Divorce is unbiblical

[keshka]

Some will say that God did not create homosexuality, but that it is a disorder or sickness.

Yeah, but how come if you have the 'homosexual disorder' then you're a sinner, but if you're born with only one arm, then you can be righteous? You cannot equate being a homosexual to having an illness!!!

Anyway you slice it, anyway you dice it, the bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong. No if, ands, or buts about it. Anyone who doesn't believe the bible condemns homosexuality is deceiving themselves.

No-one here is suggesting that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it's there in print in front of me! Perhaps you should follow the thread more closely before putting words in other people's mouths.

What I'm trying to argue is that perhaps the Bible is outdated when it comes to certain customs. It was written over a thousand years ago, when people lived very different lives to very different standards. Although much of the Bible is still very relevant today, I'm not sure we should be applying all of its moralities onto present day life. After all, Lot himself had incestuous relationships with his own duaghters - the very same family who were deemed by God to be worth saving from Sodom & Gomorrah (even ahead of the innocent babies and children who must also have perished with the two cities). Does this mean it's right to have sex with our own family members, because it's an action performed by the chosen of God? Of course not!!! As I say - different times, different moral codes.

That might make sense in the political sense of the day, however I see no reason as a christian to give homosexuals an inch of recognition or the impression that their sin is OK to a tiniest degree.

Well praise be that you are not representative of the people who run our more enlightened western countries!

 

[keshka]

We however are fallen and our very nature is corrupted as is the nature of all creation, so things like homosexuality, birth defects, etc, can surface. This does not mean that God meant us to have birth defects or be homosexual it is simply evidence that we live in a fallen and corrupted world.

What??!!! So because there are some nasty people in the world, God gives innocent babies birth defects, and makes people gay??!! How is that fair!!!??

Why not just give birth defects to evil people? What possible benefit can come from punishing the innocent for the crimes of others? Why does God give birth defects to the righteous??

I refuse to worship any deity who knowingly causes suffering to innocents because of the sins of others.

Thankfully, my interpretation of the Bible is different to yours - the God I worship is kind and loving!

 

[jimmydiggs]

Yeah, but how come if you have the 'homosexual disorder' then you're a sinner, but if you're born with only one arm, then you can be righteous? You cannot equate being a homosexual to having an illness!!!

You're comparing apples to diesel trucks. The bible has no condemnations of only having one arm, nor can any argument be inferred.

What I'm trying to argue is that perhaps the Bible is outdated when it comes to certain customs. It was written over a thousand years ago, when people lived very different lives to very different standards. Although much of the Bible is still very relevant today, I'm not sure we should be applying all of its moralities onto present day life. After all, Lot himself had incestuous relationships with his own duaghters - the very same family who were deemed by God to be worth saving from Sodom & Gomorrah (even ahead of the innocent babies and children who must also have perished with the two cities). Does this mean it's right to have sex with our own family members, because it's an action performed by the chosen of God? Of course not!!! As I say - different times, different moral codes.

You're introducing an extreme relativism here. That's not biblical at all.

Well praise be that you are not representative of the people who run our more enlightened western countries!

We're really not "more enlightened".

 

[jimmydiggs]

What??!!! So because there are some nasty people in the world, God gives innocent babies birth defects, and makes people gay??!! How is that fair!!!??

Who said God has to be "fair"?

Genesis 3

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Why not just give birth defects to evil people?

We're all evil.
Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

What possible benefit can come from punishing the innocent for the crimes of others?

There are none who are innocent.

Why does God give birth defects to the righteous??

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

I refuse to worship any deity who knowingly causes suffering to innocents because of the sins of others.

That's because you don't worship God. You evidently worship an idol. A form of diety that you have conjured up in your own head to suit your own ends. Repent and believe.

Thankfully, my interpretation of the Bible is different to yours - the God I worship is kind and loving!

Unfortunately, you're in idolatry.

 

[keshka]

You're comparing apples to diesel trucks. The bible has no condemnations of only having one arm, nor can any argument be inferred.

Please don't quote me out of context - you make me sound like an idiot! I was merely making a reductio ad absurdum argument against TheGrungeDiva and SantoSubito, who both equated homosexualy with an illness or disorder.

We're really not "more enlightened".

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[PopClick]

What??!!! So because there are some nasty people in the world, God gives innocent babies birth defects, and makes people gay??!! How is that fair!!!??

God allowed these things into the world, when man chose sin.

