Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance
Options
Comments
-
So you are guilty of something even though you yourself have not actually done anything wrong and by default you'll burn in hell unless you ask for forgiveness for something you yourself has not actually done wrong. In which case if you do ask for forgiveness its fantastic!
Do you not see the issue with this?
Holding an entire species guilty for something that apparently one of the species has done in the past is seriously messed up.
Something very disturbing with people accepting such a belief about themselves and others.
If I spend 5 seconds, I can think of how I haven't lived as I should. I can think of several things I wouldn't want people to know about what I've thought, said, or did. I can think of how I've not treated others in the way that they should behave, and how I've treated God and His Word as rubbish in my life.
The idea that I can't list enough of my own sins to get to the point that it is only because of Adam that I stand guilty is ridiculous.
It's obvious to me that I've not loved God or my neighbour as I should. Nobody has.1 John 1:5-10 wrote:This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
The reason you don't understand is because you still think that people can have "not done anything wrong" when every person has done something wrong.
Once you understand this fact - then Biblical Christianity makes sense. If one continues in the pretence that you're a good and morally upright person in your own strength even when we've failed God and our neighbour in so many respects then you will never understand it.
Once you realise this - the gospel is the best news anyone could ever communicate.
The first step to Christianity is seeing that we've sinned against God, and we need a Saviour. That's where the cross fits in, that's where judgement fits in, that's where repentance fits in. If you think you're a "good person" on your own, you'll never see it. Pride stands in the way, which is also why you and others find the gospel offensive.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23648
theological wrote: »The reason you don't understand is because you still think that people can have "not done anything wrong" when every person has done something wrong.
At what age does this kick in that everyone is a sinner then?0 -
Thanks for asking some direct questions, I'll do my best to give you clear and direct answers.If someone is gay are they going to hell?
Sexuality isn't something that scripture takes into account when talking about salvation. If someone asks me "I'm gay, am I going to hell?" my answer is the same as if they ask "I'm straight, am I going to hell?" In both cases the answer is "Where do you stand with Jesus Christ?" Sexuality does not come into it in the slightest. Anyone who is saved is saved by faith alone, without condition and without price. No one needs to clean themselves up, change themselves or contribute in the slightest. That is what we mean when we talk about the good news of the gospel, and the offer of salvation is open to all equally.Is the fact that they are gay a sign of their rebellion against god?
For the individual, no, not at all. That would imply that being gay somehow puts you in a category that is worse than everyone else. I hope I've made clear in previous posts that I find that notion repulsive.
There is a broader question related to the Christian doctrine of the fall, and the impact of that on human sexuality. In short, our sinfulness extends to every part and aspect of our being, including our sexuality. That means that we are all sexually "broken", whether gay or straight. Neither is better or worse than the other.
Of course, scripture does teach that sex is designed to be expressed between men and women in the context of lifelong monogomous marriage, but again nowhere is it implied that homosexuality is better or worse than any other expression of human sexuality. In fact, scripture warns against heterosexual sexual sin much more frequently than it talks about homosexuality.Is it possible for them to be saved but still be gay?
It depends what you mean by this, and a helpful distinction might be to talk about orientation and behaviour. With regard to orientation, the fact of who you are attracted to is not something scripture comments on. In my experience, friends who are gay and become Christians tend to still remain attracted to the same sex. There are some exceptions of course, but no more than in the population at large. With regard to behaviour, the Christian sexual ethic is that we are called to either faithful marriage or to celibacy. In our day, that is a radical and strange notion, but it was in the first century as well. And neither is any better or more worthy than the other.
All Christians are called to deny themselves, take up their cross and to follow Jesus. All Christians are called to faithful love to and service to one another. Each will have their struggles and pain, but that is part of the reason why we are saved into community with other believers in the local church. No Christian is asked to deny their identity or repress who they are. On the contrary, we are called to embrace our new identity in Jesus Christ, which is why we talk about new birth. The gospel breaks down our differences, which is why Paul talks about there being no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus, and other differences between us are very much secondary to that.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23648
OK, so where does the warning about homosexuals needing to repent or they will go to hell come in then? From your last post I can't see what you have been defending Folaus initial tweet for.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26391
theological wrote: »If I spend 5 seconds, I can think of how I haven't lived as I should. I can think of several things I wouldn't want people to know about what I've thought, said, or did. I can think of how I've not treated others in the way that they should behave, and how I've treated God and His Word as rubbish in my life.
So you are unhappy with your own life you've led?
Ok fair enough, but to project that unhappiness until others is again fairly messed up.It's obvious to me that I've not loved God or my neighbour as I should. Nobody has.
Nobody eh?
1 day old baby?
Child or adult with mental disabilities, also guilty?The reason you don't understand is because you still think that people can have "not done anything wrong" when every person has done something wrong.
Except they haven't, see above.
You see all people as bad, thats a very sad reflection on how you view the world around you.
