I think that may be the key point in this discussion.
You believe in a universal sovereign. (And it happens to be the one leading your club.) You assume to have the right to declare laws on behalf of that sovereign. You possibly even want to overthrow the constitution to get rid of religious freedom (and should therefore be on a government watch list.)
I assume to have the right to declare laws on behalf of that sovereign? How so? Did I write the scriptures?
"overthrow the constitution to get rid of religious freedom" ...What? I'll assume you are joking. Right?
At least that is what I (and I guess others here) hear when someone talks about "universal sovereigns".
Oh the system will be thrown out, yes... but it won't be by me. The thing is, the nations are powerless to stop what is coming. It prophecy.
(1 Kings 22:19) I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left.
(Revelation 5:11) And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . .
That doesn't look like a human army to me.
This is actually the account in the Bible, where the attendant of Elijah was allowed to see Jehovah's angelic army.
In time, the nations too will be allowed to see that army, as it arrives.
Then they will have to know that Jehovah is God of armies.
Unfortunately for them, no Government on earth can keep that army on a watch list. Even if they could though, how would that save them. (Daniel 2:44, 45 ; Revelation 19:14-18)
(Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. . . .
To soften that view, can we agree that
1. You have the constitutional right to not engage in homosexual intercourse.
2. Your church has the right to tell its members that they should not engage in homosexual intercourse if they want to stay on the good side of your agreed upon diety.
3. People not in your congregation have the right to their own religious or non-religious morality.
4. Let's all hold to the rights of everyone as set by secular law.
Yes. we can definitely agree on these. I hope you did not get the idea that I didn't
I'm now wondering if you understand the focus of the OP. Hmm.
I suspect that if you actually talked to those 'heathens', they don't act like what you think.
Thanks for volunteering.
And that is a basic point of disagreement. Even if there was a creator (which I don't think there is), that creator would NOT have the right to set standards. If that creation has conscious, feeling individuals, then the creator does NOT have the right to torture them. It does NOT have the right to set of a cruel system which makes their lives miserable.
He would have the right, just as all of us have rights. The difference would be that no one could put him in jail, and he could easily just out everyone else's lights.
However, the God of the Bible does not torture anyone. According to the scriptures, that's not part of God's nature.
(Job 34:10-12)
10 So listen to me, you men of understanding:
It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, For the Almighty to do wrong! 11 For he will reward a man according to what he does And bring upon him the consequences of his ways.
12 For a certainty, God does not act wickedly; The Almighty does not pervert justice.
(Jeremiah 7:31)
This gets to a very basic issue: from where does morality come? Is it dictated by some being? Or does it follow from compassion and caring?
If the creator is evil, I don't think there is any burden to follow him/her/it. If the creator is good, it should be easy to justify the rules promoted by that creator. Either way, it is compassion and caring that determine morality, NOT the desires of some creator. At least, that's how I see it.
So, if a creator says that homosexuality is immoral without saying *why* it is immoral, there is no requirement to follow the dictates of that creator. If the immorality *can* be justified by showing the actual harm and that harm is greater than the harm of oppression, then the rules should be followed by rational beings. But then, they would be.
Interesting.
I have heard people say, it is compassionate to put people out of their misery, and since the world is so miserable for them, killing them is the solution.
So we even have different views on what is compassion, and caring.
I understand what it means to be compassionate. You understand what it means to be compassionate, and yet they have varying degrees of differences.
How then can it be "compassion and caring that determine morality" if people have a problem determining what is involved in being compassionate and caring?
Maybe the ones who don't understand it the way we do are immoral?
OK, you can choose whatever book you want to follow. But that doesn't mean you get to say the choices others make are immoral. If *you* don't want to do them, that is your business. But, if someone else wants to do something your doesn't like, then they can do so as long as it doesn't harm others. If you want to impose your system on others, you have to give a good reason for doing so.
I don't know where in this thread you got the idea that I want to impose anything. Perhaps you got an idea and went with it, but it certainly is nothing to do with me.
What I am interested in is, for one thing this... "as long as it doesn't harm", as it's part of the argument.
When you don't know what harm is done, you cannot determine that something does no harm. So that last clause throws your argument in the trash. Unless... you can prove that it does not harm others.
It does. I showed this before.
So the trash bin wins.
And, again, each society chooses at what stage a person is considered an adult. Traditional Biblical society said it was at age 13. But you seem to think that is too young to engage in sex in spite of Biblical precedent.
Perhaps you did not understand what I said. I think you should read my post carefully.
If you did read it carefully, I don't think you would reasonably make that contrast.
Considering that conditions change over time, there are
reasons why laws or processes change.
For example, God allowed incest for a time. It was not allowed later.
Your right to swing your arm stops at my face. It really is that simple.
An act is immoral if it causes unnecessary harm to another.
There you go using another term that's relative and contextual. Unnecessary, based on what, or whom?
Harm may be necessary. Determining when it is necessary is based on the circumstances.
Take for example war.
Using your reasoning, and or use of these terms so loosely, to support your argument, all war veterans are immoral....and the people who pull the trigger of any gun, including law enforcement.
If you are not saying that, then I don't understand. You'll need to try again.
If you are saying war, and shooting criminals are necessary, then causing harm to someone, is not the determining factor of what is immoral.
So using the phrase - I call it an imaginary crutch, "if it does not cause harm", is really no help to the heathen.
Unless you can show specific harm, then there is no reason to restrict an act.
I believe gay sex is moral for exactly the same reason I believe straight sex is moral and in the same situations: it is an expression of love and caring between people, strengthening the bond between them. Or, alternatively, it is a mutually beneficial interaction where stress is released and a human connection is made.
I don't think people can't see the harm. I think they don't want to see it.