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

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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

To show you how it doesn't make sense to think in terms of homosexuals being defined as a group whose overall sin is worse than heterosexuals in the sense your 'double-standard' implies.

Quote:

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.

The bottom line is that everyone is supposed to overcome the temptation to 'follow their genetic sex drive.' Once the urge to simply give in to temptation is overcome, the human genetic capacity to exercise conscious intent as a cause of sexual choices is realized over the desire to simply give in to lust.

Quote:

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.

I've explained that what you're saying just doesn't make sense because the point of the ideology isn't to protect some sex against shame while shaming all homosexual sex. Accepting Christ releases you from all shame, hetero and homo. If there are heterosexuals who are taking pride in their heterosexual lust because they get to express it virtually in making babies, then they are missing the point.

Quote:

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)

You're not responding to anything I said about consistency, now. You're just asserting that my views are false and yours are superior. There's no more reasoning going on. You've just rejecting the reasoning I've given you and failed to deal with it in any meaningful way.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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.

Your group-competitive double-standard complaint could be created regarding any sin. You could say that certain people are more genetically predisposed to gluttony and so that sin unfairly targets them and privileges people who are genetically programmed to consume in moderation.

You could say that the sin of stealing unfairly discriminated against poor people because they have more need to steal than the rich.

You could say that the sin of killing discriminates against people with more natural aggression and is biased in favor of people with genetic propensity for avoiding violence and working out conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.

Basically, you are just choosing to reject and complain about the discourse of sin instead of trying to understand it. You're doing this because you want sex to be about people having equal opportunity to pursue their 'genetically driven' desires instead of it being about reproduction.

Quote:

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.

Homosexuality is not a group trait. Sexuality is a continuum and people who are hetero have repressed homosexuality. Same-sex love and affection are culturally repressed because of homophobia, and that is a similar problem to the way loving kindness between men and women is repressed in culture because of the fear of heterophilic relationships developing into more. These problems are the result of incomplete repression of the sexual urge. When sexuality is fully sublimated as non-sexual platonic love and affection, we can all easily get all the love we need and want because the dangers of sexuality are taken out of the picture.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Your group-competitive double-standard complaint could be created regarding any sin. You could say that certain people are more genetically predisposed to gluttony and so that sin unfairly targets them and privileges people who are genetically programmed to consume in moderation.

Kudos to you for finally seeing this argument, weak as it is.

The differences are:
1. They are predisposed, rather than being innately gluttonous.

2. All people can suffer from the urge to gluttony

3. You can train your brain to avoid gluttony. This is because people are only predisposed to gluttony, rather than innately gluttonous.

4. Food is not a major part of a persons identity.

5. Gluttony is essentially a weakness

This is opposed to:
1. True homosexuals are innately homosexual. They have no choice in the gender they are attracted to. It is hardwired into them. Same with true heterosexuals. There are of course, bi-sexuals, hence the use of the word true.

2. All people can't suffer from the urge to Homosexual sex. As a sin, it cannot capture everyone - only Bi's and Gays.

3. You cannot train your brain to avoid being attracted to a particular gender.

4. The gender that a person is attracted to, is a major part of their identity

5. Being homosexual isn't a weakness. It just is. It is innate to their being. Just like being heterosexual is.

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

Now, the thing I'm asking myself is:

- I'm identifying all of these differences above, on the spot

- If I can do that, anyone can.

If anyone can, why aren't you?

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

Quote:

You could say that the sin of killing discriminates against people with more natural aggression and is biased in favor of people with genetic propensity for avoiding violence and working out conflicts peacefully and diplomatically

Natural Aggression doesn't = killing. Aside from that, it has the same issues as the first response, above.

Quote:

You could say that the sin of stealing unfairly discriminated against poor people because they have more need to steal than the rich

No. I grew up in a dirt poor family. Never felt the need to steal from others. Perhaps a read of Viktor Frankl's 'Mans Search for Meaning' would help you with this particular nonsense.

