Quote:

---

The point was that some people sin and are considered less because their sin is known.

Others sin, possibly in much worse ways, and are judged harshly by men or made to feel less because they're more ashamed of their sin.

---

Sorry I missed your reply. I'm not fully following this, but I surmise that your argument is that it's not fair because people can hide other sins?

AGC said:

---

Why would I engage with someone so pretentious who argues in bad faith? At least with ramblin at the end of the day there's no animus. I understand where he's going and there's room for debate on a great many things. You're just bashing strawmen and litigating perceived collective fault against individuals it's fruitless.

---

Pretentious and in bad faith? How so?

Christians seem eager to define sin and make others do so in order that they might create some manner of hierarchy.

It was you who asked others to define sin, so I'm asking you to define sin yourself.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was that some people sin and are considered less because their sin is known.

Others sin, possibly in much worse ways, and are judged harshly by men or made to feel less because they're more ashamed of their sin.

---

Sorry I missed your reply. I'm not fully following this, but I surmise that your argument is that it's not fair because people can hide other sins?

---

Precisely. Take the recent Methodist issue...they have regarded the lgbtq+ community as less because their sins are known to man and because their sins are unrepentant (in that they're not ashamed and don't hide it). However, we don't know the sins or the degree of repentance of others, yet don't make them feel like less because they're sinners as well.

AGC said:

---

Perhaps a better start is, what is sin? That's what all your questions seem to me to revolve around. I will yield the floor for you to explain your idea of it and then be happy to engage.

---

I have a few fall-back definitions. The first is the literal meaning of "missing the mark." So basically being or doing anything besides what God would want us to be or do. Under this definition marriage would be a sin, though, because God's ideal plan for us is celibacy.

Next is sin as transgression of the Law. This is quite literally "the Bible say so", either in the Mosaic Law or later clarifications. But you don't need to read more than 1 or 2 rabbinic opinions to realize there's a lot of room for interpretation here. Under this definition marriage and divorce are both not sinful, but any homosexual activity would be under most interpretations.

Then you have the "knowing the good you must do and not doing it", which doesn't seem to apply unless we're coming back around the the chaste ideal.

Finally, there the idea that we are to selflessly love God and one another, and anything that contradicts that is sinful. So basically selfish behavior is sinful. In this case any relationship could be sinful if it is pursued or continued selfishly. OTOH, a selfless relationship would not be sinful regardless of hetero/homo, to the extent such a relationship can actually exist.

Lastly, I struggle a bit with the idea of worship and sin changing over time. Take animal sacrifice. At one point it was optional, then it was mandatory, and now it's prohibited. I've read some things that say animal sacrifice was never God's plan, but it was a common ancient practice for confirming contracts and showing devotion. So God adapted it to serve His Will but He could have done without it. When it comes to homosexuality, there are legitimate reasons in the ancient world to prohibit this. For one thing, the population of Israel had a high attrition rate, and it took the full effort of the populace to maintain it. Take 2 men or women from that equation enough and you get disaster. That concern really doesn't exist anymore.

Sorry for the long response:
TLDR- are sins all situational and based on broad principles or are they unchanging in all situations and therefore somewhat arbitrary, or are they both? And which one is homosexual practice?

Typo edit

Quote:

---

Precisely. Take the recent Methodist issue...they have regarded the lgbtq+ community as less because their sins are known to man and because their sins are unrepentant (in that they're not ashamed and don't hide it). However, we don't know the sins or the degree of repentance of others, yet don't make them feel like less because they're sinners as well.

---

I don't know that God differentiates between the defiant sinner and the secret sinner. For sure, because we can see one and not the other, our reactions to them will be different. But, as others have mentioned...those who cross over (ie, if they are exposed of their sin and do not repent) will find the same reaction, in my opinion. So, there's no "unfairness".

I would remiss in not reiterating that no one is "less" in the Kingdom of God, and no Christian should be intentionally dehumanizing anyone. I know this is a perception thing and mere words on the internet doesn't fix this.

Quote:

---

Under this definition marriage would be a sin, though, because God's ideal plan for us is celibacy.

---

I maybe guilty of reading the Scripture how I want to, and I apologize if I missed your explanation of this...but with Genesis in mind, I struggle to interpret Pauls' extolling celibacy to be literal rather than hyperbole to put God at the focus. God made man and said it wasn't good...and gave us woman. I don't think I can accept Paul's words at just face value. Maybe it's just me.

Thank you. I realize that was a big ask and it's a complicated subject. Response later.

Where does it say in the Bible that it is a sin to be happy?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Under this definition marriage would be a sin, though, because God's ideal plan for us is celibacy.