Why not just give birth defects to evil people?

Because birth defects would have to be present before birth, and therefore before the person affected could show themselves to be "evil".

What possible benefit can come from punishing the innocent for the crimes of others? Why does God give birth defects to the righteous??

He doesn't. Nobody is "righteous".

I refuse to worship any deity who knowingly causes suffering to innocents because of the sins of others.

Thankfully, my interpretation of the Bible is different to yours - the God I worship is kind and loving!

As is the God I worship.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Please don't quote me out of context - you make me sound like an idiot

You did a find job of that on your own.

! I was merely making a reductio ad absurdum argument against TheGrungeDiva and SantoSubito, who both equated homosexualy with an illness or disorder.

Definition of ILLNESS

1
obsolete
a : wickedness
b : unpleasantness
2
a : an unhealthy condition of body or mind
b : sickness 2

By these definitions, is not all sin, an illness?

Definition of DISORDER

transitive verb
1
: to disturb the order of
2
: to disturb the regular or normal functions of

Is not heterosexuality, the normative for human beings? Indeed even more so, heterosexuality is what God ordained in the Garden of Eden, before the fall of main and the tainting of the world with sin and corruption. It would seem upon these two definitions, all sin is a disordered illness.

Would you care to elaborate?

You're holding cultural biases that affect the way you view other cultures. Western society, especially biblically speaking, isn't all that "enlightened".

 

[keshka]

Genesis 3

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Thankfully, I'm well aware that God created the Universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang, that humanity arose thanks to God-guided evolution, and that the story of Adam and Eve is just myth. I mean, knowledge is good, right? Ignorance is bad, yes? The eating the apple of knowledge turned out to be a good thing, surely? Is it so wrong to want to better ourselves through knowledge and discovery?

If Eve had not partaken of the apple, we would all still be frolicking around in the Garden of Eden, and without the necessary skills to even read the Bible!

 

[mori]

You're comparing apples to diesel trucks. The bible has no condemnations of only having one arm, nor can any argument be inferred.

This is something I've been interested in recently. For sons of Aaron at least, defects or deformations, some of which surely had to be congenital, were as much a disqualification as was prostitution or being in the presence of a dead body. These things were sufficient to desecrate a sanctuary - that's a weighty statement.

We view this of course through the lens of Christianity, in which there are no such considerations for the lay person and the language of ritual purity and sacred places are (to many) an anachronism. In the context, however, while it did not carry an condemnation on the basis of personal fault, having any of the disorders listed carried many of the same consequences and used some of the same language as condemnations of personal faults.

I'm not convinced that the considerations of ritual purity aren't very similar in the prohibition of priests with defects and the condemnation of homosexuality, at least in the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek scriptures, especially after Peter, don't contain the language of ritual purity or defilement of sacred places, and there's no further biblical prohibition of the disfigured in the priesthood of the believers.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Thankfully, I'm well aware that God created the Universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang,

Incompatible with scripture.

that humanity arose thanks to God-guided evolution,

Incompatible with scripture.

and that the story of Adam and Eve is just myth.

Incompatible with scripture. Also, denying the inerrency of scripture.

I mean, knowledge is good, right? Ignorance is bad, yes?

Says who?

The eating the apple of knowledge turned out to be a good thing, surely?

God said no to it. Now you're arguing that something that is expressly forbidden, is a good thing?

Is it so wrong to want to better ourselves through knowledge and discovery?

Not all "discovery" is bettering yourself. I discovered pornography at a very young age. Surely that was not "bettering" myself through knowledge and discovery.

If Eve had not partaken of the apple, we would all still be frolicking around in the Garden of Eden, and without the necessary skills to even read the Bible!

A woman of contradiction, you are.

and that the story of Adam and Eve is just myth.

You call it a myth, yet then refer to it as a literal event? Make up your mind.


Keshka, quit making a god of your own image.

 

[jimmydiggs]

This is something I've been interested in recently. For sons of Aaron at least, defects or deformations, some of which surely had to be congenital, were as much a disqualification as was prostitution or being in the presence of a dead body. These things were sufficient to desecrate a sanctuary - that's a weighty statement.

We view this of course through the lens of Christianity, in which there are no such considerations for the lay person and the language of ritual purity and sacred places are (to many) an anachronism. In the context, however, while it did not carry an condemnation on the basis of personal fault, having any of the disorders listed carried many of the same consequences and used some of the same language as condemnations of personal faults.

