Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
The fact you are a man attracted to men doesn't make you any more of a sinner than if you are a man attracted to women
We're in agreement here, and even with everything you said after...which once more, ignores the basic double standard that I seem to keep repeating, and you keep ignoring.

What 'double-standard' then? Why are you focused on equality between gay and straight instead of on the reality of individuals with specific experiences of sexuality?

Quote:

I don't think it's a double standard to recognize procreative heterosexual relationships as a legitimate basis for marriage.

Never said it was.

Quote:

unfortunately, one group of people would have to confess 100% for following their genetic sex drive, while another group would only have a % that have to confess. The difference in percentage exists because of the underlying double standard - which you keep ignoring.

What you're implying is senseless. It's like saying there's a double-standard for soldier who kill during wartime because civilians who commit murder are criminalized 100% of the time while soldiers in a war are only criminalized for killing in certain circumstances.

Here's the bottom line regarding sexuality and sin: the ONLY form of sex that's virtuous is sex for procreation. Other sex (for pleasure) is undertaken as indulgence and not for procreation, so it's sinful. Now, St. Paul recognizes that people are sinners so he recommends marriage as a way to contain lust within marriage. If you want to interpret that to legitimate gay marriage, then that is your theological mission.

My larger point is that it defies the forgiving spirit of Christianity to look for validation of one kind of sexuality or another. As Christians we're called to witness sin, confess, and repent. If you're arguing out of envy over a double-standard, that in itself is the sin of envy, and pride. Ultimately, we're supposed to recognize that every human being is subject to sin in so many forms because of the fundamental problem of evil within the creation.

If you look at the basic design of sexuality in animals, the possibility exists to dissociate sexual indulgence from reproduction. That is because animals are programmed by hormonal instincts to feel pleasure in things that aren't always necessarily good for them. So, for example, sugary foods taste good even when we are eating more sugar than is healthy. The same is true of sexual pleasure. It feels good even when it serves no reproductive function, so the challenge for humans is to utilize willpower and self-discipline to channel sexual energy away from hedonistic indulgence into higher goals.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

What 'double-standard' then?

You start attempting to address it below.

Quote:

What you're implying is senseless.

Not at all. You arrive at that conclusion only because a very clear double standard disagrees with your beliefs.

Quote:

It's like saying there's a double-standard for soldier who kill during wartime because civilians who commit murder are criminalized 100% of the time while soldiers in a war are only criminalized for killing in certain circumstances.

That is a very good example, because there are double standards involved. Both commit homicide. The law decides that one is okay and the other isn't.

What your preposition completely and utterly ignores is that:
- one double standard (your above example) was created by peoples so they, as groups, could wage war, without their soldiers all having to go to jail (which ultimately would mean no soldiers willing to fight for the leaders). The example of a double standard that you offered (the war vs murder)) was created (and maintained) out of the self interest / survival interest of leaders.

- the other double standard (we keep talking about it) was allegedly created by God, who, after creating people with genetics making them only attracted to their own sex, stated that if they followed their genetic sex drive, they would be committing sin....while he also created people genetically attracted to the opposite sex, and said that if they followed their genetic sex drive, they would be doing the right thing.

Quote:

If you look at the basic design of sexuality in animals, the possibility exists to dissociate sexual indulgence from reproduction. That is because animals are programmed by hormonal instincts to feel pleasure in things that aren't always necessarily good for them. So, for example, sugary foods taste good even when we are eating more sugar than is healthy. The same is true of sexual pleasure. It feels good even when it serves no reproductive function, so the challenge for humans is to utilize willpower and self-discipline to channel sexual energy away from hedonistic indulgence into higher goals.

Your implication is (and you are welcome to correct this if I am wrong), that all homosexuals fall into the bracket of engaging in hedonistic indulgence, but not all heterosexuals fall into that bracket.

By the way, I'm not sure how you cannot see where this conversation is going - you've tried a similar line in several previous posts now (in relation to abstinence), and they all have the same problem - you are looking 'and issue' one step removed from the base issue, which issue keeps resulting in your next level issue (once it's applied on top of the base issue) applying to 100% of one group (homosexuals), and only a percentage for the other group (heterosexuals).

It's worth repeating because of how often you've tried such 'reasoning'. You may keep saying "but this example of the way it works makes no discrimination between people".... even while it always captures 100% of one group of people, and no where near 100% of the other group of people...because you keep ignoring the double standard that that precedes your examples.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That is a very good example, because there are double standards involved. Both commit homicide. The law decides that one is okay and the other isn't.

Who says that killing during war is 'ok?' It is just something that happens. If political conflicts could be resolved without war and killing, then they should, shouldn't they?

Quote:

What your preposition completely and utterly ignores is that:
- one double standard (your above example) was created by peoples so they, as groups, could wage war, without their soldiers all having to go to jail (which ultimately would mean no soldiers willing to fight for the leaders). The example of a double standard that you offered (the war vs murder)) was created (and maintained) out of the self interest / survival interest of leaders.

