Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Isaiah90

Homosexuality is not a sin!

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, this will fall on deaf ears, but indeed the actions are considered sins. The actors are another story.

If there is a 'way to be' or even a take off on Maslow's actualization, then adultery - breaking one's word, one's commitment, to another -  'misses the mark.'

So …  breaking a contract intentionally is a sin in your book? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Say casual sex for enjoyment? 

Or casual sex with another when one is married in an open marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, romansh said:

So …  breaking a contract intentionally is a sin in your book? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Say casual sex for enjoyment? 

Or casual sex with another when one is married in an open marriage?

Well there are contracts and there are contracts ...........however breaking contracts might be considered wrong (by some, many, most?), as in breaking one's word, and it could be hard to get further work or contracts once this information got out, for example a contractor. Many would consider the breaking of a contract wrong, although I don't know if those many would call it a 'sin' in the secular world. However, it we take it into the realm of the religious, such wrong actions might fall under lying, even stealing - and be considered sins. See how that works?

As to sex, I made a statement and I leave you to make a determination as to what might be right/wrong, moral/immoral/ sin/no sin.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, thormas said:

As to sex, I made a statement and I leave you to make a determination as to what might be right/wrong, moral/immoral/ sin/no sin.

I really do sympathize with Paul's discussions with you. :)

I have made my determinations, I was wondering what yours were. Not those of some nebulous third party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, romansh said:

I really do sympathize with Paul's discussions with you. :)

I have made my determinations, I was wondering what yours were. Not those of some nebulous third party.

I'm sure you do sympathize - btw, how is that research going? Any work product yet? Anything at all? :+}

Actually I made determinations and was asking you to actually answer a question rather then merely ask them :+}

Could you direct us to exactly where you have made your 'determinations' on the specific issues you asked me about (in your 2nd to last post)? 

Thanks, I wait with bated breath. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

btw, how is that research going? Any work product yet? Anything at all?

I am currently reading Sapiens by Harari … excellent book

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I made determinations 

As far as I can tell you did not answer my question(s) but different ones.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

was asking you to actually answer a question

Should try question marks. ;+)

But if you want to know what I think about sin …  I think it is a crock as concepts go. It does not exist beyond some people's imaginations. 

Breaking contracts … that is what we have civil courts for. 

Breaking our word … it happens. Could not be otherwise.

Sex outside of marriage … fine, not a problem. Committing adultery … has a potential to hurt people that care about you, I personally would avoid that sort of thing. Would I divvy things up into right and wrong … in the sense of good and bad … certainly not.

And the good thing is I don't need expert interpretations of what are ultimately apocryphal texts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am currently reading Sapiens by Harari … excellent book

As far as I can tell you did not answer my question(s) but different ones.

Should try question marks. ;+)

But if you want to know what I think about sin …  I think it is a crock as concepts go. It does not exist beyond some people's imaginations. 

Breaking contracts … that is what we have civil courts for. 

Breaking our word … it happens. Could not be otherwise.

Sex outside of marriage … fine, not a problem. Committing adultery … has a potential to hurt people that care about you, I personally would avoid that sort of thing. Would I divvy things up into right and wrong … in the sense of good and bad … certainly not.

And the good thing is I don't need expert interpretations of what are ultimately apocryphal texts.

 

You asked and I responded to adultery, divorce and sexual immorality - what didn't I answer in the original question?

 

There you go Rom, good lad! You actually answered questions albeit with no real detail.

I get that a secularist would not buy into the concept of sin (since it pertains also to God). However, once it is equated to right/wrong and moral/immoral, you are then saying that these basic ideas behind sin are a crock. Sin is simply the statement that X, Y or Z are wrong, bad, immoral actions. A bit drastic Rom.

Moving on:

Of course that's one of the reasons we have civil courts which goes to my point that the breaking of a contract is considered wrong. So great, you acknowledge the point.

Say what on breaking our word? It happens? That's it? No greater insight or comment? And what could not be otherwise? Hey, I would hate to be the guy, caught in an adulterous relationship, who says to his wife, "Hey I broke my word (of forsaking all others), it happens." Hope there is no prenup for the wife's sake as revenge is a dish ........well you get it. 

