This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just another topic about the homosexuality and the Bible.

#381MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 6:00:02 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
You can disobey the Congregation of God without it being sinful? How does that work? Is not Jesus the head of the CoG? Would disobeying the CoG be disobeying Jesus by proxy, then?


This is the crux of our disagreement. There cannot ever be a "no win" scenario. When TCoG asks someone to sin, they must either choose to sin or choose to disobey TCoG. My interpretation is that in that situation one must choose to disobey TCoG. It's either that or TCoG loses its authority when it asks someone to sin.

No I don't, because we're still talking about a hypothetical CoG. What happens on the earth that we exist on does not matter to the hypothetical CoG.


In post #371 you asked me "Is asking you to not be a homosexual "a sin or some such"? In other words, this line of discussion started with a specific example of something in the here and now. Why do you now retreat to your hypothetical sandbox?

That's sweet, but I was talking about serial killers. This guy wasn't a serial killer. He was just a regular killer.


Tell that to his victims.

But your intended point is that "X can be reformed but Y can't, that's why asking that someone stop doing X is reasonable".


No no no no no no no no. My point is that in the case of Y there is nothing to be reformed in the first place if Y is homosexuality.

So, WHAT IF, say it with me now "WHAT IF", X couldn't be reformed? Would it be unreasonable for the CoG to ask someone to stop doing X, even though X is definitely a sin?


You keep going back to this X in order to try to break my argument, but the existence of X violates Scripture.

A) Everyone can be forgiven of sin.

B) Forgiveness of sin requires contrition.

C) There exists X who is compelled to sin and cannot possibly be reformed.

D) Claim: X cannot offer contrition for their sins.

E) If X could offer sincere contrition for their sins, then it would be a demonstration that X had knowledge their sin was indeed wrong.

F) Once someone has knowledge that their actions or feelings are wrong, they have an opportunity to choose not to do them. I.e. they have an opportunity to be reformed. (Contradicting C)

G) Therefore, X can never be forgiven since they cannot offer contrition. This is an example of someone that can never be forgiven of sin. (Contradicting A)

There cannot exist a sinner, X, that cannot be reformed.

X could be something as simple as "don't sin". We sin all the time. We can't help it. We definitely can't stop it and make ourselves perfect of our own accord. Sin is still sin, right? God, Jesus, and the CoG don't want us to sin, right? But with all this in mind, sin isn't permissible or allowed, though, is it?

"Don't sin" doesn't work. All sinners can be reformed. In fact, Matthew 5:48 says that we must be perfect as Our Father in Heaven is perfect.

Also, I like how you cite professionals saying how "gay conversion" therapy doesn't work, but you take a personal anecdote from a killer as proof that one can be reformed. Why not cite either professionals or personal anecdotes as evidence for both points?

A trustworthy personal anecdote is an existence proof of something. To claim that gay conversion therapy doesn't work is a much stronger assertion. Since many who have claimed ex-gay therapy worked for them have since regressed into a pattern of homosexual behavior, it calls the trustworthiness of personal anecdotes into question on the matter.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#382C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2014 9:31:46 AM
Morgasaurus posted...
In post #269 I already stated that there are both groups of two and groups of three in this verse.


I'm not talking about post #269, I'm talking about post #146, where you said:

In fact the condemnations in 1 Timothy come in sets of three.

You're just going out of your way to take issue with how I initially stated things were grouped


What is wrong with citing how you initially stated things in this same topic? Have you changed your mind about your position since the time you originally stated your position 20 pages ago? If not, there is nothing wrong with citing something you said on page 15.

to avoid facing the obviousness of the implication that can be drawn from the context of the supposed homosexual condemnation here.


Nope, I'm proving you're wrong, and you're refusing to own up to it. If you won't do that, there's really no point in talking about this anymore, which is what I'm realizing now.

All of that is immaterial though.


Nope, you brought it up. If you thought it was relevant before, so defend it.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#383MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 10:29:54 AM
C_Mat, why don't you actually try to counter the interpretation of 1 Timothy 1 that I most recently posted instead of dwelling on a single sentence I posted forever ago which I already corrected in post #269?

The condemnations in that verse are grouped up exactly the way I just posted them. There are three groups of two and three groups of three or four groups of two and two groups of three depending on whether or not you group up matricide and patricide in group 4. The "lines" I "drew" in the verse were well explained in post #375.

You can't prove someone wrong by dwelling on a minute detail that was already acknowledged by them way earlier in the topic.