I think I can explain how your confusion arises in terms of the difference between Christian ethics and legal logic. In Christian ethics, sin is something ubiquitous that can't be overcome completely. In other words, we expect sin to continue. Acceptance of Christ, confession, and repentance are steps toward transcending sin gradually. We know that people will fall back into sin and that we shouldn't condemn people for doing so; and yet nevertheless there is the possibility that we ourselves will fall into the sin of condemning people when we're not supposed to. Non-Christians hate this because they want Christianity to protect them from the wrath of judgmental Christians, but it can't because it is for God to judge those people, and we trust that He will.

Now, what you have in legal logic are standards that require uniform and consistent punishment for crimes. So if homicide is a crime, then all people who kill people should be tried and punished for homicide, whether it's during war or whatever. So then the law has to make special provisions for war where homicide is allowed under certain conditions, and if those conditions are met the killer isn't prosecuted. These are all imperfect rules and people will always manipulate and find loopholes to get away with things they shouldn't or to use the law to attack people who shouldn't be attacked for the reasons they are being attacked.

Quote:

- the other double standard (we keep talking about it) was allegedly created by God, who, after creating people with genetics making them only attracted to their own sex, stated that if they followed their genetic sex drive, they would be committing sin....while he also created people genetically attracted to the opposite sex, and said that if they followed their genetic sex drive, they would be doing the right thing.

As I told you, plenty of heterosexual people commit sin by following their genetic sex drive, so heterosexuals are not immune from sin by acting on their temptations.

Quote:

Your implication is (and you are welcome to correct this if I am wrong), that all homosexuals fall into the bracket of engaging in hedonistic indulgence, but not all heterosexuals fall into that bracket.

No, hedonism is the elevation of pleasure to the primary goal of an activity. E.g. having sex for pleasure is hedonistic and sex for reproduction isn't, although pleasure is a byproduct of the sex. It is a question of making choices based on higher ethics and sacrificing pleasure for higher goals.

I never said that someone who is homosexual isn't capable of transcending hedonism, but since there is no reproductive value in same-sex sex, it can't be more than sex for pleasure, can it?

Quote:

By the way, I'm not sure how you cannot see where this conversation is going - you've tried a similar line in several previous posts now (in relation to abstinence), and they all have the same problem - you are looking 'and issue' one step removed from the base issue, which issue keeps resulting in your next level issue (once it's applied on top of the base issue) applying to 100% of one group (homosexuals), and only a percentage for the other group (heterosexuals).

I've said repeatedly that this percentage thing is the wrong way of looking at it. People are all different. No two homosexuals experience the same temptations any more than two heterosexuals do. Each individual is dealing with a personal life situation with temptations to resist and crosses to bear.

Quote:

It's worth repeating because of how often you've tried such 'reasoning'. You may keep saying "but this example of the way it works makes no discrimination between people".... even while it always captures 100% of one group of people, and no where near 100% of the other group of people...because you keep ignoring the double standard that that precedes your examples.

Discrimination on the basis of identity is wrong. If you're gay and I won't sell you a wedding cake because of your identity, that's wrong. If I don't want to make a gay-themed wedding cake, that's different. I have freedom of speech to not create designs that don't work for my conscience.

Now, as for marriage, that can be defined however at the state level, I believe. You could eliminate marriage altogether, or make it legal to marry as many people as you want of any gender. States don't have to recognize each others' marriage laws, though, I believe.

As far as St. Paul's recommendation for people to get married if they can't control their lust, that could be interpreted in a way that allows same-sex couples to get married from a pragmatic attitude toward sin, I think. Idk if legal marriage is really necessary to satisfy the religious function of marriage. You might just be able to get married in a church and not have the marriage recognized legally/civilly.

Now, if you want to get into the reasons why the government creates special tax status for married couples and whether same-sex couples should have access to that, I don't know what the logic behind those laws are. I would sooner advocate eliminating special tax status for married couples rather than create a situation where there's a debate about whether same-sex couples should qualify, because then you end up with a situation where single/divorced people are being singled out to pay the highest taxes, and that doesn't seem fair either, does it?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Who says that killing during war is 'ok?' It is just something that happens. If political conflicts could be resolved without war and killing, then they should, shouldn't they?

No disagreement there.

Quote:

I think I can explain how your confusion arises in terms of the difference between Christian ethics and legal logic.

*cough* not sure why you would believe that I don't know or understand what you wrote after this.

Quote:

As I told you, plenty of heterosexual people commit sin by following their genetic sex drive, so heterosexuals are not immune from sin by acting on their temptations.

Never said they were, and directly implied they could fall to such temptation.

Quote:

I never said that someone who is homosexual isn't capable of transcending hedonism, but since there is no reproductive value in same-sex sex, it can't be more than sex for pleasure, can it?

Pleasure sure. There is also as an expression of love, to deepen connection between a couple, stress relief, etc. Surely you know this.

------------------------------

You're still skirting around the direct double standard.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Pleasure sure. There is also as an expression of love, to deepen connection between a couple, stress relief, etc. Surely you know this.

There are others ways to express love, deepen connections, relieve stress, etc. In fact, you are setting yourself up for more stress when you use sex as stress relief, the same way drug addicts set themselves up for withdrawal pain by using pain-killers habitually.

Quote:

You're still skirting around the direct double standard.

How?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

In fact, you are setting yourself up for more stress when you use sex as stress relief, the same way drug addicts set themselves up for withdrawal pain by using pain-killers habitually.