Quote:

Homosexuality is not a group trait. Sexuality is a continuum and people who are hetero have repressed homosexuality.

What evidence do you have for this particular tripe?

By the way, using the fact that, occassionaly abused women leave men, and go for other women, is not evidence. of your tripe. Women like that were always Bi-sexual, who chose the socially acceptable path to start with.

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

You do realise that you are spouting all of this while essentially being ignorant of any experience that homosexual people go through?

I'd suggest that you actually start talking to some of them, so you begin to gain an understanding of all aspects - not just the aspects you've religiously been taught to believe. That is after all, the only fair thing you can do, is it not? And it shouldn't be a problem approaching or talking with them, because as a Christian you should love all people as yourself. With that love of others in mind, they shouldn't at all be suspicious of your motives, if you did so (ie. you probably need to be friends with them before they would discuss such with you).

I doubt I've even argued this well. I'd never previously given it overly much thought until you started saying things containing double standards (plenty of my posts in this forum relate to conversations like yours - a person says something that shows a lack of thought, and I question them. Hopefully, people do the reverse with me)

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

In any event - this conversation appears to be around and around in circles. I know you are capable of logical thought. I know you can join the dots. But no one can make you willing to look beyond your own desire to blind yourself.

Most of these conversations have you avoiding critical thought so badly you keep asking 'what double standard', or giving examples that always apply 100% to one group but not the other, or asking dense things like 'what condition' or 'what judgement', or not seeing holes in your own arguments that are in plain sight.

You get frustrated when others engage in this nonsense level of critical thinking. You shouldn't be surprised when others get frustrated when you do the same.

It's reached the point where further circular conversation is pointless.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

The differences are:
1. They are predisposed, rather than being innately gluttonous.

What is the difference between 'predisposed' and 'innately?' Word choice?

Quote:

2. All people can suffer from the urge to gluttony

Only because you identify all gluttony as essentially the same. Likewise, if you would identify all lust as essentially the same, regardless of whether it is oriented toward the same sex or the opposite sex, then lust is lust, just as gluttony is gluttony. A person burning with lust is what he/she is, regardless of what their lust fixates on; just as a person burning with gluttony might want to eat 10 chocolate bars or ten hamburgers, but either way it's gluttony.

Quote:

3. You can train your brain to avoid gluttony. This is because people are only predisposed to gluttony, rather than innately gluttonous.

You can also train your brain to resist lust. I'll give you an example: how many homosexuals learned to resist lust they had gotten used to giving into during the swinging 70s after HIV/AIDS became a thing? Likewise, how many heterosexual swingers gave up swinging for the same reason?

Quote:

4. Food is not a major part of a persons identity.

I disagree, but even so why does something being a major part of your identity make it impossible to resist? We are sinners and that is a major part of our identity, but we are nevertheless called to resist and transcend sin.

Quote:

1. True homosexuals are innately homosexual. They have no choice in the gender they are attracted to. It is hardwired into them. Same with true heterosexuals. There are of course, bi-sexuals, hence the use of the word true.

It doesn't matter. It's about overcoming temptation and learning to live happily in a state of abstinence, regardless of your preferred sex object.

Quote:

2. All people can't suffer from the urge to Homosexual sex. As a sin, it cannot capture everyone - only Bi's and Gays.

But non-procreative heterosexual sex is something heterosexuals lust after, and how is that different from the urge to homosexual sex?

Quote:

3. You cannot train your brain to avoid being attracted to a particular gender.

Nor can you train your brain to avoid being attracted to brunettes when your wife is blond, but you can resist temptation and avoid adultery.

Quote:

4. The gender that a person is attracted to, is a major part of their identity

And being a player/womanizer could be a major part of a heterosexual man's identity. Did you watch Cheers with Sam Malone? His struggle to overcome the will to go from woman to woman was an identity struggle that many heterosexual men probably identified with.

Quote:

5. Being homosexual isn't a weakness. It just is. It is innate to their being. Just like being heterosexual is.

But that doesn't mean you have to act on it.

