Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question for Leonhard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    It's not common. ... Statistics are all over the place, but in most nations surveys estimate that people struggling with same sex attraction make up only between 1% to not much more than 4% of a population.
    I wouldn't call a rate between 1% and 4% uncommon. But we'd be nitpicking words. I don't see the significance of your point.

    My thoughts exactly. I hope, though, that sort of explains why people may refer to homosexuality being sinful while they may not be necessarily referring to a physical sex act.
    Actually I do think its problematic, because a lot of the time I have to explain that Christian don't considers gays to be sinful qua having these attractions, but only if they're acted on. Because they hear the opposite, namely that Christians considers gays themselves to be wicked for having attractions no reasonable person can expect them to control.

    Understood, but as I explain above, people need to understand why things are out of the ordinary.
    Its fine that people are curious, but not that my testimony is simple doubted and rejected out of hand. If they're curious, but not the type of person I want to talk to about it, I'll simple tell them that I'm not interested in a conversation about it. If its a friendly person, like most people on tweb can be, then I usually don't mind. However if I say these things and I'm treated with an odd kind of suspicion... why should I ever pipe up about it or feel welcomed?

    Explaining why people act badly is not an excuse for the behavior.

    I'm willing to bet that if you found something out of the ordinary with me, you'd probably make guesses about why I do that out of the ordinary thing.
    I might hazard a charitable guess, but never a judgemental one. And I'd never doubt your words to your face. If you confessed you were raped by a woman I wouldn't go "Oh come on, you can't be raped by a woman." or if you told me that occasionally you fall into severe depressions I wouldn't go "Yeah, but you know... we all feel blue now and then. There's nothing uncommon about that. Its usually just an excuse to not go out and do something about it. Sloth ya know..." and other similarly distrustful and ignorant statements.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      I wouldn't call a rate between 1% and 4% uncommon. But we'd be nitpicking words.
      Okay, well we're definitely going to have to disagree. 1%-4% is certainly not common by my way of thinking.

      I don't see the significance of your point.
      Where are you having problems exactly? Is it that you don't understand why people need to make sense out of things that are not the norm for them?

      Actually I do think its problematic, because a lot of the time I have to explain that Christian don't considers gays to be sinful qua having these attractions, but only if they're acted on. Because they hear the opposite, namely that Christians considers gays themselves to be wicked for having attractions no reasonable person can expect them to control.
      But you'd be wrong to explain to someone that it's only sin if it's acted upon. As you yourself have confessed, lust would also be sin. People may believe that when they hear that someone is struggling with same sex attraction, that they're also struggling with the sin of lust. So unless specifically stated to the contrary, they may feel they're left to fill the blanks. I agree though, that one ought not to automatically leap to conclusions that just because someone is struggling with same sex attraction that they are wicked.

      Its fine that people are curious, but not that my testimony is simple doubted and rejected out of hand. If they're curious, but not the type of person I want to talk to about it, I'll simple tell them that I'm not interested in a conversation about it. If its a friendly person, like most people on tweb can be, then I usually don't mind. However if I say these things and I'm treated with an odd kind of suspicion... why should I ever pipe up about it or feel welcomed?
      Ok.

      Explaining why people act badly is not an excuse for the behavior.
      In my opinion, I think it depends on motivation. Most Christians I think are honestly concerned, and honestly want to help. Knowing why they may say or do something that you find annoying does, in fact, excuse some of their behavior. There are others, though, who only have motivations that are uncharitable. Who seek to tear down and hurt in order that they may feel bigger and more holy. Nothing really excuses their bad behavior.

