If murder is a sin, then why did God create murderers?

[Andreusz]

But either way, the mere fact that someone naturally desires to do something does not, in itself, make doing that something acceptable (for whatever definition of "acceptable" you prefer). Either it is acceptable, choice or no, or it is not acceptable, also choice or no.

Which is why issues of choice are not very important in the homosexuality debate (although of course they may well be of personal interest to homosexuals).

I agree ... but a lot of anti-homosexual Christians say 'it's a choice', and I presume it strengthens the pro-gay case if it can be shown that in the vast majority of cases it is not.

 

[Andreusz]

I'm guessing that, as an atheist, Andreusz doesn't care much about what God thinks.

Why is idolatry wrong, if it doesn't harm anyone?

Exactly what I would have said. Thank you, Cantata.

 

[cantata]

Anyway, my answer to this question comes from the Bible. Romans 9:20 "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "
God does not have to answer to His creation or give a reason for what He does. He is God! Sometimes He gives a reason, sometimes He does not. Idolatry is wrong because it causes people to forsake God, or put him lower than first place in their lives.

Aha! You say that God doesn't have to give an answer, and then you give an answer.

Would you not say that it is damaging to someone not to put God first? In which case, doesn't idolatry cause harm after all?

Your mental image? Hmm....I would think someone's image of God should be shaped more by what it says in the Bible. Of course, the Bible's only physical description of God is blinding light, and everywhere the Bible uses a pronoun to depict God, it's the masculine. Using "she" is unscriptural.

The Bible doesn't have the monopoly on books which might inspire mental images of God, Tackleberry. To a non-theist like myself, there's really no reason to go with the Bible rather than any other religious text as a source of how I might picture God.

 

[cantata]

I agree ... but a lot of anti-homosexual Christians say 'it's a choice', and I presume it strengthens the pro-gay case if it can be shown that in the vast majority of cases it is not.

Oh aye, it's a fair cop, but of course, even given conclusive proof, the response will inevitably be that it's in the order of a genetic disease and should be cured. It also puts people like me, who believe they did choose their sexual orientation, in a somewhat awkward position of feeling rather left out of the party, so to speak.

I really think the only way to tackle mistrust of gay people is by actually having those who are mistrustful meet and socialise with gay folks and see how much like everyone else they are.

Exactly what I would have said. Thank you, Cantata.

You're welcome!

 

[Dogbean]

I agree ... but a lot of anti-homosexual Christians say 'it's a choice', and I presume it strengthens the pro-gay case if it can be shown that in the vast majority of cases it is not.

The reason we say it's a choice is because you either act on the urge or you don't. You think it's not a choice whether you are gay or not, and I can believe that, but you choose to act on it or not. Some heterosexuals, for some reason, choose never to marry and/or never to have sex. Same choice if you act/don't act on your homosexual urges. God didn't say being a homosexual is a sin; he said practicing it is a sin; having homosexual sex is a sin. That's pretty clear in the Word.

Aha! You say that God doesn't have to give an answer, and then you give an answer.

Would you not say that it is damaging to someone not to put God first? In which case, doesn't idolatry cause harm after all?

The Bible doesn't have the monopoly on books which might inspire mental images of God, Tackleberry. To a non-theist like myself, there's really no reason to go with the Bible rather than any other religious text as a source of how I might picture God.

I'm not a student of other religious texts. I do know that they don't carry the spiritual authority that the Bible does. I am not a theologian, just a Christian. And yes, God does not have to give an answer to His creation, but sometimes He does. We just don't have the right to expect it.

I really think the only way to tackle mistrust of gay people is by actually having those who are mistrustful meet and socialise with gay folks and see how much like everyone else they are.

I would be open to such a social occasion, but you are inaccurate in accusing me of mistrusting gay people. I know some gay people.

 

[cantata]

The reason we say it's a choice is because you either act on the urge or you don't. You think it's not a choice whether you are gay or not, and I can believe that, but you choose to act on it or not. Some heterosexuals, for some reason, choose never to marry and/or never to have sex. Same choice if you act/don't act on your homosexual urges. God didn't say being a homosexual is a sin; he said practicing it is a sin; having homosexual sex is a sin. That's pretty clear in the Word.

Well, of course, not everyone agrees that it is clear. But your position at least squares with the psychological fact that most people don't choose their sexual desires.

However, there are Christians who believe that people choose to be gay in the first place, and that takes some proving. I think it's safe to say that most (though perhaps not all) people do not have a choice in the matter of to which sex(es) they are attracted.

I'm not a student of other religious texts. I do know that they don't carry the spiritual authority that the Bible does. I am not a theologian, just a Christian.