Quote:

What evidence do you have for this particular tripe?

That's what was taught in university when I was a student.

Quote:

It's reached the point where further circular conversation is pointless.

I said that a couple posts ago, but you kept replying.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

How do you account for your own gluttony for didactic regurgitation of conditioned thinking ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

How do you account for your own gluttony for didactic regurgitation of conditioned thinking ?

First, that's a rhetorical question. Second, the hate you express behind your accusations of sin is characteristically anti-Christian/anti-forgiveness. Third, I have examined and thought out these things and that's how I'm able to explain how I understand them. I used to be a liberal who only hated religious morality because it didn't condone sex for pleasure. Now I understand why it doesn't, and why resisting temptation leads to more joy and happiness in life than pursuing sexual gratification. I try to reach out to people as such, but like you many are so addicted to sex that they only attack me for what feels like interference with their 'stress relief mechanism.'

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You sound like exactly like someone rationalizing his own impoverished sex life. That would be the simplest explanation for your gluttony. Freudian projection of your own problems with addiction is clear evidence. Only a fool would think relationships are simplistic.

Preachers here tend to have a limited shelf life. You seem to be too obsessed to notice that yours has expired.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You sound like exactly like someone rationalizing his own impoverished sex life. That would be the simplest explanation for your gluttony. Freudian projection of your own problems with addiction is clear evidence. Only a fool would think relationships are simplistic.

Preachers here tend to have a limited shelf life. You seem to be too obsessed to notice that yours has expired.

This is vitriol at a personal level that I don't have to deal with. I'm explaining a POV that no one has to take if they don't want it. There's no reason to lash out at me with personal attacks/insults.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

I try to reach out to people as such, but like you many are so addicted to sex that they only attack me for what feels like interference with their 'stress relief mechanism.'

I think you'll find Fresco was largely referencing this part of your post.

It was a most bizarre part of your post as there is no grounds of it. It came across purely as self projection onto others.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

This is vitriol at a personal level

....Oh dear ! So you don't like a taste of your own medicine when you had the cheek to write ....

Quote:

..like you many are so addicted to sex...

That soapbox is collapsing ! Your hypocracy is transparent.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

You are correct. In my experience there is no-one more annoying than a 'convertee' who is forever trying to rationalise his conversion to others as a defence against him 'slipping back'.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I try to reach out to people as such, but like you many are so addicted to sex that they only attack me for what feels like interference with their 'stress relief mechanism.'
I think you'll find Fresco was largely referencing this part of your post.

It was a most bizarre part of your post as there is no grounds of it. It came across purely as self projection onto others.

Sex addiction is built into the brain. It is one of our most basic urges. Sex is extremely pleasurable and thus addictive. Anything that generates pleasure is addictive.

What people who aren't (fully) Christians do is turn things like sin and temptations into things that you can accuse others of without owning them yourself. Everyone is a sex addict and a sinner. It's built into our nature. Have you never heard of 'original sin?'

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Sex addiction is built into the brain. It is one of our most basic urges. Sex is extremely pleasurable and thus addictive. Anything that generates pleasure is addictive.

Well, calling it at heart, an addiction, rather than an instinctive drive is debatable , but your quote above is not of the same substance as the previous quote I posted. You said:

Quote:

I try to reach out to people as such, but like you many are so addicted to sex that they only attack me for what feels like interference with their 'stress relief mechanism.'

Your first one, you just talk about it being an addiction, the second you are thinking people are soooo (added to emphasise this as an issue) addicted to sex that.... when there is nothing in Fresco, or my posts, to indicate that what follows after is at all related to the first part of your sentence (yet that part of your post is obviously aimed firstly as Fresco, and perhaps secondly at me, as we are the only ones who've criticised your posts in this thread).

Quote:

What people who aren't (fully) Christians do is turn things like sin and temptations into things that you can accuse others of without owning them yourself.

If you say so. Once you remove the religious double speak, it actually becomes very simple - it's a genetic drive / instinct first and foremost. The question that arises after that is 'does it do any harm'. From the answer to that question you can get 'right' or 'wrong'.

There is no need to invent a whole ideology / theories to justify ones belief. Looking at all sides of the equation is easy to do, because it's the only way to determine if harm is being caused. Nothing has to be ignored to keep ones view (because often it's not a predetermined view, and if it is, it can be reviewed in light of all the information). Double standards become very easy to see.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Good look with your rational argument ! But in mind this guy simply craves an audience for his didactic missionary activities and forums are much cosier than than street corners.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Well, calling it at heart, an addiction, rather than an instinctive drive is debatable ,

Desire and habituation of successful pleasure-achievements are the basis for addiction and that is instinctual. Humans instinctively habituate their pleasure achievements in the absence of conscious intention to sacrifice pleasures in favor of higher goals.

When a rat gets addicted to some pleasure-seeking behavior in a lab and stops eating because it can't stop pushing the button that drops the drug instead of the food, that is because it lacks the ability to think critically and exercise willpower to forego the pleasure in favor of eating. It starves because it is addicted. Humans also get addicted to instinctual pleasures and forego higher goals because of their obsessions. Some people romanticize about it as a beautiful thing. Others see the life-waste/destruction in it.

Quote:

but your quote above is not of the same substance as the previous quote I posted. You said:

Quote:
I try to reach out to people as such, but like you many are so addicted to sex that they only attack me for what feels like interference with their 'stress relief mechanism.'
Your first one, you just talk about it being an addiction, the second you are thinking people are soooo (added to emphasise this as an issue) addicted to sex that.... when there is nothing in Fresco, or my posts, to indicate that what follows after is at all related to the first part of your sentence (yet that part of your post is obviously aimed firstly as Fresco, and perhaps secondly at me, as we are the only ones who've criticised your posts in this thread).

The bottom line is you either want to overcome sexual desire or not. You clearly don't, so that means you prefer to submit to your 'natural genetic instincts' than to overcome them, and you want religion to rationalize them and if it doesn't you want to complain about double-standards for sin and other contrived nonsense.

Quote:

What people who aren't (fully) Christians do is turn things like sin and temptations into things that you can accuse others of without owning them yourself.

If you say so. Once you remove the religious double speak, it actually becomes very simple - it's a genetic drive / instinct first and foremost. The question that arises after that is 'does it do any harm'. From the answer to that question you can get 'right' or 'wrong'.[/quote]
Yes, it always causes harm to choose pleasure over something better. The only question is whether you can discipline and hone your intellect to the task of always seeking something higher for which you can forego other pleasure for. If you can, you will be able to achieve celibacy. If not, you won't. I don't think anyone can completely, because it is just so easy in a modern world to find time and energy to kill with hedonistic pursuits, including but not limited to sexual expression.

As I've said many times, sin and temptation are ultimately inevitable, but all I've been trying to do is explain the philosophy of utilizing the mind to seek higher callings than sexual fulfillment or other pleasures. If you choose that challenge, then confession and repentance for sin (falling short of achieving perfection) will help you maintain yourself spiritually despite your inherently sinful nature as a human being. If you reject it, no need to keep debating it with me.

Quote:

There is no need to invent a whole ideology / theories to justify ones belief. Looking at all sides of the equation is easy to do, because it's the only way to determine if harm is being caused. Nothing has to be ignored to keep ones view (because often it's not a predetermined view, and if it is, it can be reviewed in light of all the information). Double standards become very easy to see.

Harm is always being caused. How could it not be in an imperfect world populated with destructive beings? Nevertheless, there is somehow the possibility of averting TOTAL harm. So, the more you want to avert doing harm, the more you seek to make sacrifices of things you can do without in order to spare even the most minor harm. E.g. you might avoid even flirting with the idea of a relationship because that can cause disappointment for you and your prospective partner. If you just choose to be friendly and kind and avoid floating even the idea of a relationship, no feelings get hurt whatsoever. So that is an example of averting even minor harm.