I'm not convinced that the considerations of ritual purity aren't very similar in the prohibition of priests with defects and the condemnation of homosexuality, at least in the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek scriptures, especially after Peter, don't contain the language of ritual purity or defilement of sacred places, and there's no further biblical prohibition of the disfigured in the priesthood of the believers.

Your post reminds me of 1 Corinthians 2:14. You'll need to learn about the system of Covenants.

 

[mori]

Your post reminds me of 1 Corinthians 2:14. You'll need to learn about the system of Covenants.

Apologies, while I'm familiar with the verse and the idea, I'm not sure how this is a response.

 

[keshka]

You did a find [sic] job of that on your own.

Ah, taking the intellectual high ground by throwing insults around - hardly becoming of a true Christian!

Now, back to the mature stuff...

By these definitions, is not all sin, an illness?

I think the key difference is choice. People have the choice whether to steal, commit adultery, murder etc. etc., but people do not have the choice as to whether or not they are born with a defect or not.

It's debatable as to whether or not homosexuality is actually a choice, and I suppose your views on that point will obviously bias your views as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. To my mind, homosexuality is not a conscious choice, therefore not a sin. You disagree, which you're obviously free to do.

Is not heterosexuality, the normative for human beings? Indeed even more so, heterosexuality is what God ordained in the Garden of Eden, before the fall of main [sic] and the tainting of the world with sin and corruption. It would seem upon these two definitions, all sin is a disordered illness.

Another reductio ad absurdum argument coming up: in your paragraph above, you could easily replace the word 'heterosexuality" with the phrase "dark hair", and it would still make sense. But that doesn't mean that having light-coloured hair is a sin now, does it?

You're holding cultural biases that affect the way you view other cultures. Western society, especially biblically speaking, isn't all that "enlightened".

I don't know. Aren't most global human rights abuses committed outside of First World countries? I'm lucky enought to enjoy many freedoms living in the UK.

Besides which, if you look at statistics on Christianity, you'll see that those countries with the highest percentage of Christians are generally to be found in either Europe or the Americas. Of all countries with a population of over two million and have over 96% Christians, it's only Zambia that you can really consider Third World, and even then it's one of the most urbanized of all African nations.

 

[keshka]

You call it a myth, yet then refer to it as a literal event? Make up your mind.

Oh, I'm quite sure that it's a myth. But for argument's sake, and if the Garden of Eden story were true, and if Eve hadn't eaten the apple of knowledge,then there would be no reason for the Bible to exist (as humans wouldn't have the necessary skills to read, write, copy or bind it), or for Jesus to have died (because he died for our sins, and we would have been completely sinless if not for Eve's eating of the apple).

 

[jimmydiggs]

Ah, taking the intellectual high ground by throwing insults around -

I am no less of a fool than the next person.

1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

hardly becoming of a true Christian!

I had no intent to insult. I was stating what you are showing yourself to be.

Now, back to the mature stuff...

How can you return to something that never was?

I think the key difference is choice.

It's nice to know you think that. It is not you who decides though. It is God who judges. God has revealed himself through his word, and is quite clear about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

People have the choice whether to steal, commit adultery, murder etc. etc., but people do not have the choice as to whether or not they are born with a defect or not.

1) Choice is irrelevant
2)Depending on what you mean by "choice" your point may be further moot. Man "chooses" on the basis of his nature. I have a sinful nature. I still choose to sin, even though it is my nature to sin.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

It's debatable as to whether or not homosexuality is actually a choice, and I suppose your views on that point will obviously bias your views as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Doesn't matter whether it is a choice or not. Even if one is genetically bound to homosexuality, it is still sinful.

To my mind, homosexuality is not a conscious choice, therefore not a sin.

I'm glad you're honest about it being to your mind, now, what is it to God? That's what matters.

You disagree, which you're obviously free to do.

Depends on how you mean free. I do disagree strongly with you, because I seek to be true to God's word. At this point you are simply trying to justify your own religion, with your own god.

Another reductio ad absurdum argument coming up: in your paragraph above, you could easily replace the word 'heterosexuality" with the phrase "dark hair", and it would still make sense.

You completely missed my point. I was pointing out that your objection to using the words disorder and illness in description of homosexuality isn't well founded given the definitions of the words. I was not condemning homosexuality on that basis.

But that doesn't mean that having light-coloured hair is a sin now, does it?

