What is Sin?

[Key]

It was a spiritual death that Adam & Eve suffered..

It was both.. physical and spiritual.

I hope dear sister.. we can agree on that...

Your interpretations of the language here actually makes a lot of sense, I have to say. I wonder if it's helping to clear up some of OldChurchGuy's misgivings about this passage?

I am just a man... no more so.. or better then any other man... I have only what I currently know.. it is a journey...

I would like to also point out.. Hebrew was not a PC language.. God made his point very clear to Adam what was going to happen.

Allow me to give another example.. many times we need to use examples.. not because they are perfect copies of the situation. but so that a concept can be relayed.

If you were in a court room.. and the judge bangs the gravel "I sentence you to death".. the judge does not then pull out his glock and put a round in your head at that very moment.

You are taken away.. and you face a death sentence to be carried out.. later.. however.. this does not change that you have been sentenced to death. Not does it change the seriousness of the charge and sentence.. simply because the Judge did not pop a cap in you when they said "Death"...

I hope I have made that point clear...

Now... if you feel that you have built a foundation.. then let us progress.. if not.. then let us discuss until you feel you have learned what you have come to learn...

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

You might have a point.. if people never felt anything that might relate to Honor/Shame in our culture, but we do, we just have chosen to give it different names, or view it differently.

Yes, people do feel things relating to Honor/Shame -- but even in the same culture not all people feel the same way in response to the same circumstances. Like the happiness, how can you conclude that the emotion exists there if there's no evidence pointing to the fact that it exists?

The Car is an American Icon.. it is a part of our lives.. and our culture.. you do as you do.. because of your desire to embrace the cultural icon the Car.. and make it's ride more pleasing to you.

I think you're reading way too much into my (perhaps overly wordy) way of saying that I find short hair comfortable. Especially when it's hot out.

In a culture where woman were required to shave or keep their hair short... (this is assumption) I would imagine that you would grow yours long.. and use the same reason..

No, I most certainly wouldn't, and I think you kind of missed the point of the story if you think I'm trying to be some kind of rebel. I gave an example of something that I do purely because I want to (in this case, for the reason that I find it physically comfortable)... the fact that it "goes against the flow" (particularly in the area where I live) was secondary, and largely irrelevant to the decision in my eyes.

Ah.... I see the confusion.. you think influence and becoming a slave to.. are the same thing.. that is not true on any level..

Influence.. just means they affect how you will act.. as such.. you go against the cultural norms.. but that would hold true.. maybe for you.. no matter what the "Norm" might be.. you would not want to be a "Slave to it" so even if the cultural norm was.. say nudity.. you would wear clothing to try and separate yourself.. as such.. the cultural norm.. influences what you will do.. because you will do what is not the "Norm" to try and establish yourself as unique.. just like all the other people that go against the cultural norm do...

Firstly, I think that my choice of the word "slave" was a bit poorly thought-out, and after I made this post I wondered if you would read it this way. Again, trying to "separate myself from the cultural norm" isn't the motivation for the things I do any more than is trying to "fit in with the cultural norm" -- I think we both agree that either of these would be bad reasons to do anything. What I'm talking about is continuing to do something that you truly don't want to just because everyone else is doing it -- just because of the influence of the culture around you.

But again, to simply do everything opposite of the society around you, just for the sake of being different, would be equally ridiculous -- it brings to mind the quote "sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."

Are you still offended?

Nah, don't worry about that -- the only reason I used that term in the first place was because I got the impression that you were making assumptions about me specifically rather than expressing a much broader view that you have of people.

But with all this talk about culture, I'm getting a bit curious if some of this is due to the one of the more noticeable differences between you and me. You seem to be going to extensive lengths to relate everything back to cultural influences, and I'm wondering if this stems from the fact that you're more influenced by a specific area of culture (in this case the religion of Christianity) than I am. Maybe you see the way your culture influences you and work harder to emphasize the more subtle influences on people by society in general, in order to justify the influence you feel and satisfy the idea that all people are more or less the same as you? (Just a thought... I apologize in advance if I'm overstepping my bounds in saying that, since it's pure speculation.)

So... to say that man and woman are not different, is to ignore the entire of our culture, our science, our very history (Either Biblical or Evolutionarily)

I don't believe that I ever said this, and in any case I would disagree with anyone who claimed that men and women aren't different. But where I get confused is where you proceed directly from this to notions of "should." How does the observation that men and women are different lead to any kind of statement about what ought to happen to them? Also, since you put such a heavy emphasis on our cultural influences earlier... has it occurred to you that maybe this very notion of proper sexuality (one man, one woman) is heavily influenced by the culture you live in?

If you really want to talk about this from an evolutionary perspective, I'd like to bring up Bonobos, since they're very closely related to humans (and even if you don't believe we share a common ancestor, genetically they're one of the most similar species to us). What do you think about how sexuality functions in their societies?

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Your interpretations of the language here actually makes a lot of sense, I have to say. I wonder if it's helping to clear up some of OldChurchGuy's misgivings about this passage?

The interpretation that God is warning that doing eating of this fruit will mean eventual death makes sense as opposed to immediate death.

So, now that we have established that:

A) God created the entire known universe;
B) God, therefore created the serpent and gave it the gift of speech;
C) The serpent saw fit to deceive Eve about the consequences of eating from the tree of knowedge of good and evil;

Was the serpent acting independently of God or according to God's will?

Irritatingly curious as always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Key]

Yes, people do feel things relating to Honor/Shame -- but even in the same culture not all people feel the same way in response to the same circumstances. Like the happiness, how can you conclude that the emotion exists there if there's no evidence pointing to the fact that it exists?

I believe we have lost our train of discussion... and at this time.. I would like for you to explain your point..or question as to what you are seeking regarding this. As.. it seems... been lost some place.

I think you're reading way too much into my (perhaps overly wordy) way of saying that I find short hair comfortable. Especially when it's hot out.

You do as you do.. however to say.. what you do.. is not influenced.. would be a failure to grasp cultural influence.

No, I most certainly wouldn't

This again.. would happen to be speculation. We must conclude, only what we think we might do.. we can not say for certain. But that is still based on how we have been raised, in the culture we have been raised in.

Lets say... woman were required to have short hair.. and if you were found with long hair.. you were given 50 whippings... I am sure, you would find a way to find short hair enjoyable.

Just as to say.. if every place around you only did busisness with long haired ladies, and short haired men. Men would have short hair, and woman would have long, not because they are not free to have any style of hair they wanted, but because of cultural influence. IE: They would like to be able to buy gas for the car.. and food for themselves. Even if they felt it was.. say... wrong... they would still do it.. because the alternative.. was not anything they wanted to face.

Now.. lets look at the Aztecs.. who would sacrifice humans to their God.. now if you had a problem with this... you can guess where you would end up. As such, you would just accept and deal with the cultural situation, as you are left with little choice.. be killed.. or shut up... and act like you support it.

However.. that is equally why the Aztecs were destroyed. Seems many people only put up with it... and when the chance came for them to rise and rid themselves of this act.. they did so.

I think you kind of missed the point of the story if you think I'm trying to be some kind of rebel. I gave an example of something that I do purely because I want to (in this case, for the reason that I find it physically comfortable)... the fact that it "goes against the flow" (particularly in the area where I live) was secondary, and largely irrelevant to the decision in my eyes.

I hate to make assumptions about you, and even this case, I would say, I do not largely believe that. I believe you find the short hair comfortable (I keep mine very short all the time, for the fact that is easy to maintain), however... If I was to wager a guess, I would say you find some joy and even pleasure in the fact that you go against the flow, that it makes you feel.... unique.... or special in a way... it even I would gather... gains you attention.. even if all it is.. is some strange looks and people apologizing that they called you "sir" ....

Firstly, I think that my choice of the word "slave" was a bit poorly thought-out, and after I made this post I wondered if you would read it this way. Again, trying to "separate myself from the cultural norm" isn't the motivation for the things I do any more than is trying to "fit in with the cultural norm" -- I think we both agree that either of these would be bad reasons to do anything.

Not really... they are not bad reasons.. they are just simple reasons.. IE: It works.. makes life easy.. and they are free to think about other things(Job, House, Family, Friends, the Bills, Etc).. as opposed to what is culturally correct.. they just follow the norm.. because it is easy to maintain...

Or in the case of going against the norm.. it might be because they enjoy it.. it makes them feel special.. it gains attention.. and they feel like they are free.. in a way...

No different then say... keeping ones hair short.. because they like the way it feels.

But... to say that Culture and upbringing have no weight.. or influence.. would be naive.. but to say that they do not encompass the all...

Well if not for culture and upbringing crafting who and what you are... what else is there?

What I'm talking about is continuing to do something that you truly don't want to just because everyone else is doing it -- just because of the influence of the culture around you.

