These people are not Christians either, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you should carry out actions like that. They are also hypocrites and members of a cult religion.
All those people are going to hell just like the gays!

For the record. The last line is not what I am saying. All people everywhere sin in different ways and fall short of God's glory. The difference is knowing that we have done that and turning to God for mercy in repentance so that we can have a new relationship with Him through the death of Jesus on the cross.

Everything else you've said about Christianity and sexuality is true. Christianity has held since it's beginnings 2,000 years ago that all sexual expression outside of a marriage is sinful. It falls short of how God intended sexuality to be expressed.

Any deviation from that position is pretty modern. Chris is right to say that people are emptying Christianity of its objective content if they are departing from Scripture and ultimately departing from what God has said in His Word.

Thanks for your post, it's pretty helpful. It seems that for smacl the Bible or Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Christianity which is incredibly odd because it is of course about both. Both are intrinsic and essential to it.

smacl

theological wrote: »

For the record. The last line is not what I am saying. All people everywhere sin in different ways and fall short of God's glory. The difference is knowing that we have done that and turning to God for mercy in repentance so that we can have a new relationship with Him through the death of Jesus on the cross.

Everything else you've said about Christianity and sexuality is true. Christianity has held since it's beginnings 2,000 years ago that all sexual expression outside of a marriage is sinful. It falls short of how God intended sexuality to be expressed.

Any deviation from that position is pretty modern. Chris is right to say that people are emptying Christianity of its objective content if they are departing from Scripture and ultimately departing from what God has said in His Word.

Thanks for your post, it's pretty helpful. It seems that for smacl the Bible or Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Christianity which is incredibly odd because it is of course about both. Both are intrinsic and essential to it.

You might want to point out where I said that.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

For the record. The last line is not what I am saying. All people everywhere sin in different ways and fall short of God's glory. The difference is knowing that we have done that and turning to God for mercy in repentance so that we can have a new relationship with Him through the death of Jesus on the cross.

Everything else you've said about Christianity and sexuality is true. Christianity has held since it's beginnings 2,000 years ago that all sexual expression outside of a marriage is sinful. It falls short of how God intended sexuality to be expressed.

Any deviation from that position is pretty modern. Chris is right to say that people are emptying Christianity of its objective content if they are departing from Scripture and ultimately departing from what God has said in His Word.

Thanks for your post, it's pretty helpful. It seems that for smacl the Bible or Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Christianity which is incredibly odd because it is of course about both. Both are intrinsic and essential to it.

Why does God make gay people gay so? Wouldn't it be a lot easier all round if everyone was hetro?

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why does God make gay people gay so? Wouldn't it be a lot easier all round if everyone was hetro?

This question is basically - why we are tempted to sin?

The basic answer is the Fall and human agency. The answer to this question is no different to asking why people are tempted to gossip, or why people are tempted to make material things their God, or why people are tempted to commit adultery.

Our desires are fallen because sin entered the world at the Fall (Romans 5 makes this pretty clear Scripturally).

The interesting thing about this topic is that the answers are no different to how one would address any other type of desire that is against God's word. I don't elevate this issue on a pedestal. The sins I struggle with are no less important than the sins that other people struggle with.

I need to repent daily and turn to God so that I can become more like Him and say no to myself and say yes to living for God.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

There is room in Christianity for all sorts of different traditions, and beliefs can vary on all sorts of secondary matters. But if someone cannot read something like the Apostles Creed and honestly say it reflects what they believe then they are deluding themselves if they still claim to be a Christian.

Fair enough, as above and per the charter, I've no issue limiting my use of the word 'Christian' on this forum to mean broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. i.e. nobody below the age of reason, nor with severe intellectual disability or dementia nor any other passive members of a Christian church. Also no gnostics, dualists nor those who might consider themselves Christian through tradition or inclination with a vaguer notion of the specifics.

Worth noting that the Apostles' Creed makes no reference to scripture, sexual morality, spreading Christianity to others nor any of the other excuses rolled out to defend Folau's homophobic sentiments.

Does this seem reasonable?

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

This question is basically - why we are tempted to sin?

The basic answer is the Fall and human agency. The answer to this question is no different to asking why people are tempted to gossip, or why people are tempted to make material things their God, or why people are tempted to commit adultery.

Our desires are fallen because sin entered the world at the Fall (Romans 5 makes this pretty clear Scripturally).

The interesting thing about this topic is that the answers are no different to how one would address any other type of desire that is against God's word. I don't elevate this issue on a pedestal. The sins I struggle with are no less important than the sins that other people struggle with.

I need to repent daily and turn to God so that I can become more like Him and say no to myself and say yes to living for God.

So 'God' builds in temptation to 'sin' ever before an individual develops into adulthood. Why? Why does 'God' do that to some people and not to other people?

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

So 'God' builds in temptation to 'sin' ever before an individual develops into adulthood. Why? Why does 'God' do that to some people and not to other people?

Why are you asking him?
His job is to follow and not to question.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

Why are you asking him?
His job is to follow and not to question.

Well, I can't ask 'God' because he never answers. So I must ask one of his followers why Israel and Billy's 'God' wants people he made to burn in Hell, even though he made them as they are.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, as above and per the charter, I've no issue limiting my use of the word 'Christian' on this forum to mean broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. i.e. nobody below the age of reason, nor with severe intellectual disability or dementia nor any other passive members of a Christian church. Also no gnostics, dualists nor those who might consider themselves Christian through tradition or inclination with a vaguer notion of the specifics.

Important to say that the Apostles Creed is illustrative, not exhaustive, of what Christians believe. The examples you give (the very young, the mentally infirm etc.) also show why it would be innapropriate for me to walk around with a copy of the creed under my arm, auditing where others stand with the lord. It's not my role to do so and, unless they are members of my local church, is really none of my business. It's also important not to limit God's goodness or mercy by over intellectualising belief. After all, a small child expressing simple faith in Jesus is every bit as much a Christian as the most learned theologian.

Nonetheless, and all things being equal, I would consider it odd for an adult who claims to have been a Christian for any length of time to either not understand or fail to see as important these sorts of foundational doctrines. There will always be exceptions (such as the thief on the cross), but they aren't the norm.

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that the Apostles' Creed makes no reference to scripture, sexual morality, spreading Christianity to others nor any of the other excuses rolled out to defend Folau's homophobic sentiments.

It's important to note that the creed presupposes the authority of scripture as that's where the content is drawn from. The question then becomes whether a position on human sexuality (or on anything) is in accordance with what scripture says, in context and in its totality.

smacl wrote: »

Does this seem reasonable?

I think you're generally quite reasonable :-)

As @theological has said in other posts, a more fruitful conversation than a squabble over the definition of the word Christian might be to look at the reasons we differ on these sorts of matters in the first place, what presuppositions we bring to the table etc.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So 'God' builds in temptation to 'sin' ever before an individual develops into adulthood. Why? Why does 'God' do that to some people and not to other people?

As far as I'm aware everyone is tempted to sin. I know that's true of me.

Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise. I'm simply tempted to sin against God in different ways.

We're not automatons and our nature is fallen as a result of sin entering the world. This principle has strong explanatory power. For example why do bad things happen? Why is the world so messed up?

Our sin and rejection of God which affects us, the whole created order and of course what we desire. The solution, turn to Jesus and be made new with a new relationship with God now and live eternally.

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Well, I can't ask 'God' because he never answers. So I must ask one of his followers why Israel and Billy's 'God' wants people he made to burn in Hell, even though he made them as they are.

I'm tempted to do bad things regularly, I think everybody is.
Does the fact that I've temptation to do bad things make me a bad person? I don't think it does but if I carried out the deed then I'd be a bad person.
I'm sure that's how it works. You can be born anything you like but if you act upon something that's considered a sin then you pay the price in the afterlife is how it goes it seems.
Anyways it's ridiculous so don't be getting upset about it and don't be asking too much either or you could end up becoming a Christian. I've seen this happen before.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

As far as I'm aware everyone is tempted to sin. I know that's true of me.

Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise. I'm simply tempted to sin against God in different ways.

We're not automatons and our nature is fallen as a result of sin entering the world. This principle has strong explanatory power. For example why do bad things happen? Why is the world so messed up?

Our sin and rejection of God which affects us, the whole created order and of course what we desire. The solution, turn to Jesus and be made new with a new relationship with God now and live eternally.

But wouldn't it make more sense to assume there is no 'God'? That we just exist very briefly, as one of billions, on this tiny speck of dirt in a vast universe.

Rather than serve a judgemental 'God' created by other humans long since dead, in our very short opportunity to experience a life, should we not just be understanding of fellow human beings and their sexual orientations? What harm does do you or me if John sleeps with Tom or Mary sleeps with Anne?