ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

[Marisa]

Would it be loving or kind to hide the truth for fear someone may take offense or accuse you of "religious intolerance"? I think the Bible accurately foretold the situation today amongst so many professed "Christians". 2 Timothy 4:3,4 says; "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories."

If the god who's "truth" you're telling is immoral, are you being loving and kind? How can you be expected to be capble of assessing moral good when you follow a god who condemns people for refusing to rape a young woman?

 

[Marisa]

Of course, that is not what happened, but deserves discussion in it's own thread, IMO.

I am going to continue to critique your source of morality. You're going to continue to tell me I'm wrong and you're right. At the end of the day, if you can't say you're accepting of people despite what you're compromised ability to evaluate morality tells you, then you can keep right on telling me I'm wrong. You have to, it's the only way to convince yourself that your moral guide really is moral.

 

[Kolibri]

Given that the god you worship kills people for not raping a virgin in the moral paragon story YOU posted (Lot) what rational reason can you give for why anyone should suppose this god is equipped to asses morality?

The account about Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was about a lot more than what was attempted the night before the destruction.

Why were the angels on their way in the first place?

"Then Jehovah said: 'The outcry against Sod'om and Go-mor'rah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy. I will go down (through representative angels) to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it." - Ge 18:20,21

All those prayers of the afflicted had reached this One in the heavens. And he was making sure that those loyal to him knew that he was not acting without verified cause.

The intent was the same as the action. They proved what they would have done if they were not blinded by the angels visiting Lot. This whole city condoned this sort of mentality. Not even 10 righteous people could be found. (Ge 19:11; 18:32)

 

[Marisa]

The account about Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was about a lot more than what was attempted the night before the destruction.

Why were the angels on their way in the first place?

"Then Jehovah said: 'The outcry against Sod'om and Go-mor'rah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy. I will go down (through representative angels) to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it." - Ge 18:20,21

All those prayers of the afflicted had reached this One in the heavens. And he was making sure that those loyal to him knew that he was not acting without verified cause.

The intent was the same as the action. They proved what they would have done if they were not blinded by the angels visiting Lot. This whole city condoned this sort of mentality. Not even 10 righteous people could be found. (Ge 19:11; 18:32)

You're not helping your case any to suggest it's ever okay commit genocide.

 

[Kolibri]

You're not helping your case any to suggest it's ever okay commit genocide.

"I" do not commit genocide. "I" am not in a position to know read peoples hearts. As Christians, as well as the those the were under the Law Covenant were told by Jehovah that "vengeance is mine, and retribution." None of us are authorized to seek vengeance for ourselves. (De 32:35; Rom 12:19)

It is actually a loving thing for God to act in this way at specific times.

The wicked one is a ransom for the righteous one,
And the treacherous one will be taken in place of the upright.
- Proverbs 21:18

He does not act like this everyday, or we would know it. However, instead, he sets aside a "day of vengeance."

To proclaim the year of Jehovah's goodwill (or "favor.")
And the day of vengeance of our God,
To comfort all who mourn.
- Isaiah 61:2

Remember vengeance is defined as "retribution exacted for an injury or wrong." What the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah received was not genocide but vengeance. It comforted all those that were harmed by them. No more would anyone be hurt by these who were determined to cause others harm.

 

[Marisa]

"I" do not commit genocide. "I" am not in a position to know read peoples hearts. As Christians, as well as the those the were under the Law Covenant were told by Jehovah that "vengeance is mine, and retribution." None of us are authorized to seek vengeance for ourselves. (De 32:35; Rom 12:19)

It is actually a loving thing for God to act in this way at specific times.

The wicked one is a ransom for the righteous one,
And the treacherous one will be taken in place of the upright.
- Proverbs 21:18

He does not act like this everyday, or we would know it. However, instead, he sets aside a "day of vengeance."

To proclaim the year of Jehovah's goodwill (or "favor.")
And the day of vengeance of our God,
To comfort all who mourn.
- Isaiah 61:2

Remember vengeance is defined as "retribution exacted for an injury or wrong." What the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah received was not genocide but vengeance. It comforted all those that were harmed by them. No more would anyone be hurt by these who were determined to cause others harm.