      I might hazard a charitable guess, but never a judgemental one. And I'd never doubt your words to your face. If you confessed you were raped by a woman I wouldn't go "Oh come on, you can't be raped by a woman." or if you told me that occasionally you fall into severe depressions I wouldn't go "Yeah, but you know... we all feel blue now and then. There's nothing uncommon about that. Its usually just an excuse to not go out and do something about it. Sloth ya know..." and other similarly distrustful and ignorant statements.
      I think if you were honest with yourself you might find it reasonable to doubt my words depending on what you know about me, or the type of sins I fess up to. Again, taking Richard Carrier as an example, he claims that polyamory is just the way he is. He couldn't help cheating on his wife, and flirting with students. He was just born that way. I think people have good reason to think that he's being very dishonest. That the truth is that he just doesn't want to take responsibility for acting out on his hedonism. Now, I'm not comparing you to Richard Carrier. That isn't the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is that it is not unreasonable for some people to desire to fill in the gaps about things they perceive to be out of the norm. Sometimes filling in the gaps means making charitable guesses, sometimes it means taking a more systematic approach, sometimes it's informed by previous experience, sometimes it's informed by the type of person they are, or the type of person the subject is. I guess my point is, these things are far from uncomplicated.
      Last edited by Adrift; 07-28-2016, 04:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Where are you having problems exactly? Is it that you don't understand why people need to make sense out of things that are not the norm for them?
        I don't know whether you're defending them as in "Leonhard this thread has no point. People are people, and people do this because they don't know about it." or "Christian people rarely encounter homosexual people, that's why they're highly dubious when one of their members confess it."

        But you'd be wrong to explain to someone that it's only sin if it's acted upon. As you yourself have confessed, lust would also be sin.
        Lust is a mental act. You intentionally dwell on something you shouldn't. You engage in fantasy. There is no sin without will. Feeling, desires, various movements of the heart, these are usually all involuntarily and we're not held accountable for them, only for what we do in the will. This might be a difference of moral theology between you and me though. I'm with the Catholic Church on this one. If you want a discussion about whether desires are sinful, then open a thread about it. I won't discuss this further in this thread.

        In my opinion, I think it depends on motivation. Most Christians I think are honestly concerned, and honestly want to help.
        And therefore they should inform themselves, start to speak to gay Christians.

        Knowing why they may say or do something that you find annoying does, in fact, excuse some of their behavior.
        It makes it understandable. Hence I can have more patience with it, as I can be an understanding person, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it okay, and alright, and something for which nothing should be done.

        There are others, though, who only have motivations that are uncharitable.
        A lot of self-educated apologists should really stick to their knitting in my opinion, especially when it comes to subjects like this. Wanna defend the biblical view of homosexuality, great. Wanna tell me your favorite theory about why gays are gays, or perform strawman arguments about the non-existence of the gay gene, then you should really start to read some other stuff.

        I think if you were honest with yourself you might find it reasonable to doubt my words depending on what you know about me, or the type of sins I fess up to.
        You're free to think that, as I don't think I can stop you, but I don't.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          I don't know whether you're defending them as in "Leonhard this thread has no point. People are people, and people do this because they don't know about it." or "Christian people rarely encounter homosexual people, that's why they're highly dubious when one of their members confess it."
          I'm simply trying to give you some understanding for people's motivations. That the people you are agitated with often have good reasons for acting the way they sometimes do. Not that the way they act is necessarily right or wrong in-of-itself, but just as you're attempting to convey your mindset, I think its important to understand the other side's mindset as well. It's not always based in a sort of "holier than though" attitude. It's my hope that understanding both sides of the equation furthers productive dialogue.

          Lust is a mental act. You intentionally dwell on something you shouldn't. You engage in fantasy.
          Okay that's fair. As long as others are aware that when you're referring to the "act" of homosexuality being sinful they know that you mean both the physical act and the mental act. Most people probably only have in mind the physical act when you tell someone that you do not engage in "homosexual acts". I could see your friend outside of the church still showing concern about mental acts even after you reassured him that your "friend" doesn't engage in "homosexual acts".

          There is no sin without will. Feeling, desires, various movements of the heart, these are usually all involuntarily and we're not held accountable for them, only for what we do in the will. This might be a difference of moral theology between you and me though. I'm with the Catholic Church on this one. If you want a discussion about whether desires are sinful, then open a thread about it. I won't discuss this further in this thread.
          While I think that's an interesting line of topic, that's not at all where I was going.

