DescentBB

snoopy wrote:Hint: The root of the problem with homosexuality isn't about men having sex with men, but is really pride.... which is really the root of all sin.

How do you get pride as a cause? If nature made us all, wort's and all, we're just following our nature, whether we're heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. I don't see pride as a reason. I see it as living life as one feels appropriate to one's self.

I also see pride as one of the least nasty of the seven deadly sins. Greed and wrath are much more dangerous.

tunnelcat wrote:

snoopy wrote:Hint: The root of the problem with homosexuality isn't about men having sex with men, but is really pride.... which is really the root of all sin.

How do you get pride as a cause? If nature made us all, wort's and all, we're just following our nature, whether we're heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. I don't see pride as a reason. I see it as living life as one feels appropriate to one's self.

I also see pride as one of the least nasty of the seven deadly sins. Greed and wrath are much more dangerous.

The difference is between me saying God made us and you saying nature made us. I say God made us to worship Him, and to make little pictures of the way that He loves us through sex within a marriage. Homosexuality, fornication, etc. amounts to us saying "I don't like God's way, and think I know of a better way" - which in turn amounts to us acting like we get to judge God rather than the other way around.... pride.

I see greed as a form of pride, considering your own desires more important anyone else's desires or needs. I see wrath as a form of pride, considering your own satisfaction (usually satisfying your sense of justice or fairness) more important than anyone else's comfort, satisfaction, or fair-treatment.

snoopy wrote:. I say God made us to worship Him

wow, I don't think I've ever heard God described as such a completely self-centered, vain entity before in my whole life. Are you serious about that?

and to make little pictures of the way that He loves us through sex within a marriage.

well, that explains the Kool-Whip and the vinyl outfits, but really?

Homosexuality, fornication, etc. amounts to us saying "I don't like God's way, and think I know of a better way" - which in turn amounts to us acting like we get to judge God rather than the other way around.... pride.

I see greed as a form of pride, considering your own desires more important anyone else's desires or needs. I see wrath as a form of pride, considering your own satisfaction (usually satisfying your sense of justice or fairness) more important than anyone else's comfort, satisfaction, or fair-treatment.

this is more standard thinking, and I can't see where your definition varies much from the intent of the Commandments. I might question the source of said Commandments, but your view of pride as extending to greed seems on solid ground. Many might consider wrath a stretch, but c'est la vie.

I think God was lonely and we all became a bunch of rabid dogs and turned on Him.

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

snoopy wrote:Hint: The root of the problem with homosexuality isn't about men having sex with men, but is really pride.... which is really the root of all sin.

How do you get pride as a cause? If nature made us all, wort's and all, we're just following our nature, whether we're heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. I don't see pride as a reason. I see it as living life as one feels appropriate to one's self.

I also see pride as one of the least nasty of the seven deadly sins. Greed and wrath are much more dangerous.

The difference is between me saying God made us and you saying nature made us. I say God made us to worship Him, and to make little pictures of the way that He loves us through sex within a marriage. Homosexuality, fornication, etc. amounts to us saying "I don't like God's way, and think I know of a better way" - which in turn amounts to us acting like we get to judge God rather than the other way around.... pride.

I see greed as a form of pride, considering your own desires more important anyone else's desires or needs. I see wrath as a form of pride, considering your own satisfaction (usually satisfying your sense of justice or fairness) more important than anyone else's comfort, satisfaction, or fair-treatment.

That still does not explain how you think that homosexuals suffer the sin of pride, when all they want are equal rights and respect in the eyes of the law.

By the way, if God loved us through sex only in marriage, he must be really pissed off right now that a man can't take on more than one wife anymore, like in Biblical times.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:. I say God made us to worship Him

wow, I don't think I've ever heard God described as such a completely self-centered, vain entity before in my whole life. Are you serious about that?

Absolutely. The only reason that we see self-centered-ness and vanity as bad, in a person, is because they're failing to see that there's more to this world than themselves and their interests. In God's case, there isn't anything more out there than Him and what He's made.... so the negative connotation of the words don't apply.

tunnelcat wrote:That still does not explain how you think that homosexuals suffer the sin of pride, when all they want are equal rights and respect in the eyes of the law.

By the way, if God loved us through sex only in marriage, he must be really pissed off right now that a man can't take on more than one wife anymore, like in Biblical times.

The sin of pride is in thinking that their way (as opposed to God's way) has any legitimacy. The conservative's sin of pride is in thinking that they are any better. Everyone's sin of pride is in thinking that sex is about us instead of it being about worshipping God.