I actually feel very, very sorry for you as a person. Honestly.Once you understand this fact - then Biblical Christianity makes sense. If one continues in the pretence that you're a good and morally upright person in your own strength even when we've failed God and our neighbour in so many respects then you will never understand it.
So again we're back to you are guilty by default regardless of what you've done or not done and if you don't say sorry for the rest of your life you'll burn in hell.
Oh yeah, makes perfect sense.Once you realise this - the gospel is the best news anyone could ever communicate.
I'm sure if we had a legal system that treated everyone as guilty by default and threatened them with jail unless they apologised for crimes there's no actual proof of we could also claim the justice system is the best ever
:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »How could someone take, as a threat and warning, something they don't believe in?
If he said the flying spagetti monster was going to fire lasers from space at homosexuals, would he have lost his job.
Apparently 'society' gives more credence to God than the spagetti monster afficiandos around here do
Why would you assume all gay people don't believe in god?0 -
Not exactly. We are starting from the position that there is something wrong with everyone, including gay people. That is a very different thing. Gay, straight, bi, trans, black, white, male, female or anything else, Christianity clearly states that we are all broken, to the same degree. No one is better or worse than anyone else. You can disagree, you can laugh me out of it as a fool, but labeling me a homophobe and refusing to listen to anything I say is a waste of everyone's time.
Hey, you've made this point a few times. I understand your argument, that according to Bible everyone is born with sin and needs to repent and be saved. Ignoring the logical and theological arguments around your position do you honestly not see the difference between what you're saying and what Folau posted?
If he had posted on Twitter saying everyone is a sinner in the eyes of the Lord, and repentance is the path to salvation he'd just have been looked at as being a little overly preachy and it would have been forgotten. But that's not what he did. He specifically singled out groups of people who were condemned to hell. The implication being that the reason you were going to hell was because you were gay (or an adulterer, or an atheist, or whatever).
The idea that when Falou says gays are going to hell what he really meant is everyone is going to hell unless they repent is flat out dishonest. That's not what he said and I don't believe for a second that's what you think he meant either.0 -
So you are unhappy with your own life you've led?
Ok fair enough, but to project that unhappiness until others is again fairly messed up.
I'm not "unhappy" at all. I lead a very fulfilling life, largely because I am a Christian, not in spite of it. Jesus has given me a job to do (Matthew 28:20). I'm thankful for what I have, because everything I have is God's anyway (Psalm 24:1). I'm thankful for the people that God has put around me to help me grow to become more like Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 4:15-16)
I just acknowledge the simple reality - I've not lived a perfect life, I fall short (Romans 3:23), and nobody has lived perfectly except Jesus Christ. I acknowledge I haven't always lived as I should in this world. I haven't treated God and my neighbour as I should. I haven't loved them as I should.
Does that make me unhappy? No, because I acknowledge that is why I need a Saviour. It makes me incredibly thankful that I have one.
The longer you are a Christian the more aware you are of your sin, but inversely, the more thankful you become for your relationship with God and His grace becomes more and more a precious gift.Nobody eh?
1 day old baby?
Child or adult with mental disabilities, also guilty?
There's two aspects of it. People are born into the family of Adam by default, as a result we are affected by his original disobedience against God. This would affect anyone irrespective of how old they are.
I suspect that isn't your position as I suspect you are more than 1 day old. It doesn't take very long after that before we do things that dishonour God and dishonour our neighbour.
Accepting the reality that we've all not lived as we should in God's world, is the first step to seeing that you need Jesus and His death and resurrection.Romans 6:5-11 wrote:For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
If you continue as a Christian you see more and more that you need it, which makes you more and more thankful.
Let's get to the main point - do you seriously think that you've done "nothing wrong" in your life? You genuinely think you've lived perfectly? Is that actually a realistic position?Except they haven't, see above.
You see all people as bad, thats a very sad reflection on how you view the world around you.
I actually feel very, very sorry for you as a person. Honestly.
I didn't get into whether or not people are "bad" or "good". What I did say is the factual position that every single person has done wrong things in their lives.
There's nothing sad about that position, acknowledging reality is refreshing, and honestly I don't need your sympathy. God loves me despite my sin, and He sent a very clear sign in history through the death and resurrection of Jesus to show me that.
I'm rejoicing, there's no place in the dumps for me. I've got the hope of heaven, and a living relationship with God and His people now.So again we're back to you are guilty by defaul regardless of what you've done or not done and if you don't say sorry for the rest of your life you'll burn in hell.
Oh yeah, makes perfect sense.
That isn't what I said. What I said is I have done plenty of wrong things in my life. It isn't by "default". It is because I've done many many wrong things in respect to God but also in respect to my neighbour. We all have. Including you.
Seeing this is the first step to understanding why we need a Saviour.