You know.. I just really... I mean really.. want to slam my car into the guy that just cut me off.. and then drag him out of the car.. and beat him until he learns never to do that again....

However... I don't do that... the question is... why?

What is stopping me.. if not culture (IE: Law in place that say.. If I do that.. I am going to be regret it)?

There are a great many things.. we want to do.. or don't want to do.. that culture stops of from doing... culture surrounds you.. it blankets you.. it controls your every thought.. and if it does not... then what does?

What is the other option.. other then culture?
(I would like for you to ponder that for a while.. before you give an answer)

But again, to simply do everything opposite of the society around you, just for the sake of being different, would be equally ridiculous -- it brings to mind the quote "sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."

Be that as it may.. some people only pick an choose what they do that is against the norm.. just to try and stand out.. be different...

Like Tattoos.. at one time.. they were the "Out" of culture norm.. now... everyone has tattoos.. or at least.. they are a cultural norm.

Nah, don't worry about that -- the only reason I used that term in the first place was because I got the impression that you were making assumptions about me specifically rather than expressing a much broader view that you have of people.

It is always people.. but.. we are people none the less.. we are part of the human herd...

But with all this talk about culture, I'm getting a bit curious if some of this is due to the one of the more noticeable differences between you and me.

Maybe... maybe not.. we might find.. that we really are no different...

You seem to be going to extensive lengths to relate everything back to cultural influences, and I'm wondering if this stems from the fact that you're more influenced by a specific area of culture (in this case the religion of Christianity) than I am.

Well.. we would both be influenced... You for the Evolution (Atheist), me for Christ.. in that sense.. is there any difference?

Aren't we the same... in that level.. it is just a matter of what we have chosen to be drawn to.. or what makes the most sense to to us.

Maybe you see the way your culture influences you and work harder to emphasize the more subtle influences on people by society in general, in order to justify the influence you feel and satisfy the idea that all people are more or less the same as you?

People are just like you.. me... everyone... we are just humans.. with the same faulting.. the same flaws.. the same weakness..

However.. it would be the same level of things to say that I am a Christian because it is with the “norm” or “flow” as it would be to say that you are an atheist because it is against the “norm” or the “flow”.. you came you your own conclusions based on what you deemed right and wrong, Logical and Illogical, just as have I, we both may have looked at the evidence, and maybe studied what we were walking into.. in depth before we made the plunge, or we may have just given things a passing glance, and weighed and measured what we knew and did not know.. to make a decision… but to say that our conclusions have not been influenced by our culture.. is to deny the affect of our culture. Humans are Cultural Creatures.. we are Pack or Herd animals..

Maybe one day.. I might tell you how God found me... but.. I explained that there will be a loss of "Lasting Impressions" in that discussion... (yes.. I remember our prior discussions)...

I don't believe that I ever said this, and in any case I would disagree with anyone who claimed that men and women aren't different. But where I get confused is where you proceed directly from this to notions of "should."

If a man and a woman are different.. then a "Should" is what follows that.. IE: If a man and a woman are equal aspects of Humanity, but are different aspects, then they should be treated as if they are different. Not inferior or superior.. but different.

This is also the problem of our culture, we have been warped and corrupted, to say one is superior and the other inferior, but that can not be, if we take a Godly approach, because God made man and woman, equal and inseparable aspects of the whole that is Humanity. But when we compare a man to a woman, we then destroy that amazing aspect of our existence. And unless at some point, we viewed a man or a woman as able to play the role of the other, then we would never have had this confusion.

But we have at some point, a man viewed another man.. as an equal substitute to a woman.. and that is what starts a problem, where we decline.

That is the Leviticus Approach.

How does the observation that men and women are different lead to any kind of statement about what ought to happen to them?

Logic and Science... if they are not the same, and do not perform the same functions in the generation of Humanity, and they have a different physical make up, then.. we can only conclude that it is not proper nor should it be possible for a man and a woman to substitute positions for each other in the human herd, or replace each other in the Herd. IE: A man can not replace a woman, and a woman can not replace a man. Each is equal but has the evolved and adapted physical capabilities to do a specific function and allowable interaction between them.

Homosexuality... says that this conclusion is wrong... they advocate that a Man can indeed replace a Woman in the aspect of partnership and as a pat of the Human Herd, but... they say this.. not because there is any logic.. or reason.. they place it on a purely emotional platform, an intangible platform.

As a person that might place Logic, Reason and Evidence as a high regard,(I assume this because you are an Atheist) you equally so, would see the flaw in the stand that is presented, just as you would equally so, see a flaw in a stand that said something like this “Homosexuality is wrong, because it is yucky”.


Maybe, even so, it might be because of lack of viable logic or rational that you reject Christianity.

Also, since you put such a heavy emphasis on our cultural influences earlier... has it occurred to you that maybe this very notion of proper sexuality (one man, one woman) is heavily influenced by the culture you live in?

On a personal level.. I have nothing against Homosexuality, I do not hate them, I respect them as people, and I believe that they should have the freedom to do as they want, as per the US Constitution, like each and every other American.

However, I equally know that they are not a positive impact on culture, or environment, and as such, I can not view them as Morally Just and right, they shame the Woman and the Man, in what they do. They remove the honor of the Man and Woman gap, the integral separation that is placed between the two… that makes them special and equal aspects of our lives.. not just in marriage.. but in culture and situations.

Now all that I have put forth.. is the Leviticus Approach, I only do this, because as you can see, it is a very well substantiated stand, by every school of science, and is backed up by logic and reason.

If you really want to talk about this from an evolutionary perspective, I'd like to bring up Bonobos, since they're very closely related to humans (and even if you don't believe we share a common ancestor, genetically they're one of the most similar species to us). What do you think about how sexuality functions in their societies?

Chimps, well.. they are a specific type of chimpanzee. They are part of the Great Ape group, however, they are also killed and eaten by other Chimpanzees.

However, one must take into account in nature, that females only go into heat at specific times of the year, during the other times, males might be aroused, and need an outlet, but they are not substituting anything for the female, they are only seeking sexual release.

I would like to add however, I also do not defecate into my own hand, and throw it at others as a sign of rage or agitation, not do I then use that same hand to pick up my food with, with out first washing that hand.

So one might say.. to say simply because.. they might see something in “nature” that simulates what they are trying to advocate, they need to also grasp that not all things apply, not do they get to “Pick and Choose” what should.

Are you learning what you have come here to learn so far SandRose? Do you feel that you are getting a better grasp on things as we progress?

The interpretation that God is warning that doing eating of this fruit will mean eventual death makes sense as opposed to immediate death.

So, now that we have established that:

A) God created the entire known universe;
B) God, therefore created the serpent and gave it the gift of speech;
C) The serpent saw fit to deceive Eve about the consequences of eating from the tree of knowedge of good and evil;

Was the serpent acting independently of God or according to God's will?

Irritatingly curious as always,

OldChurchGuy

Hummm.. are you asking questions as a Christian.. in an outreach forum.

I am wondering this.. not that I have any objections to this, because, if edification can come of it, then all is well and good, but I am just wondering.

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

I believe we have lost our train of discussion... and at this time.. I would like for you to explain your point..or question as to what you are seeking regarding this. As.. it seems... been lost some place.

Do you mean that the concepts of Honor / Shame are straying away from the main topic? I thought your view was that they were fairly important to understanding the issue of sin, and I guess I'm still confused about how you can conclude that these emotions exist (in a specific situation) if there's no indication that they exist there. I don't understand why the "happiness" example isn't relevant here.

If I was to wager a guess, I would say you find some joy and even pleasure in the fact that you go against the flow, that it makes you feel.... unique.... or special in a way... it even I would gather... gains you attention..

No. The problem with this is the assumption that I like attention, which I don't. I'm really rather introverted, and in virtually any situation extra attention is rather an inconvenience to me. Please stop trying to fit me into some cookie-cutter idea you have of a rebel motivated only by the idea of challenging cultural norms.

Well if not for culture and upbringing crafting who and what you are... what else is there?

I have to say... As an atheist in a Christian Forum, I'm honestly a little surprised that I should have to defend a concept of basic human individuality. Don't you believe in a soul? Or in God having some kind of unique plan for each of us?

You know.. I just really... I mean really.. want to slam my car into the guy that just cut me off.. and then drag him out of the car.. and beat him until he learns never to do that again....

However... I don't do that... the question is... why?

What is stopping me.. if not culture (IE: Law in place that say.. If I do that.. I am going to be regret it)?

I would really, really, really hope that it's more than just laws and cultural expectations preventing you from doing something like this. What about your conscience? What about the irrationality of how wildly out-of-proportion that kind of reaction would be to the actual offense?

you came you your own conclusions based on what you deemed right and wrong, Logical and Illogical, just as have I, we both may have looked at the evidence, and maybe studied what we were walking into.. in depth before we made the plunge, or we may have just given things a passing glance, and weighed and measured what we knew and did not know.. to make a decision… but to say that our conclusions have not been influenced by our culture.. is to deny the affect of our culture.