---

I maybe guilty of reading the Scripture how I want to, and I apologize if I missed your explanation of this...but with Genesis in mind, I struggle to interpret Pauls' extolling celibacy to be literal rather than hyperbole to put God at the focus. God made man and said it wasn't good...and gave us woman. I don't think I can accept Paul's words at just face value. Maybe it's just me.

---

It's a combo of 3 things. Jesus' statement that we won't be married in heaven, Paul encouragement to remain celibate, and the extensive early Christian practice of celibacy as a show of devotion even among married people

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Under this definition marriage would be a sin, though, because God's ideal plan for us is celibacy.

---

I maybe guilty of reading the Scripture how I want to, and I apologize if I missed your explanation of this...but with Genesis in mind, I struggle to interpret Pauls' extolling celibacy to be literal rather than hyperbole to put God at the focus. God made man and said it wasn't good...and gave us woman. I don't think I can accept Paul's words at just face value. Maybe it's just me.

---

The first gift God gave to man was the companionship of a wife. That was pre-fall, pre-sin, pre-anything. A happy and loving marriage is not less pleasing towards God than a life of celibacy.

They are equal callings, with many pros and cons on either side.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Under this definition marriage would be a sin, though, because God's ideal plan for us is celibacy.

---

I maybe guilty of reading the Scripture how I want to, and I apologize if I missed your explanation of this...but with Genesis in mind, I struggle to interpret Pauls' extolling celibacy to be literal rather than hyperbole to put God at the focus. God made man and said it wasn't good...and gave us woman. I don't think I can accept Paul's words at just face value. Maybe it's just me.

---

The first gift God gave to man was the companionship of a wife. That was pre-fall, pre-sin, pre-anything. A happy and loving marriage is not less pleasing towards God than a life of celibacy.

They are equal callings, with many pros and cons on either side.

---

I have to humbly disagree.

Marriage is a holy institution blessed by the Church as a sacrament/mystery. However, it is a post-Fall institution and is inferior to celibate life. It serves this age but has no relation with the Kingdom of God and the age to come. I believe this has been a unanimous teaching of the Church from the beginning.

...

St John of Damscus

Quote:

---

But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:23 But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed.

---

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

...

St Athanasios

Quote:

---

For there are two ways in life, as touching these matters. The one the more moderate and ordinary, I mean marriage; the other angelic and unsurpassed, namely virginity. Now if a man choose the way of the world, namely marriage, he is not indeed to blame; yet he will not receive such great gifts as the other. For he will receive, since he too brings forth fruit, namely thirtyfold. But if a man embrace the holy and unearthly way, even though, as compared with the former, it be rugged and hard to accomplish, yet it has the more wonderful gifts: for it grows the perfect fruit, namely an hundredfold.

---

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806048.htm

...

St John Chrysostom

Quote:

---

As you do, I also think that virginity is a good thing, better than the nuptial life. I add that it is as superior to the nuptial life as Heaven is superior to earth, or as Angels to men.

Since the Angels are not made of flesh and blood, for them there is no conjugal life. Since they do not live on earth, they are not subject to the disorders of passions and pleasures; they do not need to eat or drink; they are not attracted by a melodious music, a captivating song or a remarkable beauty, finally, they cannot be conquered by any type of softness.

Man, however, even though he is inferior to the angelic spirits, zealously and carefully seeks to be as much like them as he can. How does he do so?

Angels do not marry, neither does the virgin man. Angels live before God always at His service; so does the virgin man. Human nature, which bears the weight of the body, cannot ascend to Heaven as the Angels do; however, to compensate such deficiency, man has the greatest possible consolation, that is, by living pure of body and soul, he can receive and posses in the Eucharist the King of Heaven.

Can't you see all the excellence of virginity? Can't you see how it transforms those who still live clothed in this flesh and makes them equal to Angels?

---

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n021rp_Virginity.htm

...

St Gregory of Nyssa

Quote:

---

Marriage, then, is the last stage of our separation from the life that was led in Paradise; marriage therefore, as our discourse has been suggesting, is the first thing to be left; it is the first station as it were for our departure to Christ.

---

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2907.htm

Your first question is a great one, obviously God gives them the command to be fruitful and multiply pre-Fall in Gen 1. I have meetings this morning but will be back later to discuss that.

I'm not onboard with the idea that we were meant to be celibate. Why create us as male and female? Why would it take a male and female to procreate?

Celibacy can be a good thing and allow certain individuals to fully devote their lives to God. But if everyone did that none of us would be here.

Gator03 said:

---

Your first question is a great one, obviously God gives them the command to be fruitful and multiply pre-Fall in Gen 1. I have meetings this morning but will be back later to discuss that.