I didn't say that God loved us through sex only in marriage (though, being able to enjoy it is a sign of God's love) - I said that we create a picture of God's love for us for each other (the picture for each other) in sex as God intended it to be. It doesn't capture the gammit of God's love for us... nothing can... but it can give one little glimpse of one little angle of what it's like. In a more general sense, all of our actions toward each other are intended to be a model, or a little imitation, of the way that our relationship with God is supposed to be like.

I guess that's the problem. Religious people think sex should only be for procreation in marriage, which is not usually a normal state of affairs in nature, and others who think that sex can be enjoyed as a pleasurable pastime, which can be found in nature (Bonobo Chimps use sex for pleasure, not just procreation). Typical of most religions, people can't have any sexual pleasure in their lives, only suffering before the eyes of God. Is God that prudish?

tunnelcat wrote:But I'm also guessing that goes against your belief that God is perfect and by extension, made man perfect at birth, and therefor no homosexuals or asexuals are possible states before birth by condition because that would mean God had screwed up and made them imperfect, which in not possible in your eyes. So you conclude it must be an environmentally caused defect not made by God.

No, it doesn't go like that at all.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess that's the problem. Religious people think sex should only be for procreation in marriage ...

0 for 2 I'm sure there are people who are that "prudish", but your generalization is uncalled for.

I must say it's not often I hear some of these things characterized in the way you've done, Snoopy. I don't have any arguments, except to say that pride being the sole cause of homosexuality isn't the whole picture, since it leaves out Satan's efforts to pervert the creation of God. There is also scriptural evidence that this level of perversion can be the result of judgment.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:. I say God made us to worship Him

wow, I don't think I've ever heard God described as such a completely self-centered, vain entity before in my whole life. Are you serious about that?

I've got an important philosophical question for you, callmeslick, in light of your objection to the Biblical idea that God made us for himself. What is wrong with being self-centered/"vain"? What is it about a person exhibiting these traits that isn't right?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I've got an important philosophical question for you, callmeslick, in light of your objection to the Biblical idea that God made us for himself. What is wrong with being self-centered/"vain"? What is it about a person exhibiting these traits that isn't right?

before I go into what is a very interesting question, let me elaborate quickly on the objection, as you call it. What I find interesting, more than objectionable in any way, is the concept that God created man in order that we should worship him. I mean, I took Comparative Theology in college, and just have never heard there or since God described in such a shallow manner.

Now, on to the second part. I suppose my response would be rooted more in anthropology more than philosophy, but they do interesect. Man has proliferated and risen to the top of the food chain solely through being a social species. Singly, we sort of suck at survival; no claws, weak jaw strength, not massive, nor terribly fast, no body armor. Our brains are great, but learning of major impact takes generations. The only reason we tended to survive is that we existed(as do primates as a rule) in groups. Thus, we hunted in groups, migrated en masse when conditions dictated, and built small encampments to provide safety in numbers. Heck, the most important early development, as seen by many scholars, is that we domesticated dogs, which evolved from wolves due to adaptations around feeding near human population clusters. Thus, to be a successful member of a species that depends on socialization, one cannot be centered on oneself without concern for his fellow men. Likewise, vanity is an excessive concern with oneself and is likewise opposed to the natural order of things. Sorry, ST, if I got wordy on you, but I have given this subject some thought over the years, and yes, it is incorporated into my view of society as a whole(government, economics, etc). That some could easily differ is obvious, but that's my take.

Well, don;t get too wordy Slick. Your use of the word evolve should be inter-bred.

Not to drift too off-topic, but slick, I'm kind of a bit surprised that that concept of the Christian viewpoint of mankind's purpose never came up for you, considering it's not exactly something new. The good ol' Baltimore Catechism, which I'm sure my parents learned early on in grade school, has this as one of its opening lines:

Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

The Westiminster Shorter Catechism, written in the 1600s, has a particularly famous version of the same concept:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Even the current Catholic Catechism has "The life of man - to know and love God" as the title of its first section. Most Christians view mankind's role as Creation as fulfilling God's role as Creator, and see knowing and loving God as what follows naturally.

'knowing and loving' are not equal to a desire to be worshipped, at least as I understand language.

First you have to define your idea of worship. The bible says that true worshipers, worship in spirit and truth. That obviously doesn't mean to throw yourself prostate before him and beat yourself silly. It must mean something else then.

I'm not terribly surprised that you weren't exposed to the idea in college, at least as such, based on some of the things I've heard about how liberal colleges can be with regard to "Christianity". You call it shallow, but it doesn't preclude the idea that God created many things for us to enjoy, for instance.

With regard to your explanation for why being self-centered is wrong, you have demonstrated why being self-centered is anti-social or counter-productive, which are both true (despite the evolutionary drivel ) but both equally fail to answer the question, or perhaps simply dismiss the premise that being self-centered can be WRONG. What I was driving at is that being self-centered/vain is morally wrong because it unequally elevates a person's interests or characteristics above another when in reality they are of equal concern or merit (or certainly not due the disproportionate attention given them). It is certain that--if we're talking about a perfect God--it is impossible for the elevation of perfection to be... wrong (for lack of a more precise word). It is only right.

callmeslick wrote:'knowing and loving' are not equal to a desire to be worshipped, at least as I understand language.

I think that "knowing and loving" pretty much constitute the core elements of worship, at least as I understand them. From the Christian perspective, God created humans to love them and be loved by them, and worship is the process through which that love is shown.

wanting one's creations to worship one, and creating them in order to be worshipped, are two very different views. Now, Spidey may have been aiming at your ideal, but that isn't how he worded it.

Worship how?

EDIT: LOL nm. I bet you would though

Sergeant Thorne wrote: It is certain that--if we're talking about a perfect God--it is impossible for the elevation of perfection to be disingenuous. It is only right.

if you are talking about God being perfect, sure, but for man to assume that perfection is even remotely achievable runs absolutely counter to most of the Calvinist Protestant strains.

As for your critique of my explanation, you have to understand: I view morality as derived from what is core to survival as a species.
It is, in my view, wholly established by men, has proven malleable over history, and cannot be separated from anthropology. I am not, nor will I ever be, an absolutist in regards to morality. Great example that I heard recently: In Delaware, until around 1910, the age of consent was 9 years old. Now, I don't consider sex with 9 year olds moral behavior at all, but it was considered so, at least in one US state, one hundred years ago, which is very recent in an historical context.

I doubt it was considered moral. They realized their deprivation and made allowances for it.

flip wrote:I doubt it was considered moral. They realized their deprivation and made allowances for it.

who was being deprived, and of what? Obviously it was considered moral, and this in a state largely populated by Methodists,
Baptists and a smallish Catholic population up north at the time. It was the law, and when does the law sanction acts considered immoral by the majority of the people? That is, essentially, what law is, a codification of improper and/or immoral behavior.

Maybe it was made law to stop the debate.

I believe that worship pleases God for a very simple reason. Whether it is an expression of love toward God, or the extolling of God's attributes, it is basically the most right thing that we as creatures to our creator can do: God loves us... we return his love. God is perfect--in love, in justice, in mercy, ... we acknowledge that for exactly what it is. A picture of the alternative is returning mistrust, hate, and rebellion for love, or calling what is perfect into question and degrading it.

I understand what you are saying, ST(don't believe it myself, but that is what makes our nation great, eh?), but do you see my point in that having one's creations worship you is different than creating them in order to be worshipped. I just figure any God that needs to create folks just to be worshipped must be a very insecure and shallow deity.

callmeslick wrote:before I go into what is a very interesting question, let me elaborate quickly on the objection, as you call it. What I find interesting, more than objectionable in any way, is the concept that God created man in order that we should worship him. I mean, I took Comparative Theology in college, and just have never heard there or since God described in such a shallow manner.

Not just man, but all of creation. I'm not sure why it would be shallow. Maybe you're taking too narrow of a view of worship? I honestly don't quite get why the idea has anything to do with shallow-ness.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess that's the problem. Religious people think sex should only be for procreation in marriage, which is not usually a normal state of affairs in nature, and others who think that sex can be enjoyed as a pleasurable pastime, which can be found in nature (Bonobo Chimps use sex for pleasure, not just procreation). Typical of most religions, people can't have any sexual pleasure in their lives, only suffering before the eyes of God. Is God that prudish?

I don't recall saying only for procreation.... I think I actually said something about enjoying it. Nature is corrupted by sin, too. I guess you could say, in a sense though, that yes God is that prudish.

Man I dunno. I see how everything is made and how good it fits together, I'm not so sure God is prudish at all. I do think he set limits though, so as not to cause chaos and mayhem and the killing of millions of unborn children. The bible says the marriage bed is undefiled, look out girl , but outside of a secure marriage it cause the unseemly.

snoopy wrote:I don't recall saying only for procreation.... I think I actually said something about enjoying it. Nature is corrupted by sin, too. I guess you could say, in a sense though, that yes God is that prudish.

You did state: ".....He loves us through sex within a marriage......" That pretty much rules out God liking any people who've had sex outside of marriage. If that's the case, there's a whole lot of sinners out there who are not favored in God's eyes. How conveniently provincial.

And since God created nature, and you think nature sins too, I guess that means all animals in nature are going to hell because they can't marry and be good in God's eyes when doing the nasty. Kind of a weird and depressing way to look at how life and God made things work.

TC, about 85% of what you said is incorrect. You really should take a class on Christian theology.

No sinner (as a sinner) is "favored" by Him.

Nature did not start out sinful.