So you see the potential or perhaps the inevitability of harm from adultery and you therefore wouldn't do it - but you wouldn't divvy it up to right/wrong, good/bad?   So let's examine this:  you recognize the harm but such harm -  is neither bad nor wrong? What is it neutral? But if it is neutral why would you avoid it? Makes no sense unless you think to commit adultery is to harm and to harm ......... is bad or wrong. 

Sex outside of marriage, so any sex that is not adulterous is fine? Ok, so you're ok with a teacher having sex with her minor student, you're ok with incest, you're ok with the simple use or misuse of another for your gratification (sort of like a human sex toy), you're ok with sex with kids, you're ok with all sex outside of marriage? Amazing. But if any of these bother you, then you have admitted that they are wrong, bad, immoral.

And in all this, you have never read books written for example by any ancient Romans or Greeks - whose texts are also sometimes in doubt as to their exact authenticty? Interesting selectivity.

BTW, I don't need expert interpretation either, I just refer to them and ancient texts when asked to or for fun.

 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thormas said:

However, once it is equated to right/wrong and moral/immoral, you are then saying that these basic ideas behind sin are a crock. Sin is simply the statement that X, Y or Z are wrong, bad, immoral actions

Depends on whether you believe in free will.

22 hours ago, thormas said:

Say what on breaking our word? It happens? That's it? No greater insight or comment? And what could not be otherwise? Hey, I would hate to be the guy, caught in an adulterous relationship, who says to his wife, "Hey I broke my word (of forsaking all others), it happens." Hope there is no prenup for the wife's sake as revenge is a dish ........well you get it. 

Yes … Christians do enjoy their revenge. To be fair others do too. Once one understands that "forgiveness" is just a stepping stone to understanding that there is nothing to forgive anyway. 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

So you see the potential or perhaps the inevitability of harm from adultery and you therefore wouldn't do it - but you wouldn't divvy it up to right/wrong, good/bad?   So let's examine this:  you recognize the harm but such harm -  is neither bad nor wrong? What is it neutral? But if it is neutral why would you avoid it? Makes no sense unless you think to commit adultery is to harm and to harm ......... is bad or wrong. 

I don't want to harm/hurt my wife. Not even risk it. Its not a case of some universal dictum that something is wrong.

22 hours ago, thormas said:

Sex outside of marriage, so any sex that is not adulterous is fine?

In the great scheme of things the universe is just fine. There are bits of it I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. My conditioning gives various responses to female on male, male on female, male on male and female on female. Also I am aware that my conditioned response would vary with the culture and time that I find myself in. 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

And in all this, you have never read books written for example by any ancient Romans or Greeks - whose texts are also sometimes in doubt as to their exact authenticty? Interesting selectivity.

No I have not read any ancient books …  I have read Ehrman and Weyler on the subject. Read a good deal of Campbell. Started Plato's Republic, but could not get into it. Routinely read the New Scientists and if you actually care about my reading habits … here is a summary of most of the books I have read over the last ten years.

 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

I don't need expert interpretation either, I just refer to them and ancient texts when asked to or for fun.

Quite possibly … Giving opinions of experts does not tell me about your opinions.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

Depends on whether you believe in free will.

What depends on whether you believe in free will? That sin, a recognizable religious term, is basically equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral? How does that equivalency depend on whether one believes in free will? We're not yet talking culpability or blameworthiness (which does go to free will), we're simply discussing a basic understanding of what is meant by the term sin. Stay on topic it will be easier for you in the long run.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Yes … Christians do enjoy their revenge. To be fair others do too. Once one understands that "forgiveness" is just a stepping stone to understanding that there is nothing to forgive anyway. 

No Rom, the issue was not revenge that was a mere throwaway (I refer you to Star Trek II). The issue which you dodged is that breaking one's word 'just happens.' So if word breaking is something that just happens then the aggrieved party should have no issue with it. Lots of stuff just happens: a sneeze, a cough, a fart. No one is going to really get upset if any of this 'just happen' but people do get upset if another breaks their word, especially in the intimate relationship example that I gave. It seems therefore that breaking one's word does not 'just happen.' But I see you have no real explanation or defense of that statement.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't want to harm/hurt my wife. Not even risk it. Its not a case of some universal dictum that something is wrong.

Again, another dodge. Forget universal dictums: do you or do you not recognize that (possibly) harming your wife is bad (not good and not neutral but bad) and therefore you won't do it?  If it is not bad, then how can it, in the specific example of adultery, cause harm?

2 hours ago, romansh said:

In the great scheme of things the universe is just fine. There are bits of it I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. My conditioning gives various responses to female on male, male on female, male on male and female on female. Also I am aware that my conditioned response would vary with the culture and time that I find myself in. 

Amazing, another dodge. There really is a difference when you're not just asking endless questions but have to answer some. We're not talking about the universe right now, we're talking about non-adulterous, non-marriage sex - and the universe doesn't really care about our sex lives, so let us answer the questions.

So conditioning or not, you have just said that the 28/14 sex relationship is something to be disliked. Sort of like other 'bad' things that we dislike, like the hot stove hurting a child or an adulterous act harming/hurting a spouse. So these things, these harmful actions are bad or wrong - and to be avoided.

I really don't care who is on whom, just tell us if you dislike the other examples I presented: incest,  a teacher with her minor student,  the use or misuse of another for your gratification (sort of like a human sex toy), sex with kids, all sex outside of marriage. And let's for fun not complicated it and stick to our culture and time - don't dodge, just answer specifically.

BTW, does this mean that you are nice to particularly important people in your life because of your conditioning? That must go over well: so it's not your choice, it's not an ongoing choice and commitment to behave and act a certain way - it's just conditioning. That must make everybody feel very special.

In addition, knowledge is power: if you are 'aware of your conditioned responses,' you should be able to 'choose' to act in a different way. That you don't, given the examples of adultery and the 28/14 sex example, speaks volumes. Perhaps you are aware that the universe if only fine if you help it along (in your own individual way).

2 hours ago, romansh said:

No I have not read any ancient books …  I have read Ehrman and Weyler on the subject. Read a good deal of Campbell. Started Plato's Republic, but could not get into it. Routinely read the New Scientists and if you actually care about my reading habits … here is a summary of most of the books I have read over the last ten years.

No Rom, I wasn't asking for your reading list, I was merely pointing out that scholars, and I believe Ehrman has also acknowledged this, recognize that many other ancient books are also - what did you say about the books of the Bible -  "ultimately apocryphal texts."  Welcome to ancient history and texts 101!

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Quite possibly … Giving opinions of experts does not tell me about your opinions.

Quite actually... I have given many opinions, including in this thread. However, I also look to experts and other trusted people to continually learn and consider their positions :+}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, Burl said:

Jesus was clear that fornication outside of marriage was sinful.  

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulS said:

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

The question is was anything said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

Of course, a non-religious person has no interest in the concept of sin because (I assume) they don't accept the basic idea.

Sin, like bad, wrong or immoral, is used to speak of certain actions that are negative, in religious terms they diminish or break the relationship with God. Of course if one doesn't believe in God, it is a moot point.

Whether or not it is an antiquated term is a matter of opinion. That it has been 'updated' especially for and by non-theist religious people, is the case.

Without studying your opinion in depth, I would agree that not all the things you list are sin. If one accidentally kills or injures another, it is not necessarily considered a sinful action; so too addictions. However, deliberate harm seems to fall into another category as is evident even in secular, non-religious society. All sorts of actions are done by human beings and thus human actions but some 'harmful' actions are not considered humane, or exemplary behavior, or the best of us, or in ancient Greek terms, a recognition of or representative of the Good. Even in ordinary life, some particularly 'harmful' actions are described as inhuman, monstrous, lacking all humanity, and those who indulge are called animals, monsters, inhuman and we warn all other people to avoid them, we hunt them down, we lock them away and in some cases they are put to death. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, there is a difference, there is a world of difference in certain 'harmful' horrific human actions.

Just as in sports there is a spot to hit, a line to cross, a goal to achieve, a mark to aim for (btw, these are analogies and no one is comparing life to sport) when used regarding sin, it simply means that some choices 'miss' out altogether on being good, humane, helpful, loving, etc. Simply they miss the mark, the goal or, to complete the analogy, they have not only not hit a home run, they haven't even drawn a walk to get remotely close to being on base.

Is it imaginary? It is apparent that it is not and too often it is our sad reality. 

However, all this being said, if one doesn't like the concept of sin, or the idea of 'missing the mark' or considers it nonsensical - that is fine (for them) and not even considered sin :+}

 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

Your incorrect interpretation of sin is a variety of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, Paul.

Sin is the degree of impurity.  It is the difference between God’s will and personal will.  It can be an action, but can also also intention or empathy or a lack of love.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PaulS said:

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

No.  You are mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...