On top of the 1 Timothy 1 interpretation, you have a laundry list of other things to answer from posts #360 to #363 not to mention the meat of post #375 all of which you conveniently ignored. Oh, and "Morgasaurus is stubborn" isn't a valid argument against anything in particular.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#384OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 11:40:49 AM(edited)
Since many who have claimed ex-gay therapy worked for them have since regressed into a pattern of homosexual behavior, it calls the trustworthiness of personal anecdotes into question on the matter.


Oh, so there aren't "many" people who have claimed to be reformed killers, but regressed into a pattern of murder?


C) There exists X who is compelled to sin and cannot possibly be reformed.

D) Claim: X cannot offer contrition for their sins.

E) If X could offer sincere contrition for their sins, then it would be a demonstration that X had knowledge their sin was indeed wrong.

F) Once someone has knowledge that their actions or feelings are wrong, they have an opportunity to choose not to do them. I.e. they have an opportunity to be reformed. (Contradicting C)


I don't see how this follows. You can sincerely offer "contrition" and still relapse. You can be compelled to sin, and still feel guilt.

Say you have a smoker who is physically compelled to smoke. He knows it is bad for him, and he knows he should stop, but since it's actually physically and mentally painful for him to stop, he does not. Such is the nature of an addiction.

He can offer "contrition" in that he feels remorseful. He knows his actions are wrong. Physically, he can choose not to smoke, but it's hard, and he cannot overcome it and he smokes once more.

Where is the fault with this person? Was his contrition not sincere?

This is just a small-scale example to be extrapolated outward. I'm not saying that smokers cannot quit their addiction. I just want to argue the point that you can be sincere in your efforts to change and still fail.


Do you perhaps have a different definition of "contrition"?
I'm just making light conversation for now. I'll return later and give a full reply.

Tell that to his victims.


I'm sure even his victims know the difference between a serial killer and a regular murderer. After all, what is or is not a serial killer is not based on opinions.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#385C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2014 11:38:34 AM
Morgasaurus posted...
You can't prove someone wrong by dwelling on a minute detail that was already acknowledged by them way earlier in the topic.


I must owe you a huge apology. Where did you acknowledge your error a long time ago?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#386MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 12:06:15 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
Oh, so there aren't "many" people who have claimed to be reformed killers, but regressed into a pattern of murder?


There are, but you're not acknowledging the difference between homosexuality and everything else traditionalists consider sinful. Someone who claims to be ex-gay is making a very strong claim. They are claiming that they no longer even have the desire for homosexual affection, intercourse, etc.

When we speak of a reformed killer, we're talking about someone who finally decides that the feeling of remorse outweighs the thrill, monetary gain, etc. obtained from killing someone. They never make the claim that they no longer have desires to kill someone. They simply state that it isn't worth it to do so in some sense.

That is the main difference between the two. An ex-gay who regresses demonstrates that their homosexual desires were not eliminated after all. A serial killer who regresses demonstrates that they simply decided to entertain the urge to kill again.

I don't see how this follows. You can sincerely offer "contrition" and still relapse. You can be compelled to sin, and still feel guilt.


Feeling guilt or remorse establishes an opportunity for reform. A person would only have zero opportunity to reform if they literally felt zero remorse or guilt for their actions. In the Christian philosophy then, it is impossible for someone to be able to sin without feeling guilt or remorse because that person would be incapable of contrition and therefore incapable of receiving forgiveness.

Say you have a smoker who is physically compelled to smoke. He knows it is bad for him, and he knows he should stop, but since it's actually physically and mentally painful for him to stop, he does not. Such is the nature of an addiction.


Smoking is a learned behavior. It is not something that anyone is instinctively born with the desire to do.

He can offer "contrition" in that he feels remorseful. He knows his actions are wrong. Physically, he can choose not to smoke, but it's hard, and he cannot overcome it and he smokes once more.

Where is the fault with this person? Was his contrition not sincere?


He had a sincere contrition, so he had an opportunity to reform but failed to follow through. This happens a lot. It doesn't mean he is "not reformable."

This is just a small-scale example to be extrapolated outward. I'm not saying that smokers cannot quit their addiction. I just want to argue the point that you can be sincere in your efforts to change and still fail.


Yes and the very fact that you felt the desire to make an effort to change implies that you are reformable.

Do you perhaps have a different definition of "contrition"?
I'm just making light conversation for now. I'll return later and give a full reply.