No, see the above. Also, homosexuality is sinful because the bible is quite clear on the matter. If you can biblically demonstrate the sinfulness of a hair coloration, then I will accept that. You won't be able to though.

I don't know. Aren't most global human rights abuses committed outside of First World countries?

There is no such thing as "human rights".

I'm lucky enought to enjoy many freedoms living in the UK.

That does not make the UK a superior place.

Besides which, if you look at statistics on Christianity, you'll see that those countries with the highest percentage of Christians are generally to be found in either Europe or the Americas. Of all countries with a population of over two million and have over 96% Christians, it's only Zambia that you can really consider Third World, and even then it's one of the most urbanized of all African nations.

What is the relevance of this? I see no relevancy at all.

 

[mori]

By the way, as I suspect I already understand the objection, I'd like to point out that I anticipated it in the second paragraph:

We view this of course through the lens of Christianity, in which there are no such considerations for the lay person and the language of ritual purity and sacred places are (to many) an anachronism. In the context, however, while it did not carry an condemnation on the basis of personal fault, having any of the disorders listed carried many of the same consequences and used some of the same language as condemnations of personal faults.

Emphasis mine, not that it wouldn't be if it were in the original quote.

My argument is in response to your claim that there are no condemnations of disfigurements, etc., in scripture nor can any argument be inferred. My point is that, while the Christian understanding of sacricity and covenants allows us to personally avoid the prohibition of disfigurements, etc., in the priesthood, it doesn't allow us to pretend that it was never an actual prohibition on real people or that it wasn't described as a defilement in ways similar to moral faults.

Whoever these prohibitions applied to, under whichever covenant, does not seem particularly relevant, as long as they actually applied to someone. I then note that this very real prohibition was similar to very real condemnations. The question I have, then, is to what extent the prohibition was a condemnation in its penalties and language. To me, it's not obvious that they're completely separate things, so I'm not sure the question is as closed as you portray it.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Oh, I'm quite sure that it's a myth.

It is saddening that you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

But for argument's sake, and if the Garden of Eden story were true,

It is.

and if Eve hadn't eaten the apple of knowledge,

Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not simply "knowledge".

then there would be no reason for the Bible to exist

What is the relevancy of this?

(as humans wouldn't have the necessary skills to read, write, copy or bind it),

Assuming quite a lot here. We really don't know whether Adam and Eve would have been able to read or write. That doesn't make scripture irrelevant.

or for Jesus to have died (because he died for our sins, and we would have been completely sinless if not for Eve's eating of the apple).

This is the only thing you've got right. If it had not been for the sin of Adam and Eve, Jesus would not have been necessary concerning atonement.


You yet again show yourself to be a woman of contradiction.

 

[jimmydiggs]

@ Mori


I was not speaking on deformations in general.

You're comparing apples to diesel trucks. The bible has no condemnations of only having one arm, nor can any argument be inferred.

If you can find a condemnation of only having one arm, I will concede and confess of my error.


As for the matter of Covenants. We are under the New Covenant, and thus it is important to keep in mind that we are under New Covenant "rules". The issue of deformations concerning priesthood is irrelevant to the current discussion, since we are addressing current matters. If you want to discuss it, regarding historical concerns. Then so be it, I have but only one statement concerning that.


As an atheist, it is logically inconsistent to complain about the way God does things, as that would imply an "ought". I think you know where that will go.

The same goes for re-working Keshka's argument for the priesthood of the old covenants.

 

[mori]

First, the prohibitions I mention do include, as they are quite diverse, men with single arms. Second, in saying no arguments can be inferred, you open yourself up to reasoning from past covenants; it is no escape from the argument that the covenant itself does not apply, as it still revealed something of the character and preferences of god. Finally, this is not a complaint, but addressing the plausibility of inferring a condemnation of a certain state from scripture.

 

[jimmydiggs]

First, the prohibitions I mention do include, as they are quite diverse, men with single arms.

Could you share with me which verse you are referring to?

Second, in saying no arguments can be inferred, you open yourself up to reasoning from past covenants; it is no escape from the argument that the covenant itself does not apply, as it still revealed something of the character and preferences of god.

Yes, the Law does reveal to us much about God. There is no disagreeing there.

Finally, this is not a complaint, but addressing the plausibility of inferring a condemnation of a certain state from scripture.

Under a previous covenant, yes. Deformities would have been a problem if one sought to be in the priesthood. We are under the New Covenant. So for current matters, the New Covenant rules.