Jump to content

Homosexuality is not a sin!


Isaiah90

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, thormas said:

One reads experts, compares them and measures his/her understanding against them - in order to avoid such twisting.

And what do your experts say on whether sin exists, beyond a concept that is?

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, romansh said:

And what do your experts say on whether sin exists, beyond a concept that is?

That's a simple one and it's there for the asking in the research. I lean away from the western understanding and Augustine, to the eastern understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, romansh said:

And what do your experts say on whether sin exists, beyond a concept that is?

 A thought just occurred: it is not that Sin exists in and of itself, it is rather that there is a way to be Human and if one doesn't actualize it in himself, they 'miss the mark.' It is the missing that is sinning.

However, I believe we have been here before and of course the 'to be Human' will be, I suspect, an issue also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thormas said:

Alternatively, one could say that the truth has a Reality of its own and it has been grasped by certain individuals or even numerous people and later individuals and people also recognize Truth - and thus wisdom is born. So too, it is evident that with a different worldview some things become more obvious (ala homosexuality) and thus there are differences - although it might have been just as obvious in an earlier age by 'enligntened' individuals. I have not found any comments by Jesus against homosexuality and I never remember reading anything from the Buddha or Lao Tzu.

 

Jesus was clear that fornication outside of marriage was sinful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, thormas said:

Timely post by Ehrman on this subject (with more to follow):

https://ehrmanblog.org/are-same-sex-relations-condemned-in-the-old-testament/

Paywalled, but it seems Ehrman is working from a fundamental (pun intended) error on the nature of sin.  

Sin is attitudes and intentions where the spiritual consciousness capitulates to selfish and animal natures.  It is not limited to actions.

In the ten commandments ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ are purposefully followed by the ‘Thou shalt not covets’.  

The spiritual intentions and attitudes are expressly stated as equivalent to the acts, and everyone is sinful to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Burl said:

Paywalled, but it seems Ehrman is working from a fundamental (pun intended) error on the nature of sin.  

It is a paid site ($25 yearly?) but one can at least get his introductory thoughts and then go from there if desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thormas said:

It is a paid site ($25 yearly?) but one can at least get his introductory thoughts and then go from there if desired.

I read it.  Ehrman was a literalist believer (Biola? IDK) and he does not seem well versed in modern Christian thought.

He’s etched out a niche as a literalist debunker, but does not seem to do any exegesis or extend his criticism beyond the Darbyist domain.  

It’s 2019 and he is still arguing against a rather narrow 18c Christianity?  Really?  

Maybe I am wrong.  I grew bored with his lack of creativity long ago.  If he has had an original thought lately let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Burl said:

I read it.  Ehrman was a literalist believer (Biola? IDK) and he does not seem well versed in modern Christian thought.

He’s etched out a niche as a literalist debunker, but does not seem to do any exegesis or extend his criticism beyond the Darbyist domain.  

It’s 2019 and he is still arguing against a rather narrow 18c Christianity?  Really?  

Maybe I am wrong.  I grew bored with his lack of creativity long ago.  If he has had an original thought lately let me know.

Not sure about modern Christian thought, as his bailiwick is early Christian history and the Bible - so I doubt he delves into theology. I still consider him as one at the top of his game but always read others, most highly recommended by him, as a balance.

Not sure how original his thought is as he seems to be in the mainstream of the best critics - where he excels is his popularization of what the scholars (and a relatively small number of informed laypeople) know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thormas said:
21 hours ago, Burl said:

Jesus was clear that fornication outside of marriage was sinful.  

indeed and this is recognized yea these many years later,

So is fornication outside of marriage a sin according to our assembled experts, and is it Human?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Not sure about modern Christian thought, as his bailiwick is early Christian history and the Bible - so I doubt he delves into theology. I still consider him as one at the top of his game but always read others, most highly recommended by him, as a balance.

Not sure how original his thought is as he seems to be in the mainstream of the best critics - where he excels is his popularization of what the scholars (and a relatively small number of informed laypeople) know.

 

 

Ehrman does a good job of what he does.  Just not interesting enough for me to spend $25.  I went through all his Great Courses a while back and recommend them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a positive to sin which many people miss - without 'sin' we wouldn't learn many lessons in life and we wouldn't value what it's like to live without 'sin'.  So cheers to sin, I say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Ehrman does a good job of what he does.  Just not interesting enough for me to spend $25.  I went through all his Great Courses a while back and recommend them.  