You have taken the 'sex as sin' to a pretty extreme level.
Just curious, if a husband and wife had pleasure while impregnating the wife, have they sinned? Is pleasure per-se, sin? Should they wear blindfolds during the act to avoid the visual temptation to enjoy the sight of naked bodies? Is invitro fertilization the only way to procreate without sinning?

The standard you argue for can get pretty strange if you follow it to its logical conclusions, but I support your right to do it. As the book says, 'if you believe anything to be a sin, it is.', and, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

You have taken the 'sex as sin' to a pretty extreme level. [/quote]
There's nothing 'extreme' about it. I've explained it clearly, but of course you want to gloss over the explanation and call it 'extreme' because it doesn't fit with you hedonistic values.

Quote:

Just curious, if a husband and wife had pleasure while impregnating the wife, have they sinned?

No, I explained it clearly. Pleasure is part of the animal-hardwiring that motivated beings without intelligence and willpower to sacrifice pleasure in favor of higher goals. Pleasure can mislead animals, including humans, into less-than-optimal choices. Therefore it is logical that we should use our intelligence and willpower to put other interests above that of pleasure-seeking.

Quote:

Is pleasure per-se, sin? Should they wear blindfolds during the act to avoid the visual temptation to enjoy the sight of naked bodies? Is invitro fertilization the only way to procreate without sinning?

The Catholic Church considers in vitro fertilization unnatural conception and thus expects couples to conceive naturally or not at all. The experience of pleasure itself may be sin or not but it doesn't matter because it is inevitable. I wouldn't get into the details of it because that just multiplies temptation. The Buddhist philosophy of a middle-way is pertinent here, i.e. because it just accepts that a certain level of sin is inevitable and that people should just keep moving on. That is what confession and repentance is about as well; accepting past sin and moving forward with good intentions.

Quote:

The standard you argue for can get pretty strange if you follow it to its logical conclusions, but I support your right to do it. As the book says, 'if you believe anything to be a sin, it is.', and, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin'.

I think you are playing games to look for loopholes, technicalities, contradictions, etc. If you would seek in good faith, you would find indeed.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

There are others ways to express love, deepen connections, relieve stress, etc. In fact, you are setting yourself up for more stress when you use sex as stress relief, the same way drug addicts set themselves up for withdrawal pain by using pain-killers habitually.

Seriously? Are you just looking for an argument? No one disputes what you said, or even suggested there weren't other ways. They were only brought up because what you wrote suggested that sex was two dimensional - pleasure or procreation.

Quote:

How?

Again, seriously? I've returned to the direct double standard over, and over, and over again during this conversation; and:
- You never acknowledge it
- You never discuss it
- you continually offer examples of how such double standard is (by implication), in your view, 'irrelevant', even while every single one of your justifications is directly impacted by that double standard (every time, because of that double standard,one of your examples is applied 100% to one group <homosexuals> but only a variable percentage of the other group <heterosexuals>)
- this keeps getting pointed out to you, and you keep ignoring it, while continuing to offer up more of the same flawed type of examples (that keep resulting in 100% of one group having a problem, but only a percentage of the other group)

You are much, much smarter than you are allowing yourself to be in this area.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"The standard you argue for can get pretty strange if you follow it to its logical conclusions, but I support your right to do it. As the book says, 'if you believe anything to be a sin, it is.', and, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin'. "

ll replied:
I think you are playing games to look for loopholes, technicalities, contradictions, etc. If you would seek in good faith, you would find indeed.

Not playing games at all, but yes, I'm always looking for contradictions, including my own, because that is often the quickest way to get to the core of understanding. It has nothing to do with being provocative, at least not intentionally. I just insist on my theistic beliefs being as completely consistent and non-contradictory as possible. I can't do that if I believe God makes pleasure a sin but then forgives it "because it is inevitable".

The only angle that I can see where we might have common ground on this is in respect to priorities. If you make pleasure your top priority then yes, it is a sin. You have made it your God. Same thing goes for anything else. If you value 'family' above God you have sinned in the same way. But neither pleasure nor family is inherently sinful.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Again, seriously? I've returned to the direct double standard over, and over, and over again during this conversation; and:
- You never acknowledge it
- You never discuss it
- you continually offer examples of how such double standard is (by implication), in your view, 'irrelevant', even while every single one of your justifications is directly impacted by that double standard (every time, because of that double standard,one of your examples is applied 100% to one group <homosexuals> but only a variable percentage of the other group <heterosexuals>)
- this keeps getting pointed out to you, and you keep ignoring it, while continuing to offer up more of the same flawed type of examples (that keep resulting in 100% of one group having a problem, but only a percentage of the other group)

So what you're saying is that because all homosexual sex is sin and only non-reproductive heterosexual sex is sin, that is a double-standard?

I think I've explained several dimensions of why it just doesn't make sense to think in this way regarding sin, but I'll try again:

The word 'sin' is sometimes explained as 'missing the mark' in the sense that a bow shooter aims to hit the bulls' eye with an arrow but then misses with varying degrees of failure.