---

I think a good question is whether that command of "be fruitful and multiply" is a universal "for all time" type of command. "Be fruitful and multiply" makes sense when humanity is in its infancy. At some point, though, due to overpopulation and scarcity of resources, that command no longer makes sense. So at some point between the Fall and Paul's writing, the charge to be "fruitful and multiply" lost its sense of urgency, so to speak.

Do you believe we are globally overpopulated??

I think Paul thought Jesus was coming back very soon. I also think he was expressing an opinion and not speaking for God necessarily.

My issue with population control is much evil has and can be done in the name of it. It too often leads to the murder of children and the helpless.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Do you believe we are globally overpopulated??

---

Well, I'm certainly not qualified to make an argument we are or aren't, but my personal opinion is no. I don't believe we are. My point was really just to raise the question of whether that command from Gen 1 was a universal, for all time, type command. Circumstances could certainly arise that would make that command more harmful than positive, which leads me to think it wasn't a "for all time" command.

Quote:

---

Christians need to disregard the Bible

---

Exactly. They do whenever it comes to things they like, like divorce, eating shellfish, letting women preach in church or not wear head covering, sex before marriage, or worshiping on the right day, ect...

Please know I'm not arguing for population control. I just don't believe the "be fruitful and multiply" command was once meant for all time.

PacifistAg said:

---

Gator03 said:

---

Your first question is a great one, obviously God gives them the command to be fruitful and multiply pre-Fall in Gen 1. I have meetings this morning but will be back later to discuss that.

---

I think a good question is whether that command of "be fruitful and multiply" is a universal "for all time" type of command. "Be fruitful and multiply" makes sense when humanity is in its infancy. At some point, though, due to overpopulation and scarcity of resources, that command no longer makes sense. So at some point between the Fall and Paul's writing, the charge to be "fruitful and multiply" lost its sense of urgency, so to speak.

---

Who determines scarcity and overpopulation aside from God? Who seeks to speak for God that they would claim it no longer applies or lost its urgency? Where does scripture put limitations on this command, that it should be re-evaluated? How is it that humans so easily subvert God's plan and design for this world that we overwhelm it merely by having children?

So if God's plan was that the best life is a celibate life would not humanity have disappeared by now? If the "best way" is to be celibate than there would be no Christians. They would have all died out. I think certain people are called to be celibate but not the whole of Christendom.

And if all Eve was supposed to be was a companion, why create her with sexual differences than Adam? God also gives us reason and logic.

PacifistAg said:

---

Please know I'm not arguing for population control. I just don't believe the "be fruitful and multiply" command was once meant for all time.

---

I've never put a lot of thought into it but it is a pretty general statement. But for humanity's sake I think being fruitful and multiplying is beneficial for us as a species. We need the young to take over for the old.

I don't think it's God's plan that all be celibate. I do see the value in celibacy. It was a subject that I've learned a lot about from LGBT Christians who are celibate. But, I agree that I don't think it's God's plan for all to be celibate. Then again, it wasn't in God's original plan that man eat meat, but circumstances change and we see after the flood, the first time man is told he can eat meat.

dermdoc said:

---

So if God's plan was that the best life is a celibate life would not humanity have disappeared by now? If the "best way" is to be celibate than there would be no Christians. They would have all died out. I think certain people are called to be celibate but not the whole of Christendom.

And if all Eve was supposed to be was a companion, why create her with sexual differences than Adam? God also gives us reason and logic.

---

Yes, I think.. you really hurt the whole importance of the existence of Eve and female kind when you say this.
I don't mean to say that procreation is less important for men..but ...it kinda is. Her entire purpose was to be a companion to him.

Women are designed with maternal instinct... a huge part of our identity ...our lives is wrapped in our fertility..granted, some of that is clearly a result of post-fall (I wonder how periods, hormones, and lack thereof worked in the garden.. or did women's biology change that drastically?)

While there is a the argument that it is better for man to be celibate.. a certain pity is always taken on women who are single in the Bible (largely because of the cultural difficulty for a single woman to provide for herself), because like women are made to take care of men and children...they are also designed to be taken care of by men. That was Adam's job in the garden after all, to tend to the garden, the animals, and his wife Eve. The term marriage wasn't necessary yet, but I find it hard to argue that they were anything less.

I just read "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Ten Boom. She was single her whole life. Thus she poured her life out into taking care of the less fortunate which included hiding jews from the nazis, hosting programs for special needs, and even having places for ex-nazi's looking to find their place back in society. She took those dominate female traits and used them to serve God and others.

Not saying it was better for her to be single. She wanted to be married but when it didn't happen she channeled her love into others in a powerful way.

Sorry, not really about this thread but it is fresh on my mind and I thought it was inspiring.