Yes, it does actually make perfect sense when you don't twist what I've said.I'm sure if we had a legal system that treated everyone as guilty by default and threatened them with jail unless they apologised for crimes there's no actual proof of we could also claim the justice system is the best ever
:rolleyes:
I'm certainly not "guilty by default". If I stood in the dock with the list of my sins, I'd be rightfully condemned as being guilty. That's justice. It's fully deserved. I have intentionally failed to live as God calls me to in His world. You say there's "no actual proof" of this, it's well evidenced. It's well evidenced at a local level in so far that people can tell you I've done wrong things in my life, it's also evidenced in the world around us because it's broken. You can't pick up a newspaper without seeing brokenness in our world. That's the tangible evidence of sin.
The difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is that the Christian acknowledges that they have done what is wrong in God's sight, confessed it, realised their need for Jesus to pay the price on their behalf so that they can go free to live a new life for Him.
The only reason you scoff at this is because you read my posts as saying that people are guilty by default. People are guilty because of their sins. This is why Christianity is internally consistent and logical. If all have sinned and if we stand before God guilty - we deserve to be condemned. If Jesus dies in our place to pay the price, we can be forgiven.
I showed you that passage in 1 John 1 which says that if we say we've never sinned, we're not telling the truth at all. If you refuse to acknowledge reality then you won't see the need for Jesus.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26391
theological wrote: »This is why Christianity is internally consistent and logical. If all have sinned and if we stand before God guilty - we deserve to be condemned. If Jesus dies in our place to pay the price, we can be forgiven.
I'm not wasting any time with your quoting of meaningless words, claiming you've shown me by quoting a passage in the bible doesn't prove anything.
But I would call out the highlighted claim.
To claim it is logical when you base your belief that all people are born as sinful by default and that belief is based on Adam, a man who existed in a magical special garden with a with a snake and a super special apple is the very, very furthest thing from logical you could have in this world.
You might as well talk about talk about dragons and claim its consistent and logical. As I've said I honestly feel sorry for you.
Anyway, to get back on topic. Your claims to no in anyway excuse the tweet made. As already pointed out he didn't reference everybody he referenced specific types of people including gay people.0 -
OK, so where does the warning about homosexuals needing to repent or they will go to hell come in then? From your last post I can't see what you have been defending Folaus initial tweet for.IAmTheReign wrote: »Hey, you've made this point a few times. I understand your argument, that according to Bible everyone is born with sin and needs to repent and be saved. Ignoring the logical and theological arguments around your position do you honestly not see the difference between what you're saying and what Folau posted?
If he had posted on Twitter saying everyone is a sinner in the eyes of the Lord, and repentance is the path to salvation he'd just have been looked at as being a little overly preachy and it would have been forgotten. But that's not what he did. He specifically singled out groups of people who were condemned to hell. The implication being that the reason you were going to hell was because you were gay (or an adulterer, or an atheist, or whatever).
The idea that when Falou says gays are going to hell what he really meant is everyone is going to hell unless they repent is flat out dishonest. That's not what he said and I don't believe for a second that's what you think he meant either.
I think you are both driving towards the same point, so I will answer you both together if that's ok.
First, I have already said already that I think Israel Folau's post was unwise and unhelpful. It leaves much too much unsaid.
Christians do think that homosexual behaviour / acts are sinful, as that is something that is clearly taught in scripture. Scripture is also clear that all sin is worthy of God's judgement. But it also important to note that that isn't the only or even the most important thing that Christians have to say on the subject. The reason I have said everything I have on this thread is because that simple statement about a specific sin is a small part of a much larger framework. That is why, for example, I mentioned the Christian sexual ethic which puts forward lifelong heterosexual marriage and celibacy as the only options which are not sinful.
Christians do not want to impose their beliefs on others (by setting up a theocracy for example), or use them as an excuse for discrimination, intimidation or violence against any group within society. We merely want to be able to talk about our beliefs, and try and persuade others that it is true.
There is a misconception that Christians are obsessed with sex, and with homosexuality in particular. There is also a misconception that Christians somehow want to single out homosexuality as especially bad, wrong or shameful. I don't think that either of things are true, and that's what I've been trying to demonstrate throughout this thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
IAmTheReign wrote: »If he had posted on Twitter saying everyone is a sinner in the eyes of the Lord, and repentance is the path to salvation he'd just have been looked at as being a little overly preachy and it would have been forgotten. But that's not what he did. He specifically singled out groups of people who were condemned to hell. The implication being that the reason you were going to hell was because you were gay (or an adulterer, or an atheist, or whatever).
I'd also like to zoom in on this, as it's an interesting point for discussion.
If, for the sake of argument, he had said "Everyone is going to hell unless they repent," you say you wouldn't have had a particular problem with it. Ok, but that general statement would clearly include homosexuals, along with everyone else.