I did not say you commit genocide. Genocide is never an act of love and in any other circumstance you would agree. Most of the time, though, most people are far more moral than the gods they worship.

ETA: Calling it vengeance isn't helping with the morality issue either.

 

[Kolibri]

I did not say you commit genocide.

In a rush to post, "I" did not proofread long enough. I was not implying that you said I do. But people do tend to approve of what they "think" their God has done. "He is Holy, so what he did must be right or copied!" That is so not true on 2 levels, one it was not genocide, it was vengeance. And two it is one of the rights that Jehovah reserves for himself. None of his worshippers are authorized to work out their own vengeance.

 

[Marisa]

In a rush to post, "I" did not proofread long enough. I was not implying that you said I do. But people do tend to approve of what they "think" their God has done. "He is Holy, so what he did must be right or copied!" That is so not true on 2 levels, one it was not genocide, it was vengeance, and two it is one of the rights that Jehovah reserves for himself. None of his worshippers are authorized to work out their own vengeance.

I'm aware that people approve of what their gods do, otherwise they wouldn't worship those gods. I question that process when those gods' rules are used to dehumanize other people, otherwise I don't care who worships what.

ETA: calling it vengeance still isn't helping to make it more moral.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not if they are true Christians. As 1 Corinthians 6:11 affirms; "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." Such a person completely changes their thinking and desires, IMO. This applies to other unrighteous conduct, such as adultery, stealing, drunkenness, etc. in addition to homosexuality.

I do believe it is not your position to judge whether or not someone is a "true" Christian or not. But, as Marissa pointed out, that is a logical fallacy known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

The account about Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was about a lot more than what was attempted the night before the destruction.

So, it's OK then if God wipes out two entire cities over a relative few years of sin to condemn them to eternal damnation, before even revealing himself and trying to set them straight?

 

[Kolibri]

I'm aware that people approve of what their gods do, otherwise they wouldn't worship those gods. I question that process when those gods' rules are used to dehumanize other people, otherwise I don't care who worships what.

ETA: calling it vengeance still isn't helping to make it more moral.

When God's rules are used to dehumanize other people, it is an immoral thing. These rules apply to his worshippers and are only relevant to non-worshippers when they are faced with a warning that time is running out for this world to be self-ruled.

The attitude of true Christians eventually gets modified to match this scripture. (Everyone has inappropriate prejudices that need dismantled, but that individually takes time.):

"For what do I have to do with judging those outside [the congregation]? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? 'Remove the wicked person [the one unrepentantly practicing gross sin] from among yourselves.'(De 17:7)"
- 1 Corinthians 5:12,13

What goes on outside of the congregation regarding things that will not be tolerated within the congregation is their business, at least until they want to serve Jehovah or until the foretold day of destruction arrives. We have no business judging non-believers or anyone as sub-human.

 

[Kolibri]

So, it's OK then if God wipes out two entire cities over a relative few years of sin to condemn them to eternal damnation, before even revealing himself and trying to set them straight?

First that depends on how you define 'eternal damnation'. If you mean conscious torment that that would be very very severe. If you mean everlasting unconsciousness, that is not so harsh. The Bible does not reveal every detail of what happened. It is a miracle of condescension.

What we are told is that God "rescued righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people-- for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them." (2 Peter 2:7,8)

Jesus also told us that "out of the heart's abundance his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:45)

Surely Lot would have spoken out at least some, at least to his potential sons-in-law. Besides they also had recent history as a warning. According to Bible chronology the Flood of Noah's Day was in the year 2370 B.C.E. This would be in the relatively recent memory of those that lived about the time Sodom was destroyed in the mid-1900s B.C.E. Only about 400 years had past.

 

[chevron1]

Let's not forget that Lot was allowed to have sex with his daughters too, apparently with God's permission. And then you choose to think that because ther is no mention by Jesus that that means he continues to adhere to OT precepts but of course only the ones that fit your current agenda.

let's also not forget that adam and eve are brother and sister and that god punished adam when he should have only punished eve. thats because there are no extenuating circumstances.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm aware that people approve of what their gods do, otherwise they wouldn't worship those gods. I question that process when those gods' rules are used to dehumanize other people, otherwise I don't care who worships what.