I think I will read that. Thank you.

I'm currently in a state where I believe that may be my calling (minus the nazis hopefully) and I don't want to waste singlehood by just...existing.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't pros of being single. It gives freedom to serve God by serving the Church and the community in ways that people with families can't. I think it is a harder life though.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think I will read that. Thank you.

I'm currently in a state where I believe that may be my calling (minus the nazis hopefully) and I don't want to waste singlehood by just...existing.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't pros of being single. It gives freedom to serve God by serving the Church and the community in ways that people with families can't. I think it is a harder life though.

---

I am convinced that all things work for good for those who love the Lord so everything will work out in your life the way God planned it. I think some are called to being celibate, some are called to have large families, some are called to have one child, some are called to be married with no kids, some are called to be teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers, whatever. If you truly believe that God is in control of all things then why care about stuff like that or what other people are called to be? Is one "better" if they are Billy Graham, the Pope, the President, a famed neurosurgeon, than a mail carrier or common laborer? Of course not, they are just different and have different roles as God planned it.

I pray God will give you the desire of your heart. I've had family members and friends get married a little later than most. They too thought what you are thinking but then all of a sudden that certain person showed up in their life.

Derm, You sound most Lutheran, my dear. Thank you.

Frok, thank you. Please pray for me. Your prayers are appreciated.

I think trying to bring Adam and Eve into the discussion of marriage is tricky. We have no idea if they had sex or procreated before the fall as there is no record of either. Given the emphasis later placed on Cain, Abel, and Seth I think not mentioning prior children would be an enormous omission. Post-fall we have a prototypical marriage relationship with procreation, but I always assumed the ability to reproduce waa given after the Fall so humans would continue to exist.

I'd also like to point out again, that Christians for 1500 years thought celibacy was the most holy possible lifestyle and God's ideal plan. Basically from the NT times until the Middle Ages. To say otherwise is a liberal position historically. So I scratch my head a little when the majority seems to follow this liberal position but then turn around a take a hard line conservative stance against homosexuality.

And I don't think Christianity was intended to grow primarily through procreation, unless I've wildly been misinterpreting "Go forth and make disciples" this whole time

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Derm, You sound most Lutheran, my dear. Thank you.

Frok, thank you. Please pray for me. Your prayers are appreciated.

---

Cool. I go to a non denominational church because it is obvious from things that have happened that is where God wants me to be. The Holy Spirit was given to us so we have the wisdom to see where God wants us.

We had a sermon last Sunday I really enjoyed about wrestling with God like Jacob and many other Biblical characters did. It is obvious God likes it when we question stuff because almost every great Biblical figure did. The summation was three things

1. Is God good?
2. Does God love you?
3. If the top two are true then shouldn't you trust God completely?

And swimmerbabe, I did not get married until I was 32 and had my heart broken by at least two ladies who I thought were the "one". God had a different plan than I did and when I was not looking, Mrs. Derm entered the picture. It will work out. And I pray for you also. For your joy and fulfillment which I believe only comes from being and enjoying God's plan for you. Not for for me or anybody else, but for YOU.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I think trying to bring Adam and Eve into the discussion of marriage is tricky. We have no idea if they had sex or procreated before the fall as there is no record of either. Given the emphasis later placed on Cain, Abel, and Seth I think not mentioning prior children would be an enormous omission. Post-fall we have a prototypical marriage relationship with procreation, but I always assumed the ability to reproduce waa given after the Fall so humans would continue to exist.

I'd also like to point out again, that Christians for 1500 years thought celibacy was the most holy possible lifestyle and God's ideal plan. Basically from the NT times until the Middle Ages. To say otherwise is a liberal position historically. So I scratch my head a little when the majority seems to follow this liberal position but then turn around a take a hard line conservative stance against homosexuality.

And I don't think Christianity was intended to grow primarily through procreation, unless I've wildly been misinterpreting "Go forth and make disciples" this whole time

---

So if celibacy was the best way for all Christians, how does Christianity continue to exist? A major theme of the OT to me appears to be the blessings of a large family and leaving behind larger generations. We are not all meant to be Paul. Or priests. Or whatever. We are meant to be who and what God created us to be. All members of the body of Christ serving each other and God in our own individual way. I am very uneasy judging others by things like their choice of profession, celibacy or large procreators, rich or poor, etc. as I do not feel that is my place. Who am I to say what God has called them to be or what God's plans are for someone else?

Quote:

---

So if celibacy was the best way for all Christians, how does Christianity continue to exist?

---

I know this was for ramblin, but if you don't mind, I'd like to offer my take on it. It continues to exist by the Church presenting a radical alternative to the world and drawing others into the body of Christ through our witness to the Kingdom.