Your freewill? What, your freewill to lust for a person of the same gender? But if god will not override or influence your freewill, then how in the world are you ever going to "change" your sexuality, if to do so you need god?
And why is it that so many deeply Christian people also identify as gay?
You seem to have twisted yourself into a little paradox.
Not exactly.
As you say there are many people who claim to be Christian and gay.
In a way, considering a bumper sticker I used to see that read:
"I'm not perfect, just forgiven" perhaps it's possible.
However, in the case of those making the dual claim, they believe it is justifiably consistent with the Christian faith.
But there are also those who are Christian who say they were delivered from being a Homosexual and have Christian ministries that operate under that claim.
Or that one can be delivered from it by the power of God.
So which is consistent or morally correct?
Considering the teachings of Paul in his first letter of Romans, I do not see anyway to reconcile the following statements he made with regard to Homosexuality, as consistent or justifiable under the Christian Faith.
Therefore I would have to conclude the dual claim is illegitimate.
Romans 1
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).bodies
and personalities the inevitable consequences
and penalty of their wrong-doing
andgoing astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
26 For this reason God gave them over
and abandoned them to vile affections
and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural
and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies
and personalities the inevitable consequences
and penalty of their wrong-doing
andgoing astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
You said you we couldn't look at this as no control group existed, I pointed out that 2/3rd of the world is not Christian. They haven't mob rule and total anarchy.
I think that maybe debatable concerning some areas.
That also maybe attributable to the type of rule present in some parts of the world.
Despots do not generally like competition.
Generally as well some form of religion is present which establishes a higher moral authority of some kind.
No one is obliged to do so, as an evolved social species we get in built rewards for altruistic behavior and don't need a higher power to stop us doing bad things.
I will defer to Penn in regard to this as it sums up my own views quite nicely:
For a fellow who seems to like statistics, I am surprised you went with such a small sampling here.
Even so you did hit upon an important factor.
That being, "who decides what is bad"?
The usual suspects, us.
So who would this person have been that added it back in then and how would they have know that Jesus said it?.
I haven't a clue.
Perhaps inside information, a document available at the time and since lost.
Just one of many possibilities.
Since new discoveries are being made overtime, we may know the answer at some point in the future.
Its an unrealistic standard, if the only people who are able to stand in law as judges and jurors are those without any form of Biblical sin then you have no one (not even JC himself) able to implement laws (jury duty would be hilarious however - swore at your parents, nope you're no good out you go). It also removed the concept that people can be punished, serve the sentence and be rehabilitated.
Good point.
However at the time under the theocracy that existed in Israel, the penalty for a woman caught in adultery was stoning to death.
His comment made authoritatively, was a radical departure and in direct opposition to their law.
Part of the radical change that was made from the old to the new covenant.
You don't.
You can behave in such a way that allows others to respect your rights. Or you can behave in such a way that absolves others of any reason to respect your rights. The choice is yours. Violate the rights of others, and you'll have lost your claim to your own rights. Pretty easy.
So the above is it when it comes to obligation - there isn't one. There are only logical consequences for your actions. Murder someone and you have lost your own right to life. Easy.
But of course there is more to it. There is the type of person that you want to be. The influence you want to have on others. This is what Mr. Jillette is speaking about above.
All of that is great, but that which you consider murder, maybe just solving a problem to someone else.
Someone else's logic maybe considerably different from yours.
And since you have no more moral authority than them, they have no obligation to adhere to your moral code.
I know this should probably be posted in the other thread. But homosexuality has been brought up, so I want to chime in cause reading that people are born gay is ludicrous.
What about the children who were sexually molested and turned gay from the trauma?
What about the women who were victims of domestic violence and turned lesbian?
Think real now, do you honestly believe they were born gay?
I don't know about all, but among some, those experiences played a major role in their sexual orientation.