Respecting Christians

[Jeff Corey]

Why are you making up the anal and oral sex qualifications? It says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Dr. Sigmund would wonder why you interpret that to mean those specific acts.

 

[cj.23]

Fine split the hair all you want to my opinion is the same for both sides of it. Condemning someone for homosexual acts is no better then condemning someone for homosexual thoughts.

No one has have they? I seem to recall I noted that you are condemned for heterosexual thoughts? The point I was initially making is NO human according to Christianity is free from sin. You can be a saint, you are still a sinner, whether you stick things in other people or not irrespective of orientation orifice,and gender. Or is being gay a SUPER SIN, especially naughty? I don't see any evidence of that Biblically do you? As all sin leads to death, then it seems pointless to worry about if it is mortal or venal or even venereal ultimately?

cj x

 

[dafydd]

Why are you making up the anal and oral sex qualifications? It says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Dr. Sigmund would wonder why you interpret that to mean those specific acts.

Even if gays just lay down with each other it means that they are not laying down with women and thus missing the chance to spread their seed as god intends it to be. Surely that would upset the sky daddy?

 

[cj.23]

Why are you making up the anal and oral sex qualifications? It says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Dr. Sigmund would wonder why you interpret that to mean those specific acts.

I don't know enough about practices of oral sex in the Iron Age Levant to know if it was included in the above, but I doubt the KJV is our best guide ot the texts meaning, beautiful as it is.

cj x

 

[sphenisc]

Why are you making up the anal and oral sex qualifications? It says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Dr. Sigmund would wonder why you interpret that to mean those specific acts.

I don't get it either - it clearly means you shouldn't have vaginal sex with a man as you would with a woman. I suspect this is actually one of the easier commandments to keep.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No one has have they? I seem to recall I noted that you are condemned for heterosexual thoughts? The point I was initially making is NO human according to Christianity is free from sin. You can be a saint, you are still a sinner, whether you stick things in other people or not irrespective of orientation orifice,and gender. Or is being gay a SUPER SIN, especially naughty? I don't see any evidence of that Biblically do you? As all sin leads to death, then it seems pointless to worry about if it is mortal or venal or even venereal ultimately?

cj x

Oh for everloving...

Then what's the bloody point? If we're all sinners and are all gonna die why don't I just go on a murder/rape/genocide-brouhaha right now?

 

[cj.23]

Even if gays just lay down with each other it means that they are not laying down with women and thus missing the chance to spread their seed as god intends it to be. Surely that would upset the sky daddy?

It would upset any tribe whose strength and viability was based on human resources, where said human resource could be given a sling, spear or axe when the next door tribe came knocking.

cj x

 

[dafydd]

No one has have they? I seem to recall I noted that you are condemned for heterosexual thoughts? The point I was initially making is NO human according to Christianity is free from sin. You can be a saint, you are still a sinner, whether you stick things in other people or not irrespective of orientation orifice,and gender. Or is being gay a SUPER SIN, especially naughty? I don't see any evidence of that Biblically do you? As all sin leads to death, then it seems pointless to worry about if it is mortal or venal or even venereal ultimately?

cj x

But do you believe that? Christianity is so wishy-washy, I have to ask that question. You claim to be a Christian, if you don't believe it won't you be in trouble with the boss after you shuffle off this mortal coil?

 

[cj.23]

I don't get it either - it clearly means you shouldn't have vaginal sex with a man as you would with a woman. I suspect this is actually one of the easier commandments to keep.

I thought that as well.

cj x

 

[dafydd]

It would upset any tribe whose strength and viability was based on human resources, where said human resource could be given a sling, spear or axe when the next door tribe came knocking.

cj x

The next door tribe would have its share of gays too. And some of those gay bears are built like wardrobes.

 

[dafydd]

I thought that as well.

cj x

Backdoor sex between a man and a woman? Does the sky daddy have an opinion on that?

 

[cj.23]

Oh for everloving...

Then what's the bloody point? If we're all sinners and are all gonna die why don't I just go on a murder/rape/genocide-brouhaha right now?

Well I have despite my hopes in the transhumanist endeavour and life extension always assumed I'd die anyway. And if i was an atheist I would not care about sin as the concept is meaningless except in a religious context; and if religious I would try and keep the commandments if Jewish, or if Christian as I am, I'd trust in God's grace.

Either way the fact we are going to die hardly stops us acting responsibly. Why do you need God for personal morality?

cj x

 

[JoeMorgue]

So let me make sure I got this straight.

God gave us the set of rules. Some of the rules we follow and some we don't. Many of the rules contradict each other and it would be impossible to follow them all, so we're all sinners. The rules I want to follow are self evident, the rules I don't want to follow I can ignore without even a token reason.

Good. Glad we got that all cleared up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Either way the fact we are going to die hardly stops us acting responsibly. Why do you need God for personal morality?

I don't. No one does. In fact this discussion is making it very clear that no one gets their personal morality from God.

God functions in morality the same way he does everywhere else. He's just something you point to when you don't feel like giving a reason. You don't even have to do it consistently.

 

[cj.23]

So let me make sure I got this straight.

God gave us the set of rules. Some of the rules we follow and some we don't. Many of the rules contradict each other and it would be impossible to follow them all, so we're all sinners.

This first bit is a good exposition by you of Pauline Theology on sin and grace, yes. Exactly! Except Paul thinks the Laws are just too hard for us, not necessarily contradictory.

cj x

 

[Paulhoff]

Respecting ALL people, YES, respecting a faith, NO.

And respecting is a two way street, at least.


Paul

 

[Jeff Corey]

Joe B.
Except pray 5 times a day.

 

[arthwollipot]

So if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart it is a sin, but he can lech on other men till his eyes bubble?

This is indeed a contradiction, and I'd love to see what cj has to say about it.

 

[zeggman]

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It gives a free ticket to lesbians, however.

Properly read, it seems to give a free ticket to everybody. Since womenkind have vaginas and menkind do not, it's physically impossible to lie with mankind as with womankind.

"If thine aunt had a seed-spiller she'd be thine uncle: it is an absurd equation."

 

[cj.23]

So if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart it is a sin, but he can lech on other men till his eyes bubble?

If you are a Biblical literalist (if such a thing actually exists) yes I guess so; in reality the point of the hyperbole is that lusting is a sin in the wrong context. Technically you have committed adultery with her in your heart (or him), so it may only be a sin for married men if you take it as being not a hyperbole. No one is condemning all lust, which certainly has its place in relationships. What is certainly morally questionable is the notion that it OK to regard women or men as eye candy and impose your fantasies upon them, if to the detriment of their personhood. But this is hyperbole, of the type Jesus uses throughout the Gospels.

Now ethical decisions and moral choices are ones we must make regardless of faith or absence thereof: the Pauline position is clear, we are all sinners. We can attempt to "sin no more", but we will. Repentance is a change of attitude, not a cure all. I would look to your heart and those strong in love for morality, and keep it distinct from issues of sin. We are human, the flesh is weak. At least let your sinning be original?

cj x