One of the reasons why I left. I walked toward Buddhism (Zen first for several years, Tibetan for several more), and found myself walking away from THAT, too, once I found the concept of karma sounded great in theory but was monstrous IMO when discussing why bad things happen to good people.

Well, that, and I found Buddhism to be not that much better when it came to misogyny and homophobia/biphobia in its ranks.

ETA: calling it vengeance still isn't helping to make it more moral.

Word.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What we are told is that God "rescued righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people-- for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them." (2 Peter 2:7,8)

So rescuing Lot required the two cities to be destroyed? Why couldn't he just have gotten Lot out of there, and worked and making the cities of sin less sinful?

let's also not forget that adam and eve are brother and sister and that god punished adam when he should have only punished eve. thats because there are no extenuating circumstances.

Adam also ate the fruit. Why shouldn't have god punished him as well for his disobedience?

 

[Marisa]

First that depends on how you define 'eternal damnation'. If you mean conscious torment that that would be very very severe. If you mean everlasting unconsciousness, that is not so harsh. The Bible does not reveal every detail of what happened. It is a miracle of condescension.

What we are told is that God "rescued righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people-- for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them." (2 Peter 2:7,8)

Jesus also told us that "out of the heart's abundance his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:45)

Surely Lot would have spoken out at least some, at least to his potential sons-in-law. Besides they also had recent history as a warning. According to Bible chronology the Flood of Noah's Day was in the year 2370 B.C.E. This would be in the relatively recent memory of those that lived about the time Sodom was destroyed in the mid-1900s B.C.E. Only about 400 years had past.

Regardless of how we opt to define eternal damnation this fine sunshiny Saturday, I don't accept that the god depicted in the bible is equipped to judge matters of morality or any individual's character, what with his fixation on vengeance and all.

 

[Marisa]

let's also not forget that adam and eve are brother and sister and that god punished adam when he should have only punished eve. thats because there are no extenuating circumstances.

A god that's fine with incest is your example of a moral paragon?

 

[Kolibri]

So rescuing Lot required the two cities to be destroyed? Why couldn't he just have gotten Lot out of there, and worked and making the cities of sin less sinful?

Why should he leave them to wreak untold harm on anyone else traveling and trying to spend the night? Why should he let a nation that encouraged their young ones to join them in their extremely harmful conduct to grow and spread the harm. Rather than being focused on vengeance, God told Abraham that if he could find just 10 righteous people the cities would be spared. Not even 10 could be found, so those that were found were helped to flee.

How has modern reformation efforts worked on hardened criminals?

Those people were hardened in their disregard for other people's well-being and teaching their young ones to be the same. Why are we being bothered by Jehovah ironically disregarding their well-being?

 

[Kolibri]

A god that's fine with incest is your example of a moral paragon?

What was done by Lot's daughters, (getting him to drunk to know/stop what he was doing) was not spoken of with favor. It does however give us context of how the Moabites and Ammorites were related to the Israelites.
These nations historically hated the Israelites when they should have regarded them as family.

 

[Marisa]

Why should he leave them to wreak untold harm on anyone else traveling and trying to spend the night? Why should he let a nation that encouraged their young ones to join them in their extremely harmful conduct to grow and spread the harm. Rather than being focused on vengeance, God told Abraham that if he could find just 10 righteous people the cities would be spared. Not even 10 could be found, so those that were found were helped to flee.

How has modern reformation efforts worked on hardened criminals?

Those people were hardened in their disregard for other people's well-being and teaching their young ones to be the same. Why are we being bothered by Jehovah ironically disregarding their well-being?

Which modern reformation acts have been instituted by all powerful, benevolent deities? The gid of the bible is a GOD not a mere mortal.

 

[Marisa]

What was done by Lot's daughters, (getting him to drunk to know/stop what he was doing) was not spoken of with favor. It does however give us context of how the Moabites and Ammorites were related to the Israelites.
These nations historically hated the Israelites when they should have regarded them as family.

Did you read the comment to which I was replying? Incest is a god of the bible approved way of increasing the human population. It is mentioned or alluded to more than one, approvingly, by god.