No I'm using the same one. It's the sincere desire to stop sinful behavior.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#387OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 1:44:34 PM(edited)
Feeling guilt or remorse establishes an opportunity for reform. A person would only have zero opportunity to reform if they literally felt zero remorse or guilt for their actions. In the Christian philosophy then, it is impossible for someone to be able to sin without feeling guilt or remorse because that person would be incapable of contrition and therefore incapable of receiving forgiveness.


And I'm arguing that one can both feel guilt and be unreformable at the same time.

Sure, feeling guilty opens the gate to reform.

But, if that gate doesn't exist, then there's nothing to open. It doesn't make the gate suddenly appear out of thin air. Also, feeling guilty is not dependent upon the gate's existence.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#388OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 6:22:00 PM(edited)
My full reply, sans the parts I've already responded to.

Morgasaurus posted...

This is the crux of our disagreement. There cannot ever be a "no win" scenario. When TCoG asks someone to sin, they must either choose to sin or choose to disobey TCoG. My interpretation is that in that situation one must choose to disobey TCoG. It's either that or TCoG loses its authority when it asks someone to sin.


Why must one choose to disobey TCoG?
Why would TCoG lose it's authority?


In post #371 you asked me "Is asking you to not be a homosexual "a sin or some such"? In other words, this line of discussion started with a specific example of something in the here and now.


You're right. My fault.


"Don't sin" doesn't work. All sinners can be reformed. In fact, Matthew 5:48 says that we must be perfect as Our Father in Heaven is perfect.


So, based on your interpretation of this verse:

Can you be perfect, of your own will?
Are you perfect?
If not, why not?
Where are all the perfect people now?
Was Jesus perfect?
If one is perfect, would they be like Jesus, minus the divine power stuff?

What does "perfect" mean to you? Are there different types of perfection?

Let's draw some parallels here.

Jim can't stop doing X.
Bob can't stop doing Y.

Jim and Bob both feel guilty over doing X and Y, respectively.
Jim and Bob have both tried to stop doing X and Y, respectively, but they keep failing.
Jim and Bob even went so far as to get therapy and go to special camps dedicated to crushing the habits of X and Y.

After a time, Jim and Bob were doing well, and stopped doing X and Y.
But they both relapsed and couldn't stop doing X and Y. The guilt was so great that they killed themselves.

Medical experts, psychologists, and experts in fields relating to X and Y all say that the current therapy for anti-X and anti-Y treatments don't work.

What would you say about Jim and Bob? Based on this, you say that the habits of X and Y were incurable? That they were beyond reform? What if X was homosexuality? What if Y was sin?

In the case of X, would you say that this is a realistic scenario?
In the case of Y, would you say that this is a realistic scenario? I predict you'll answer no, so why not?
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#389OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 6:21:29 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

He had a sincere contrition, so he had an opportunity to reform but failed to follow through. This happens a lot. It doesn't mean he is "not reformable."


Then how do you know whether or not any given person can be reformed? This seems like the problem of induction to me.

Just because you've never seen a black swan, it doesn't mean that black swans don't exist.
Just because you've never seen a reformed X, it doesn't mean that reformed Xs don't exist.



Yes and the very fact that you felt the desire to make an effort to change implies that you are reformable.


When you were being brow-beaten by the church, did you ever feel a sincere desire to make an effort to change?

Has any homosexual ever felt a sincere desire to make an effort to change?

If the answers to either of these questions are yes, then you have proven to yourself that a desire to change doesn't mean you CAN change, and it would seem that you would also have proven to yourself that whether or not you CAN change has nothing to do with whether or not you CAN feel a sincere desire to change.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#390OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 6:21:30 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

He had a sincere contrition, so he had an opportunity to reform but failed to follow through. This happens a lot. It doesn't mean he is "not reformable."


Then how do you know whether or not any given person can be reformed? This seems like the problem of induction to me.

Just because you've never seen a black swan, it doesn't mean that black swans don't exist.
Just because you've never seen a reformed X, it doesn't mean that reformed Xs don't exist.



Yes and the very fact that you felt the desire to make an effort to change implies that you are reformable.


When you were being brow-beaten by the church, did you ever feel a sincere desire to make an effort to change?

Has any homosexual ever felt a sincere desire to make an effort to change?

If the answers to either of these questions are yes, then you have proven to yourself that a desire to change doesn't mean you CAN change, and it would seem that you would also have proven to yourself that whether or not you CAN change has nothing to do with whether or not you CAN feel a sincere desire to change.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards