H.omos.exuality is not the same as murder. Just because two acts both break God's law doesn't equate them. Speeding and murder are both crimes, but the punishment is NOT the same nor would anyone in their right mind say that both are "equally illegal". However, if a person speeds and doesn't consider it a big deal, then that person is showing disrespect for the law, which is what is the big deal about breaking God's law (besides the negative social repercussions).
That having been said, if a person commits a relatively minor sin and thinks it is a not a big deal, this is a bad reflection on their character, and given other circumstances, this very attitude could lead to them doing a worse sin. Thus, some scholars (Islamic) define a major sin as one that a person "doesn't consider to be a big deal" and a minor one as one that someone repents for.
But there are sins that harm other people and impede their rights; for these sins, simple repentance is not enough, but repenting and trying to "pay back" the person you wronged is necessary too. If I steal from someone, I cannot simply repent to God, but ought to personally ask the person for forgiveness and return back their property. Murder is a sin that impedes on other people's rights. H.omos.exuality is NOT. R.ape is a bigger sin than fornication. However, fornication and h.om.os.exuality are both forbidden not because they aren't consensual (they are consensual, mostly), but because of their negative social repercussions.
One must understand why something is a sin in order to properly evaluate it.
I ought to add that there is a clear differnece in Christian and Islamic views on sin. From my understanding:
- Christianity views sin as disobedience to God. It is a sign of imperfection, and hence a step away from God's holiness and almost an "affront" to Him. Once imperfect, a person cannot achieve perfection. Hence the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of mankind. All disobedience equally removes us from God's ultimate holiness and perfection, so all sins are equal in that sense.
- Islam views sin as disobedience to God. it is indeed a sign of imperfection, but God is able to forgive sins, and their 'sinfulness' is because they are harmful to either oneself or to others. So, all sins are not equal, especially since they do not put us outside of the bounds of God's mercy (as they do in Xtianity, where a sacrifice was needed). It is also good to note here that in Islam, some sins (societal sins) are also crimes, so in an Islamic state/country/society, these would be punished by the law. This accounts for why a sin is considered "worse" in terms of this world (e.g. murder which harms others) but may not be "worse" for you in the afterlife (because maybe your reason for committing murder was not out of arrogance or disrespect of God).
With the above in mind, it may be more clear why Kenrichi thinks what s/he does. :) Cheers.
And lastly, committing a sin without knowing it's considered sinful is NOT the same as committing a sin while knowing it's sinful. Thought I'd throw that out there.
Destinee: I'm glad you made the distinction between the two religions clear. When you talked about the speeding and murder both being crimes but not of equal level, I must say this. With God, all sin is classified as the same thing with the same penalty, which I.e. is death. We as humans classify what sin is worse (and I guess that's when our religions come into effect), for the Christian God, all fornicators, hom.ose.xuals, murderers, etc all have the same equal price to pay. (I just realized that you basically answered for me Destinee lol). Well I'm glad at least one person could see it from my perspective :D. And for the record I'm a guy
Really though, isn't God supposedly caring and understanding? I can understand it being a sin to kill someone. That's just downright inexcusable. But if I was a lesbian and it was considered a sin for me to love a girl because I simply don't have feelings for guys, well, that's what I do not get. As I stated before, nobody seems to understand that homosexuals are just people. People that are different from straights. It's like the equality crisis between whites and blacks. Nobody seemed to understand that they were just people too, even if they had a different skin color. God should know that we are really all the same, and one person's sexuality is just like their gender or their skin color: it's nothing they can decide and it doesn't make them any less of a human being.
I believe everyone deserves equal rights. It's no one else's buisness who someone sleeps with to be honest.
I personally see nothing wrong, if two people are in love then let them be in love. Who are we to deny another human being happiness and love? Who are we to judge that love, when we are but human?
Being hom.ese.xual is not a sin, in my opinion. I am a Christian but come on, really. First, everything we know is written, the Bible is man written, so how do we know that God really said Hom.ose.xual.ity is a sin? Second of all, as long as that person is happy, that's all that matters right? The constitution say everyone has a right to happiness, and bashing someone because of their sex.ual.lity is taking away their happiness. It's bullying and bullying is wrong. We are suppose to have freedom and freedom of religion, it's not right to force your religion on someone else. So your religion says hom.ose.xual.ity is a sin, others may not, how do you know that the people you are "bashing" because of their sex.ual prefrence even claim a religion. All I'm saying is everyone has a right to happiness and if you disagree with WHO THEY ARE then you are trying to take away their happiness and that is unconstitution. Also, the bible says John 8:7 "If any one of you is without sin, let hime be the first to throw a stone." Are you yourself pure of sin, enough to tell someone else that what they are doing is sinful? Just think about it. You have no more of a right to judge them as they have to judge you. IF THEY'RE HAPPY, LET THEM BE HAPPY. Also, they don't have a choice in my opinion of who they like, just like you don't have a choice in who you're parents are.