Well, obviously a Christian would regard the Bible as having higher spiritual authority than other texts

All I'm saying is that it's really my business, the way I picture God, wouldn't you think?

And yes, God does not have to give an answer to His creation, but sometimes He does. We just don't have the right to expect it.

I think we're entitled to ask why we are prohibited from doing something. I also think we're entitled to speculate about what the reasoning behind a prohibition might be.

I actually think it's jolly unfair to tell someone they can't do something without telling them why.

Would you be able to address my question as to whether idolatry perhaps does cause harm after all, by turning people away from God?

I would be open to such a social occasion, but you are inaccurate in accusing me of mistrusting gay people. I know some gay people.

Forgive me, but I believe I did not make any such accusation.

By the way, merely knowing some gay people doesn't mean you trust them, I don't think.

 

[Dogbean]

Well, of course, not everyone agrees that it is clear. But your position at least squares with the psychological fact that most people don't choose their sexual desires.

However, there are Christians who believe that people choose to be gay in the first place, and that takes some proving. I think it's safe to say that most (though perhaps not all) people do not have a choice in the matter of to which sex(es) they are attracted.

Perhaps, but I am not one of them. And you may not choose your orientation, but you can fight it. And some people do, in both directions.

Well, obviously a Christian would regard the Bible as having higher spiritual authority than other texts

All I'm saying is that it's really my business, the way I picture God, wouldn't you think?

Yes it is your business, but just so you know it's not consistant with Scripture, so I'm not going to recognize your calling God a female.

I think we're entitled to ask why we are prohibited from doing something. I also think we're entitled to speculate about what the reasoning behind a prohibition might be.

I actually think it's jolly unfair to tell someone they can't do something without telling them why.

You are entitled to that opinion. We all get angry at God sometimes. I got extremely angry at Him when my first wife died for no apparent reason. I got angry at him when I got downsized out of the Air Force. We can ask "why?" all we want, but He is not obligated to answer. Sometimes we figure it out, sometimes we don't.

Would you be able to address my question as to whether idolatry perhaps does cause harm after all, by turning people away from God?

When Israel sank into deep idolatry in the OT, God sent them into Babylonian exile. I would say that was pretty harmful.

By the way, merely knowing some gay people doesn't mean you trust them, I don't think.

I did not say I didn't trust them. I would treat and trust them just like I would any other.

 

[cantata]

Perhaps, but I am not one of them. And you may not choose your orientation, but you can fight it. And some people do, in both directions.

Sure, that's fair enough. But as far as I know, the original post that we are ultimately discussing, about choice, was not addressed specifically at you

Yes it is your business, but just so you know it's not consistant with Scripture, so I'm not going to recognize your calling God a female.

Well firstly, I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that you must refer to God as "he". Many Christians believe she is sexless. (I can't imagine you think God has a penis.)

Secondly, I'm not calling God a female. I'm merely referring to her by the feminine pronoun. Would you say that God is a male?

And thirdly, what do you mean "recognise"? I'm not asking for your blessing; why would I? But can you maybe accept that some people find it helpful to picture God in different ways from the way you do?

Do you think God is offended that I use the feminine pronoun for her?

You are entitled to that opinion. We all get angry at God sometimes. I got extremely angry at Him when my first wife died for no apparent reason. I got angry at him when I got downsized out of the Air Force. We can ask "why?" all we want, but He is not obligated to answer. Sometimes we figure it out, sometimes we don't.

Why isn't she obliged to answer? She made humanity; it's her responsibility to look after it properly.

When Israel sank into deep idolatry in the OT, God sent them into Babylonian exile. I would say that was pretty harmful.

Well, then it seems to be a poor example of something which is wrong that isn't harmful, doesn't it? I believe that's why you mentioned it initially.

I did not say I didn't trust them. I would treat and trust them just like I would any other.

I know you didn't. All I was saying was firstly that I didn't accuse you of mistrusting them, and secondly that merely knowing gay people doesn't mean you trust them. That's all.

You are maybe a small bit defensive, perhaps unnecessarily so. There's no need. I try not to make assumptions about people.

 

[Dogbean]

Before I dive into this post, please know that I'm not trying to sound defensive. I enjoy discussing like this with people like you who are interested in being respectful and not blasting me with anger and false accusations like other people I have encountered in these forums. These discussions sharpen my beliefs, and while you have no hope of changing my mind, I find this sometime enjoyable and helps me research and sharpen my faith.

Staff edited post -- Skellington

Well firstly, I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that you must refer to God as "he". Many Christians believe she is sexless. (I can't imagine you think God has a penis.)

Secondly, I'm not calling God a female. I'm merely referring to her by the feminine pronoun. Would you say that God is a male?