If you are capable of realizing that the desire for a sexual relationship causes you to flirt with the idea of pursuing a partner, you can further reduce harm by reassuring yourself that it's not worth it and you can get and give all the love you need to in this life without ever having a sexual relationship at all. If you choose this wise path, you will reduce stress in your life a great deal and feel very fulfilled with all the platonic love you have to give and receive in your life. All that is true regardless of your sexual orientation.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I've actually been starting to think the only audience he seeks to convince, is himself. It's like deep down he knows his beliefs regarding this are not truly supportable, but desperately needs them to be (for whatever reason). He's shown that he has a curious mind, and an ability to be logical in other threads (even if some of his ideas are out there), and an ability to join obscure dots, so the question is, why isn't he in this case? That's why I've started to think his posts are more about convincing himself, than anything else.

Your supposition that it relates to an issue in his sex life may be accurate, but it is only one possibility.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Sex addiction is built into the brain. It is one of our most basic urges. Sex is extremely pleasurable and thus addictive. Anything that generates pleasure is addictive.

In view of this, what is someone's state of mind who is fully Christian? What is it that they should want?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Sex addiction is built into the brain. It is one of our most basic urges. Sex is extremely pleasurable and thus addictive. Anything that generates pleasure is addictive.

In view of this, what is someone's state of mind who is fully Christian? What is it that they should want?

You want to master the ability to overcome pleasure-seeking and other short-sighted desires/goals in favor of higher goals. In short, humans have the capacity to sacrifice/defer more immediate pleasures in order to strive for better things. We are trying to overcome our natural inherent selfishness, pride, lust, greed, etc. to become better people.

Someone who is 'fully Christian' accepts the fact that we are all sinners and that God loves sinners but hates sin. His goal is to help us overcome sin, but God knows we are never going to achieve perfection. We just have to humble ourselves and keep confessing, repenting, and seeking to become better in whatever ways we can.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Leadfoot asked:
"In view of this, what is someone's state of mind who is fully Christian? What is it that they should want?"

ll answered:
You want to master the ability to overcome pleasure-seeking and other short-sighted desires/goals in favor of higher goals.

What makes them 'higher goals'? Because you are arguing for God, I'd assume you mean higher from his perspective and that it is different from that of the Christian.

Shouldn't the one who is fully Christian want the same things as God; shouldn't the same things give pleasure to both God and the Christian?
The way you say it, the Christian is forever fighting his own desires in order to please God. That sounds like a nightmare scenario.

I don't believe that's actually the way you think, but it sounds that way from what you write.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

What makes them 'higher goals'? Because you are arguing for God, I'd assume you mean higher from his perspective and that it is different from that of the Christian.

No, not at all. I'm trying to explain something really basic and universal. Let's say you have a choice between eating candy and eating something healthy. The candy will give you pleasure, but you know that sacrificing those calories in favor of more nutritious calories will benefit your health. That is an example of a higher goal.

A healthy body experiences pleasure, joy, happiness, etc. regardless; and that's why hedonism is harmful. When you prioritize pleasure, you risk sacrificing something better/higher that would ultimately not make your life any less pleasurable/joyful/happy. So if you prioritize higher goals, you will still get pleasure; but if you prioritize pleasure, you will be sacrificing some higher goal(s).

Quote:

Shouldn't the one who is fully Christian want the same things as God; shouldn't the same things give pleasure to both God and the Christian?
The way you say it, the Christian is forever fighting his own desires in order to please God. That sounds like a nightmare scenario.

It's not a fight once you get desire under control. Do you have to fight yourself not to steal everything you want but don't want to pay for? Do you have to fight yourself not to eat everything you would enjoy eating but know it's not appropriate/good to eat it at a particular moment?

Quote:

I don't believe that's actually the way you think, but it sounds that way from what you write.

I will answer sincere questions, but please don't make a game of harassing me for my POV with debate where you're not really trying to understand.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know