In what circumstances (if any) do you think it is acceptable for a Christian to go beyond the general (everyone is a sinful) to the specific (such and such beliefs or behaviours are sinful)?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23648
So being gay is wrong/ sinful then and you will be going to hell for being gay then?... the Christian sexual ethic which puts forward lifelong heterosexual marriage and celibacy as the only options which are not sinful.
By including everyone in the statement it is not discriminatory against a particular group. You can still say that you don't like their rainbow flag without being homophobic, you can't say that there is a fundamental problem with them though.I'd also like to zoom in on this, as it's an interesting point for discussion.
If, for the sake of argument, he had said "Everyone is going to hell unless they repent," you say you wouldn't have had a particular problem with it. Ok, but that general statement would clearly include homosexuals, along with everyone else.
In what circumstances (if any) do you think it is acceptable for a Christian to go beyond the general (everyone is a sinful) to the specific (such and such beliefs or behaviours are sinful)?
You can say it is wrong to worship the spaghetti monster, or wear green, or even to have sex outside of marriage. You can't say it's wrong to be gay, have ginger hair or be black though.
Do you really not see the difference?0 -
I'm not wasting any time with your quoting of meaningless words, claiming you've shown me by quoting a passage in the bible doesn't prove anything.
But I would call out the highlighted claim.
To claim it is logical when you base your belief that all people are born as sinful by default and that belief is based on Adam, a man who existed in a magical special garden with a with a snake and a super special apple is the very, very furthest thing from logical you could have in this world.
You might as well talk about talk about dragons and claim its consistent and logical. As I've said I honestly feel sorry for you.
Anyway, to get back on topic. Your claims to no in anyway excuse the tweet made. As already pointed out he didn't reference everybody he referenced specific types of people including gay people.
I wasn't discussing the tweet. I was responding to your point with what Christianity actually states. In order to do this, I need to quote the Bible because this isn't just my opinion, it is written in Scripture. If you want to have a secular discussion without reference to the Bible - you might find another forum more suitable to your needs. This is the Christianity forum, expect us to refer to Scripture to explain our position.
In particular - what I said about all people doing wrong things both to other people and to God. That's the crux of why we need the cross. It's also the crux of why I believe Christianity is internally and logically consistent given the reality of our imperfection and our moral shortcomings in God's world.
It's slightly disingenuous to keep repeating that I said that we're guilty by default. I said we're primarily guilty because of our own sin. I've stated that many times in my previous post.
It'd be great if you'd like to engage with what I've said and answer some of the questions I've put to you in that post (or any of the questions in this post). That's how we'd make progress in this discussion.
I don't care about your sympathy, I'm much more interested about the logical consistency of your position. It doesn't seem that logical to me to claim that you've never made a mistake, or that humanity is somehow morally perfect in spite of this. That's much much more like fairy-story unicorn thinking than the Christian gospel because it is a denial of the reality we actually see before our eyes.
Acknowledging the reality of our moral failure to live as we should in God's world is the first step to seeing the logical consistency of the Christian gospel.
If you're not willing to listen and engage there's not much I can do.0 -
So being gay is wrong/ sinful then and you will be going to hell for being gay then?
By including everyone in the statement it is not discriminatory against a particular group. You can still say that you don't like their rainbow flag without being homophobic, you can't say that there is a fundamental problem with them though.
You can say it is wrong to worship the spaghetti monster, or wear green, or even to have sex outside of marriage. You can't say it's wrong to be gay, have ginger hair or be black though.
Do you really not see the difference?
Yes, I do see the difference. We might be getting somewhere here, so please bear with me.
The bible talks about sin in two different but related ways.
1. It talks about our sinfulness, or sinful nature. That applies to all of us, to the same degree, and refers to every aspect of our being. Hence the statement "Everyone is a sinner and will go to hell unless they repent." If I hear you right, you don't have a problem with me saying this, albeit that you disagree or find it ridiculous.
2. The bible also talks about sins, referring to specific desires and volitional acts. We desire and do such things as the result of our sinful nature, so they are symptoms of the deeper problem. One of these (but by no means the only one) is homosexual sex. I'm not sure if you have a problem with that statement or not. Leaving aside whether you agree with me or not, are there certain desire or behaviours that you think cannot be called out as sinful?
When the bible talks about judgment or who should go to hell, it says that we are all in need of salvation because of our inherent sinfulness - my 1. above. It also says that we all demonstrate our sinfulness by the specific sins we commit - my 2. These also render us guilty. A common biblical illustration is a tree, with 1. being the root and 2. being the fruit, so they go together and are inseparable.
I mentioned in an earlier post the difference between orientation and behaviour, and I think that's an important distinction. When you say "gay" I assume you mean orientation? In that case, it doesn't come into either 1. or 2.