Well, it's obviously important to you for some reason to use the feminine pronoun. What point are you trying to make with it? And the purpose of gender is procreation. God is eternal; always was, and always will be. No need for procreation, so no need for sexual organs. Plus, He is a spiritual being, not possessing a physical body. My calling God a He is to be consistant with Scripture, which always uses the pronoun "He." Also, when God was made manifest on earth as Jesus Christ, it was the male that was used. I feel that insisting on using "she" and leaving it uncapitalized is a significant denial of Scripture, placing own opinions above God. I don't think it's important to classify God as a male, but I think it's more imporant to just be consistant with Scripture and respect it.

And thirdly, what do you mean "recognise"? I'm not asking for your blessing; why would I? But can you maybe accept that some people find it helpful to picture God in different ways from the way you do?

I know you're not asking for my blessing. We all have different visuals for God in our mind; it's not always the old man with white hair and beard in a white robe.

Do you think God is offended that I use the feminine pronoun for her?

I think God is offended at your denial of the Scriptures more than using the feminine. That's a more important issue. The word chosen, "she," reflects a deep rooted rebellion that I frankly don't understand. I noticed that the word "she" is popping up more than I and other people use "He." It seems perhaps you are using it as much as possible to make a point? Interesting debate.

Why isn't she obliged to answer? She made humanity; it's her responsibility to look after it properly.

Because He is God. He does not have to answer to His creation. He can if he wants to, but that is up to Him, not us.

 

[jcook922]

I'm not a student of other religious texts. I do know that they don't carry the spiritual authority that the Bible does. I am not a theologian, just a Christian. And yes, God does not have to give an answer to His creation, but sometimes He does. We just don't have the right to expect it.

The Bible having spiritual authority is merely opinion, not fact. I do agree that God doesn't have to answer, but it is within our right to ask questions of him. I think that the way we were designed was to make our own destiny, god made us in a way to where we had the choice to do as we wish. I think this fact of choice is the reason that religious theology is merely a guideline. The foundations of religion are what is most important.

And as to your opinion of homosexuals, I personally hold the belief that god wouldn't put someone in the situation you describe. It is unimaginably unreasonable that god would make people be born homosexuals, and expect them to never seek to act on the urge. To be alone without companionship. Humanity is not meant to be alone, we're social creatures. I think homosexuality might be part of that wild card of humanity that God put in when creating us, the power of choice. The fact that no single action in your life is going to eternally damn you, homosexuality included. That would be like having a homosexual religion or government telling heterosexuals that they can be straight, as long as they marry people of the same sex.

The Colbert Report touched on the subject wonderfully at the RNC, when he got some clown to admit that he's for gay marriage, as long as gays marry someone of the opposite sex. That's hilarious stupidity to expect someone to violate their very nature just to appease the intolerant.

 

[Dogbean]

The Bible having spiritual authority is merely opinion, not fact. I do agree that God doesn't have to answer, but it is within our right to ask questions of him. I think that the way we were designed was to make our own destiny, god made us in a way to where we had the choice to do as we wish. I think this fact of choice is the reason that religious theology is merely a guideline. The foundations of religion are what is most important.

And as to your opinion of homosexuals, I personally hold the belief that god wouldn't put someone in the situation you describe. It is unimaginably unreasonable that god would make people be born homosexuals, and expect them to never seek to act on the urge. To be alone without companionship. Humanity is not meant to be alone, we're social creatures. I think homosexuality might be part of that wild card of humanity that God put in when creating us, the power of choice. The fact that no single action in your life is going to eternally damn you, homosexuality included. That would be like having a homosexual religion or government telling heterosexuals that they can be straight, as long as they marry people of the same sex.

I disagree with your entire post except what's in red. Reread my clarification. I think God made gays so that He can be glorified when one of them accepts Christ and gives it up. And there is an action that will eternally damn you; continual rejection of Christ.

The Colbert Report touched on the subject wonderfully at the RNC, when he got some clown to admit that he's for gay marriage, as long as gays marry someone of the opposite sex. That's hilarious stupidity to expect someone to violate their very nature just to appease the intolerant.

LOL! Thumbs up to this guy!

 

[jcook922]

I disagree with your entire post except what's in red. Reread my clarification. I think God made gays so that He can be glorified when one of them accepts Christ and gives it up. And there is an action that will eternally damn you; continual rejection of Christ.

LOL! Thumbs up to this guy!

That just seems too egocentric of the God that I believe in, that he would purposefully create things and make them suffer so he can make himself look better. If that really is the case, then we have a selfish creator.

If he wanted the human race to blindly glorify him and not make our own choices, we wouldn't have been given choice in the matter. I think of the human race as more of an experiment in curiosity than something meant to stroke our creators ego.

 

[Dogbean]

That just seems too egocentric of the God that I believe in, that he would purposefully create things and make them suffer so he can make himself look better. If that really is the case, then we have a selfish creator.

If he wanted the human race to blindly glorify him and not make our own choices, we wouldn't have been given choice in the matter. I think of the human race as more of an experiment in curiosity than something meant to stroke our creators ego.

I guess you'll find out when your earthly life ends, won't you?

I think if you truely read the Bible with an open mind, saw the big picture, and saw how patient He is with mankind, you'll develop a very different picture of who God is.

 

[aotn]

. And you may not choose your orientation, but you can fight it.

I fully agree with you, but when you do fight it, (Spoiler alert) your orientation wins.

I think God made gays so that He can be glorified when one of them accepts Christ and gives it up

Wish I could agree with you there- and perhaps a few years ago I would have- but there are plenty of Christians who are gay (myself included). But we glorify God by showing how loving and accepting He is, and how diverse a Creator the Lord is.

On a side note, I find it hilarious that a topic about homosexuality becomes a discussion about murder, while a topic about murder becomes a discussion about homosexuality.

 

[Dogbean]

I fully agree with you, but when you do fight it, (Spoiler alert) your orientation wins.

Not always. I have a friend who gave up homosexuality after accepting Christ.

Wish I could agree with you there- and perhaps a few years ago I would have- but there are plenty of Christians who are gay (myself included). But we glorify God by showing how loving and accepting He is, and how diverse a Creator the Lord is.

Then you are in denial about your sin, if you are a practicing homosexual.

 

[quatona]

Why would God put a desire to murder in someone's heart if murder is a sin?

Because he wanted there to be sin?

It just doesn't make sense that a just God could do such a horrible thing. Does it?

Not to me, anyways. But then they say that "might makes right" when it comes to gods, so I´m afraid my objections don´t count for much.

 

[Veyrlian]

Then you are in denial about your sin, if you are a practicing homosexual.

I find this vocabulary so strange. A practicing homosexual?

I gather this means that homosexuality in itself is not considered a sin, but the "practice" of it is sinful? Otherwise there should also be practicing murderers and practising adulterers, as opposed to umm. people who are inherent adulterers and murderers but don't practice it.
Or is this a descriptive term? That if you have once committed adultery, you are always an adulterer, just not at the moment practising?
This would make more sense to me.

But would this mean that homosexuals who have never committed a homosexual act shouldn't be called homosexuals?
What is considered an homosexual act? Is it always a sexual act towards the same gender? What about behaviour? Thoughts? Do lustful thoughts count? What if you have had one lustful thought towards a person of the same gender, but then repented and never done it again, are you still considered a homosexual? What about if you have thought about murdering somone? Do the same criteria apply?
Is there a point where you cease being a homosexual or a murderer if you haven't practised in a long time?

Sorry for all the questions, mainly I'm interested in a Christian view on this. Maybe I should have started a new thread, but this one fits the bill philosophically.

 

[Wolseley]

And the point is being made badly. Murder harms people, homosexual sex between consenting adults does not.

There are those, of course, who would disagree with you on that:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

 

[Dogbean]

I find this vocabulary so strange. A practicing homosexual?

I gather this means that homosexuality in itself is not considered a sin, but the "practice" of it is sinful? Otherwise there should also be practicing murderers and practising adulterers, as opposed to umm. people who are inherent adulterers and murderers but don't practice it.
Or is this a descriptive term? That if you have once committed adultery, you are always an adulterer, just not at the moment practising?
This would make more sense to me.

But would this mean that homosexuals who have never committed a homosexual act shouldn't be called homosexuals?
What is considered an homosexual act? Is it always a sexual act towards the same gender? What about behaviour? Thoughts? Do lustful thoughts count? What if you have had one lustful thought towards a person of the same gender, but then repented and never done it again, are you still considered a homosexual? What about if you have thought about murdering somone? Do the same criteria apply?
Is there a point where you cease being a homosexual or a murderer if you haven't practised in a long time?

Sorry for all the questions, mainly I'm interested in a Christian view on this. Maybe I should have started a new thread, but this one fits the bill philosophically.

This is an easy concept. If you read the passages about homosexuality in the Bible, it condemns homosexual acts. This means that if you have the urge and don't act on it by having sex with someone of the same gender. The Bible also condemned lust, so if, as a homosexual, you have lustful thoughts toward someone, that's the same as committing them. That lust thing applies to straight people as well. We sin if we lust after another person.

 

[Dogbean]

There are those, of course, who would disagree with you on that:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

Wow.....the red link was medically eye-opening......I knew most of that stuff by intuition, but reading it by a medial doctor, it was absolutely disgusting but made perfect sense, physiologically.