Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

wolfsbane wrote: »

It certainly is; many homosexuals have heard it and been converted and delivered from their perverted lifestyle.

Many more homosexuals have heard it and rejected it for the hateful tripe that it is

MatthewVII wrote: »

Many more homosexuals have heard it and rejected it for the hateful tripe that it is

That applies to all sinners.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

MatthewVII wrote: »

What about the cruelty that hardline conservative religiosity is capable of, e.g. the Crusades, Magdalene Laundries?

No harm, I guess you can trample on the rights of whoever you want so long as you can justify it by quoting a book.

Don't make the mistake of thinking all religion must be evil because some or most of it is. That's illogical.

In fact, the Bible tells us to expect such wickedness from most who profess religion. Even among those professing to be Christians there will be many false believers. Only those who do His will are genuine. Not that they are perfect, but their lives will be characterised by His will and way in their conduct and attitudes.
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of thinking all religion must be evil because some or most of it is. That's illogical.

yet you claim that western liberalism is evil because of the gulags(which is a tenuous link at best)?

religion isn't necessarily evil. It is used as an excuse to perform evil

studiorat wrote: »

Just a few points...

• The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but inhospitality. Neither the Hebrew text nor the Greek translation in the Lxx will sustain a Homosexual Interpretation of Sodoms sin in Genesis 19 and other references to the disaster.
  
• English translations of the OT references to sodomy or sodomites have been influenced by the LXX, which wrongly read homosexuality into the text.
  
• The OT limits the prohibition against same-gender sexual behaviour in Leviticus 18 and 20 to the ritual cult of Isael. This refers to Israels distinct status before God and not to morality.
  
• The Mishnah and other ancient rabbinical writings do not support a homosexual interpretation for the old testament passages.
  
• In describing homosexuality as “against Nature”, Paul does not condem homosexual orientation or any committed mutual relationship. Instead, he condems perversion of what comes naturally, It is “against nature” for homosexuals to practise hetrosexuality. Furthermore, there is no universal moral principle to be forund in Romans or anywhere else in the words of Paul. Early Christians had no notion of a universal natural law.
  
• In his ues of arsenokotai, Paul does not refer to homosexuals who are in a monogamous relationship of mutual respect. Rather he condems homosexual prostitutes, oederasts, or those who are ritually impure. His statements have no relevance for todays homosexual couples.

Ref: James B. De Young

Whoever wrote this rejects the historic testimony of the Church, and perverts the meaning of the Scripture. He is quite simply lying.

You give James B. De Young as the source - have you the references in his works? Thanks.

MatthewVII wrote: »

The doctor can show me my blood sugar reports, proving it.

Now on the other hand, if a medicine man told me I had a massive tumour in my brain because he "knew", without any facts to back it up and with me being completely asymptomatic, and told me the only way to get rid of it was to pay him all my money and dance a ritualistic dance around the fire every morning and evening, then I would be suspicious.

Truth should only be founded on reason because it is the only repeatable and provable method. Revelation is subjective and ultimately valueless

We are not talking about how the doctor knew - but about how you would know. I know becasue God has said, I did figure it out for myself. Ditto for the patient and the doctor.

MatthewVII wrote: »

yet you claim that western liberalism is evil because of the gulags(which is a tenuous link at best)?

religion isn't necessarily evil. It is used as an excuse to perform evil

No, I did not blame the gulags on western liberalism. Eugenics was the example I gave. But the gulags were a response to religion devised by those who, like you, viewed it as dangerous.

But I'm glad you agree religion is not necessarily evil. My religion is like that.

Yes, anything can be used as an excuse for evil - love is often used to justify leaving your spouse and kids for a new life with another partner. The test is if the excuse matches up with the precepts it claims to be following.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, one would like to think that you guys have at least thought a bit about what you believe. :pac:


How do you know and/or determine that?

Did you have a think about that first? Did you relationally determine that? Or did you have a spiritual revelation about the nature of spiritual revelations?

What are you comparing your experience too in order that you could determine that you did actually have a spiritual revelation as opposed to, say, a mini-stroke.

1. Of course one wondered about our origins. I wondered if the Bible had anything true to say. I wondered if atheism and evolution was the answer.

