gfm7175
Mega MAGA
So you admit that it's a belief? Good.
Atheism and pedophilia
- Thread starter MarcusA
- Start date
So you admit that it's a belief? Good.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Surely of all groups, you picked the largest, and you don't know the full amount everyone has "paid out." I like to bash on the Catholic Church as much as anyone but we don't get to pretend we are omniscient.
Did you just ask me if Roman Catholic pedophiles are atheists?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Indeed, that's a NT passage as opposed to an OT passage. I'm not sure what OBE means (as I've never seen nor used that acronym before), but I am aware that different Christians hold different views on a plethora of Biblical matters, and one of them is how to view the contents of the OT.
As for me, I view the OT Mosaic law as "fulfilled" by the coming of Jesus Christ. The OT law, in historical context, was laws for the nation of Israel to set them apart from the rest of the world (as "God's people") and as a way of looking forward to Christ's coming. Since Christ has now come, there is no reason to be bound to those OT laws anymore, as Israel was at the time. Now, Christians live under the New Covenant as expressed in the NT books. That does not mean that the OT is useless information or is no longer part of God's Word; it just means that the OT laws that were specifically meant for Israel during a specific time period no longer apply to the Christians of today. I could dive more into it, but that would be for a different thread and for those who are interested in such matters.
I'm not learned enough on that specific passage's underlying Greek and etc. to make intelligent comment on the word choice of that particular translation, but I understand the point you're making there. If by unnatural we mean "not existing in nature", otherwise expressed as "artificial/synthetic/etc.", then unnatural isn't the correct word choice, and abnormal would be a more fitting choice. If by unnatural we meant "not caused by nature" (but rather by the efforts of humanity), then it might be argued that unnatural is a fitting word choice (only if the "becomes gay" position described below is accepted).
This seems closely related to the debate between whether a person is "born gay" (ie, they are gay from the moment of conception... thus, gay is caused by nature) or not (ie, they "become gay" at a later time due to whatever experiences/circumstances/choices/etc that they have... thus, gay is instead caused by humanity).
Operating from a basis that one is "born gay", then it logically leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is completely natural, albeit abnormal (akin to an albino barn swallow). Operating from a basis that one "becomes gay" at a later time, one instead comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is both unnatural and abnormal.
I get what you're saying, and it's not "wrong". And I, like you, find the particular "sin" of gay sex to be repulsive rather than tempting.
Yet, I'd say that different people are "tempted" differently (and live under different circumstances and etc.)... For example, for a completely dirt poor person living on the streets, it would be much more tempting to steal $1,000 from someone else than it would be for Donald Trump to steal that same $1,000 from someone else (as that would be chump change for Trump, while being a fortune to the dirt poor person). It might also be more tempting to steal $1,000 from someone who you hate or are feuding with ("I'm gonna stick it to you!!!") than it would be to do so from someone who you love and are rather close with ("I got your back, man!").
So, I guess that while I'm viewing sin temptation (in an all encompassing and general sense) as identically experienced by everyone, I'm not viewing specific sin temptations as being identically experienced by everyone. I can't say that I have ever felt tempted in the same way that Jesus was as recorded in Matthew 4... but my circumstances and purposes on this Earth differ from Jesus's...
Hopefully those thoughts are fairly logical. It's been a while since I've had to dig deeper into my thoughts, so that's definitely been refreshing.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Well said!Exactly! Well done. Your account is being credited.
This is something that distinguishes me (an atheist) from warmizombies (theists). I have no theism therefore I have no such belief that "there is no God" ... nor do I have the belief that there is a God. I just don't have any beliefs. I do not reject any deities; I just do not have any.
I neither reject my neighbor's house nor deny its existence; I just do not have it.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Overcome By Events ... and is now moot. You apparently fall into this category, continue ...
i.e. Mosaic law is OBE, Christ being the overcoming "event" in question.
To this type of Christian, New Testament scripture carries much more weight and is seen as a "correction" or an "update" which takes precedence wherever a perceived contradiction between New and Old Testament appears.