Reading this, I'm starting to think we don't actually disagree on anything here... it seems like more of a semantic issue of putting different levels of emphasis on people's ability to really think about their beliefs and actions. I've said several times that I don't doubt that culture influences us, but that I also believe that it isn't only culture that influences us (as you mention here, it's also been a matter of looking at the evidence, thinking, reasoning things out, etc.)

Logic and Science... if they are not the same, and do not perform the same functions in the generation of Humanity, and they have a different physical make up, then.. we can only conclude that it is not proper nor should it be possible for a man and a woman to substitute positions for each other in the human herd, or replace each other in the Herd. IE: A man can not replace a woman, and a woman can not replace a man. Each is equal but has the evolved and adapted physical capabilities to do a specific function and allowable interaction between them.

Homosexuality... says that this conclusion is wrong... they advocate that a Man can indeed replace a Woman in the aspect of partnership and as a pat of the Human Herd, but... they say this.. not because there is any logic.. or reason.. they place it on a purely emotional platform, an intangible platform.

As a person that might place Logic, Reason and Evidence as a high regard,(I assume this because you are an Atheist) you equally so, would see the flaw in the stand that is presented, just as you would equally so, see a flaw in a stand that said something like this “Homosexuality is wrong, because it is yucky”.

I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but your arguments here are largely incoherent to me. Biology and physiology say nothing about moral philosophy, nor are they meant to. You seem to be using concepts of an assumed purpose produced by evolution as a justification for what is moral or proper, which to me is a bit like using a mathematical formula to interpret Wuthering Heights.

But maybe it would be productive of me to ask some more specific questions on this issue... Do you believe that homosexuals choose their sexual preference? Do you believe that the only function of human sexuality is reproduction?

Maybe, even so, it might be because of lack of viable logic or rational that you reject Christianity.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

However, I equally know that they are not a positive impact on culture, or environment,

How do you know this? Please show how culture / environment deteriorated due to their influence.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Hummm.. are you asking questions as a Christian.. in an outreach forum.

I am wondering this.. not that I have any objections to this, because, if edification can come of it, then all is well and good, but I am just wondering.

God Bless

Key.

The question is being asked by a Christian. If the question is inappropriate for this forum, then I believe the moderators will move it.

It seems to me that the topic on defining what sin is would also tie neatly in determining the source of sin. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Regardless, what say you about the question?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Key]

Do you mean that the concepts of Honor / Shame are straying away from the main topic? I thought your view was that they were fairly important to understanding the issue of sin, and I guess I'm still confused about how you can conclude that these emotions exist (in a specific situation) if there's no indication that they exist there. I don't understand why the "happiness" example isn't relevant here.

Well... it seems we have concluded that the emotions do exist, and that short of people that do not feel any emotion at all, that Honor/Shame do affect our lives, even if we call them by different names or apply other labels to the emotions, IE: Embarrassment, Guilt, Pride, etc. So the Happiness Example is moot, as far as I can tell.

Please stop trying to fit me into some cookie-cutter idea you have of a rebel motivated only by the idea of challenging cultural norms.

If that is what you think I have been doing, then I am deeply sorry and ask for your forgiveness. That was not my intention.

I have to say... As an atheist in a Christian Forum

Would mind telling me... what type of Atheist are you?

There are all kinds, and I would have to say, until I know what type you are, then I believe we will have a communication barrier for our entire discussion.

I would really, really, really hope that it's more than just laws and cultural expectations preventing you from doing something like this.

Well I do have God in my life now.................................

What about your conscience? What about the irrationality of how wildly out-of-proportion that kind of reaction would be to the actual offense?

Those would be cultural constructs, and limited by the cultural ideal of what is and is not immoral. IE: Chopping a persons hand off for stealing, or Killing the Person for Stealing.. both were on the law books, in different countries, and both were considered moral and culturally correct choices, and both were viewed as immoral by other countries. In that case. the few things you listed were just cultural constructs, nothing more.

Reading this, I'm starting to think we don't actually disagree on anything here... it seems like more of a semantic issue of putting different levels of emphasis on people's ability to really think about their beliefs and actions. I've said several times that I don't doubt that culture influences us, but that I also believe that it isn't only culture that influences us (as you mention here, it's also been a matter of looking at the evidence, thinking, reasoning things out, etc.)

Both of those methods would be culturally influenced, IE: We live in a highly industrialized culture with access to the evidence, and an education system that presents the science to us, and when we reach college level, we are told to go and look for ourselves, to research and study (All fields require self study to some point), so even in this, it might be nothing more then a by product of our cultural upbringing and education level, as well as the people the influenced our lives.

I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but your arguments here are largely incoherent to me.

I will make this simple then... do think it is respectful to a woman to tell her that they she can be replaced completely by a man?

Do think it is respectful to your own body, to ignore the designs of it, and it's integration and interaction with a properly designed mate?

Do you believe that homosexuals choose their sexual preference?

I do not know, but I do not see any validity in this one way or the other, if they did or did not, it is of no consequence.

Do you believe that the only function of human sexuality is reproduction?

There is more to a relationship then reproduction.

However, for the survival of a species, reproduction is necessary, on that I would think we both agree.

How do you know this? Please show how culture / environment deteriorated due to their influence.

It would be my pleasure, just not today.

The question is being asked by a Christian. If the question is inappropriate for this forum, then I believe the moderators will move it.

It seems to me that the topic on defining what sin is would also tie neatly in determining the source of sin. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Regardless, what say you about the question?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Sure, the answer is simple, Satan was not acting on Gods directive, but was doing Gods will, Just as Sandrose is doing Gods will right now, by her asking the questions, by asking the questions, she provides the answers to any that may come to read them. In this way, she is doing Gods will and Gods work, but is not acting in accordance to Gods directive.

Does that make sense?

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

Welcome back, Key -- I was beginning to think you'd disappeared from the internet

it seems we have concluded that the emotions do exist, and that short of people that do not feel any emotion at all, that Honor/Shame do affect our lives, even if we call them by different names or apply other labels to the emotions, IE: Embarrassment, Guilt, Pride, etc. So the Happiness Example is moot, as far as I can tell.

I still don't understand why. Maybe it would be better to phrase the question this way... let's say two different people react in completely different ways to the same event or situation, to the effect that one feels shame and one doesn't. Are you saying that for the person who doesn't feel shame, that shame still exists for them somehow? And if so, how is this any different or less absurd than my happiness example where you'd say "you are happy, you just don't realize it"?

Would mind telling me... what type of Atheist are you?

There are all kinds, and I would have to say, until I know what type you are, then I believe we will have a communication barrier for our entire discussion.

I appreciate your asking -- to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever been asked this before. Though I'm not sure how easy it is to arrange myself neatly into certain type or group... perhaps it would be better if I just tried to quickly describe a bit about my own views.

In short, I believe that there aren't any gods, and I believe that after death there's nothing... that probably kind of defines the atheist position by default. But I wouldn't say I'm one of those "everything is pointless because you're going to die" atheists... I believe that life can be meaningful, not because there's some absolute divine purpose behind it, but because we have the power to make our own. I'm not sure if any of my past posts have indicated it, but my view of the world is probably more optimistic and less cynical than many people, theist and non theist alike -- in my view, life is too short to waste it thinking of oneself as worthless.

I hope this answers your question -- if there was something more specific than that you were wondering about though, don't hesitate to ask.

Also, just a last thought on this whole cultural influence thing... I've noticed that Christians seem to have a very hard time taking credit for anything positive. You have a conscience? You have a personality? It must be entirely because of God, or entirely because of your culture... it couldn't possibly be due to your having a mind and the ability to use it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be offensive in that -- it just seems to be a common theme in much of what I've read on this forum. But maybe in light of what I've said about my own views it might be easier to see why I kind of take issue with that stance, since I sort of see it as being more cynical (or misanthropic, maybe) than how I usually look at things.

Do think it is respectful to your own body, to ignore the designs of it, and it's integration and interaction with a properly designed mate?

I think this might be one of those areas where we have a communication gap, because I don't tend to think of the human body as being "designed" at all. The term "properly designed mate" implies that homosexual couples cannot... ahem... interact with one another in a way that fulfills the same function as it would in a heterosexual relationship, which I don't believe is the case. (Except for reproduction of course -- but since you readily agree that there is more to relationships than reproduction, I don't really see how that's relevant?)

I do not know, but I do not see any validity in this one way or the other, if they did or did not, it is of no consequence.

I have to respectfully disagree on this -- I think it is of huge consequence to the question. If people choose homosexuality, there might be some justifiable grounds for considering it a sin... If it's something one has no choice over, however, it seems about as fair as condemning someone for being of a certain race.