Incidentally, the verse that Israel Folau cited, that calls out various sins, quite literally says "men who practice homosexuality," i.e. a specific behaviour. Christians who are heterosexual are called to reject the lust they feel and act on for the opposite sex. Christians who are homosexual are called to reject the lust they feel and act on for the same sex. Neither are condemned or commended for who they happen to be attracted to, any more than they are for their race, gender or hair colour. As I also said in a previous post, when the bible talks about sexuality it is primarily referring to behaviour and not commenting on our identity. Hope this helps.0 -
Yes, I do see the difference. We might be getting somewhere here, so please bear with me.
The bible talks about sin in two different but related ways.
1. It talks about our sinfulness, or sinful nature. That applies to all of us, to the same degree, and refers to every aspect of our being. Hence the statement "Everyone is a sinner and will go to hell unless they repent." If I hear you right, you don't have a problem with me saying this, albeit that you disagree or find it ridiculous.
2. The bible also talks about sins, referring to specific desires and volitional acts. We desire and do such things as the result of our sinful nature, so they are symptoms of the deeper problem. One of these (but by no means the only one) is homosexual sex. I'm not sure if you have a problem with that statement or not. Leaving aside whether you agree with me or not, are there certain desire or behaviours that you think cannot be called out as sinful?
When the bible talks about judgment or who should go to hell, it says that we are all in need of salvation because of our inherent sinfulness - my 1. above. It also says that we all demonstrate our sinfulness by the specific sins we commit - my 2. These also render us guilty. A common biblical illustration is a tree, with 1. being the root and 2. being the fruit, so they go together and are inseparable.
I mentioned in an earlier post the difference between orientation and behaviour, and I think that's an important distinction. When you say "gay" I assume you mean orientation? In that case, it doesn't come into either 1. or 2.
Incidentally, the verse that Israel Folau cited, that calls out various sins, quite literally says "men who practice homosexuality," i.e. a specific behaviour. Christians who are heterosexual are called to reject the lust they feel and act on for the opposite sex. Christians who are homosexual are called to reject the lust they feel and act on for the same sex. Neither are condemned or commended for who they happen to be attracted to, any more than they are for their race, gender or hair colour. As I also said in a previous post, when the bible talks about sexuality it is primarily referring to behaviour and not commenting on our identity. Hope this helps.
A thoughtfully written post to which I might add?
It is possible, (as a man) to find attractive all that is peculiarly feminine without that developing into lust. Appreciate the other sex on an 'aesthetic' (by aesthetic I don't mean just form, but also characteristics, mannerisms, etc) and even sexual level, without things turning lustful.
This typified when out for a drive with a friend. Sat at lights, a woman went jogging by, everything a jiggle. "Aahh" he sighed "aren't women just gorgeous!" He appreciated how her "configuration" triggered natural sexual receptors in his configuration, but by no means was he being lustful. Just appreciative - his sexual engine kickstarted, left in idle for a few moments, then turning back off again.
This as natural, something we were designed for. We are designed to be attracted to each other and in the right circumstances, these initial attractions can bloom and develop with a person unto things turning sexual.
That "designed to be attracted" I would call orientation. And it's possible to be orientated heterosexually, like I say above, without things turning to sin.
-
It appears the gay orientation is be exactly like the heterosexual orientation. A person is wired in the same way but for the same, rather than opposite, sex.
The heterosexual design has a God-intended goal - even if that goal was corrupted by the sinful nature and it's consequential output, sin > lust. There is however, no point to a gay orientation by design, since all the general appreciation and "triggering of configurations by configurations", intended for the heterosexual orientation, are to no Godly end.
The conclusion must be that the homosexual orientation is a product of the Fall. And although the offence of negative comparisons is completely understandable, they are unavoidable, since everything about the Fall produces that which is negative. Death is ultimately a corruption of the original intent, sickness a corruption of the original intent, homosexuality a corruption of the original intent.
But as you say, homosexual orientation in itself is no more sinful than any other corruption to which we are all subject.
The problem, as you say, is that the sinful nature will take whatever corruption is available to it and run with it. Unto sin.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »A thoughtfully written post to which I might add?
It is possible, (as a man) to find attractive all that is peculiarly feminine without that developing into lust. Appreciate the other sex on an 'aesthetic' (by aesthetic I don't mean just form, but also characteristics, mannerisms, etc) and even sexual level, without things turning lustful.
This typified when out for a drive with a friend. Sat at lights, a woman went jogging by, everything a jiggle. "Aahh" he sighed "aren't women just gorgeous!" He appreciated how her "configuration" triggered natural sexual receptors in his configuration, but by no means was he being lustful. Just appreciative - his sexual engine kickstarted, left in idle for a few moments, then turning back off again.
This as natural, something we were designed for. We are designed to be attracted to each other and in the right circumstances, these initial attractions can bloom and develop with a person unto things turning sexual.
That "designed to be attracted" I would call orientation. And it's possible to be orientated heterosexually, like I say above, without things turning to sin.