Yeah, the often-made claim is that homosexuality is somehow a choice. I don't see how anyone could choose something repulsive. Try it. Just for a day choose to be a homosexual and to fall in love with a man and to make love to a man. See? You can't. No heterosexual can. Calling it a choice is beyond absurd.
This is where the word "abnormal" enters the picture. Something abnormal happened to each and every homosexual in the formation process, when the genetic information was being interpreted. At a certain point the gender formation didn't link up the part of the brain with the rest of the body and yes, resulting in being born gay. Obviously it is completely natural but abnormal both statistically and as a matter of standard procreation. After that part of formation occurs, none of us have any choice in the matter at any point thereafter.
So we return to the point that originally got me spun up. I totally understand the Christian desire to adhere to Romans and to declare certain behavior to be an abomination but Christians who do so also need to come up with a better justification for why God creates homosexuals exactly as they are, per His master plan, than homosexuality being a choice. It makes as much sense as saying "it was the deceased's choice to fall 28 meters to his death during the earthquake."
Except that this doesn't apply to homosexuality, as your refusal to take a one day test-drive of homosexuality will show. No heterosexual will choose gay sex. There is no "temptation" involved.
Great points. Kudos for your ability to discuss this topic rationally. Well done. You should hire yourself out as a moderator for these discussions.
That doesn't change that you're a whore. If it weren't for the free pussy, do you really believe he'd stay around.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Makes sense, and correct.
Pretty much. Out of those two words, I am personally more partial to "update" rather than "correction". I believe the OT Mosaic law to be a "correct" recording of history, and to be useful information to Christians in the present, but I don't believe Mosaic law to be applicable to or "geared towards" Gentile Christians in the present, hence the NT covenant can maybe be thought of as an "update" or "procedural change" to the OT Mosaic law.
For example, just reading though the OT (going into the beginning of the NT), it starts off with humanity eating strictly a vegetarian diet. Then, after Adam's fall, humanity is also allowed to eat meat (both "clean" and "unclean"). Then, under Mosaic law, the nation of Israel is only allowed to eat "clean" meat (along with fruits/vegetables). Then, after Jesus's coming, humanity is allowed to eat all meat again (both "clean" and "unclean"). My assumption is that the human diet will once again be vegetarian (going "full circle") in the afterlife that is referenced in Revelation, but that's just my assumption, and that's assuming that Christianity is even true to begin with (I obviously believe that it is).
But, back to what I was saying, dietary requirements bounce all over the place, depending upon time and context, as do other laws/rules/requirements contained therein. The 10 Commandments, however, have never changed (whether OT or NT). Those suckers were carved into stone, ya know!
Well, let's just say that I most certainly would not choose to be homosexual, as I am not a homosexual and homosexuality happens to be repulsive in my eyes. Even seeing two homosexuals kissing each other repulses me, as that type of relationship just doesn't compute in my mind. And so long as I am extremely repulsed by such relations, I couldn't see myself ever choosing to have such relations... I'd have to somehow no longer be repulsed by it (and start being attracted to it) in order to choose it.
That makes logical sense.
That makes sense as well, and I see your frustration with that. How to justify... how to justify... Maybe homosexuals aren't born that way but experienced [insert specific horrific experiences here] during young childhood which led them to find heterosexual relations repulsive? Maybe they (in a way) "become addicted" to a particular sex and that "addiction", like any other, is damn hard to break? Or maybe, just maybe, they're born that way and the Christian needs to address that truth? ...
Maybe when one adheres to what is said in Romans 1 (and elsewhere), one is adhering to not doing a particular act, in this case homosexual sex. It's one thing to be tempted to have homosexual sex; it's another thing to actually go through with that action. While a homosexual may not have a choice in what sex they are attracted to, they do have a choice as to whether or not they follow through with the act of homosexual sex, just as a heterosexual has a choice as to whether or not they follow through with the act of heterosexual sex. In that scenario, being a homosexual in and of itself isn't so much the issue, but rather the homosexual's choosing to engage in homosexual sex.