In general though, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with trying to use biology to justify a certain view of what's moral... as I said in my last post, the two things seem to be rather irrelevant to one another. But here again maybe it would be more productive of me to ask some follow-up questions... Does this whole issue of "sexual morality" relate back to an idea that God intended humans to have sex only in order to reproduce? Or in other words, do you believe that sex without the intention or possibility of reproduction is a sin?

 

[SandRose]

Also, since this thread has been revived from its fall to the 2nd or 3rd page, perhaps I should give a quick update as to the progress that's been made toward answering the original question, for anyone else who may be reading... Though Sin has gotten a number of different definitions, the one we seem to be working with now is Sin as that which is objectively bad for humans. Though this seems like a fairly good operational definition, I'm having a hard time understanding why homosexuality should fit among those things, and most of my recent follow-up questions seem to be centering around that topic.

In addition though, I'm still having a hard time understanding Sin as it pertains to the crucifixion -- though general clarifications about it would be welcome, I also asked some rather specific questions about it a while ago (post #56) that have yet to be addressed.

 

[Key]

Welcome back, Key -- I was beginning to think you'd disappeared from the internet

It's been.... a very busy time for me.. the past week or so.... very busy with lots going on... been working on helping my father-in-law with his ministry plans and situations. It's a long story..

I still don't understand why. Maybe it would be better to phrase the question this way... let's say two different people react in completely different ways to the same event or situation, to the effect that one feels shame and one doesn't. Are you saying that for the person who doesn't feel shame, that shame still exists for them somehow?

Ok lets go with this, now, lets say, John says "because she is good in the sack" and your not offended by this, you puff out your chest and your ego inflates, because he complemented your sexual prowess.

In this case, you felt "Honor" and another might have felt shame, as you said you would have been embarrassed in the previous example.

The fact is, you would feel something....

That is also the affect of sin in our culture, where things that should be shameful to us, things that should be viewed as degrading becomes something we take pride in. This our culture and our way of life, lower the pride and self respect we would have for ourselves. This equally is bad and unhealthy for humans, but is a subtle affect of sin in our lives, something we do not see "Right Now" like.. say... Killing someone.. for example, but still has impact, and negative affects on our lives and cultures.

Just like, now days, it takes mommy and daddy working two jobs each to support the house, that was subtle, but it also leaves the oor open to children to have problems because their parents were not there to raise them, and be with them, but the change was subtle, not "BAM !" but slow, it happend, and it's damaging to our culture, but people do not see the affect, because it was not like getting your house broken into and robbed, but it is not less then that, because our children have been robbed of having their parents in their lives, they daily are being robbed, but one sees it as that type of sin, as that level of destruction, because it was not a momentary thing, it was slow and gradual, and not surprisingly, it carried with it, far more destructive effects.

To use an example, the Grand Canyon was not formed by a flood, but the slow erosion of a stream of water. Same to with Human culture and life, slow erosion can do more then a massive act.

I appreciate your asking -- to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever been asked this before. Though I'm not sure how easy it is to arrange myself neatly into certain type or group... perhaps it would be better if I just tried to quickly describe a bit about my own views.

In short, I believe that there aren't any gods, and I believe that after death there's nothing... that probably kind of defines the atheist position by default. But I wouldn't say I'm one of those "everything is pointless because you're going to die" atheists... I believe that life can be meaningful, not because there's some absolute divine purpose behind it, but because we have the power to make our own. I'm not sure if any of my past posts have indicated it, but my view of the world is probably more optimistic and less cynical than many people, theist and non theist alike -- in my view, life is too short to waste it thinking of oneself as worthless.

I am sorry you view it as deeming oneself worthless. I view it as following Christ, that God almighty himself, felt I was so precious, so important, that I was worth Dieing for, so that I could be with God in Heaven. Equally so, I also respect my limitations of being just a human.

Also, just a last thought on this whole cultural influence thing... I've noticed that Christians seem to have a very hard time taking credit for anything positive. You have a conscience? You have a personality? It must be entirely because of God, or entirely because of your culture... it couldn't possibly be due to your having a mind and the ability to use it.

a mind is nothing more then an advance computing system, what is put in, and what it starts with affects what it functions with.

What is Put in IE: Culture, Upbringing, Friends, Etc.

What is Starts with IE: God, Instinct, Etc.

So the Mind does not do anything, beyond deal with what it has to work with. In this case, unless there is a God, then there is only Culture (And external Affects).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be offensive in that -- it just seems to be a common theme in much of what I've read on this forum. But maybe in light of what I've said about my own views it might be easier to see why I kind of take issue with that stance, since I sort of see it as being more cynical (or misanthropic, maybe) than how I usually look at things.

I am not sure what you mean by Cynical.

I think this might be one of those areas where we have a communication gap, because I don't tend to think of the human body as being "designed" at all.

Designed, Evolved, however you like to look at it.

The term "properly designed mate" implies that homosexual couples cannot... ahem... interact with one another in a way that fulfills the same function as it would in a heterosexual relationship, which I don't believe is the case.

Ok, I am not going to get into a Technical discussion on this, however, we both know this is not the case. The male parts are designed to fit into the female parts. That is quite simple.

Just because, we today have designed and made things that allow for easy "Interaction" does not mean... that it is natural.

Now, I will ask you again, do you think it is respectful to a woman, to tell her that she can be replaced in the human make up, by a man?

I have to respectfully disagree on this -- I think it is of huge consequence to the question. If people choose homosexuality, there might be some justifiable grounds for considering it a sin... If it's something one has no choice over, however, it seems about as fair as condemning someone for being of a certain race.

We will have to disagree with this, because I see it along the lines of being a sociopath, did they choose that, or were they born that way.? In the end, when they kill, it makes no difference.

So in my mind, if you were Born a Homosexual, or choose to be a Homosexual, or were a Homosexual because of cultural impact, abuse, or anything else, it makes no difference, when you disrespect the special and unique nature of a man and woman.

Race is a very poor analogy, as it has no bearing on what sin you commit (or are more prone to commit), or what damage you do to yourself and others. Too many people try to play the race card, but when you look at it, it really is a poor analogy, as it has no bearing in the eyes of God or Gods Laws what race you are, as such, it does not apply.

In general though, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with trying to use biology to justify a certain view of what's moral... as I said in my last post, the two things seem to be rather irrelevant to one another.

Ahh see as I explained above, Gods Law is not just "Immoral/Moral" it is far more involved then that, there is Physical Health, Cultural Respect, Hygiene, Diet, Etc. All these things God said to us, for our benefit, to make our lives better, Longer, Happier, and Healthier.

See, this is where it seems you are confused, that Sin is just "Immoral/Moral" is it far more then that, it is How to Live a Good Life, for you, on every Level, in every way. To do what is best for you, your mental, physical, spiritual, and social health.

Unless you remove the idea that Sin is just "Moral" then you will never fully grasp it.

Sure, Homosexuality is no more Immoral then adultery, bestiality, or fornication.

But that does not mean... it is good for you, or less of a sin, then say, Stealing.

But here again maybe it would be more productive of me to ask some follow-up questions... Does this whole issue of "sexual morality" relate back to an idea that God intended humans to have sex only in order to reproduce?

It is about respect, for your own body, and the body of your mate.

Procreation, is not a requirement of intercourse. Not even by biblical standards.

Or in other words, do you believe that sex without the intention or possibility of reproduction is a sin?

Of course not, 1Cor, explains this quite well.

Also, since this thread has been revived from its fall to the 2nd or 3rd page, perhaps I should give a quick update as to the progress that's been made toward answering the original question, for anyone else who may be reading... Though Sin has gotten a number of different definitions, the one we seem to be working with now is Sin as that which is objectively bad for humans. Though this seems like a fairly good operational definition, I'm having a hard time understanding why homosexuality should fit among those things, and most of my recent follow-up questions seem to be centering around that topic.

Hummmmm.... I'll have to go look that up.... later...


God Bless

Key.

In addition though, I'm still having a hard time understanding Sin as it pertains to the crucifixion -- though general clarifications about it would be welcome, I also asked some rather specific questions about it a while ago (post #56) that have yet to be addressed.[/quote]

 

[FriarErasmus]

Also, since this thread has been revived from its fall to the 2nd or 3rd page, perhaps I should give a quick update as to the progress that's been made toward answering the original question, for anyone else who may be reading... Though Sin has gotten a number of different definitions, the one we seem to be working with now is Sin as that which is objectively bad for humans.

This is most definitely not in accordance with my views. Sin is simply rebellion against God. This is why the scriptures say that those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice will now no longer sin (ie will now no longer be in rebellion against God). Any action that is not in accordance to God's will is sin.

What happened on the cross is that Christ came to earth, fully lived in God's will (therefor was without sin, without rebellion against God). He then stepped in as a proxy for all of us.

