[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96 [21:24] +
[ref001]
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/12/96
[21:24] Evangelon - what makes you think any
sin is any more or less gross than another?
[21:24] how true neuro
[21:24] take it elsewhere
[21:24] What is "gross sin"...I didn't know the
Bible has classification of sins...
[21:24] tough
[21:24] Neuro yes it does, there is a sin that
is not mortal, that does not lead to death
[21:24] karen: scripture tells me that some
sins are indeed worse than others. God regars homosexuality
as an "abomination" for example
[21:24] Paul said, "some mens sins go before
them, others follow after"
[21:24] is not all sin death ?
[21:24] evangelon where are you?
[21:25] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[21:25] Evangelon - along with several other
sins I believe.
[21:25] So is eating shrimp, Evangelon. So?
[21:25] there is inquity, transgression and
my sin nature. My sin nature, Christ has dealt with
[21:25] Aco: Im in Little Rock, Arkansas
[21:25] neuro, food laws were ot moral laws
in the OT
[21:25] Karen: yes
[21:25] several others
[21:25] evangelon ic
[21:25] Action: Heiko notes that homosexuality is a
construct unknown as such to the bible
[21:25] evangelon well for being in LR, AK
you are not doing bad
[21:25] remember, Paul talks about sins of
the flesh as being different than other sins. There
are differences in sins
[21:25] heiko yeah, that is why the jews killed
ppl for it
[21:26] Heiko - the practice was known. And
forbidden.
[21:26] asha (boadicea@anna.az.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:26] Aco: heheh hows that?
[21:26] Now, I would like to know how NT classifies
sins. This OT stuff isn't that salient.
[21:26] Aco: think about the word.
[21:26] Heiko, is that why it is condemned
in the talmud
[21:26] oh, this IS the seat of Satan, you
know :).
[21:26] karen: you got it
[21:26] Heiko I have, think about the history
[21:26] Evanegelon, it is TBN land pratically
[21:26] Greetings all
[21:26] evangelon even more so than where I
live
[21:26] Aco: hahaha true, true
[21:26] hullo asha
[21:26] Aco: I am
[21:26] Baptist Heaven, also, Aco
[21:27] hihihihih
[21:27] heiko if the Jews did not have the
concept then why did the PRE-christian jews execute
homosexuals?
[21:27] Baptists come here in the summer
to do time in hell :)
[21:27] brb
[21:27] Evagelon Anglican hell ;)
[21:27] Aco: think about the fact that the term
"homosexual" is today used as an anthropological or even
ontological category
[21:27] heiko, it is also usd in a moral catagory
[21:28] heiko sin was used in both catagories
then, so?
[21:28] So can I get a list of mortal sisn, then?
[21:28] Aco: they executed people who engaged
in psuedosexual activity with others of the same gender
[21:28] Heiko, yes, like sodomy
[21:28] heiko hence the history of sodom
[21:28] yuk
[21:28] brb
[21:28] Neuro: take the ten commandments, and
change it to "I kill" etc
[21:29] Aco: however the Hebrew anthropology
could not tolerate such a category - they understood
humanity is male and female; sex arises out of the
encounter between the two
[21:29] a no no
[21:29] Any other "sexual" activity is seen as
an abomination
[21:29] thats a bit simplistic
[21:30] It would be fun to know how many mortal
sisn I have committed.
[21:30] depends on if 'sex' is just for pro-creation
or not Heiko
[21:30] sins, even
[21:30] heiko, they saw humanity existing in
two forms, amle and female, and to have an encouter
of two of the same forms would be a rejection of the
created order
[21:30] Aco: we should be carefull about uncritically
adopting pagan language; we sometimes find ourselves
on the wrong side of the argument that way
[21:31] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split.
[21:31] heiko, I will aopt language that is
accurate regardless of the source, plato was a pagan,
did not stop him from doing geometry well
[21:31] asha: not at all
[21:31] kyrby (ircle@pluto.maverick.net) joined #Apologetics.
[21:31] heiko to worry about the source of
the term rather than the truth of the termis to border
on, if not commit a genetic fallacy
[21:31] Well..I didn't always respect my father..I
guess that's a mortal sin, then.
[21:32] What about fornication?
[21:32] Acolyte: so you would agree with the
current idea that "homosexual" is an anthropological
category?
[21:32] heiko what do you mean?
[21:32] genetic fallacy?
[21:32] heiko homosexuality is an act of the
will, the mouth and the hands, thought word and deed.