-
It appears the gay orientation is be exactly like the heterosexual orientation. A person is wired in the same way but for the same, rather than opposite, sex.
The heterosexual design has a God-intended goal - even if that goal was corrupted by the sinful nature and it's consequential output, sin > lust. There is however, no point to a gay orientation by design, since all the general appreciation and "triggering of configurations by configurations", intended for the heterosexual orientation, are to no Godly end.
The conclusion must be that the homosexual orientation is a product of the Fall. And although the offence of negative comparisons is completely understandable, they are unavoidable, since everything about the Fall produces that which is negative. Death is ultimately a corruption of the original intent, sickness a corruption of the original intent, homosexuality a corruption of the original intent.
But as you say, homosexual orientation in itself is no more sinful than any other corruption to which we are all subject.
The problem, as you say, is that the sinful nature will take whatever corruption is available to it and run with it. Unto sin.
Those are very helpful points, and I fully affirm everything you've said. Reflecting on the exchange on this thread brings home to me the need to think rigorously and choose our words carefully, making clear exactly what we mean when we say certain things. Human sexuality is complex, and very close to people's sense of identity and worth, so it's all too easy to come across badly without necessarily meaning to.
I think that's probably my main objection to Israel Folau's post. A high profile Christian like that has a great opportunity to articulate his faith to a wide audience in a way that is uncompromised and even provocative, but also winsome and loving.
At the same time, I don't want to be too critical of him. I think most of us (me included) are more often guilty of saying nothing at all rather than risking saying the wrong thing.0 -
I think you are both driving towards the same point, so I will answer you both together if that's ok.
First, I have already said already that I think Israel Folau's post was unwise and unhelpful. It leaves much too much unsaid.
Christians do think that homosexual behaviour / acts are sinful, as that is something that is clearly taught in scripture. Scripture is also clear that all sin is worthy of God's judgement. But it also important to note that that isn't the only or even the most important thing that Christians have to say on the subject. The reason I have said everything I have on this thread is because that simple statement about a specific sin is a small part of a much larger framework. That is why, for example, I mentioned the Christian sexual ethic which puts forward lifelong heterosexual marriage and celibacy as the only options which are not sinful.
Christians do not want to impose their beliefs on others (by setting up a theocracy for example), or use them as an excuse for discrimination, intimidation or violence against any group within society. We merely want to be able to talk about our beliefs, and try and persuade others that it is true.
There is a misconception that Christians are obsessed with sex, and with homosexuality in particular. There is also a misconception that Christians somehow want to single out homosexuality as especially bad, wrong or shameful. I don't think that either of things are true, and that's what I've been trying to demonstrate throughout this thread.
You're doing it again, you're claiming intent to his statement that there is zero evidence for. You're assuming he left things unsaid, every other rational human being recognises that he said exactly what he wanted to. The Bible claims that a lot of acts are sinful but I don't see Folau telling anyone that eating shellfish will get them sent to hell. Christians in general may not be obsessed with sex or homosexuality but Falou clearly is.
And I'm sorry but you're idea that Christians do not want to impose their beliefs on others just flies in the face of historical fact.0 -
I'd also like to zoom in on this, as it's an interesting point for discussion.
If, for the sake of argument, he had said "Everyone is going to hell unless they repent," you say you wouldn't have had a particular problem with it. Ok, but that general statement would clearly include homosexuals, along with everyone else.
In what circumstances (if any) do you think it is acceptable for a Christian to go beyond the general (everyone is a sinful) to the specific (such and such beliefs or behaviours are sinful)?
I don't see any reason you would ever need to target specific groups of people for eternal damnation. Especially if you're saying you believe everyone is sinful and everyone is treated the same in the eyes of God.
Can you give me any reason why any Christian would ever need to single out gay people specifically for a trip to hell like Falou did?0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »You're doing it again, you're claiming intent to his statement that there is zero evidence for. You're assuming he left things unsaid, every other rational human being recognises that he said exactly what he wanted to. The Bible claims that a lot of acts are sinful but I don't see Folau telling anyone that eating shellfish will get them sent to hell. Christians in general may not be obsessed with sex or homosexuality but Falou clearly is.
Unless either of us is a mind reader then we cannot know, with 100% certainty, exactly what Israel Folau's intent was nor what he is obsessed with.IAmTheReign wrote: »And I'm sorry but you're idea that Christians do not want to impose their beliefs on others just flies in the face of historical fact.
Christians have done, and still do, lots of things that they shouldn't. An important question is whether those things are consistent with Christianity or not.
It's also important to clarify what we mean by impose. If you mean legislating church attendance, religious indoctrination, or forcing conversions at the point of a sword, then I agree wholeheartedly that those things are wrong. If you mean contending that our beliefs are objectively true and trying to persuade others of the same, then isn't that something that everyone does?0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »I don't see any reason you would ever need to target specific groups of people for eternal damnation. Especially if you're saying you believe everyone is sinful and everyone is treated the same in the eyes of God.