I get that but I rarely pay that much for one of his books. But how much are the Great Courses? Will have to try one of them at some point. 

I have gone to a couple of his Adventures in Ideas lectures at UNC. These are lectures in history, religion, art, philosophy, drama, english, etc. Typically they begin on a Friday afternoon and go into the evening with a dinner, finish up about 8pm and then resume at 8am Saturday ending about Noon. I enjoy Ehrman; he is quirky, hard working, a good lecturer, never avoids questions, fun and educational.

I have branched out in the last few years in biblical scholarship (this had never been my first interest, theology and philosophy are) but I have now read very widely and keep discovering new authors. I also attended one by Duke's Stanley Hauerwas (Theology and Ethics), a real character who swore like a truck driver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romansh said:

So is fornication outside of marriage a sin according to our assembled experts, and is it Human?

 

Sorry I was on the run, read "fornication outside of marriage" fast and just took it as about marriage and sex outside of it, i.e. when one is still married. Sometimes called adultery :+} 

So, this is not an area of expertise - well, at least as it pertains to biblical verses - so I actually don't remember if Jesus spoke about fornication outside of marriage as, for example, 'before' one is married. However, I don't recall any teaching on that specific issue. Divorce/Adultery, sure; sexual immorality, yes - but specifically sex 'before' marriage, don't think so.

However, sexual immorality covers a lot of ground - but does it include all 'sex before marriage?' Like what if one engages the very night before the marriage ceremony - with one's fiance of course? :+}

 

 

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I get that but I rarely pay that much for one of his books. But how much are the Great Courses? Will have to try one of them at some point. 

I have gone to a couple of his Adventures in Ideas lectures at UNC. These are lectures in history, religion, art, philosophy, drama, english, etc. Typically they begin on a Friday afternoon and go into the evening with a dinner, finish up about 8pm and then resume at 8am Saturday ending about Noon. I enjoy Ehrman; he is quirky, hard working, a good lecturer, never avoids questions, fun and educational.

I have branched out in the last few years in biblical scholarship (this had never been my first interest, theology and philosophy are) but I have now read very widely and keep discovering new authors. I also attended one by Duke's Stanley Hauerwas (Theology and Ethics), a real character who swore like a truck driver. 

Great Courses is awesome.  It’s a stream on demand channel on the internet now.  I used to listen to them on CD while driving.  Were expensive but cheaper now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Burl said:

Great Courses is awesome.  It’s a stream on demand channel on the internet now.  I used to listen to them on CD while driving.  Were expensive but cheaper now.

I'll look at them and might sign up - sounds interesting.  Thanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, romansh said:

So you think these are sins?

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.' I suspect that even the non-religious look at this as not living up to one's word or regrettable: it is often (always?) an action done in secret. Now, we can all give reasons why one might take such actions and, of course, one can never know the inner life of another human being. Thus the adage about God and judgement.

Divorce is a bit more complicated - perhaps especially in our world (but I really don't know since I have not done an in-depth study of divorce across the centuries). However, I do think there is something to the idea that what God has brought together should not and cannot be divided. But why is this?  Do these couple have a truer love, is their love more mature, are they more mature? Are they more committed to their love and treat it, treat the other as sacred or their commitment as sacred, do they see their word as sacred and not to be broken? What seems to be obvious is that for some, divorce is not a possibility; it is never a choice: their Love cannot be divided (what Love/God has brought together...). I further suspect that most of us admire and are a bit in awe of such love and wish it was ours (if it is not). The ideal is made real in such relationships. I often wonder, especially in our age of ever more instant and continual gratification, if some of us give up too easily. However, again, one can never know the depths of a relationship unless it it theirs.

Sexual immorality is a definite wrong (i.e. sin) and carries the understanding that the action is not love but exploitation or simply using the other as less than person. Such action is sin as it misses the mark - again judging the one who sins is an altogether different issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, thormas said:

Sexual immorality is a definite wrong (i.e. sin) and carries the understanding that the action is not love but exploitation or simply using the other as less than person. Such action is sin as it misses the mark - again judging the one who sins is an altogether different issue. 

I think the conundrum with needing to define 'sin' is that judgement is required to determine something a sin in the first place. 

What exactly IS sexual immorality?  A disabled man utilizing the services of an agreeing sex worker to meet his sexual needs he otherwise can't satisfy - is that immoral?  Two consenting adults who desire one another sexually without taking the relationship any further, is that an immorality?  What about a couple of teenagers experimenting sexually - is that immoral?  Is masturbation immoral?  Who decides what is a sin and what isn't, what is immoral and what isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think the conundrum with needing to define 'sin' is that judgement is required to determine something a sin in the first place. 