It can lead to a condition, but itis a sin none the
less
[21:33] Acolyte: I mean a category equivalent
to "male" or "female"
[21:33] I must say, I'd like to see someone
locate "mortal sin" (much less "immortal soul") in scripture!
cant be done
[21:33] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics.
[21:33] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[21:33] heiko genetic fallacies attack the
source rather thant he valdity of the argument or the
soundnes of the premiesses
[21:33] Is heterosexuality an act of will, too?
[21:33] neuro no
[21:34] neuro heterosexuality is the creatoed
order
[21:34] Acolyte: I don
[21:34] AndBut Onan knew that the childrenwould
not belong to him, so when he had intercoursewith his
brothers widow, he let the semen spill on the ground
. God was not happy, so he killed him. Sex sin is a
big area,huh ?
[21:34] 't think that's what I'm doing
[21:34] I'm not really engaging in etimology
here
[21:34] I don't see any difference between the
two in that sense.
[21:35] heiko the Scripture does, the church
always has, thats enough for me, god has spoken. case
closed
[21:35] hey ace,we have to go!
[21:35] I'm more concerned with the current usage
of the term
[21:35] ace: he killed him because he decieved
her, NOT because he spilled semen!!!!!!!
[21:35] please!
[21:35] Ace - Onan's sin was rebellion. Not
sex sin.
[21:35] You can be a homosexual but never act
on it...just like heterosexuality.
[21:35] Acolyte: the scripture does know the
term "homosexual"
[21:35] how do you know that is the whole case,
and not both ?
[21:35] neuron you can have lusts in that way
true, so?
[21:35] heiko it does not?
[21:35] heiko it does not know the term Trinity,
but it teaches the concept
[21:36] heiko it does not know the term Theocratic
rule, but it teaches the concept
[21:36] hey, i need to go before kyrby kills
me. see ya !
[21:36] Ace what do you mean?
[21:36] heiko there is nothing wrong with using
non-biblical terms
[21:36] could have been both, but I dont
see it
[21:36] I dont buy this "every sperm is precious"
doctrine
[21:36] Xar (ian@as48s08.erols.com) joined #Apologetics.
[21:36] Acolyte: unreasonable analogy
[21:36] jeiko why?
[21:36] well, the spilling of seed, look it
up
[21:36] hullo xar, do I know u?
[21:36] lol! that sounds like brice wellington
[21:37] Ace - the only sin spoken of in that
passage is Onan's refusal to obey God and raise up
an heir for his brother.
[21:37] heiko if you claim it is an unreasonable
anology, please prove thatit is so
[21:37] Acolyte: the theology scripture points
toward trinity; the anthropology of scripture does
not point toward an anthropological category "homosexual"
[21:37] heiko thatis question begging
[21:37] precisely
[21:37] To the contrary: the reason that it is
an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with
a woman is that humanity is created male and female
[21:37] heiko in light of the historical context
and the writings of the jewish ppl outside of Scripture,
they did have a concept of homosexcual acts as being
evil
[21:38] Acolyte: can only give $.10 answers on
irc.
[21:38] hieko, so it is an abomination either
way. call it laying man with man, a bed buddy or homosexuality,
its still sin
[21:38] Acolyte: of course - fully agreed!
[21:38] Aco: key term "acts"
[21:38] Homosexuality isn't sin itself any more
than heterosexuality is.
[21:38] heiko, so? evil acts produce a denegernate
state as well
[21:38] question: would it be a sin for a
man to love and lie with another man, and yet have
no sexual or lustful intent?
[21:38] Neuro sure is
[21:38] ace-62 (jroach@saturn.maverick.net) left irc:
Leaving
[21:39] Sure isn't. The Bible talks about acts,
not tendencies.
[21:39] Acolyte: consider the current arguments
put forth by the "homosexual" advocates
[21:39] why is it evil? and define "evil" whose
evil? the popes evil or you evil
[21:39] neuro God them male and female, one
for the other, not one for itself and the image of
itself, which is pure seflishness
[21:39] your
[21:39] kyrby (ircle@pluto.maverick.net) left #Apologetics.
[21:39] Homosexual is someone who is sexually
attracted to members of the same sex.
[21:39] heiko I have
[21:39] i.e., "I can't help being this way, God
made me this way"
[21:39] A heterosexual is attracted to the opposite
sex.