Nature will be saved through the bride of Christ. As far as animals going to heaven and that whole speculative discussion.. we were not told to preach the gospel to animal or trees and the like. God will deal with that how He sees fit.

Duper wrote:TC, about 85% of what you said is incorrect. You really should take a class on Christian theology.

Why are there even classes on this stuff? LoL. Correcting someone on theology is like correcting them on Harry Potter books. At least the Harry Potter books seem more interesting, though I honestly haven't read them. Who cares if someone quotes work of fiction incorrectly?

Religious folks are like Trekkies. They get really into their mythology and some even dress up in little outfits. I liken churches to Trek conventions. The bad thing is, the fans have real phaser guns and will farking kill you for being a Romulan or some crap like that.

Man, you are completely brainwashed arn't ya?

Didn't I hear someone whining about there being nothing to discuss? =P

Let me make it really clear for the indoctrinated kool-aid drinkers who buy into the state-created homo propaganda/distraction: how can homosexuality and non-sexuality be healthy? Okay, non-sexual people can reproduce and have children, but what if everyone were homo? The human race would die out in a few generations. Artificial insemination doesn't count. Men can't have children and women can't produce sperm. It's not rocket science, people.

Burlyman wrote:...but what if everyone were homo?

But what if everyone were hermaphrodites?

Everyone is not, nor will they be, so that argument is a complete straw man. Try again.

Burlyman wrote:Didn't I hear someone whining about there being nothing to discuss? =P

Let me make it really clear for the indoctrinated kool-aid drinkers who buy into the state-created homo propaganda/distraction: how can homosexuality and non-sexuality be healthy? Okay, non-sexual people can reproduce and have children, but what if everyone were homo? The human race would die out in a few generations. Artificial insemination doesn't count. Men can't have children and women can't produce sperm. It's not rocket science, people.

Oh for cripes sake! What bunk! How in the hell can all the other sexual orientations be unhealthy? And don't bring up AIDS, because most of the AIDS cases now are seen in drug users in the U.S. and heterosexuals in Africa and most gay people are better at practicing safe sex than straights because of it. These people don't affect me negatively in any way. In fact, several of my nicest friends are gay. I can't say that about a few of the straight idiots I know, including in my own family. And how do they affect the human race dieing out? Only a fraction of the population in the world is homosexual or bisexual, around 2 to 3% of men and 2% of women, depending on the poll. We're not crawling with homos. It also seems to be a constant percentage. Apparently Americans think we're knee deep in homos, around 25% of the population, which appears to be a highly exaggerated emotional reaction. With the world population around 7 billion, I don't see homosexuality impacting our growth rate at all.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Oh, and by that "logic," since everyone's not a murderer, I guess that makes it okay too!

Come on, guys.

No, I wasn't going to bring up AIDS (especially since it is probably man-made, but that's a whole other topic), and no, I didn't say homosexual sodomites (they're not 'gay') are evil hatemongers. I'm sorry I don't fit your stereotype of heterosexuals. LOL Okay maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but you get the idea. ^_~

vision wrote:

Burlyman wrote:...but what if everyone were homo?

But what if everyone were hermaphrodites?

How is this supposed to answer my question about maintaining the survival of the human race?

Burlyman wrote:

vision wrote:

Burlyman wrote:...but what if everyone were homo?

But what if everyone were hermaphrodites?

How is this supposed to answer my question about maintaining the survival of the human race?

I thought we were playing the "what if?" game. You know, where you take an unsubstantiated claim and exaggerate it to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to prove a point. Oh if you haven't heard, homosexuals reproduce too. Many of them get into heterosexual relationships and procreate before realizing those relationships are unhealthy for them emotionally.

Also, Ted Haggard.

callmeslick wrote:I understand what you are saying, ST(don't believe it myself, but that is what makes our nation great, eh?), but do you see my point in that having one's creations worship you is different than creating them in order to be worshipped. I just figure any God that needs to create folks just to be worshipped must be a very insecure and shallow deity.

From the perspective of an imperfect man among imperfect men it does certainly seem that way. It's a little like trying to grasp an extra dimension. You don't have much in the way of a point of reference (but the Bible is a point of reference), and if your whole life has been spent in 2 dimensions, how can you grasp a third? But it is your conception of what God is that is shallow/wanting. There is nothing amiss with the idea that a perfect, all-powerful God should desire to be worshiped by his own creations for what he is.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is nothing amiss with the idea that a perfect, all-powerful God should desire to be worshiped by his own creations for what he is.

For what he is? LOL! Perfect evil maybe...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ocity.html

I could shoot those down one by one and it wouldn't make any difference to you, "vision". Why don't you rather pick one to stand behind, and we'll see how safe you are. Pick your champion, instead of dumping a truckload of someone else's bull**** on the discussion.