It is like this story:
A judge was overseeing a case in which a man had committed a serious crime. The judge convicts the man of the crime because there is plenty of evidence. The Judge then steps down from the bench, removes his robes and places himself in the custody of the officers of the court and says that the responsibility for the crime is entirely his, and he chooses (though completely innocent) to take the blame for the entire crime. The original man goes free, and is indebted to the judge for accepting the blame.

Though this seems like a fairly good operational definition, I'm having a hard time understanding why homosexuality should fit among those things, and most of my recent follow-up questions seem to be centering around that topic.

One of God's statements in the scripture is a command to humanity to "Be fruitful and multiply." Another is that if a man should lie with a man as he would with a woman, it is a sin punishable by death (old testament - with new testament mercy, we are to forgive, but it still is a sin). And still another is that it is better for a man to remain single, but if he does burn with desire for a woman, he should marry her lest he sin.

Therefor, based on these statements and commandments, it can be deduced that there are exactly two acceptable states a man or woman can be in:

1. Single and devoted entirely to God's work (ie Monk/Nun).
2. Should he/she not be able to remain pure (ie should he/she desire sexual relations), he/she should marry a person of the opposite sex and follow the other statement, which is to be fruitful and multiply.

Anything outside of this (man with man, woman with woman) does not abide by the requirement that we be fruitful and multiply and does not abide by the one exception, which is to remain single and devote all of yourself in service to God.

IE man with man or woman with woman = rebellion against God's commands, therefor it is sin.

In addition though, I'm still having a hard time understanding Sin as it pertains to the crucifixion -- though general clarifications about it would be welcome, I also asked some rather specific questions about it a while ago (post #56) that have yet to be addressed.

To understand Christ's crucifixion, you need to understand the whole of the laws of sin and redemption that have been passed down from the beginning of time. When Adam and Eve sinned, a goat was required for sacrifice to cover their sins. It was required that blood of an innocent being be spilled to cleans away the sins of an unclean being. Since the goat was just a goat, it only was a temporary solution, and as all sin again and again (we are not perfect, and yet God commands "be perfect as I am perfect", therefor rebellion against God's law) God desires to be forever close to us, so he came up with the perfect sacrifice to cover over all of our sins... forever. The only perfect being that exists is him, so he chose to sacrifice himself, in the person of Christ, to wash away all of our sins. Since he is perfect, and never sinned, his sacrifice covered all of the sins of all people who ever did or ever will or are currently walking this earth. The only thing separating us from God at this point is a decision to not live in rebellion against God. His only requirement now is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself" and that Christ is "The way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father [God] except by Him [Christ]"

As to your question on how a baby may sin, the first thing a baby thinks about is what it wants (Feed me, change me, wash me, hold me), not what God wants, so it is immediately in rebellion (by its very nature) against God. It requires a redemption by God to correct this inherently sinful nature in a child. Many believe that since God is a merciful God, and since the child does not have understanding (so cannot know how to be in accordance with God's will, and is simply following its nature), that God chooses to forgive those who do not yet have understanding of their state of sin and rebellion against God. That subject is a matter for an entire theological debate, and I don't believe we will ever be certain of where God stands on that issue.

I hope that my comments have helped you in your search for understanding. If you need any scripture references to places where I say that God states something, please let me know, but for the sake of getting this post done before my lunch hour is up, I did not get the exact references to these scriptures.

Hoping and praying that God will give you knowledge, wisdom, and understanding,
Erasmus

 

[FriarErasmus]

Oh, and to add to your comment about short hair, it was simply a reference to a group of women who were practicing other religions (prostitution as worship) and wore their hair short to tell others that they performed these actions. They were then being among christian men and trying to tempt them to "worship together" by having sex. Therefore, Paul admonished them and said that no women should wear outer adornments (jewelry was used to entice as well) or cut their hair (making them appear as prostitutes) . He also told women to be quite in the church, but this was addressing a specific congregation that was full of gossip, deceit, and backstabbing that was being carried out by the women in the church. By silencing them in that setting, it would resolve the issue of gossip and slander breaking apart the church.

So, feel free to have short cut hair, but please don't come to church in a middrift shirt that is semi transparent and be wearing fishnet stockings and a leather miniskirt... (ie don't come clearly attempting to tempt men into lusting after you and don't come wearing cloths that scream "I'm an easy lay!").

Hope that helps clarify.

 

[SandRose]

It's been.... a very busy time for me.. the past week or so.... very busy with lots going on... been working on helping my father-in-law with his ministry plans and situations. It's a long story..

Good luck with the ministry -- and just keep in mind that if this thread is becoming too much with everything else you've got doing on, you're under no pressure to keep coming back and answering my pesky questions

Ok lets go with this, now, lets say, John says "because she is good in the sack" and your not offended by this, you puff out your chest and your ego inflates, because he complemented your sexual prowess.

I think this is a bad example. I already tried explaining to you that I see shades of immorality here (John would not appreciate these remarks if the roles were reversed) and you responded by telling me that men and women view things differently. Given that, I find it perplexing that you're now putting forth a scenario where a woman "puffs out her chest and her ego inflates" when her sexual prowess is complimented. I think we both know that women would not tend to react this way.

If you want to try a different example... how about two people going to a nudist colony. The first is ashamed of being seen naked, the second loves it. How do you think shame would operate in this context?

I am sorry you view it as deeming oneself worthless. I view it as following Christ, that God almighty himself, felt I was so precious, so important, that I was worth Dieing for, so that I could be with God in Heaven. Equally so, I also respect my limitations of being just a human.

Sorry if I was a bit ambiguous about this -- by worthless I was intending to refer to the general idea of "life is pointless", not your religion in particular. Though I won't pretend I'm not a little bothered by a lot of these "we're all sinners who deserve to go to hell" type statements.

So the Mind does not do anything, beyond deal with what it has to work with.

This strikes me as a vast understatement.

What is Put in IE: Culture, Upbringing, Friends, Etc.

What is Starts with IE: God, Instinct, Etc.

Maybe we're getting somewhere here. How would you describe the effect of God in that statement? Also, I don't believe you answered my question -- don't you believe in a soul? (Because I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the point of any of this -- are you pursuing this cultural influence line of inquiry because it's what you believe, or because you're trying to make a statement about what I believe? My responses thus far have assumed the former, but if it's the latter, I think it's irrelevant to this thread.)

Now, I will ask you again, do you think it is respectful to a woman, to tell her that she can be replaced in the human make up, by a man?

I don't really understand the point of this question. What do you even mean by "replaced in the human make up"? Are you saying that the fact that there are gay men in the world should be an insult to all women? No one is advocating that men should replace women in all relationships, and no one is advocating that straight couples should not be together if they so choose. Your question seems irrelevant to me.

We will have to disagree with this, because I see it along the lines of being a sociopath, did they choose that, or were they born that way.? In the end, when they kill, it makes no difference.

Let's pursue this sociopath analogy, if you don't mind... Is killing wrong because of the sociopath giving in to his desires, or is it wrong because it actually harms someone? Can you point to anything in a homosexual relationship that is even remotely as harmful to another human being as murder? Please think about this.

See, this is where it seems you are confused, that Sin is just "Immoral/Moral" is it far more then that, it is How to Live a Good Life, for you, on every Level, in every way. To do what is best for you, your mental, physical, spiritual, and social health.

Unless you remove the idea that Sin is just "Moral" then you will never fully grasp it.

I don't think I have any particular problem with defining Sin as going beyond immorality to that which is objectively bad for or harmful to a human being. I could see smoking, for example, or consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy foods, as falling into this category due to the long term health risks... though perhaps it raises some interesting questions about whether it would make sense to punish someone for these kinds of transgressions.

In any case though, maybe all of this is going beyond the scope of my original question -- this whole business of the wrongness of homosexuality may be a tangent here, and not necessarily be relevant to defining what Sin is. If it's getting too drawn-out, we may just have to agree to disagree on it and move on to other aspects of the question of Sin.

 

[SandRose]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, FriarErasmus, and add your point of view to this thread.

This is most definitely not in accordance with my views. Sin is simply rebellion against God. This is why the scriptures say that those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice will now no longer sin (ie will now no longer be in rebellion against God). Any action that is not in accordance to God's will is sin.

This may be a useful definition, and perhaps one better supported by scripture, but it does open up questions about whether God is a tyrant who makes up arbitrary rules, or whether there are actually good reasons behind those rules. I think this thread's trend toward defining Sin as that which is objectively bad for humans has been an attempt to show that God really is a wise being who knows and wants what's best for us. (And for the most part I would agree with this, with the exception that I see homosexuality as being a bit of an inconsistency with the explanation.)

It is like this story:
A judge was overseeing a case in which a man had committed a serious crime. The judge convicts the man of the crime because there is plenty of evidence. The Judge then steps down from the bench, removes his robes and places himself in the custody of the officers of the court and says that the responsibility for the crime is entirely his, and he chooses (though completely innocent) to take the blame for the entire crime. The original man goes free, and is indebted to the judge for accepting the blame.

I don't think I understand what the moral of this story is... In my view, it seems almost... appalling, if you'll forgive my use of the word. I don't think justice is something that can be achieved as long as someone, guilty or innocent, takes the blame and is punished... I don't think that's what justice is about at all. Or is that supposed to be the point of the crucifixion? If you wouldn't mind clarifying, what was God's view of the whole thing?

To understand Christ's crucifixion, you need to understand the whole of the laws of sin and redemption that have been passed down from the beginning of time.

Thanks for giving such a detailed explanation of the crucifixion, but this statement confused me a bit... where did the laws of sin and redemption come from?

So, feel free to have short cut hair, but please don't come to church in a middrift shirt that is semi transparent and be wearing fishnet stockings and a leather miniskirt... (ie don't come clearly attempting to tempt men into lusting after you and don't come wearing cloths that scream "I'm an easy lay!").

LOL - thanks for the history lesson and encouragement, but the subject of short hair was actually not a reference to Sin (I was only vaguely aware that the Bible had anything to say about it one way or another)... it was more a reference to the influence of culture on the way we dress, etc. and the fact that it's sort of the "norm" (at least in America) that the majority of girls have longish hair. Yes, the thread was admittedly drifting a bit off-topic for a while there

But thanks once again for contributing to this thread, and I'd appreciate any further thoughts or comments you may have on any of this

 

[Key]

Good luck with the ministry -- and just keep in mind that if this thread is becoming too much with everything else you've got doing on, you're under no pressure to keep coming back and answering my pesky questions

Thanks, but it's not my ministry, it's his.

If you want to try a different example... how about two people going to a nudist colony. The first is ashamed of being seen naked, the second loves it. How do you think shame would operate in this context?

Great example: Both Feel Honor/Shame. One feels Honor, the other Shame.

It works for me.

But, in neither case, does one feel nothing.

Now, maybe your confusion is, should they both feel the same thing?

Of Course Not!

One can say they feel embarrassed to be naked, and as such, they really should not be walking around naked, but at the same time, they should be respected that being naked makes them feel shamed.

The other is proud of their body, and feels no shame to be naked at this moment, however, equally so, they should be respected that they will be naked on their terms. But also they should respect that if their nakedness makes someone else feel uncomfortable (Uncomfortable is a type of shame), they should wear clothing around them.

Say, now, if both had their clothing ripped off in a public park.

I believe they would both feel shamed by this act.

Sorry if I was a bit ambiguous about this -- by worthless I was intending to refer to the general idea of "life is pointless", not your religion in particular. Though I won't pretend I'm not a little bothered by a lot of these "we're all sinners who deserve to go to hell" type statements.

Think of it like this, if you were God, you have crafted the entire universe, what could a human do that would impress you enough for you to say "Please, come be with me, as I find you worthy to be with me" I mean really.. Your God.... You just made this entire place, you made that human, and everyone before it and after it, you made the laws of space and time, you made matter where there was none, you made life where there was none.

What could anything do... to impress you, for you to find them deserving of being with you, in your house?

The truth is... Nothing.

Anything they did do.. would be insignificant to your minimal abilities.

But... in the end... we are all sinners.. we all have done things.. that have harmed ourselves or others. We have no walked in peace and joy with our fellow humans. Maybe we have developed into tolerance, or acceptance, but not peace and joy.

This strikes me as a vast understatement.

Why?

Maybe we're getting somewhere here. How would you describe the effect of God in that statement? Also, I don't believe you answered my question -- don't you believe in a soul? (Because I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the point of any of this -- are you pursuing this cultural influence line of inquiry because it's what you believe, or because you're trying to make a statement about what I believe? My responses thus far have assumed the former, but if it's the latter, I think it's irrelevant to this thread.)

Both, see, to me God is the only thing that surpasses Human culture. if not God, then we have only ourselves, our culture and our interaction with our world, the input we put into our minds, but with God, we have vastness, a great expanse to allow God to awaken us in a spiritual level, that unless we have a soul, we can not achieve.

However, without God....... what else is there...?

I don't really understand the point of this question. What do you even mean by "replaced in the human make up"? Are you saying that the fact that there are gay men in the world should be an insult to all women?

Yes, why shouldn't it be?

Why should any woman not be insulted by this act, they are replaced even as mates by men.

No one is advocating that men should replace women in all relationships

It's not about all or none... it's about... individual ones. See there is no "Masses" there is no "All" there are only small groups of single relationships.

If a man can replace a woman in one... then why not all?

If a woman is replaced by a man in one. why should she not be shamed and insulted by this?

That this couple says "a man is better then a woman as a mate to man" , I can not see how that is not insulting.

Imagine, a man saying to his mother, "well mom, a man is better then a woman as far as mates go, well that is my feeling at least"

How could that mother... not be insulted.

Let's pursue this sociopath analogy, if you don't mind... Is killing wrong because of the sociopath giving in to his desires, or is it wrong because it actually harms someone?

Is there a difference in the end of things?

I don't think I have any particular problem with defining Sin as going beyond immorality to that which is objectively bad for or harmful to a human being. I could see smoking, for example, or consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy foods, as falling into this category due to the long term health risks... though perhaps it raises some interesting questions about whether it would make sense to punish someone for these kinds of transgressions.

The food would be gluttony (Maybe, or could be just poor diet planning, or even ignorance)

The smoking ... at this point seems to be an odd man out.. but many people claim it is a sin. (Keep holy your temple)

I for one view Smoking as a minor sins, an "One of the Other Sins" like homosexuality, and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics (Which if the fabrics are natural they will allow the skin to breath better allowing oxygen to the skin body uniformly, and also allow for uniform shrinking of the material so it will not rip or distort)

In any case though, maybe all of this is going beyond the scope of my original question -- this whole business of the wrongness of homosexuality may be a tangent here, and not necessarily be relevant to defining what Sin is. If it's getting too drawn-out, we may just have to agree to disagree on it and move on to other aspects of the question of Sin.

Ok, Humor me, we know on a Biological level, and even on a social level, that Homosexuality is not a positive thing. Why do you, or better yet, why are you seemingly incapable to view it as a sin, or maybe not really a good thing for ones culture, and personal benefit.

as for drifting off topic, I do not feel that we are, we are discussing what is Sin, what it's affects and impacts on our lives are. What is this "SIN" thing that Christians keep bringing up, time and time again.

Is it really just arbitrary rules made by some obscure "God", or is it deeper, more, tangible, something, I can feel in my life.

My hope is only to help you grasp that Sin.. is not some arbitrary thing, but, that God made these rules for us to follow, for us, for the better of our lives.

You seem to be stumbling on Homosexuality, well it is a minor sin, it is not even up there with eating pork (Later lifted, because of better cooking methods that eliminated the risk of serious infections from eating under cooked pork products), or taking a day of rest. Just to give you a feel for where it really falls.

As such, because it is in the category of "Other" sins, it's impact is not going to be "Earth Shattering" but minor, like the erosion of a stream in a valley, as opposed to a flood that comes crashing though.

I hope this helps you more fully grasp the nature of Sin.. sometimes, since we do not see the affect like being raped, or killed, or stolen from, we do not see how it can have subtle and slow happening affects on our culture, as such, we sometimes become blind to what they can and can not do, or how they hurt or degrade the culture we have around us.

Just something to ponder, if you lived in the old days, and a man was a homosexual, that is one more woman that will be deprived a husband, and if that homosexual was a decent person, and good provider, that is an even greater loss to the woman, as now not only has she lost a husband, but she has lost possibly a good father, and good provider for her family. Minor damage at it's best... but still, small wounds can add up.... enough pin holes can kill a human.

God Bless

Key

 

[SandRose]

but with God, we have vastness, a great expanse to allow God to awaken us in a spiritual level, that unless we have a soul, we can not achieve.

I think this is getting closer to what I was wondering. Could you please explain what you think the soul is, and how it allows humans to achieve more than they could without one?

Yes, why shouldn't it be?

Why should any woman not be insulted by this act, they are replaced even as mates by men.

It seems pretty strange to me that you would think that a woman -- or anyone, really -- would be so petty as to care about the sexual preferences of total strangers. (If I may ask, do you know a lot of women who actually feel this way?)

But I realize maybe you're asking this on a more personal level, rather than a view of strangers... So let's say I'm dating good old John again and suddenly he realizes that he's attracted to men. We break up and he starts dating Jack instead. Would I be hurt? Sure. Would I feel rejected? Of course. But would I feel less hurt or rejected if he were to leave me for another woman? I seriously doubt it.

But even assuming that I would, what should I demand him to do instead? Continue dating me even though he was unhappy? Continue to pursue women even though he wasn't attracted to them, spending the rest of his life frustrated and maybe even resentful? That would be incredibly selfish on my part, and I wouldn't expect anyone to deny who they are just to spare my feelings.