[21:39] loki God defines evil
[21:39] Neuro: is thinking of adultery with
a woman adultery>Jesus says it is
[21:39] heiko the Homosecual advocates do not
have arguments, they have fallacies tho
[21:40] one can be a homosexual and never
act upon it and still have committed the sin
[21:40] So every heterosexual is a sexual sinner,
Evangelon?
[21:40] Evangelon being in a state of sin is
sin enough
[21:40] aco: yes but you have to prove god...until
then i define evil, you define evil, everyone defines
evil differently
[21:40] Neuro: of course, I am not saying
heteros are any LESS sinful!
[21:41] loki if there is no god, is there evila
t all?
[21:41] So just being sexual is a sin in itself?
[21:41] evangelon u mean normal ppl
[21:41] a homosexual is simply committing
a uniquely loathesome sin to God
[21:41] neuro no
[21:41] Because we are attracted to people?
[21:41] Acolyte: If people/societly choose to
define things as evil, yes
[21:41] no, I didnt say that I said Adultery
[21:41] evangelon nicely put, well said
[21:41] thats not "just being sexual"
[21:41] being sexual is the very CORE of
Gods plan for us. But there is appropriate and inappropriate
[21:41] asha fine, but if there is not a God,
the term has no meaning.
[21:41] So homosexual who do not act are not
any more sinful that heterosexuals who do not act.
[21:42] Neuro correct, that is why they can
be in the church as good standing members at that point
[21:42] our Messiah arrived through a sexuality
so mystical few can comprehend it
[21:42] only Mary understood it fully, if
even
[21:42] aco: well not a "1" evil...evil = what
someone thinks is evil
[21:42] hail mary!
[21:42] Acolyte: many people who do not believe
in God, still have concepts of good and evil, I would
bet that there aren't many who DON'T label some things
good, and other things BAD
[21:42] Neuro: you beg the question I'm trying
to refute here - whether such categories are real or
invented
[21:42] Loki huh?
[21:42] I would say a Homosexual who does
not act is as sinful as a Hetero who does not act...
both contemplate sin
[21:42] That's what I was getting at, Evangelon.
[21:42] Asha that is not the point, they have
tho concepts but they do not hold them comsistently,
which is the point, they are inconsistent in holding
those views
[21:42] Evangelon: what if the homosexual couple
truly loved and respected eachother?
[21:43] Acolyte: would you agree with this...?
[21:43] however, when the Heterosexual commits
adultery, he is not in the same catagory as a homosexual
who commits sodomy... it is another sin altogether,
of a different sort
[21:43] Evangelon: do you think that God would
look on it as sin?
[21:43] but both are sin
[21:43] acolyte: some people consider abortion
"evil" some dont...there is no 1 universal set of rules
that says what is good what is bad what tastes good
.etc..
[21:43] asha: means nothing
[21:43] heiko agree with what?
[21:43] It is God who defines and determines
the proper context and use of our bodies
[21:43] what if I loved and respected a person
I urinated on? Does that remove the perversion?
[21:43] Acolyte: I believe in no God, but under
no circumstances would I ever hit a child, I think
that is EVIL
[21:43] A different sins? Is there a grade system...like
sodomy is a grade A sin and adultery grade B?
[21:43] loki, fine, no universal agreement,
but I am not asking aboutthat, i am asking even if
there were agreement, what doe the term NAME, what
does it refer to?
[21:43] KKron (KKron@www-44-204.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:43] Neuro: sins come in shapes and sizes
[21:43] KKron (KKron@www-44-204.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[21:43] types and kinds
[21:43] asha fine, but why not? why is it evil?
[21:44] Acolyte: It shows a lack of respect and
honour
[21:44] Well, I can't remember a classified list
of sins from NT, maybe you can provide one.
[21:44] Acolyte: most of your God's laws are
centered around those two things
[21:44] aco: ahhh
[21:44] Acolyte: enjoy the midi?
[21:44] once a man and a man or a woman and
a woman engage in sex, they have dishonored themselves,
God, and nature
[21:44] Asha, what is honor? where in nature
is honor? honor is a METAphysical catagory, without
a Transedenat god, there are not METAphyscial objects
[21:44] Also I understand no sin (except for
one) is so grave that it takes your salvation away.
[21:45] asha no, the are centered around one
thing, God himself
[21:45] Neuro: I didnt say it would take
away salvation
[21:45] "there is a sin unto death" said John
[21:45] asha: correct, namely around our relationship
with God and with our fellow human beings
[21:45] Acolyte: I have a fairly good idea of
what honour is, even though I was brought up godless
:)
[21:45] ahsa without a metaphysical referent
foe a metaphysi al TERM,the metaphysical TERM is meaingless,
so an appeal top honor is meaningless
[21:45] So why do you care about this alleged
classification of sins, then>
[21:45] Acolyte: did you agree with my statement?
