• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ditching a friend for offensive beliefs?

Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
eik said:
Nasty? Do you know where your religion is leading you to?

2 Cor 2:16 "To the one, we are an odor of death and demise; to the other, a fragrance that brings life. And who is qualified for such a task?"
​
It's not nasty to bring life to those selected for it. But as for the odor of death: such has always been so, since the beginning of Abrahamic religion.


The reason I rated piculet's post was because it is taught by the bible, both NT and OT, and common to Abrahamic religions, or at least those that purport to be so (whether they really are or not) that homosexuality is certainly a matter of choice. Moreover it is also taught that practioners of it "receive in themselves the due penalty" Romans 1:26,27. The due penalty is psychological corruption, the inability of the mind to retain power over one's own body, i.e. the inability to repent, for "wickedness will not release those who practice it" Eccl 8:8. Some are graciously allowed to repent, however; but those of your particular religious persuasion, I am not sure. You seem to be creating justifications for continuance out of arguments about nature.


But to call a spade a spade is only what I am doing. You have said so yourself, that your nature is sacrosanct. It cannot be changed. It is written in stone. That is putting your nature on a pedestal. Why should I accept it? It is axiomatic that everyone's "nature" can be changed, because otherwise God would not have called on sinners to repent. Acts 17:30. "Put on the divine nature" says Peter in 2 Pet 1:4.


Deep evil starts with those who disobey God. Everyone is guilty, you're not an exception. Original sin posits all as sinners. It's that Abrahamic religion does not recognize any argument that makes a case for non-repentance. No: all such arguments are invalid ab initio and ipso facto as they commence from the position that it is justifiable to "hate God." Romans 1:30.

It's like a shoplifter addicted to shoplifting who says, "it's my nature." Why should anyone credit it?
Click to expand...
You are a perfect exemplar of what I detest most about some religious people. .

It seems you can quote scripture out of both ends (no doubt), but can't find human empathy anywhere in your body.

I shan't respond to you any further, for fear I might wish to say something I might be censured for.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
eik said:
See Romans 1. I can't reconcile it with your position.
Click to expand...
That's most likely referring to pagan backsliders taking part in sex rituals. The Bible doesn't have much to say about modern LGBT people, mostly because the concept didn't exist back then and they viewed sexual orientation very differently. Even the idea of marrying freely for love would've been foreign to them. These are people who lived thousands of years ago in very different cultures from the 21st century West, after all. We've learned a lot more and cultures change.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
eik said:
They're those who have been called, throughout the history of the church, "antinomians" i.e. those who have forsaken the law of God.
Click to expand...
They've only existed since 1785 so I don't know what you're talking about. It's just a branch of the Church of England, which split from the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why you single them out.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Piculet said:
I said a lifestyle of a homosexual. By that I mean a lifestyle adopted by someone who chooses to live as a homosexual; who does not suppress this side of his desires. I'm sure you understand what I mean.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but there's no particular way all gay, lesbian or bisexual people live. Just like there's no heterosexual "lifestyle".
 
eik

eik

Active Member
Saint Frankenstein said:
They've only existed since 1785 so I don't know what you're talking about. It's just a branch of the Church of England, which split from the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why you single them out.
Click to expand...
Per wiki "Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so. The term has both religious and secular meanings."

The term came to the fore in Martin Luther's theses and disputations against the antinomians:

"Luther reviews and reaffirms, on the one hand, what has been called the "second use of the law," that is, the law as the Holy Spirit's tool to work sorrow over sin in man's heart, thus preparing him for Christ's fulfillment of the law offered in the gospel.

Luther states that everything that is used to work sorrow over sin is called the law, even if it is Christ's life, Christ's death for sin, or God's goodness experienced in creation. Simply refusing to preach the Ten Commandments among Christians—thereby, as it were, removing the three letters l-a-w from the church—does not eliminate the accusing law. Claiming that the law—in any form—should not be preached to Christians anymore would be tantamount to asserting that Christians are no longer sinners in themselves and that the church consists only of essentially holy people." (Wiki)
​
The episcopal church no longer preaches the law. It pretends to holiness simply by dint of what you label yourself and whom you associate with, and more particularly, what your politics are. It is no longer any kind of Christian church.
 
eik

eik

Active Member
Saint Frankenstein said:
That's most likely referring to pagan backsliders taking part in sex rituals. The Bible doesn't have much to say about modern LGBT people, mostly because the concept didn't exist back then and they viewed sexual orientation very differently. Even the idea of marrying freely for love would've been foreign to them. These are people who lived thousands of years ago in very different cultures from the 21st century West, after all. We've learned a lot more and cultures change.
Click to expand...
The Bible has a lot to say about LGBT people: see Jude. You should not for one moment suppose that today's are any different from yesterday's.

Sexual orientation was accounted as a judgement of God if non-natural: see latter part of Romans 1:27.
 
eik

eik

Active Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
You are a perfect exemplar of what I detest most about some religious people. .

It seems you can quote scripture out of both ends (no doubt), but can't find human empathy anywhere in your body.
Click to expand...
I am not required to have any empathy with you. Titus 1:16 applies to anyone who professes to know God.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Eddi said:
Question: Have you ever ditched a friend for holding offensive beliefs?

My story:.....
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
Why surround yourself with rubbish when there's so much value out there? You were right!

I've dumped friends for offensive beliefs but mostly for offensive actions. But not all.

Some few of my friends are South East Londoners whose families sold up their homes and moved out to the country and sea-side because they didn't like the immigrant folks who were just earning enough (by then) to buy their own homes.