So to understand 'sin,' we have to have some vision of what the target is in terms of God's will. But how to interpret God's will? Can we just make up whatever we want and call it 'God's will?' No, we have to interpret how the creation/nature works, and to what extent it is possible to come into conflict/competition with the ideal functioning of nature. There is plenty of opportunity for conflict and harm within the creation, but theoretically we humans are armed with consciences to sort out good from evil and utilize our conscious intention and willpower to attempt to do the right thing and/or prevent wrong/bad from being done. In this way, humans have the choice to behave like angels or demons, i.e. as helpers or thwarters of the greater good for the creation and its many inhabitants and processes that support them/us.

Now, you may decide that it's God's will for humans to use sexual pleasure as stress-relief. If you are honest with yourself and you persist in believing that despite earnestly challenging yourself to reason beyond your own pleasure-seeking bias, then why should you listen to me or anyone else otherwise? On the other hand, if you are interested in some other line of reasoning, it is available and it has to do with the human ability to choose to forego and/or defer pleasure in order to achieve higher goals.

So then the question is no longer whether sexual pleasure is ok or not; the issue is whether it is the bulls' eye on the target of what we should be shooting for as the best we can do. In short, are their better ways to channel our life energy than into sexual indulgence, fulfillment, or whatever word you want to use to describe it. If there is, then the challenge is overcoming desire/temptation to engage in sexual pleasure so that sexual activity becomes a free choice and not a compulsive habit. Once that is achieved, the question is why we would tempt ourselves by flirting with a very addictive pleasure, i.e. the same reason why you wouldn't want to have just one drink or cigarette as a recovering alcoholic or tobacco addict.

Now the question is if we can overcome sexual compulsion, when should we choose to engage in sexual activity? This is where it gets tricky. E.g. should heterosexuals conceive babies in vitro to avoid intercourse? Catholicism says no, coitus is the natural method of conception for all creatures. Ok, but what about St. Paul's instructions in Corinthians to marry and not withhold from a lustful partner lest they fall into worse temptation? Does that mean it is a legitimate use of sexual activity to satisfy a marital spouse who is burning with lust? If so, why not with same-sex marriage as much as with heterosexual marriage? It is a reasonable question and one that is difficult to answer.

Either way, however, it should be clear that none of this sex to satisfy and contain lust is hitting the bulls eye of God's will if God's will is for us to channel our sexual energy into higher callings. So there is always some degree of sin, maybe even in the pleasure experienced during reproductive sex, i.e. because it stimulates temptation to lust. The bottom line, however, is that sin is often inevitable, which is why we need forgiveness. Pride is the sin of not wanting to face this fact. In self-pride we sinfully expect to be able to achieve perfection, to avoid sin and to never have to confess and repent, but that's just not possible in this imperfect creation as sinners, which all humans inherently are. So we have to learn to humble ourselves and confess and repent sin to God, i.e. to admit it to ourselves and seek to do better and work harder to find the right path and honor it.

What you're calling a double-standard is just a complaint that one category of people gets to feel like they are hitting the mark with their reproductive sex while another has to feel like they are sinning. But consider this: if heterosexuals are feeling pride about limiting themselves to reproductive sex, that pride is a sin in itself. So there is really no escape from sin. Even when you avert it, the pride you feel for averting it is something you have to confess and repent for. Whatever your sin, you are going to get humbled, and ultimately that is God's gift and grace to us, that we are delivered from the burning we experience in sins like pride and lust, which block us from attaining spiritual peace and joy in the glory of the greater good and our small part in it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

So what you're saying is that because all homosexual sex is sin and only non-reproductive heterosexual sex is sin, that is a double-standard?

Again, seriously? I've written the double standard out for our time and time again, and yet again...you find only part of it.

Just for you:
- group A commits a sin for following their genetic sex drive; but
- group B does not commit a sin for following their genetic sex drive

The writing in blue only identifies the two groups, with one committing sin, and the other not. Outside of the blue writing, the conditions apply to both groups are exactly the same, but they are judged differently. That is how you can see the double standard.

Nothing you wrote following what I quoted you saying, changes that.

If you were to write any 'example' of abstinence, like your previous examples, it would still apply 100% to one group, and only a variable percentage (and usually much lower) to the other group, because of the double standard above, which must underlie all examples of abstinence done in order not commit sin. Because conditions/qualifiers in the previous sentence, in blue, already applies 100% to Group A.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
So what you're saying is that because all homosexual sex is sin and only non-reproductive heterosexual sex is sin, that is a double-standard?
Again, seriously? I've written the double standard out for our time and time again, and yet again...you find only part of it.

Just for you:
- group A commits a sin for following their genetic sex drive; but
- group B does not commit a sin for following their genetic sex drive

The writing in blue only identifies the two groups, with one committing sin, and the other not. Outside of the blue writing, the conditions apply to both groups are exactly the same, but they are judged differently. That is how you can see the double standard.

Have you read anything I've written? Neither your comparison nor your understanding of sin makes any sense. That completely undermines your point about a double-standard. There would be no equality in revising 'sin' to say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are entitled to an equal amount of genetically-driven sexual indulgence/activity because that's fair. That would be a completely artificialization of what sin means and what God calls people to do with their genetically-driven sexuality.

Quote:

Nothing you wrote following what I quoted you saying, changes that.

I think you're just so attached to the concept that you refuse to rethink it in any other light.