Is there a difference in the end of things?

Yes, because the fact of the matter is that, regardless of what was going on in his head, somebody actually died. Serious harm was caused -- killing is wrong because of its consequence, not because of a certain desire or thought process that preceded it. You also didn't answer my second question, where I asked if there's anything you can point to in a homosexual relationship that's even remotely as harmful to another human being as murder. But since you go on to say that homosexuality is a minor sin, I hope you'll agree that the murdering-sociopath example doesn't fit here.

But this concept of minor sins versus earth-shattering sins is rather intriguing, especially the way you talk about how eating pork is no longer harmful and how in the past it was a major loss to a woman if a good husband and provider chose to be with another man instead. Would you say that some things that were considered sins at the time when the bible was written are no longer sins today, due to progress that human civilization has made? And if so, could homosexuality be one of these things?

 

[Key]

I think this is getting closer to what I was wondering. Could you please explain what you think the soul is, and how it allows humans to achieve more than they could without one?

That would be it's own discussion, I believe it has been discussed before, and I think I provided a very nice explanation, I shall have to go and look that up for you.

It seems pretty strange to me that you would think that a woman -- or anyone, really -- would be so petty as to care about the sexual preferences of total strangers. (If I may ask, do you know a lot of women who actually feel this way?)

Truth be told, Yes. A Great Many.. sadly. Men as well are deeply shamed by this.

Many of them speak out strongly against Homosexuality, they speak of it as a if is a major sin, notice the outcry of many of the Christian groups regarding this.

Do you think this is an outcry because "It's a sin" that is listed in the "Other" category?

No!

It is an outcry because it is offensive to both men and woman, hence the disgust with the act itself. You know many people like this, some might even give them profane labels, but the truth is, they are shamed by the homosexuals, and to be told that they should embrace what insults them, what mocks them, is truly an abomination and such reactions will be the by product of that.

Sure, some people do not even fully grasp why they have such strong reactions, but they can't help the shame is placed upon them. Can you explain your every reaction to all situations, of course not, most people can't, things build and reaction, will be product of that.

Truly, do you think the outcry against Homosexuals stems from no place?

That people are disgusted with it for no reason?

Do you really believe that some people just hate homosexuals?

How naive if you do, Hate stems from some place, and this place is shame, but because of our culture, many people can not even put to words why they react so against it, but they can't help themselves, that is Shame speaking, that is the hurt from being insulted coming forth.

But, see the Homosexuals themselves don't even realize this, they are think what they are doing is "Just fine and dandy" they do not realize the shame and mockery they are putting forth, and as such, our culture asks, even demands that people swallow this shame and this insult in the name of "Acceptance and Tolerance", but the truth is, there is no tolerance, the Homosexuals do not Tolerate being told what they are doing is a shame, because they do not want to hear it, they want to force their own view that this is correct and justified upon everyone else, and that is equally insulting and shameful.

So, truly, what would make you ask such a question. But that too, the destruction that Sin has on culture and people, is destroys harmony, peace and joy. Even minor sins, add up, and can cause major problems.

But what is the alternative? To tell a homosexual that they can't find "Happiness" that they can't do what they are doing? Well, maybe we can look into that.

Would you tell a couple that they should not have sex, because they are brother and sister?

Would you tell a man that he should not have sex with his mother? Or Would you tell a woman that she should not have sex with her father?

Maybe you might tell someone that they should not have sex with their dog, or other pet.

Hummm.... to me... there is no difference in any of those, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, etc, it's all just sexual immorality to me, no difference in my mind, one way or another.

Maybe you could explain the difference to me, as I am currently blind to it, where the line is drawn in sand so to speak.

But I realize maybe you're asking this on a more personal level, rather than a view of strangers... So let's say I'm dating good old John again and suddenly he realizes that he's attracted to men. We break up and he starts dating Jack instead. Would I be hurt? Sure. Would I feel rejected? Of course. But would I feel less hurt or rejected if he were to leave me for another woman? I seriously doubt it.

Funny, you could compete against it if he went to a "Jane" but you could not if it was a "Jack"... that might be an important factor, especially, if you really loved John.

But even assuming that I would, what should I demand him to do instead?

I doubt that you could demand anything of him, any more then I could demand anything from you.

But, that does not make what he is doing any less a shame to you, but, humor me, has this ever happened to you?

Lets say you are with "Jane" you are lovers, and she says to you "It's been a great trip, but I am going back to guys"..........

That's equally an "Ouch".... don't you think?

Yes, because the fact of the matter is that, regardless of what was going on in his head, somebody actually died.

The way I read that, either way, someone was dead, if he gave into his temptations (IE: Killed someone) or just committed the act (IE: Killed someone), I still have a body in a morgue.

Maybe you could explain that to me.. if I took it wrong.

You also didn't answer my second question, where I asked if there's anything you can point to in a homosexual relationship that's even remotely as harmful to another human being as murder.

Higher chance of Aids, Higher concentration of Drug use, Normally the lifestyle is promiscuous, so equally so, higher chance of serious STDS (Same issues with Fornication). So there are serious chances of dangerous and harmful (even fatal) consequences.

Yes, I know we want to focus on the loving couple, that is devoted to each other, etc etc etc, but that is the super rare, and not the majority of the people, I wish it was... but it is not the reality of it.

But since you go on to say that homosexuality is a minor sin, I hope you'll agree that the murdering-sociopath example doesn't fit here.

The analogy works on the ground of if you are Born that way, in this case, simply because you are "Born that way" does not man you get a "Free Pass" to do what you like, or that the consequences are lessened in the end of things, and in this case as well, it is a focus on the commit of sin, which race does not apply.

But this concept of minor sins versus earth-shattering sins is rather intriguing, especially the way you talk about how eating pork is no longer harmful

That is from the teachings of Christ, the Jews still do not eat Pork.

in the past it was a major loss to a woman if a good husband and provider chose to be with another man instead.

In the past, yes, and even today, a woman would still go with out finding a decent husband, in this case, not a major loss, but still a loss really.

Would you say that some things that were considered sins at the time when the bible was written are no longer sins today, due to progress that human civilization has made?

We.. Humans... do not have the authority to say what is "No-Longer" a sin, since, Humans as a whole have not been all that good at knowing what is best for them anyway, I doubt that we ever will be able to make such a judgment.

However, we are getting better at finding out, why some things that God called sin are bad for us.

And if so, could homosexuality be one of these things?

I doubt it, but I think you might be missing something here, it's not Homosexuality that is the issue, it is sexual immorality.

I doubt that fornication will ever be good for is, nor shall incest, or a slew of other things, in that regard, I would say that equally so, homosexuality will be among the lists of sins for a while.

Yes, I know... it's hard to see the "Wrong" or the "Evil" when it comes to things like this, just as it is hard for me to see the evil in telling people where they can go when they tick me off... however, in some cases, just because it is not this "HOLY ! LOOK AT THE IMPACT!" does not mean that there is none.

For example, it's not one Twinkee(tm) that makes you fat, it's not the 10th or even the 100th, it is a slow process.. that will eventually... make you fat.. so which twinkee(tm) is to blame? All of them contributed, all of them had their impact on your body, all of them combined made you fat, not any single one of them.

Hence, why we can't see the evil in "One Twinkee(tm)", but God can.

Putting Homosexuality aside for a moment, I need to ask a very endearing question regarding this.

Are you getting a better grasp on what is Sin?

God Bless

Key.

 

[FriarErasmus]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, FriarErasmus, and add your point of view to this thread.

And thank you for being such a kind and considerate person in this thread. It is refreshing to have someone seriously interested and not simply looking for an argument

This may be a useful definition, and perhaps one better supported by scripture, but it does open up questions about whether God is a tyrant who makes up arbitrary rules, or whether there are actually good reasons behind those rules. I think this thread's trend toward defining Sin as that which is objectively bad for humans has been an attempt to show that God really is a wise being who knows and wants what's best for us. (And for the most part I would agree with this, with the exception that I see homosexuality as being a bit of an inconsistency with the explanation.)

I would agree that God's reasoning is to protect us from ourselves, and to give us a nice boundary so we can feel safe within it... for example, in a very progressive school, a study was done to see how elementary school children would handle not having artificial boundaries. To test this, they removed the fencing from the playground. Right next to this playground was a road with a speed limit above 35mph (I don't remember the exact speed). Rather than be free and happy without the fence, and rather than opening up new places on the school grounds to play, the teachers noticed that the children generally played close to the center of the playground, and no one would run after a ball that had been knocked away from the center of the playground. The school then reinstated the fencing, and they were surprised to see the children laughing and running and playing all over the playground again, all the way right up to the fence.

See, as humans, we are more free to achieve great things when boundaries are set. Even though there is very little, or possibly nothing, wrong with going just a little bit past the fence (ie onto the sidewalk, etc.) the fence is there to not just protect us, but to free us to enjoy the entire "enclosed" space without fear of harm.

In the case of Homosexuality, it may possibly fall into the "sidewalk" area, not exactly dangerous, not exactly safe, but it is still outside the bounds set (and who knows when an occasional car may swerve and kill a child who was free to move into the "unsafe" out of bounds zone?). God sets the boundaries to save us not just from everyday harm, but the occasional mishaps that harm us more than others (ie the deep hurt of a woman being left by her man for another man - "am I not attractive enough? Was I not good enough in bed?" - these types of questions and hurt are a possible result of a man going for a man, so God is protecting all of us. Plus, as I said before, we are simply called to multiply and add to the species or devote ourselves to Him, nothing more. Homosexuality does nothing to better humanity, nor further the species.)

I would venture to say that God's laws are not just to protect us from harm, but to guide us down the "best path" that would result in the most benefit for all of humanity.

I don't think I understand what the moral of this story is... In my view, it seems almost... appalling, if you'll forgive my use of the word. I don't think justice is something that can be achieved as long as someone, guilty or innocent, takes the blame and is punished... I don't think that's what justice is about at all. Or is that supposed to be the point of the crucifixion? If you wouldn't mind clarifying, what was God's view of the whole thing?

The Law of the Old Testament is about justice. The fulfillment of the Law by Christ in the New Testament is about mercy. The moral of the above story is that the Judge, (whom I forgot to mention is the father of the man accused) chooses out of love to take the full punishment on himself rather than let his son suffer for it. His goal is to allow his son to know mercy so that his son may be a better person due to that mercy, and through understanding that he is free only because of the Father's sacrifice and payment for the wrong, and that this indebtedness will cause him to do whatever would please his Father, so if his father would say to him "go love your brother and your neighbor and let them know what I did for you," he would do it. While the child who is free is out telling others, the Father in love and mercy takes on the blame of all the others to set them free as well.

Because God is a just God, Christ was punished only to the measure of the sins he wished to pay for (all of them). Since Christ's perfection is infinite and all of our sins combined are still finite, Christ overcame them and paid our debts, effectively posting bail for us with the understanding that we are to serve him, telling others that they also can have their bail posted and be set free.

Thanks for giving such a detailed explanation of the crucifixion, but this statement confused me a bit... where did the laws of sin and redemption come from?

God set them forth. When he created this world, he decided to place emphasis on blood. Blood in us allows us to live, it is a part of the "breath" that God breathed into Adam to give him life. The blood of animals is less important because it was only created by God, not actually brought to life by breathing his essence into it. To atone for the destruction of Adam and Eve's eternal life (the corruption of their body, including their blood and all of the other parts of God imbued into them) God required some sort of cleansing to remove the guilt so that he could even speak to them. By "passing" their sins in to the goat (there was a ceremony given to man by God to get the sins to go onto the goat... this was given because God is always creating "loopholes" in his original laws set at the creation of the universe... why these laws (gravity, what is holy, etc.) exist at all is a topic for another discussion.) God is always looking for a valid rule abiding way to be close to us even though he, being perfect, cannot be near imperfection. God allowed the goat to be filled with the sin of the people. When it was spilled, the sin is washed away with it.

LOL - thanks for the history lesson and encouragement, but the subject of short hair was actually not a reference to Sin (I was only vaguely aware that the Bible had anything to say about it one way or another)... it was more a reference to the influence of culture on the way we dress, etc. and the fact that it's sort of the "norm" (at least in America) that the majority of girls have longish hair. Yes, the thread was admittedly drifting a bit off-topic for a while there

But thanks once again for contributing to this thread, and I'd appreciate any further thoughts or comments you may have on any of this

Hope my further comments serve to clarify rather than confuse, and glad to be able to share my thoughts, feelings, and deep held beliefs with another seeker

 

[SandRose]

Truly, do you think the outcry against Homosexuals stems from no place?

That people are disgusted with it for no reason?

Do you really believe that some people just hate homosexuals?

How naive if you do, Hate stems from some place, and this place is shame

Firstly, please don't call me naïve. I come to this forum making every attempt to conduct a reasoned, respectful discussion, and I can't help finding it a bit offensive when people here have implied that I am naïve or ignorant when I do not agree with their views.

But let me ask you this, Key... do you really not understand why I might reject these premises? What you're essentially telling me here is that if hate exists, that if enough people hate something, their hate must be justified. I can only suggest that you take a close and critical look at the system that would advocate such a view.

The way I read that, either way, someone was dead, if he gave into his temptations (IE: Killed someone) or just committed the act (IE: Killed someone), I still have a body in a morgue.

Maybe you could explain that to me.. if I took it wrong.

Well, I didn't bring this up to question the wrongness of murder... I'm sure we both agree that killing is wrong. I brought it up because I believe we should be able to think clearly about why something is wrong. Making moral judgments on the basis of consequence allows us to make meaningful distinctions between right and wrong. Making moral judgments on the basis of temptation doesn't really get us anywhere... maybe the sociopath's temptation is to draw a bunch of circles on cocktail napkins or something.

Yes, I know we want to focus on the loving couple, that is devoted to each other, etc etc etc, but that is the super rare, and not the majority of the people, I wish it was... but it is not the reality of it.

Could you please provide a reference for this claim?

Putting Homosexuality aside for a moment, I need to ask a very endearing question regarding this.

Are you getting a better grasp on what is Sin?

This thread has certainly been an enlightening look at what Christians believe, if that answers your question. At this point I'm not sure if I even really have any other follow-up questions to the comments in your posts... you've made your views pretty clear, I think, even if I may not agree with every aspect of them.

But thanks once again for your responses and participation in this thread.

 

[SandRose]

for example, in a very progressive school, a study was done to see how elementary school children would handle not having artificial boundaries. To test this, they removed the fencing from the playground. Right next to this playground was a road with a speed limit above 35mph (I don't remember the exact speed). Rather than be free and happy without the fence, and rather than opening up new places on the school grounds to play, the teachers noticed that the children generally played close to the center of the playground, and no one would run after a ball that had been knocked away from the center of the playground. The school then reinstated the fencing, and they were surprised to see the children laughing and running and playing all over the playground again, all the way right up to the fence.

Hm, this is a pretty interesting study... definitely thought-provoking. The only thing I'd wonder, I think, would be about the extent to which it applies the same way to adults... Even using it as a metaphor, I have a feeling I would be of the mindset to leave the playground and go see what's on the other side of the street.

Plus, as I said before, we are simply called to multiply and add to the species or devote ourselves to Him, nothing more. Homosexuality does nothing to better humanity, nor further the species.

I have a few questions about this statement... First, kind of relating back to the question I was asking Key in one of my previous posts about things changing over time... Is it possible that a command to multiply, something clearly quite beneficial in a world where mankind was small and scattered, might be irrelevant or perhaps even irresponsible now that the human population is well into the billions? And second, when it comes to bettering humanity, how does Christianity view the value of such things as science, literature, art, music, etc. – contributions that have nothing to do with reproduction?

The moral of the above story is that the Judge, (whom I forgot to mention is the father of the man accused) chooses out of love to take the full punishment on himself rather than let his son suffer for it. His goal is to allow his son to know mercy so that his son may be a better person due to that mercy, and through understanding that he is free only because of the Father's sacrifice and payment for the wrong, and that this indebtedness will cause him to do whatever would please his Father, so if his father would say to him "go love your brother and your neighbor and let them know what I did for you," he would do it. While the child who is free is out telling others, the Father in love and mercy takes on the blame of all the others to set them free as well.

Hm... firstly, I'm not sure if it would help in this example to ask what the son's crime was, and what punishment the father suffered in his place... But regardless, this might be starting to make a bit more sense if I'm to understand that the point of the crucifixion was not justice? In this example, justice was not served, but the son goes out into the world controlled by the guilt of knowing what his father suffered needlessly for in his place... I suppose it's a system that could only work if the son was a good person to begin with (and there again, maybe that's part of the point.) Although I have to admit I'm having trouble reconciling this explanation with the idea that God is a just God... could you give a brief explanation of how the two ideas go together?

By "passing" their sins in to the goat (there was a ceremony given to man by God to get the sins to go onto the goat... this was given because God is always creating "loopholes" in his original laws set at the creation of the universe... why these laws (gravity, what is holy, etc.) exist at all is a topic for another discussion.)

I think I'd most definitely be interested in going deeper into the reasoning behind these laws, especially as they pertain to Sin... My biggest question at the moment is, did God have a choice in developing the "emphasis on blood" system, and assuming so, why did he choose it over alternate systems of sin and redemption? (If this question is too depthy for this thread, perhaps I can start a second one directly referring to these laws – though the part of it that relates to Sin might be more appropriate to continue exploring here.)