I personally don't see anything wrong with it. If they're happy, they're happy. The Constitution says everyone has a right to be happy and bashing someone because of who they like is unconstitutional. People came to America to escape religious persecution, who are you to force your religlion upon someone else. How do you know they even claim a religion. The bible is man written, everything we read is man written, so how do you know that it is truly the word of God? As humans, we have a knack of twisting words so that they benefit us as needed. The Bible say, John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him the first to throw a stone." How can you be so sure that you are truly without sin? You have no more of a right to judge someone then they do you. So why are you still judging. Granted, hom.ose.xual.ity is different for some, but most would claim they have no choice in who they like, and I believe them. They don't have much say in who they like, then we do in choosing our parents. God does not judge, so why are you? Just think about it, who are you to jugde. You're judging them but who is judging you? Does it make you feel better to know that you are taking away someone's happiness all because of a belief? Does that bring you joy or power. Let them be happy, after all, everyone wants to be happy right?
"People fortunate enough to have randomly been born white in the first world are the most privileged motherf(u)ckers on this unequal f(u)cking planet and modern warfare games are basically those people complaining about how tough life can be when everyone's jealous of you. It's like when white dudes complain about being victims of racism because all the people they used to enslave are making fun of them, or when Christians cry about being persecuted because the government wants to recognize that men can be into the c0ck." -Yankee on the Zero Punctuation, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 review He blunt, but I agree. Let `em bone each other in their own homes if they like. As long as they don't force their boners onto me, live and let live.
My phone is dumb, so the lack of spacing lines and spelling errors are all its fault.
All the anti-homos.exuality arguments I've seen here have to do with the belief that it is a sin/God wants people to supress any "unnatural" feelings. However, does this still apply to atheists/non-Christians? Also, I know the Bible said something about marriage being between a man and a woman, but it also advocated polygamy, beating of wives, and many other extremely outdated customs.
weaselruler: 'Does this still apply to atheists/non-christians?' Well, yes :D. Why? Put plainly, God is real and the Bible is His word.
You've made some strong statements about what the bible supports. Polygamy? Wife beating? The Bible may speak of these things, but it does not reccomend it.
Contemplator: Buddy, not only does it support these things, it even gives instructions. I'm on my phone right now so I'm gonna keep this short, but if you want the passages I'll be glad to get them to you later.
OMG pleeease not another OT/NT argument where a Christian says certain laws have been outruled and a non-Christian says that they're in the Bible. Let's just clear this up:
1. OT was written/revealed (whatever you want to believe) to a certain nation, i.e. the J.ews, in the BCs.
2. Times were different back then. Just like how nowadays in certain societies non-Western propagated morals are espoused, and contrary to popular American belief, they are perfectly fitting given that society's development.
3. So yes Leviticus talks about a lot of stuff.
4. But no, (most of) that stuff doesn't apply anymore if you're a mainstream Christian believer given the argument between Peter and Paul, where the Apostle said that Gentiles (non-J.ews) don't have to follow J.ewish laws, and Peter said they do, and long story short Paul won.
5. And lastly, there's a difference between "instructions" and "guidelines". If my mum says, "Des, I don't support microwaving food, but if you do, remember not to put plastic in the microwave", she is giving me a GUIDELINE that, if I choose to microwave food, is what I ought to do. She doesn't want me to microwave food, but she hasn't forbidden me from doing so, and has told me what to do if I make that choice.
Kinda like IF YOU CHOOSE to be polygamous, then obviously you can't just be like, "I'll be polygamous but I'm only gonna live with this wife, not the other one" because that's not just. They are not "instructions" per se, because that implies that it's a command upon every person to take multiple spouses.
And I don't think the Bible "supports" p.olygamy. Nobody supports war but there are still such a thing as "war crimes".
Regulations!!! That's the word I'm looking for! Not "guidelines".
Okay, I think it's pretty funny that one of the resident Muslims is giving the most coherent argument on Old Testament vs. New I've heard in quite a while.
If you really wanted to, Des, you could fake being Christian and probably fool everyone on the internet. (Although I'm not sure why you'd want to... :)
Hahah thanks XD Musta picked it up from Collin...
I agree. If the OT-NT argument hasn't been settled by now, then it never will. Maybe we should just post links to threads from like 2 years ago for the new people when this comes up. Get 'em up to speed.
Bravo, by the way, Destinee. They say conversion's a slow process. Baby steps. :)
Only one qualm, and that's with point 4.
The issue wasn't so much an argument as it was Peter being a bit immature and impulsive (as usual), Paul upbraiding him, and Peter becoming ashamed and later defending Paul forcefully against the few converts from the Pharisees who claimed Gentiles had to be circumcised. Christians who follow Old Testament laws have always been in the minority, since the Nazarines and one other sect whose name I can't remember from the . . . late first or early 2nd century.
I mean, early Christians would've had to've been pretty obstinate J.ews to miss Jesus' point on OT laws. He made His opinion pretty darn clear when talking to the Pharisees. Besides, most of the disciples weren't really super-Jews who stressed strictly following OT laws anyways, so I don't see any reason they'd get overly into defending them. Paul (who was a distinguished rabbi) was the exception, and if anything that strengthens my argument.
Keep it up though. We can go to Seminary together. :)