          And therefore they should inform themselves, start to speak to gay Christians.
          Not everyone has that opportunity, or knows that they do. And sometimes talking to gay Christians means that they'll end up doing the exact things you find irritating, because they don't have a basis to work from.

          It makes it understandable. Hence I can have more patience with it, as I can be an understanding person, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it okay, and alright, and something for which nothing should be done.
          I disagree. I think it does excuse certain behaviors. Understanding context offers lots of leeway.

          A lot of self-educated apologists should really stick to their knitting in my opinion, especially when it comes to subjects like this. Wanna defend the biblical view of homosexuality, great. Wanna tell me your favorite theory about why gays are gays, or perform strawman arguments about the non-existence of the gay gene, then you should really start to read some other stuff.
          You sound like you're getting defensive again. Am I imagining that?

          You're free to think that, as I don't think I can stop you, but I don't.
          Hmm. Well, I think it's pretty much human nature. You're a human, I expect that sometimes you won't take people at face value, nor should you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I'm simply trying to give you some understanding for people's motivations. That the people you are agitated with often have good reasons for acting the way they sometimes do. Not that the way they act is necessarily right or wrong in-of-itself, but just as you're attempting to convey your mindset, I think its important to understand the other side's mindset as well. It's not always based in a sort of "holier than though" attitude. It's my hope that understanding both sides of the equation furthers productive dialogue.
            In this case it certainly wasn't a "holier than thou" attitude, which is a very bad way of acting for a Christian. In fact its the exact opposite of how we should act, the greatest sinner we should know is ourselves.

            The example from the Church was a friend of mine, who was very passionate about his views on marriage, and who quite quickly started questioning whether a person was actually gay and not just making it up to excuse something. And I simple don't get why that's good to do unless you have good reasons for doubting a person. He wasn't acting holier than thou, he was simple treating it with a dismissive and distrustful attitude.

            Okay that's fair. As long as others are aware that when you're referring to the "act" of homosexuality being sinful they know that you mean both the physical act and the mental act.
            I've always explained that as I failing to recognise this distinction is something most secular people, and even some Christians fail to do.

            Not everyone has that opportunity, or knows that they do. And sometimes talking to gay Christians means that they'll end up doing the exact things you find irritating, because they don't have a basis to work from.
            Everyone has an opportunity to inform themselves on good manners. And there's no one who is without an opportunity to converse with celibate gay Christians. Christian communities just aren't friendly places for people to open up about their weaknesses if they're certain types. You can openly confess that you've beaten a guy to a pulp in a prayer circle and get nothing but warmth and support, but the opposite isn't true if you're gay. "Are you sure you're gay" "We often delude ourselves" "Perhaps you just haven't found the right one yet" "There's almost no cases where someone ought not get married." etc...

            I disagree. I think it does excuse certain behaviors. Understanding context offers lots of leeway.
            By 'excuse' do you mean it's something nothing should or could be done about? If no, then I think we're merely nitpicking what to call it. I've been to plenty of places where I was felt welcomed, my testimony not questioned, and where I didn't feel like people were turning on me. Why can't or shouldn't that be the norm inside all Christian communities?

            You sound like you're getting defensive again. Am I imagining that?
            There's a lot of hogwash about homosexuality floating around between apologists. Most based on little more than individual testimony and personal experience, little to no sound science, and occasionally outright fraudulent works. I wish apologists applied as much integrity when they looked at this stuff, as they do when looking at exegesis of St. Paul.

            Hmm. Well, I think it's pretty much human nature. You're a human, I expect that sometimes you won't take people at face value, nor should you.
            That depends. If someone comes up and says she was raped by someone I believe her. If someone says that they have tendency to do this or that embarrasing thing. I also believe them. If I have a specific reason for not trust what they say, then I might hesitate.

            When I was working on the Kishu registration system we had one newcomer of a programmer. When he was instructed to do something, he'd nod along and act as if he understood what was said. As time passed we realize his code quality wasn't up to par. So later we start making sure he understood what we said by asking him questions about it, and asking questions of his explanations, forcing him to slow down and think.

            However in that case I didn't start asking him "Hey, have you considered that you might not be highly intelligent?" Or other such things. If I knew someone had a tendency to steal, I wouldn't ask them what their family situation had been like. I'd rather just listen to them if they wanted to talk about it, and in the mean time be their friend.

            Experiencing people being judgemental and presumptous, and jumping to conclusions is a very uncomfortable social feeling, and part of the reason I stay away from any kind of prayer group that involves any kind of 'sharing'.

            Comment


            • #36
              Hmm. I think a lot of our dialogue here is talking past one another Leonhard. You seem to be misunderstanding the perspective I'm tackling this issue from, and kind of doubling down on things that I already agree with you on. Since I'm not certain how I can make myself clearer without furthering the misunderstanding, or offending, it's probably best I let some of the others reply for a bit.

              Comment


              • #37
                I apologise for misunderstanding you. You started out this thread questioning whether I really was attracted to men (kinda being an exhibit of something I find to be a problem), and spending quite a few replies on that. Its also bit odd getting drilled (that's how I experienced it) on how I evangelize others, claiming I was teaching them wrong things, when I'm not aware of having said anything wrong. You call me defensive, without specifying in what way, leaving me (an autist) to guess your intentions which is kinda difficult for me. It wasn't clear to me whether you were defending the status quo or not, you didn't clear that up either at any point.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  I apologise for misunderstanding you. You started out this thread questioning whether I really was attracted to men (kinda being an exhibit of something I find to be a problem), and spending quite a few replies on that.
                  Where did I do that?

                  Its also bit odd getting drilled (that's how I experienced it) on how I evangelize others, claiming I was teaching them wrong things, when I'm not aware of having said anything wrong.
                  I seriously have no clue what you're talking about. When did I drill you on evangelism?

                  You call me defensive, without specifying in what way, leaving me (an autist) to guess your intentions which is kinda difficult for me.
                  I said that you sounded defensive, and I asked you if I was imagining that. Depending on your answer I would have been happy to explain why I thought you were being defensive. Instead you answered the question by telling me why you were defensive (or at least, that's what I took your reply to mean).

                  It wasn't clear to me whether you were defending the status quo or not, you didn't clear that up either at any point.
                  Hmm. I thought I was very clear on that. I repeated it a number of times.

                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  It's not common. Some people can go their whole life without knowing a gay person, or having known they that they knew a gay person. Statistics are all over the place, but in most nations surveys estimate that people struggling with same sex attraction make up only between 1% to not much more than 4% of a population. But I also meant "normal" in the sense that it is not natural from God's intended purpose for mankind. People, as a rule, need to make sense of things that are not normal in their environments. That's just the way things are. By telling you this I'm not judging whether it's a good thing or not, I'm simply sharing with you the "why".

                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I'm simply trying to give you some understanding for people's motivations. That the people you are agitated with often have good reasons for acting the way they sometimes do. Not that the way they act is necessarily right or wrong in-of-itself, but just as you're attempting to convey your mindset, I think its important to understand the other side's mindset as well. It's not always based in a sort of "holier than though" attitude. It's my hope that understanding both sides of the equation furthers productive dialogue.
                  I'm not necessarily defending or attacking the status quo. I'm merely explaining why the status quo exists.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thank you for the clarifications Adrift. Its a bit late for me to reply to them. I might tomorrow.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Whoops wrong thread.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                      35 responses
                      166 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Cow Poke  
                      Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                      4 responses
                      49 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                      Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                      10 responses
                      119 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post mikewhitney  
                      Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                      14 responses
                      71 views
                      3 likes
                      Last Post Cow Poke  
                      Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                      13 responses
                      59 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Cow Poke  
                      Working...
                      X