Quote:

If you were to write any 'example' of abstinence, like your previous examples, it would still apply 100% to one group, and only a variable percentage (and usually much lower) to the other group, because of the double standard above, which must underlie all examples of abstinence done in order not commit sin. Because conditions/qualifiers in the previous sentence, in blue, already applies 100% to Group A.

The point of sex is not to honor one's 'genetically-driven' desires. It is to reproduce. There's nothing cruel or unfair about transcending desire to focus on higher purpose. It is difficult but good, the way it is difficult but good to overcome the genetically-driven need to pee in the bed or poop in a diaper. Once we learn to hold our pee and poop until we get to the toilet, we are happier as a result. It's the same with sex, hetero and/or homo. The only difference is that if you choose to impregnate a female, you have to bite the bullet and pee/poop in the diaper again sometimes, so to speak. If you see it as a double-standard that heterosexuals get to poop/pee in their diapers sometimes after being potty trained, and that's unfair to homosexuals, then you haven't yet grasped the what the full transition to being potty-trained, i.e. sexually continent/chaste means.

I hope that metaphor is blunt enough to make sense for you.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Have you read anything I've written? Neither your comparison........makes any sense

The double standard is an incredibly straightforward comparison. However, you have stated two things don't make sense to you(the comparison, and sin), so I'm dealing with them individually.

The comparison has the exact same structure. Each half of the comparison has a:
- subject group
- same condition
- judgement

The conditions are the same, but the judgement is different. That is the very essence of a double standard. If you cannot follow it, you can only be purposely blinding yourself to it.

Quote:

nor your understanding of sin makes any sense

The bible speaks out very strongly against homosexual sex. Anyone who doubts that it is a sin, according to the bible, does not know the bible.

So both your claims (as to why 'it doesn't make sense') are not just flawed, but contain incredibly poor application of both logic, and basic understanding of what the bible says.

Quote:

The point of sex is not to honor one's 'genetically-driven' desires. It is to reproduce.

If you say so. Though if you mean the bible says such, and makes it a sin, then God would have to be a mean spirited, vindictive God, rather than a God of love.

And as God should be entirely consistent, this inconsistency becomes untenable.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

The double standard is an incredibly straightforward comparison. However, you have stated two things don't make sense to you(the comparison, and sin), so I'm dealing with them individually.

The comparison has the exact same structure. Each half of the comparison has a:
- subject group
- same condition
- judgement

You've ignored everything I've explained in order to keep going back to your empty group-comparison logic.

Quote:

The conditions are the same, but the judgement is different. That is the very essence of a double standard. If you cannot follow it, you can only be purposely blinding yourself to it.

What 'conditions are the same?' How is 'the judgment different?' You are using these words/ideas without any grasp of what they actually mean in practice.

Quote:

The bible speaks out very strongly against homosexual sex. Anyone who doubts that it is a sin, according to the bible, does not know the bible.

More importantly, you don't know what sin really means in a deeper sense, even though I've typed so many words trying to help you understand it.

Quote:

If you say so. Though if you mean the bible says such, and makes it a sin, then God would have to be a mean spirited, vindictive God, rather than a God of love.

So now you're angry that animals have evolved to want more sex than they need to reproduce? Do you understand anything about evolution and how living populations survive and avoid extinction?

Do you understand anything about our relationship with other animals, how our genetic 'drives'/instincts work, and how we are different insofar as we have more ability to exercise foresight and willpower/self-control?

Quote:

And as God should be entirely consistent, this inconsistency becomes untenable.

This idea of consistency in the sense you are implying isn't in nature. Nature is consistent, but in the ways that it is. E.g. animals are always hungry and seek food and they have sexual hormones. Now if some animal has a defect that causes it to not have sexual hormones or if its hormones lead to it desiring non-reproductive sex, does that mean 'God is inconsistent?' No, the laws of nature were not altered to create an inconsistent situation. Rather, what seems to you as an inconsistency is actually a product of very precise consistency in the laws of chemistry, etc. that go into the functioning of an organism's cells, tissues, brain, etc. It just so happens that the result happened in a certain way in certain cases and not others. Diversity is not the result of inconsistency, but rather a product of consistency.

Now are you actually reading and understanding what I'm writing or just pretending to have read it in order to keep going on with your own empty, superficial, group-comparison nonsense?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You've ignored everything I've explained in order to keep going back to your empty group-comparison logic.

Not at all. It's simply that absolutely nothing you said invalidates the double standard. That's seen in every example you give to justify your belief, applying 100% to one group, but not to the other. How does that happen if there is no double standard?

Set out in an easier way for you to understand - the sheer fact that you keep offering examples that always result in:

- 100% of the same group
Vs
- a much lesser % of the other group,

....meeting the criteria in your example, illustrates the existence of an underlying double standard.

Quote:

What 'conditions are the same?'

Seriously? I spelt it out in black and blue for you. The same condition is:

- "for following their genetic sex drive"

Quote:

How is 'the judgment different?'

Again, seriously? The judgement that one commits a sin, and the other does not, when each follows their genetic sex drive.

You're not dense, so why do you keep asking such incredibly dense questions?

Quote:

More importantly, you don't know what sin really means in a deeper sense,

No 'deeper understanding of sin' will invalidate the bible saying it is a sin, so it's quite pointless discussing it, when the basis of the discussion is the double standard involved in it being a sin.