But it took revelation to give the certain sure knowledge of the Truth.

2. I am comparing my experience to the reality around me and to God's answers to my prayers. It all fits.

MatthewVII wrote: »

MatthewVII 7:13 "Don't allow the hatred of small-minded people make you hate yourself for being who you are. Every man and woman has the same rights as the next. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a christian to see the disastrous effects their beliefs have on others"

You find that alternative text in a cave? Certainly came from somewhere dark.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True faith is not a 'hope so' - but a knowledge of the true.

That faith is then supported by evidence throughout life - answered prayer, for example.

Again we come back to the point about personal experience being "evidence"

This argument is completely pointless.

Wolfie, there are many good reasons why we discard revelation as evidence. Just as we discard anecdote as evidence, except that revelation is even less reliable.

We build causal links between events with insufficient evidence, and we are incorrect in the majority of cases. This is fine if we treat this as hypothesis, but mostly we just assume we are correct and carry on. Look in the newspapers and in the statements of politicians where correlation and causation are so frequently confused that it must make statisticians depressed. This tendency is widespread in the public.

We often assume positions designed to allow us to function. If work is hard and pay is poor, we look forward to better days that may never come. Self delusions of necessity.

We both notice and remember the unusual, unique and outstanding in preference over the mundane, regular and repeatable. Our memories of events become remarkably unreliable, and most of our earliest memories are total fabrications, copies of copies made by our minds. Distilled each time to exaggerate the remarkable and dismiss the mundane.

We seek evidence to support the beliefs we base upon the above. And if we look hard enough, we will find it, however tenuous it might be. We accept this evidence as true despite flaws. We dismiss in entirety that which does not fit, even if the flaws are superficial. The opposite of hypothesis falsification, of theory building. This is called confirmation bias.

All of these things (and many more I'm sure I have forgotten) come together to make subjective experience, if not tempered by intense critical analysis of evidence, useless as evidence of the extraordinary. And none of us is exempt- not me nor you nor anyone who posts here. These things are fundamental to human psychology. All of this is very well understood by scientists, but not widely understood by the public. Indeed it was our recognition of this which lead to the roots of what we now call science. Our attempt, perhaps imperfect, to overcome the failings of our own minds in the pursuit of truth.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wolfie, there are many good reasons why we discard revelation as evidence. Just as we discard anecdote as evidence, except that revelation is even less reliable.

We build causal links between events with insufficient evidence, and we are incorrect in the majority of cases. This is fine if we treat this as hypothesis, but mostly we just assume we are correct and carry on. Look in the newspapers and in the statements of politicians where correlation and causation are so frequently confused that it must make statisticians depressed. This tendency is widespread in the public.

We often assume positions designed to allow us to function. If work is hard and pay is poor, we look forward to better days that may never come. Self delusions of necessity.

We both notice and remember the unusual, unique and outstanding in preference over the mundane, regular and repeatable. Our memories of events become remarkably unreliable, and most of our earliest memories are total fabrications, copies of copies made by our minds. Distilled each time to exaggerate the remarkable and dismiss the mundane.

We seek evidence to support the beliefs we base upon the above. And if we look hard enough, we will find it, however tenuous it might be. We accept this evidence as true despite flaws. We dismiss in entirety that which does not fit, even if the flaws are superficial. The opposite of hypothesis falsification, of theory building. This is called confirmation bias.

All of these things (and many more I'm sure I have forgotten) come together to make subjective experience, if not tempered by intense critical analysis of evidence, useless as evidence of the extraordinary. And none of us is exempt- not me nor you nor anyone who posts here. These things are fundamental to human psychology. All of this is very well understood by scientists, but not widely understood by the public. Indeed it was our recognition of this which lead to the roots of what we now call science. Our attempt, perhaps imperfect, to overcome the failings of our own minds in the pursuit of truth.

I accept all of this. There are real dangers of delusion.

But that is no argument for saying revelation cannot happen. I'm sure you are not swimming in a sea of delusion; that you know some reality. You, like me, will be deluded about some things, things we have not given much thought to. But serious examination and self-examination will have kept us in most areas.

Also, I'm not presenting my experience of revelation as evidence to convince you of the truth of my assertions. I'm presenting it as an explanation of how I know spiritual truth.