As to precisely why God would create some people as homosexuals, it wouldn't be my place to say. I could only ponder various possibilities. But what if God didn't even create homosexuals in his original design of the world to begin with? What if homosexuals are simply a result of a fallen world (due to Adam's blunder)? That's not to say that homosexuals are "more defective" than heterosexuals, as it is believed that we as humans are all "defective" in one way or another (as a result of sin). It is believed that the current condition of the world (after the fall of Adam) is not the same condition as it was originally created (before the fall of Adam), so it could be argued that what is considered "natural" in this current state of the world is not necessarily what was considered "natural" in the original state of this world (before Adam's fall). Religion is fun that way.
Indeed, I refuse to take the test-drive.
Too bad there isn't more of this type of discussion from Christians and non-Christians alike... This is what I'd rather engage in over much of what goes on here... I still haven't heard back (intelligibly, anyway) from your friend in this thread regarding the question that I posed to him...
Edit: I see that ITN gave him a lovely response as well. I doubt that it will be addressed any better than mine was...
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
1st Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Yet are gay, which is not in accordance with the laws of God and Christ. That scripture has already been shown to you.
Gay behavior is living in sin. You are denying the teachings of Christ and God. So if all in Christ all shall be made alive, I don't think He will forgive you unless you turn from that behavior. He can't. Otherwise He would cease to be God. His Word would be without meaning or justification.
So you are choosing to live in a paradox of your own making. You will reap the rewards of living in that paradox as well. You cannot have children of your own. You lineage will not continue. All to satisfy a lust that will die along with you.
But you and you alone can choose to leave this behavior and return to the laws of God and Christ. Then and only then is Christ and God in a position to forgive you, and they would just as surely as they have spoken it. They do have conditions, however. You must conform to them.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are thinking like an engineer. Good. You have framed the question in a falsifiable way such that it can be proven false if it is false. For example, let's say you were to encounter several homosexuals who have privileged upbringings in very good homes, even in affluent Christian homes in which they were loved, played sports, received good educations, etc., i.e. everything wholesome with no traumatic events, you would be able to cross that possibility off your list.
Long story short ... I have crossed that possibility off my list. I know many homosexuals, all honest, middle-class guys (I actually don't know too many lesbians ... I know more "trans" than I do lesbians). Except for the homosexuality abnormailty, they are completely normal in all other regards. When they tell me "By the way, I'm gay" my reaction is always "Wow, you fooled me, I couldn't tell." That might seem like a strange reaction but that's how it is. The percentage of homosexual men who are skinny, effeminate metrosexuals who speak like Richard Simmons is miniscule. In fact, the military is full of them and nobody knows until they are outed, at which point it comes as a total surprise to everyone, ... except under Clinton's "Don't ask don't tell" but that's a different matter.
You can look at it this way ... maybe homosexuality is so satisfying that all heterosexual men who choose to take the "test drive" become instantly addicted and thereafter choose to remain homosexuals leaving only heterosexual men who have not chosen to take the "test drive" remaining as heterosexuals.Indeed, I refuse to take the test-drive.
... or maybe not.
You are officially my designated moderator for this topic. Into the Night is the permanent panel member.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Right, so we can conclude that Jesus' death and resurrection succeeded as planned and all men are now saved whereas beforehand Adam's sin was preventing that, yes?
We can conclude that Jesus' effort was not some sort of failed attempt but that Adam's original sin was forgiven, yes?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Are you saying that you'll love any flavor of ice cream that crosses your path?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That's not what gfm7175 wrote.
He specifically addressed the affirmative belief that "there is no God." That is a belief, not a lack of a belief. In fact, it is a theistic belief and precludes one from being an atheist.
An atheist lacks any belief in God as well as any belief in the nonexistence of God.
Completely correct. Better wording is that religion requires an unfalsifiable assumption without a rational basis ... but you are nonetheless spot on.
... and you would be incorrect. One cannot have any sort of theistic beliefs and yet remain atheistic. The technical word for that is "contradiction."
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Oh no, even when I was a whore, I was a whore with standards.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So no mint chocolate chip, is that what you're telling me?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Is that code for Irishmen with black admixture?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Jesus is at your doorstep bearing great tidings and gifts... Will you open up the door and accept all them goodies?