However, it would be interesting to know, seeing you are implying such - are you saying that engaging in homosexual sex isn't a sin?

If you aren't (saying it is not a sin), there is no point to this part of your post, because we have been discussing how it is a sin, and why a double standard must be involved in such.

Quote:

Do you understand anything about our relationship with other animals,

Sure, but we're talking biblical verdicts here aren't we - that is what is being put to the test, and that is what is throwing up a double standard.

Quote:

So now you're angry

It appears you're projecting.

You're certainly a frustrating person to talk to. In most other threads, you can deal logically with things. Here, you're evasive by the spades.

Quote:

This idea of consistency in the sense you are implying isn't in nature.

Are you trying to say God isn't consistent (which is the subject of this very specific discussion, for I have said he is)?

I ask because I don't think you believe he is inconsistent, which would then raise the question 'why are you going down this path of thought?'

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Not at all. It's simply that absolutely nothing you said invalidates the double standard. That's seen in every example you give to justify your belief, applying 100% to one group, but not to the other. How does that happen if there is no double standard?

If you understood what I have said, you wouldn't be able to continue insisting that your double-standard issue is relevant.

Quote:

Set out in an easier way for you to understand - the sheer fact that you keep offering examples that always result in:

- 100% of the same group
Vs
- a much lesser % of the other group,

That doesn't matter, and I've repeatedly explained why and how.

Quote:

....meeting the criteria in your example, illustrates the existence of an underlying double standard.

No, your assumption of a double-standards is based on a false assumption that sex is validated more for heterosexuals than homosexuals. All people are called to celibacy by St. Paul, just very subtly because he knows that most people will not be able to achieve it and will be stuck sinning in various ways. Even people who achieve total sexual abstinence still have impure thoughts, which is also a form of sin. It doesn't matter if the thoughts are of heterosexual or homosexual situations.

Quote:

What 'conditions are the same?'

Seriously? I spelt it out in black and blue for you. The same condition is:

- "for following their genetic sex drive"[/quote]
Heterosexuals who only engage in sex when they want to get pregnant are not 'following their genetic sex drive.' They have to overcome their genetic drive to promiscuity and regular sexual release in order to achieve abstinence. They're only really supposed to have sex when making a baby, so most heterosexuals are sinning in various ways in their sex lives, the same as homosexuals are.

Quote:

How is 'the judgment different?'

Again, seriously? The judgement that one commits a sin, and the other does not, when each follows their genetic sex drive.[/quote]
I've told you that 'sin' means to miss the mark of perfection, which all humans do all the time. We are supposed to confess and repent sin and work to overcome it, yet we can never really overcome it because there is always some degree of fault in everything we attempt to get right. So even the most celibate human will always have some sexual desire/lust to confess and repent to God. The issue is confessing, repenting, and steering as straight as possible, but no one ever gets it 100% right.

Quote:

You're not dense, so why do you keep asking such incredibly dense questions?

Because you're not getting the things I'm explaining, and then when you keep repeating these things that are predicated on a narrow and naive understanding of sin, I can't understand how you continue to think that way after I've explained the deeper way of understanding to you.

Quote:

No 'deeper understanding of sin' will invalidate the bible saying it is a sin, so it's quite pointless discussing it, when the basis of the discussion is the double standard involved in it being a sin.

No, the Bible is a text written by people attempting to explain revelations that they had of the deeper truth of God's will. We are humans trying to gain insight into God's will by studying the writings of people who seemed to have understood it.

Quote:

However, it would be interesting to know, seeing you are implying such - are you saying that engaging in homosexual sex isn't a sin?

I explained how it is sin, just as most forms of heterosexual sex are sin, i.e. because they are not all motivated purely by reproductive interests.

Quote:

If you aren't (saying it is not a sin), there is no point to this part of your post, because we have been discussing how it is a sin, and why a double standard must be involved in such.

All sex not motivated by the will to get pregnant and have a baby is sinful to some degree. The only legitimate purpose of sex is to reproduce. Everything else constitutes some degree of indulgence in pleasure for its own sake, i.e. hedonism. We have a hedonistic culture that validates and whitewashes the pursuit of pleasure in various ways for various reasons. That is to be expected because we are sinners by nature, but Christianity is about learning to recognize and acknowledge that human life is bound by sin and that we need to confess and repent these sins in order to begin the slow process of sanctification, i.e. being cleansed of sin, which is a joyful and positive process, like learning how to live a healthy and hygienic lifestyle and reaping all the benefits that come with that.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you understand anything about our relationship with other animals,
Sure, but we're talking biblical verdicts here aren't we - that is what is being put to the test, and that is what is throwing up a double standard.

If you reject deeper understanding in favor of focusing dogmatically on superficialities, then there's really no way we can continue discussing anything. You are just making the bible into a meaningless, superficial text so you can reject it on an irrelevant level.

Quote:

Quote:
This idea of consistency in the sense you are implying isn't in nature.
Are you trying to say God isn't consistent (which is the subject of this very specific discussion, for I have said he is)?

No, I explained how consistency in the application of the mechanics of natural systems can result in diversity which you interpret superficially as 'inconsistency,' or 'inequality.'

Quote:

I ask because I don't think you believe he is inconsistent, which would then raise the question 'why are you going down this path of thought?'