What exactly IS sexual immorality?  A disabled man utilizing the services of an agreeing sex worker to meet his sexual needs he otherwise can't satisfy - is that immoral?  Two consenting adults who desire one another sexually without taking the relationship any further, is that an immorality?  What about a couple of teenagers experimenting sexually - is that immoral?  Is masturbation immoral?  Who decides what is a sin and what isn't, what is immoral and what isn't?

Again, an action might on its face be immoral or wrong (i.e. sin) but  whether the one who engages is a sinner is a different consideration and beyond human judgement.

If there are the two great commandments, then sin is that which does not express the heart of those commandments. 

Is there a difference between two consenting adults who use one another for sex and two such adults who have sex that does not exploit/use the other? Is the first couple different in kind from the kids? Is masturbation a natural part of sexual awakening and growth? Can one envision when masturbation becomes destructive to the individual? 

It is really a rather simple consideration. If one is not religiously inclined, then the concept of sin is nonsensical - along with everything else religious. However the one who is religious or even the philosopher or the one who has reads Maslow can recognize actions on, let's say, a scale of selfishness to selflessness (Love) with the latter being more likely to result in and or be the expression of the one who is 'actualized' (or what I have termed, more fully human) and the former a hinderance to actualization or a sign of 'missing that (actualization) mark.' Some selfish actions are obvious and recognized as immoral, wrong, destructive of life, while others are obvious and recognized as the opposite. The former are called sin in religious or theological terms. 

There is wisdom in saying/recognizing that lying, coveting, stealing, etc are wrong. Most people recognize this and consider it wrong and are offended when it is done to them. These are recognized as wrong, immoral and, in religious terms, sin.

Now we can get into stealing when starving, lying to the Nazi about where the Jewish kids are hidden, etc. and, it is obvious that such actions are devoid of selfishness and many times done for the other or even for love of self (which is also fine and different than selfishness). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I think the conundrum with needing to define 'sin' is that judgement is required to determine something a sin in the first place. 

What exactly IS sexual immorality?  A disabled man utilizing the services of an agreeing sex worker to meet his sexual needs he otherwise can't satisfy - is that immoral?  Two consenting adults who desire one another sexually without taking the relationship any further, is that an immorality?  What about a couple of teenagers experimenting sexually - is that immoral?  Is masturbation immoral?  Who decides what is a sin and what isn't, what is immoral and what isn't?

I think Paul has a valid point here. Since sin is a transgression of the law (religious law in this case of its use) sin requires both a consenting law that one puts oneself under and judgement. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all those who believe. (Rom 10:4) 

Sin is not imputed where there is no law. To him/her that esteems something to be immoral and then commits the act, to him/her, it is sin. They have judged themself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JosephM said:

I think Paul has a valid point here. Since sin is a transgression of the law (religious law in this case of its use) sin requires both a consenting law that one puts oneself under and judgement. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all those who believe. (Rom 10:4) 

Sin is not imputed where there is no law. To him/her that esteems something to be immoral and then commits the act, to him/her, it is sin.

Indeed sin is used as a religious term. It is sometimes used in terms of the law but, primarily it is used (or should be) in terms of relationship (God and man). However, in all cases, it is being used in religious terms and is nonsensical to one who is non-religious. 

However, there is a parallel in secular life: if one buys into Maslow's idea of actualization, the philosophical idea of the Good or Truth or simply the idea of a 'good' (healthy) relationship, then it follows that some actions either lead to or are reflections of one who is actualized, 'knows' the Good or has a good relationship or they are impediments to or even destructive of relationship. Those that are considered the latter are considered wrong, or failures or even immoral (simply right action vs. wrong actions).

So it is not that they break a law (in and of itself) as that the law reflects relationship or the right way to be, to live - and some actions lead to such life and others detract from it. One could argue that an intimate relationship does not have laws as such but there is a recognition how each 'should' be in the relationship so s/he prospers and grows and enables the other to do the same. Thus, in the relationship, there are 'right' actions that enhance and 'wrong' actions that damage or even destroy. In religion, such actions are termed sins and the ones who do them, sinners.

Sin is imputed where there is relationship and law is just the spelling out of the responsibilities in that relationship.  Even the 'first sin in Eden,' the breaking of the law or command of God, was symbolic of breaking the relationship with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service