[21:45] BRB
[21:45] asha fine, what does the term name
in nature?
[21:45] Acolyte: Why do you pick apart my statements
like that instead of listening them?
[21:45] heiko I did not even see yor statement
[21:45] Xar (ian@as48s08.erols.com) left #Apologetics.
[21:46] asha I listened then picked them apart
[21:46] Aco: page back
[21:46] Neuro: well, personally, I dont :)
but it was in discussion. Sins will bring us loss,
according to Paul, when Christ judges us
[21:46] heiko re-post
[21:46] Acolyte: wolves have respect and honour,
they do not take more than they need, they usually
kill of the weak of the hunted packs of caribou etc
[21:46] asha thatis only because nature causes
them to do so. it is a chemical process in them, not
"honor"
[21:46] Acolyte: this is biological, not concious,
but it is still nature respecting nature is a sense
[21:46] I have a hard time imgaining a sin conversion
table...like how many sodomies equals the sin content
of one murder etc.
[21:46] however, I do believe the sin of
homosexuality goes so contrary to everything about
God and his way, that a so-called Christian Homosexual
is a self deceieved person of the highest order
[21:46] asha in a Naturalistic worldview without
a god, consciousness is part of the biological
[21:47] Acolyte: they HONOR being wolves by behaving
like wolves
[21:47] Acolyte:It is God who defines and determines
the proper context and use of our bodies
[21:47] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu:
The Home of Rational Theism
[21:47] just as an adulterer who is a Christian
who tried to Christianize his sin in himself as a lifestyle
choice is just as hoplessly lost
[21:47] asha, why not call it shit? it is still
a purely biological function
[21:47] heiko I would agree there
[21:47] But didn't you just say homosexuals can
be good christians, evangelon?
[21:47] Neuro: It doesnt work that way, but
you're being silly, so... forget it
[21:47] Acolyte: I think we agree more than you
think.
[21:47] heiko perhaps
[21:47] no, I did not say homosexuals can
be good christians
[21:48] ;)
[21:48] Evan:/names
[21:48] asha biological functions are not good
nor bad, they may be more or less efficient to survival,
but they are not Good or evil they LACK metaphysical
meaning or reference
[21:48] oops
[21:48] Acolyte: Yes, conciousness is a result
of our biology to a large degree, but we do not need
a god to realise that our brains are a lot different
than the rest of the natural world's
[21:48] Neuro: I believe the point was, earlier,
that a homosexual could be a christian, and not act
upon this sexuality, but only if seeking to reform
[21:48] Acolyte: we have the power to define
morality
[21:48] but we never got that far
[21:48] asha your brains are nt different in
kind from nature, they are only different in organisation
from other parts of natur
[21:49] You said homosexuals are as sinful as
heterosexuals...
[21:49] asha you have the power of onlywhat
nature dtermines you to do
[21:49] Acolyte: we have a part in our brain
that nothing else has
[21:49] asha so? its still part of nature,
still determined
[21:49] Acolyte: not so, we choose what we do,
and shape what we do with our own defined morality
[21:49] asha, difference in organisation of
matter does NOT produce a difference of KIND from matter
[21:49] Neuro: no, I said an ADULTERR is
not better than a homosexual in his sin
[21:49] If you feel you were born homosexual
it may me impossible to "reform"...so you would just
have to be a celibate homosexual.
[21:49] just different
[21:49] asha your choices are pure biologial
effects from nature
[21:49] Acolyte: what are emotions?
[21:49] Neuro correct, thats what the Church
demands
[21:50] Neuro: well, you could take that
view and decieve yourself, I guess. But it isnt true.
No one is born homosexual
[21:50] asha in what paradigm?
[21:50] asha in a non-theistic apradigm emotions
are chemcial reacitons
[21:50] Acolyte: define paradigm (my seventeen
year old brain has stumbled)
[21:50] asha paradigm=wroldview
[21:51] asha in a non-theistic paradigm, emotions
are chemcial reactions
[21:51] or two coins :)
[21:51] yuk yukyu k
[21:51] Action: Heiko 's wroldview is dislexic
[21:51] asha pronounced PARA-DIME
[21:51] Acolyte: I know how it is pronouced,
thanks for the def.
[21:51] asha ok, just tryoing to help out
[21:51] |