Let me give you an analogy to illustrate what we're talking about: Let's say you buy and old house that has lots of different kids of door knobs. You interpret this as inconsistency because you are focused on little aesthetic differences between the styles of door-knobs. But if you had been present when each of the door knobs was installed/replaced, you would find out that the previous home owner was being very consistent about making sure all the door-knobs functioned and replacing the ones that didn't with functional ones. So what you perceived superficially as inconsistency was really just your perception based on your own aesthetic standards, whereas the reality was that there was consistency that you failed to perceive because you insisted on projecting your own aesthetics onto the situation and hold the previous home owner accountable to them.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

If you understood what I have said, you wouldn't be able to continue insisting that your double-standard issue is relevant.

Says a man who is desperately trying to avoid a very, very clear double standard.

That's desperation to avoid is seen in how many times you had to ask:
- what double standard (despite it being repeated so many times)
- what condition (despite it being specifically broken down into group, condition, judgement)
- what judgement (same)

That desperation is seen in how many times you offered ''justifications' that were directly impacted by the double standard, but couldn't see it for yourself.

That desperation is seen in how many times your ignored this outcome, even when pointed out, and never discussed why it applies 100% to one group, but not the other.

Quote:

No, your assumption of a double-standards is based on a false assumption that sex is validated more for heterosexuals than homosexuals. All people are called to celibacy by St. Paul....It doesn't matter if the thoughts are of heterosexual or homosexual situations

and yet only homosexuals always commit a sin if (they don't heed the call and) they follow their genetic sex drive (homosexual sex), while according to you, there are times when heterosexuals engaging in their genetic sex drive (heterosexual sex) do not commit a sin. So, a very, very clear double standard.

Though as an aside, you keep talk about the purpose being procreation - something instituted by God...and if all Christians heeded Pauls call (which if you are correct, goes against Gods intention), then there wouldn't be any Christians. Nor would Jesus talk about marriage and divorce. Etc. No, the bible is very clear that abstinence is a choice, one that Paul found good, for himself, and as a recommendation to others like him.

Quote:

They're only really supposed to have sex when making a baby

And that invalidates the other group not being allowed to have sex at all?

As an aside, that belief is nowhere to be found in the Bible. And Solomon certainly believed in sex for pleasure. You should do a search on when that particular belief arose. It's relatively new.

Quote:

No, I explained how consistency in the application of the mechanics of natural systems can result in diversity which you interpret superficially as 'inconsistency,' or 'inequality.'

In other words:
- you admit there's a direct double standard, but
- say that it must be balanced elsewhere (though you haven't yet pointed out where, even if you think you have, because you haven't reached 100% of the second group to balance the 100% of the first group that your examples keep capturing)
- there shouldn't be any damage that isn't also experienced by heterosexuals to an equal degree (and you haven't yet been able to articulate this, seeing as 100% of homosexuals are caught by this, but nowhere near 100% of heterosexuals)

My take is:
- you don't even want to think about an obvious double standard
- you don't want to think about why every one of your examples always results in 100% of one group being caught, but way less than 100% of the other group (you avoid this discussion every single time)
- you don't want to consider the consequences of your beliefs on them (you offered a vague 'but some heterosexuals experience a similar thing', while ignoring the percentage of heterosexuals is no where near the same)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

and yet only homosexuals always commit a sin if (they don't heed the call and) they follow their genetic sex drive (homosexual sex), while according to you, there are times when heterosexuals engaging in their genetic sex drive (heterosexual sex) do not commit a sin. So, a very, very clear double standard.

There are plenty of scenarios where a homosexual person can commit less sin and/or less-grave sin than a heterosexual, despite both acting on genetic drives. E.g. a homosexual person who is monogamous could be committing less sin than a heterosexual serial adulterer, but it wouldn't matter because the point of observing and evaluating sin isn't to feel pride in sinning less than someone else who is more captive to evil. The point is to confess, repent, and get better in whatever state of sin you are currently in. What you're calling a 'double-standard' doesn't matter because there's no issue of equality or inequality in sin. We're all called to confess and repent for sin and grow in virtue. The point is to go in the right direction, not compare yourself with others. Competing to be less of a sinner to try and win some kind of competition is itself the sin of pride. We are supposed to humble ourselves and serve God and not envy our brother for being in a different situation than us. In fact, the story of Cain and Able speaks exactly to this issue. Are you familiar with that story from the Bible?

Quote:

Though as an aside, you keep talk about the purpose being procreation - something instituted by God...and if all Christians heeded Pauls call (which if you are correct, goes against Gods intention), then there wouldn't be any Christians. Nor would Jesus talk about marriage and divorce. Etc. No, the bible is very clear that abstinence is a choice, one that Paul found good, for himself, and as a recommendation to others like him.

What I have tried to explain is that it is ultimately about transcending hedonism, if possible. Hedonism is not a behavioral sin but a mental sin where you prioritize pleasure-seeking over higher purposes. We're supposed to strive to master our own sexuality, so that we can freely and comfortably choose to avoid sex, the same way we can freely and comfortably choose to avoid smoking cigarettes as non-smokers or fully-reformed former-smokers.