Can you give me any reason why any Christian would ever need to single out gay people specifically for a trip to hell like Falou did?
Christians want to stick close to scripture in these matters. Where scripture speaks generally about all being sinners, we do likewise. Where scripture gets specific about way that general principle works itself out, we should also be specific. But both go together, and no-one is innocent with regard to either. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus came and died to deal with both, for anyone who believes in him.
Assuming that you do believe that there are specific attitudes / actions that are wrong, on what basis do you make that judgment?0 -
Advertisement
-
Unless either of us is a mind reader then we cannot know, with 100% certainty, exactly what Israel Folau's intent was nor what he is obsessed with.
Christians have done, and still do, lots of things that they shouldn't. An important question is whether those things are consistent with Christianity or not.
It's also important to clarify what we mean by impose. If you mean legislating church attendance, religious indoctrination, or forcing conversions at the point of a sword, then I agree wholeheartedly that those things are wrong. If you mean contending that our beliefs are objectively true and trying to persuade others of the same, then isn't that something that everyone does?
No we can't know exactly what he is thinking. The difference is my position is based on thinking what he said is what he meant, while you repeatedly insist that what he said is different to what he meant. Your refusal to accept that him targeting specific groups of people is an attack on those very people is frankly baffling.
I can agree that Christians do and have done things they shouldn't. I get why you think it's important to question if those actions are consistent with Christianity but as someone who's not a christian I couldn't care less. You'll find though that what is considered consistent with Christianity changes depending on the Christian committing those acts.
And when I talk about impose I'm talking about things like forcing unwed mothers into mother and baby homes, like banning contraceptives and divorce, forcing women out of the civil service when they marry, allowing schools to discriminate on children based on their religion, mandatory religious education in public schools and even little things like not allow alcohol sales on a sunday morning.0 -
Christians want to stick close to scripture in these matters. Where scripture speaks generally about all being sinners, we do likewise. Where scripture gets specific about way that general principle works itself out, we should also be specific. But both go together, and no-one is innocent with regard to either. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus came and died to deal with both, for anyone who believes in him.
Assuming that you do believe that there are specific attitudes / actions that are wrong, on what basis do you make that judgment?
So you're saying that you think Falou was in the right to single out gay people for attack because it's mentioned in the Bible? What he did was 'consistent with Christianity' as you put it?0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »No we can't know exactly what he is thinking. The difference is my position is based on thinking what he said is what he meant, while you repeatedly insist that what he said is different to what he meant. Your refusal to accept that him targeting specific groups of people is an attack on those very people is frankly baffling.
A large part of this thread has been devoted to unpacking what he said, and what Christians have to say on these matters, in a bit more depth and detail than a meme.IAmTheReign wrote: »I can agree that Christians do and have done things they shouldn't. I get why you think it's important to question if those actions are consistent with Christianity but as someone who's not a christian I couldn't care less. You'll find though that what is considered consistent with Christianity changes depending on the Christian committing those acts.
I get that you don't care, and I don't have a problem with that. But you can't make Christianity endlessly plastic, so that it means whatever any individual wants it to mean. Christianity makes universal claims that it says are objectively true and apply to everyone, regardless of whether we believe them or not. Those claims are grounded in an authority outside ourselves, namely God's revelation of himself in the bible.
Every belief system does the same, including atheistic materialism, and has to appeal to some sort of authority to make those claims.IAmTheReign wrote: »And when I talk about impose I'm talking about things like forcing unwed mothers into mother and baby homes, like banning contraceptives and divorce, forcing women out of the civil service when they marry, allowing schools to discriminate on children based on their religion, mandatory religious education in public schools and even little things like not allow alcohol sales on a sunday morning.
And I agree with you that all of those things are wrong. They tend to happen when Christianity loses focus on scripture in its totality, and starts to look elsewhere for its source of ultimate authority (tradition, human reason or whatever).
I can look to scripture, as my ultimate authority, and critique everything on that list. What's your basis for doing the same?0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »So you're saying that you think Falou was in the right to single out gay people for attack because it's mentioned in the Bible? What he did was 'consistent with Christianity' as you put it?
I think this has been unpacked and discussed in great detail in this thread already, and I don't really have much to add to what has been said before.0 -
I think this has been unpacked and discussed in great detail in this thread already, and I don't really have much to add to what has been said before.
I'm not disputing that it's been discussed at great length but I have yet to see a single post where you say in plain English whether you agree with what he did or not, you just keep deflecting. When you've been asked if you agreed with what he said you have repeatedly said everyone is a sinner, and that what he said was unhelpful.
So I would like to ask you now, in your opinion as a Christian, was Folau right or wrong to post what he did?0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »I'm not disputing that it's been discussed at great length but I have yet to see a single post where you say in plain English whether you agree with what he did or not, you just keep deflecting. When you've been asked if you agreed with what he said you have repeatedly said everyone is a sinner, and that what he said was unhelpful.