It's no good if I try to explain to my friends that their ancestors were the problem, (which they were..... I'll spare you the details). These friends are not (just) bigoted..... NO. BIgotry is too mild a definition of their mindsets about Asians and Africans. One, on the other hand, was a Muslim who traveled to Pakistan to do a deal for his nine year old daughter when she would be of marriageable age..... a rich man would pay lots for a son to marry such an English girl. All horrid mindsets.

But these friends used to work with me, saved me from injuries or helped me in difficult situations. And I helped them. I trusted them.

And so I still keep these people as friends, and I hope that the good bits about me might have influenced them as I know that the good bits about them have surely influenced me. :)
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
eik said:
I am not required to have any empathy with you. Titus 1:16 applies to anyone who professes to know God.
Click to expand...
Since nobody knows who wrote Titus (except that it wasn't Paul), I'd have to ask: "what would Jesus have to say about your statement?"
 
eik

eik

Active Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Since nobody knows who wrote Titus (except that it wasn't Paul), I'd have to ask: "what would Jesus have to say about your statement?"
Click to expand...
Of no real consequence as almost nothing can be deduced affirmatively from linguistics alone. The content supports the authenticity. The letters to Timothy and Titus continue the account of Paul’s mission from the book of Acts and Paul’s earlier letters.

Recent scholarship has revived the theory that Paul used an amanuensis, or secretaries, in writing his letters (e.g. Rom 16:22), but possibly Luke for the pastorals. This was a common practice in ancient letter writing, even for the biblical writers. At the end of his life, Paul might have suffered from bad eye sight.

Your dogmatisms cannot be proved. Many similar criticisms of scholars based on mere conjecture have been disproved over the years.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Eddi said:
Question: Have you ever ditched a friend for holding offensive beliefs?
Click to expand...

Well I am probably far too selective in forming friendships (probably a fault) such that very few who have been friends have been banished for what they might believe, most just exiting my life due to the normal processes of leaving the vicinity and/or losing contact. I miss quite a few of them. Mostly it has been a few dumping me, but then I see that more as reflecting on them, and I'm not too bothered if they just drift off. And I don't think it was over any of my beliefs. I can only think of a few who held rather different beliefs than myself - the occasional one perhaps being a bit more right-wing than myself and most of my friends - but mostly we would not discuss such so as to fall out.

So overall, I am unlikely to make friends with anyone who does hold any beliefs I would find really offensive.

(Religious beliefs mainly are not included in this unless of the most extreme kind, since I don't really care what one believes in this regard, but mostly my friends are not at all religious.) :praying:
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
eik said:
The Bible has a lot to say about LGBT people: see Jude. You should not for one moment suppose that today's are any different from yesterday's.

Sexual orientation was accounted as a judgement of God if non-natural: see latter part of Romans 1:27.
Click to expand...
That Jude verse was referring to the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, which was a case of attempted gang rape of angels in disguise. That has nothing to do with gay people in general.

I already mentioned the context of Romans. Either way, Paul was just a man and not God Himself. I take what he said with a grain of salt. He said much useful things but other things are dated relics of his bygone culture.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
eik said:
Per wiki "Antinomianism is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms, or is at least considered to do so. The term has both religious and secular meanings."

The term came to the fore in Martin Luther's theses and disputations against the antinomians:

"Luther reviews and reaffirms, on the one hand, what has been called the "second use of the law," that is, the law as the Holy Spirit's tool to work sorrow over sin in man's heart, thus preparing him for Christ's fulfillment of the law offered in the gospel.

Luther states that everything that is used to work sorrow over sin is called the law, even if it is Christ's life, Christ's death for sin, or God's goodness experienced in creation. Simply refusing to preach the Ten Commandments among Christians—thereby, as it were, removing the three letters l-a-w from the church—does not eliminate the accusing law. Claiming that the law—in any form—should not be preached to Christians anymore would be tantamount to asserting that Christians are no longer sinners in themselves and that the church consists only of essentially holy people." (Wiki)
​
The episcopal church no longer preaches the law. It pretends to holiness simply by dint of what you label yourself and whom you associate with, and more particularly, what your politics are. It is no longer any kind of Christian church.
Click to expand...
I attend an Episcopal parish and never saw any of that. They never said we weren't sinners or didn't need God's grace (I wouldn't attend such a church that taught those things as my theology is fairly conservative). A form of the Confiteor is recited during the liturgy, as well.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Piculet said:
Nonsense. Living a lifestyle of a homosexual or the likes, is a choice.
Click to expand...
You mean like mine?
Get an education, get a job, find a compatible mate, pay taxes and buy groceries, do a lot of volunteer work,
now care for elderly relatives....

That's my homosexual lifestyle. You think I'm wrong for making those choices?
If so, what do you think is wrong with them?
Tom
 
Piculet

Piculet

Active Member
Saint Frankenstein said:
Yeah, but there's no particular way all gay, lesbian or bisexual people live. Just like there's no heterosexual "lifestyle".
Click to expand...
But you did understand what I meant, right? The choosing of a parter of the same sex, the having sex with someone of the same sex, the promoting of such behaviour, the imitating of the opposite sex that is quite common among gay people, etc.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Piculet said:
But you did understand what I meant, right? The choosing of a parter of the same sex, the having sex with someone of the same sex, the promoting of such behaviour, the imitating of the opposite sex that is quite common among gay people, etc.
Click to expand...
I just don't see one's sexual orientation as a "lifestyle". There is no one lifestyle all gays share, or straights for that matter.

Feminine men are not trying to "imitate" the opposite sex. Men can be feminine and women can be masculine, and that includes straight people. It doesn't mean they want to be the opposite sex (then they'd be transgender).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top