So if you have achieved that state of mastery over sexuality, you no longer seek to have sex any more than you would seek to smoke cigarettes as a non-smoker. If, however, you decided it was a good idea to have a child, then you would have to engage in intercourse to inseminate your wife. It would be like if for some reason a doctor prescribed smoking tobacco for some illness. You would do it for your health, and you might enjoy it, but the point was that it was something you had to do to achieve a higher goal, not something you do for the pleasure of it, or simply because you have a 'genetically-driven' desire for it.

[/quote]And that invalidates the other group not being allowed to have sex at all?[/quote]
Again, you're looking at getting pregnant as an excuse to have sex and sexual indulgence as the real goal, but it's the other way around. Getting pregnant would be the real goal and the fact you have to have sex to do would just be something you have to deal with as part of the process.

Let me ask you a question: do you also think it's a double-standard that women get to breast-feed babies and men don't, or that women get to wear bras and men don't? You can make all these differences into double-standards, but it's ridiculous and it misses the point of the bigger picture.

Quote:

As an aside, that belief is nowhere to be found in the Bible. And Solomon certainly believed in sex for pleasure. You should do a search on when that particular belief arose. It's relatively new.

I've had this discussion in the past and I don't want to rehash it now. Read St. Paul and tell me why he says it's best to be like him and what he means. I have explained the simple logic of higher goals than personal indulgence in pleasure, but if you want to argue that the Bible supports hedonism because of the song of Solomon or whatever, do that with someone else please.

Quote:

In other words:
- you admit there's a direct double standard, but
- say that it must be balanced elsewhere (though you haven't yet pointed out where, even if you think you have, because you haven't reached 100% of the second group to balance the 100% of the first group that your examples keep capturing)
- there shouldn't be any damage that isn't also experienced by heterosexuals to an equal degree (and you haven't yet been able to articulate this, seeing as 100% of homosexuals are caught by this, but nowhere near 100% of heterosexuals)

Homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't 'groups' in any sense except as identity categories. In reality, you are an individual with specific inner architecture. You have your own lot to deal with the same as everyone else has. Focusing on being part of a group and then defining that group as subject to unfair treatment by God isn't going to help you gain anything spiritually. It will only bring you down.

Quote:

My take is:
- you don't even want to think about an obvious double standard
- you don't want to think about why every one of your examples always results in 100% of one group being caught, but way less than 100% of the other group (you avoid this discussion every single time)
- you don't want to consider the consequences of your beliefs on them (you offered a vague 'but some heterosexuals experience a similar thing', while ignoring the percentage of heterosexuals is no where near the same)

You just keep repeating the same thing over and over at this point. I've tried to explain a perspective beyond group-equality to you but you don't want it so discussion complete.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

There are plenty of scenarios where a homosexual person can commit less sin and/or less-grave sin than a heterosexual, despite both acting on genetic drives.

True, but hardly the point - as you point out, it's not a competition between the goodness/badness of people. So why mention it?

Quote:

What you're calling a 'double-standard' doesn't matter because there's no issue of equality or inequality in sin.

Rofl, this is rubbish, and you know it. As seen below

Quote:

We're all called to confess and repent for sin and grow in virtue.

So once again, 100% of one group must 'confess, repent, and grow in virtue' for following their genetic sex drive, while the other does not. No matter how you phrase your justifications, it always captures 100% of homosexuals who follow their genetic sex drive. And once again, this is because the double standard precedes your justifications.

Quote:

The point is to go in the right direction, not compare yourself with others

So true. Perhaps you missed it, but this isn't truly a comparison of one group against the other - it's a comparison of the ideology that affects one group 100% and the other not so. The double standard of the ideology is seen in the outcomes.

That's why I keep talking about your beliefs, about what the bible says, about the underlying double standard (which is always based in an idea).

Quote:

What I have tried to explain is that it is ultimately about transcending hedonism, if possible.

Yes, I know that is what you have been trying to say.

---------------------------------------------
Start applying your justifications to the groups, and ask yourself what the percentage outcome is...because currently, all you are doing, is providing examples that keep illustrating an underlying double standard, always applying 100% to one group, but not the other.

It's quite tiresome to point this out, over and over. Start thinking for yourself, instead of spouting someone else's ideas. Look for the outcomes of your ideas before speaking them. See if they apply equally and are consistent across situations. Currently, they most certainly are not consistent (they keep resulting in 100% of one group, but not the other)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

As an illustration of the double standard involved in this area, can you give an example of any other sin nominated in the bible, that does not apply equally to all people?

Certainly no other sin, nominated in the bible, discriminates against one groups major genetic design as opposed to another groups.

Quote:

Homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't 'groups' in any sense except as identity categories. In reality, you are an individual with specific inner architecture. You have your own lot to deal with the same as everyone else has. Focusing on being part of a group and then defining that group as subject to unfair treatment by God isn't going to help you gain anything spiritually. It will only bring you down.

I agree that each much look after who they are.

It's one of the reasons people should always question ideology. The ideas you believe in affect your spiritual growth.

And even while this is the case, we are speaking of a group that God himself allegedly singled out, both genetically and as sinners for following those genetics....and if it is fine for him to single them out as a group, then it is fine for us to talk of them as a group.

You really are struggling, if you are going down this route in order to try and quiet the doubt inside yourself.

1 Reply

Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know