So I would like to ask you now, in your opinion as a Christian, was Folau right or wrong to post what he did?
Sometimes some questions require more than simplistic yes or no answers.
All people everywhere are called to repent of their sins and turn to trust in Jesus Christ.
Is his post right in that respect? Yes.
In the Bible we're told that all of us fall short of the glory of God, this means that there isn't a hierarchy of sins (plural). The passage he referred to in his Instagram post refers to a number of sins highlighted in 1 Corinthians 6. This passage primarily refers to actions, not identities. This wasn't explained fully in his post and therefore it can lead to confusion which is unhelpful. It could lead to the suggestion that people who commit these sins aren't welcome in church, when the opposite is the case.Mark 2:15-17 wrote:And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The church is full of forgiven sinners who have repented and put their trust in Jesus. That's the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.
Should he have thought more about how to phrase the post before posting it? Probably. It is a true post, but it lacks the nuance required to sensitively engage with the issues.
Do I think he's wrong for posting that people need to repent however? No.
For the record, I don't believe there's any place for identifying ourselves primarily by other characteristics if we become Christians. We should be followers of Jesus Christ before we identify ourselves by nationality, sexuality, race, or anything else.1 Peter 2:9-10 wrote:But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.0 -
theological wrote: »Sometimes some questions require more than simplistic yes or no answers.
All people everywhere are called to repent of their sins and turn to trust in Jesus Christ.
Is his post right in that respect? Yes.
In the Bible we're told that all of us fall short of the glory of God, this means that there isn't a hierarchy of sins (plural). The passage he referred to in his Instagram post refers to a number of sins highlighted in 1 Corinthians 6. This passage primarily refers to actions, not identities. This wasn't explained fully in his post and therefore it can lead to confusion which is unhelpful. It could lead to the suggestion that people who commit these sins aren't welcome in church, when the opposite is the case.
The church is full of forgiven sinners who have repented and put their trust in Jesus. That's the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.
Should he have thought more about how to phrase the post before posting it? Probably. It is a true post, but it lacks the nuance required to sensitively engage with the issues.
Do I think he's wrong for posting that people need to repent however? No.
For the record, I don't believe there's any place for identifying ourselves primarily by other characteristics if we become Christians. We should be followers of Jesus Christ before we identify ourselves by nationality, sexuality, race, or anything else.
We've been over this. The Bible claims there is no hierarchy of sins, and yet Falou chose to single out specific sins to attack. His message was not everyone is going to hell unless they repent, his message was gay people are going to hell unless they repent. You are doing exactly what Chris was doing by claiming he meant something different to what he actually said.0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »We've been over this. The Bible claims there is no hierarchy of sins, and yet Falou chose to single out specific sins to attack. His message was not everyone is going to hell unless they repent, his message was gay people are going to hell unless they repent. You are doing exactly what Chris was doing by claiming he meant something different to what he actually said.
I'm not privy to what exactly was going on in his head as he posted. Equally neither are you. I can only comment on how his post came across in my perception.
You asked me about the correctness of his post. I answered that it is theologically correct insofar as if these people don't repent and turn to Jesus they are indeed heading for hell but could have allowed for more nuance and could have added some more explanation to avoid unnecessary confusion.
You may not like my answer but it is an answer.
The particular sins (plural) we commit are only symptomatic of deep rooted rejection of God in our hearts (the singular root sin behind all sins we commit).0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »We've been over this. The Bible claims there is no hierarchy of sins, and yet Falou chose to single out specific sins to attack. His message was not everyone is going to hell unless they repent, his message was gay people are going to hell unless they repent. You are doing exactly what Chris was doing by claiming he meant something different to what he actually said.
The Bible does indeed claim that there is no hierarchy of sins, or sinners. But it does also point out specific attitudes, desires and behaviours as sinful. So, everyone is equally sinful and in need of salvation, but no-one will commit every possible sinful act.
The Bible (and by extension Christians) think that everything Folau listed are, in fact, sins. Is that not the real and most important point of disagreement? Christians claim this based on a worldview that claims there is a God, that he has revealed himself in the Bible, and that the Bible remains authoritative for us.
You obviously disagree that some of the things Folau listed are sins, or maybe that the very concept of sin is meaningless. What's your basis for doing so?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23648
The fact that he specifically singled out homosexuals is the problem.
You can twist your position around in you head as much as you like to justify your claim that you are not homophobic, but the moment that you are singling out homosexuals as being a particular group that is destined for hell then by definition you are being homophobic. From what you have been saying regarding your positions in relation to gay people I don't think you are going around shouting abuse or attacking gay people in other ways, but you really need to stop defending him as his statement was 100% homophobic and any christians trying to provide him cover for that then they are also.0
Advertisement